Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States

  https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/upload/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship.pdf

Introductory Letter

   As Catholics, we bring the richness of our faith to the public square. We draw from both faith and reason as we seek to affirm the dignity of the human person and the common good of all. With renewed hope, we, the Catholic Bishops of the United States, are re-issuing Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, our teaching document on the political responsibility of Catholics, which provides guidance for all who seek to exercise their rights and duties as citizens.

   Everyone living in this country is called to participate in public life and contribute to the common good. In Rejoice and Be Glad [Gaudete et Exsultate], Pope Francis writes:

    Your identification with Christ and his will involves a commitment to build with him that kingdom of  love, justice and universal peace. . . .You cannot grow in holiness without committing yourself, body and soul, to giving your best to this endeavor.

  The call to holiness, he writes, requires a “firm and passionate” defense of “the innocent unborn.” “Equally sacred,” he further states, are “the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and every form of rejection.”

  Our Our approach to contemporary issues is first and foremost rooted in our identity as followers of Christ and as brothers and sisters to all who are made in God’s image. For all Catholics, including those seeking public office, our participation in political parties or other groups to which we may belong should be influenced by our faith, not the other way around.

  Our 2015 statement, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,sought to help Catholics form their consciences, apply a consistent moral framework to issues facing the nation and world, and shape their choices in elections in the light of Catholic Social Teaching. In choosing to re-issue this statement, we recognize that the thrust of the document and the challenges it addresses remain relevant today.

  At the same time, some challenges have become even more pronounced. Pope Francis has continued to draw attention to important issues such as migration, xenophobia, racism, abortion, global conflict, and care for creation. In the United States and around the world, many challenges demand our attention.

  The threat of abortion remains our preeminent priority because it directly attacks life itself, because it takes place within the sanctuary of the family, and because of the number of lives destroyed. At the same time, we cannot dismiss or ignore other serious threats to human life and dignity such as racism, the environmental crisis, poverty and the death penalty.

  Our efforts to protect the unborn remain as important as ever, for just as the Supreme Court may allow greater latitude for state laws restricting abortion, state legislators have passed statutes not only keeping abortion legal through all nine months of pregnancy but opening the door to infanticide. Additionally, abortion contaminates many other important issues by being inserted into legislation regarding immigration, care for the poor, and health care reform.

  At our border, many arriving families endure separation, inhumane treatment, and lack of due process, while those fleeing persecution and violence face heightened barriers to seeking refuge and asylum. Within our borders, Dreamers, Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders, and mixed-status and undocumented families face continued fear and anxiety as political solutions fail to materialize. Lawmakers’ inability to pass comprehensive immigration reform which acknowledges the family as the basic unit of society has contributed to the deterioration of conditions at the border. As we seek solutions, we must ensure that we receive refugees, asylum seekers, and other migrants in light of the teachings of Christ and the Church while assuring the security of our citizens.

  The wound of racism continues to fester; the bishops of the United States drew attention to this important topic in the recent pastoral letter, Open Wide Our Hearts. Religious freedom problems continue to intensify abroad and in the United States have moved beyond the federal to state and local levels. As international conflicts proliferate, addressing poverty and building global peace remain pressing concerns, as does the need to assist persons and families in our own country who continue to struggle to make ends meet. We must work to address gun violence, xenophobia, capital punishment, and other issues that affect human life and dignity. It is also essential to affirm the nature of the human person as male and female, to protect the family based on marriage between a man and a woman, and to uphold the rights of children in that regard. Finally, we must urgently find ways to care better for God’s creation, especially those most impacted by climate change—the poor—and protect our common home. We must resist the throw-away culture and seek integral development for all.

  With these and other serious challenges facing both the nation and the Church, we are called to walk with those who suffer and to work toward justice and healing.

  At all levels of society, we are aware of a great need for leadership that models love for righteousness (Wisdom 1:1) as well as the virtues of justice, prudence, courage, and temperance. Our commitment as people of faith to imitate Christ’s love and compassion should challenge us to serve as models of civil dialogue, especially in a context where discourse is eroding at all levels of society.  Where we live, work, and worship, we strive to understand before seeking to be understood, to treat with respect those with whom we disagree, to dismantle stereotypes, and to build productive conversation in place of vitriol.

  Catholics from every walk of life can bring their faith and our consistent moral framework to contribute to important work in our communities, nation, and world on an ongoing basis, not just during election season. In this coming year and beyond, we urge leaders and all Catholics to respond in prayer and action to the call to faithful citizenship. In doing so, we live out the call to holiness and work with Christ as he builds his kingdom of love.

Merciful Father,

Thank you for inviting each of us to join in your work

of building the kingdom of love, justice, and peace.

Draw us close to you in prayer

as we discern your call in our families and communities.

Send us forth to encounter all whom you love:

those not yet born, those in poverty, those in need of welcome.

Inspire us to respond to the call to faithful citizenship,

during election season and beyond.

Help us to imitate your charity and compassion

and to serve as models of loving dialogue.

Teach us to treat others with respect, even when we disagree,

and seek to share your love and mercy.

We ask this through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you

in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God forever and ever. Amen

Death penalty - a letter to the Democratic party

Last night was reportedly the first case of a federal execution in any years.  However, supported by the Democratic party, federally funded executions are occurring by the thousands every day in abortion clinics. Human life begins at conception, biology 101.  Since Roe v. Wade, there have been 62+ million executions of unborn human individuals in the United States, all under the guise of health care. I am using the word execution as abortion is the willful termination of the life of a unique human individual.

Once upon a time, the Democratic party did not think that abortion was so wonderful. Remember legal, safe and RARE? Now, the DNC platform only wants to keep abortion legal.  States, that try to enact regulations that require abortions clinics to maintain conditions required of other medical facilities, such as dental offices and outpatient surgical centers, are bombarded by so-called choice supporters with objections that women’s right to abortion are being denied.  But, it costs money to maintain sanitary conditions or design a clinic so that EMT’s can safely and quickly transport a woman who has had a complication to an ER.  Listen to the objections and follow the money.

So, money trumps safe. What about rare?  Despite the denials of choice supporters, many women say that they did not think that they had a choice other than an abortion. Where is the Democratic party’s concern for these women? Women say that they felt pressured by others, by their economic status, by their healthcare status, by the numbers in the family that they were already caring for, by the choice between a baby, and getting and education that would support them both.  But these women can choose abortion with no regrets, according to the so-called choice supporters. No regrets?  Many years ago, I read of a woman in her 70’s who found that the underlying sadness in her life was the result of an abortion.  Another woman felt that she was unable to love her living children since she had ended the life of her first child. Regret, depression and family problems have arisen from abortions.  Post-abortive programs would not exist if women did not regret having abortions.

Women are given options at the abortion clinics. Just how true is that?  Women, who were once abortion clinic counselors, have related how they had a script which skewed the options toward abortions, like putting the cost of raising a child versus the cost of an abortion.  How many clinics offer guidance to social programs that would enable women to raise her baby?  Oh, that would require a social worker.  Abortion clinics are not into social work.  Adoption is mentioned, but so also the life-long grief of giving the baby to another person. What of the grief of an abortion? Oh, women are supposed to feel relief. Feeling grief from an abortion means someone shamed them into feeling grief.  Supposedly pro-choice supporters rail against pro-life clinics that offer information on fetal developments and ultrasounds of the baby. They say that it shames women into not choosing an abortion. Since when is having all the information one can have before undergoing a life-changing procedure be shameful? Would they say the same if a woman was undergoing surgery for breast cancer? How many women have said that if they only knew they were not aborting “just a clump of cells” they would never have had the abortion? 

What is the Democratic party, the party that is portraying itself as caring for the people, going to do for the women who do not want an abortion but think that because of their life circumstances they do not have any choice?  Will the Democratic party push for the regulation of abortion clinics that will at least compare to standards of other clinics or even hair salons?  Will the Democratic party promote more programs for women, and men, who want to care for their babies? (There are men who are willing to raise their baby on their own, but then the women would be unwilling incubators, according to the supposedly pro-choice people. How ‘it’s all about me’ have we become to put one’s convenience over the life of another?)  Will the Democratic party promote adoption and fund adoption agencies as much as it funds abortion clinics, under the guise of health care? (This would include religious organizations with acceptance of their adoption parameters, if the woman chooses them.) 

Or, will the Democratic party buckle to the so-called pro-choice people?  They say that they are for ‘my body, my choice’, but their actions say that is a lie.  Every baby kept or adopted is a loss for an abortion clinic’s profits, or excess revenue over expenses if Planned Parenthood.  Hear the objections and follow the money.  Is the Democratic party really for the welfare of the people or a slave to the abortion lobby and a minority of people, just as the Republican party is to the NRA?

Time to put your policies where your mouth is.  Give women real choices.  That will make abortion rare. 

Want some ideas?  Democrats for Life have ideas. https://www.democratsforlife.org/

Proposed Platform Language to Unites Democrats Around Historic Democratic Principles

"We respect the conscience of each American and recognize that members of our party have deeply held and sometimes differing positions on issues of personal conscience, such as abortion and the death penalty.  We recognize the diversity of views as a source of strength, and we welcome into our ranks all Americans who may hold differing positions on these and other issues.

However, we can find common ground.  We believe that we can reduce the number of abortions because we are united in our support for policies that assist families who find themselves in crisis or unplanned pregnancies.  We believe that women deserve to have a breadth of options available as they face pregnancy – including, among others, support and resources needed to handle the challenges of pregnancy, adoption, and parenthood; access to education, healthcare, and childcare; and appropriate child support.  We envision a new day without financial or societal barriers to bringing a planned or unplanned pregnancy to term."

The Democratic party and Pro-Life

Just what is keeping the Democratic party from even trying to woo millions of pro-life voters, who hold to the principles of the past, where every human individual's life has valued and ought to be cared for? Is it the power that NARAL and Planned Parenthood have over you, like the power that the NRA has over the Republican party? Make any move that supports a policy that hints of being just a little pro-life; and they jump all over you, screaming of a woman's right to choose, limiting access to health care and shaming women. Why did you give them such power? Being cynical, I would say the promise of votes. So, you pander to the pro-choice supporters just as the Republicans do to pro-life. 

The words are all there, but really? Is it choice when the party does not PUBLICLY and STRONGLY
push for meaningful options for women who want to choose life but think that abortion is the only option? Is it caring for women when the party doesn't support legislation that regulates abortion clinics to the sanitary standards of other health facilities, or even places like hair salons? Is it shaming women to let them know as much as possible about the unique human individuals that are living inside of them before abortion and sparing them the consequences when  they realize they have ended a human life later? (Yes, women still do say that they were told that they are getting rid of a clump of cells. And, yes those pro-life facilities that do give women the knowledge of their fetus and other available choices are labeled as anti-choice.) Is the Democratic party saying in reality that women are too stupid to make their own choices when fully informed? (I have read how abortion counselors give out information with a bias towards how an abortion would be the best choice.)

The Democratic party is unrecognizable from the party that I knew as a teenager and young adult. That party fought for the civil rights and the dignity of ALL human individuals, regardless of the stage of life. That party held the promise of a better, greater nation, once we got out of the quagmire of the Vietnam war. 

That party is gone, but not forgotten by those of us who knew it then. That party is gone, but wished for by the millions of pro-lifers of all ages. 

The nation is changing, just as in the 1950's and 1960's when the civil rights movement challenged the party. The party moved to support civil rights and a lot of voters became and still are Republicans. The Democratic party was the better for it. 

In its continuing move to the radical pro-choice position, the voters who were in the party in the 1960's and 1970's, like me, also turned to the Republican party. But that was also a false hope. There are millions of pro-life voters who see neither party as an option for this nation.

 

Now, there are people of all types declaring to be pro-life. It is not only Democrats for the Life of America. It is not only Catholics; I am one. There are Pro-Life Muslims, Jewish Pro-life Foundation, National Black Pro-life Union. It is Secular Pro-life.  It is Feminists for Life. It is New Wave Feminists. It is Students for Life. It is Rehumanize International. 

The Democratic party is going to be left behind if it doesn't recognize that this is not the 1980's anymore, or the 1990's. If you do not support a candidate who can manage to bring the two sides together on common concerns for women, then the Democratic party will not be able to beat Trump in November. 

Your choice.

https://prolifewholelife.blogspot.com

Why Liberals Should Oppose Assisted Suicide

Michael Sean Winters, Oct. 28, 2015 Distinctly Catholic 
National Catholic Reporter  

http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/why-liberals-should-oppose-assisted-suicide

Assisted suicide is now legal in five states: California, Oregon, Washington, Montana and Vermont. In the coming year, Connecticut, Maryland and New York will likely face the issue in their state legislatures. All but one of those states, Montana, is a blue state, and in the three states set to consider the issue, Democrats control both houses of the legislature in Maryland and Connecticut, and the governorships in Connecticut and New York. So, this political battle will largely be fought within the ranks of the Democratic Party.

Liberals certainly value personal autonomy. They also have been the core of the party which has evidenced a sense of social solidarity: Democrats created the New Deal and continue to defend it, they support union rights, they care about immigrants and how they are treated. On the issue of assisted suicide, these values, personal autonomy and social solidarity seem to conflict and, indeed, there are prominent Democrats who support it and prominent Democrats who oppose it. All Democrats and liberals should oppose it and here is why.

Whatever your thoughts on the issue per se, how Democrats conduct the debate on assisted suicide will have a clear impact on how our nation confronts one of the most consequential political struggles in the coming years: entitlement reform. Medicare and Social Security (and other entitlements) account for a large and increasing share of federal spending. These benefits go disproportionately to the elderly, who some of us believe have earned the right to live out their lives in dignity and consequently believe that the rest of us have an obligation to provide for our seniors. This issue, along with immigration reform, more than any others, requires a renegotiation of the social contract, the sense of what we as citizens owe to one another. (Assisted suicide is not only an issue about the elderly, but it is primarily about them and they are the focus of my concern here.)

It is obvious to me that if liberals spend the next twelve months in the important media markets of Washington, D.C. and New York talking about the importance and value of social solidarity in opposing assisted suicide, they will be well positioned to defend against efforts to cut Social Security and Medicare funding. If, on the other hand, those of us who care about entitlements celebrate personal autonomy, we play into the hands of those who wonder why they should be expected to pay their money in taxes to support people they do not know or do not care about.

Make no mistake about it: When the ideological libertarianism of the right on economic issues combines with the moneyed interests of those who will have to pay more taxes to keep Social Security and Medicare afloat, powerful political pressure will be brought to bear. It is easy to scare people about the rising costs of entitlements because the numbers are scary. It is easy to find someone who defrauded Medicare and make that person the poster child of an otherwise very effective system for providing health care. (I have never understood why people buy into this kind of attack, using one person’s fraud to demean an entire system. After all, in Watergate, we drove Nixon out of office, we did not cease holding presidential elections.) In the 1980s, Republicans regularly denounced “welfare queens” to attack social welfare programs, and stoke a bit of racial animus as well. Some such campaigns will likely be used to convince Americans that “we can’t afford” Social Security and Medicare, we have to make cuts, the laws of economics demand it, that we are depriving our children of their future, etc. Just because this is bunk doesn’t mean it won’t work.

This line of argument will have a harder time working if we on the left spend the next twelve months talking about the elderly in terms of solidarity and confronting assisted suicide because it is the opposite of solidarity. Solidarity with those who are suffering should speak to the liberal heart, shouldn’t it? And, it should speak to our brains too. Assisted suicide as public policy is a statement of failure, of social failure, not medical failure: Pain management has come a long, long way and those who are dying need not suffer pain and they can experience a death with dignity, surrounded by caring family and nurses. Vicki Kennedy, whose husband Sen. Ted Kennedy had died after a long illness, spoke to this in her important op-ed opposing assisted suicide in Massachusetts three years ago.  She wrote:

When my husband was first diagnosed with cancer, he was told that he had only two to four months to live, that he'd never go back to the U.S. Senate, that he should get his affairs in order, kiss his wife, love his family and get ready to die.

But that prognosis was wrong. Teddy lived 15 more productive months. During that time, he cast a key vote in the Senate that protected payments to doctors under Medicare; made a speech at the Democratic Convention; saw the candidate he supported elected president of the United States and even attended his inauguration; received an honorary degree; chaired confirmation hearings in the Senate; worked on the reform of health care; threw out the first pitch on opening day for the Red Sox; introduced the president when he signed the bipartisan Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act; sailed his boat; and finished his memoir "True Compass," while also getting his affairs in order, kissing his wife, loving his family and preparing for the end of life.

Because that first dire prediction of life expectancy was wrong, I have 15 months of cherished memories — memories of family dinners and songfests with our children and grandchildren; memories of laughter and, yes, tears; memories of life that neither I nor my husband would have traded for anything in the world.

When the end finally did come — natural death with dignity — my husband was home, attended by his doctor, surrounded by family and our priest.
That is what death with dignity looks like. That is what health care, which Sen. Kennedy considered the cause of his life, looks like. That is what solidarity looks like.

Assisted suicide is promoted as a means to alleviate suffering, but that is not how it is actually practiced. All of us fear being in great pain at the end of our lives, but once this right is established, people who are not facing great pain avail themselves of it. This is not a slippery slope argument. There is clear evidence that the slope is slippery. In Oregon, where assisted suicide has been legal since 1997, the principal reasons for availing oneself of the “right-to-die” are: loss of autonomy (91.4%), decreased ability to engage in enjoyable activities (86.7%), loss of dignity (71.4%), loss of control of bodily functions (49.5%) and becoming a burden on others (40%).  Advocates of assisted suicide say they are in favor of “compassionate choices” but surely, there are more compassionate ways to help people cope with these anxieties than inviting them to kill themselves.

All of those items on the list are things people with disabilities confront and overcome, which is one reason the disability community is in the vanguard of opposition to assisted suicide laws. They understand that, yes, life is made more challenging because of their disabilities, but they are not expendable, they still have dignity. They understand, too, that a society that starts calculating what people can and can no longer contribute to society, that links human worth with other people’s determination of social utility, leads to inhumane judgments and expectations: If you are a burden, and you know it, why not dispose of yourself? On second thought, why shouldn’t society help you? Our country found its better angels when it passed the Americans with Disabilities Act that responded to the challenges people with disabilities face by trying to ameliorate the hurdles, not encouraging people to make themselves scarce.

Still undecided? When confronting a decision that involves competing values of personal autonomy and social solidarity, a pertinent question to ask is whether a given policy will impact the poor disproportionately. The rich can hire help so that they are not a burden, nurses to take of their physical needs, and the like, but the poor cannot. This should set off alarm bells in liberal minds. Among the reasons Gov. Jerry Brown should have vetoed the assisted suicide law in California is that the state’s Medicaid program does not cover palliative care, but it will cover assisted suicide. So much for choices! Advocates of assisted suicide argue that everyone is free to choose whether or not to seek the drugs that will take their life and this is true in a formal sense. But, formal freedom is not real freedom. The rich and poor alike are formally free to rummage in the dumpster for their dinner. Blacks were formally free to vote before the Voting Rights Act. Real freedom is something different.

I return to the issue of entitlement reform and pose a question to fellow liberals: Do you really trust President Obama and incoming Speaker Ryan not to find a compromise on entitlement reform that harms the poor and the elderly? I don’t. No one, absolutely no one, either man speaks with on a regular basis receives their actuarial statement from the Social Security Administration, looks at their estimated retirement benefit, and asks themselves if they will be able to live on that amount. They are wealthy and highly successful people. When they leave government service, they will likely make large fortunes in the private sector or go work at a think tank where the idolatry of the market convinced far too many that Simpson-Bowles was a good deal. I will support cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security only when the top marginal tax rate is back around 70% where it was in the Eisenhower years! Those were good years for the country, good years for the wealthy, good years for working people, but they were not years that produced the kind of Gilded Age economics we have today.

Social Security and Medicare exist so that the elderly will not be destitute. That is a low bar. We as a society, not our government, should do even more for our elderly. Our churches, our unions, our neighborhood watch groups, our schools, and most especially our families, should do more to keep our seniors involved in our lives. As Pope Francis never ceases reminding us, they hold the wisdom of years, which is a wisdom we could all use. Instead of seeing the elderly, and the entitlement programs that support them, as a burden, we should all find ways to celebrate their lives and keep them integrated into our own. We can start exercising this kind of social solidarity by opposing assisted suicide and reminding our seniors that they are not a burden, that they are needed and valued, that they have dignity and can never lose it. Here is an issue on which solidarity must trump personal autonomy or else we will all lose, and we might lose more than we first thought.

http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/why-liberals-should-oppose-assisted-suicide

Shift Planned Parenthood Funds to Health Centers That Don’t Equate Abortion with ‘Women’s Health’

by Marjorie Dannenfelser, October 15, 2015

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425585/shifting-money-from-planned-parenthood-to-community-health-centers-benefits-womens-health

The Center for Medical Progress’s undercover videos exposed the heartbreaking facts about Planned Parenthood’s trafficking in the body parts of aborted babies. The ensuing controversy has revealed another fact that Planned Parenthood would have preferred to keep hidden: It’s not really the “leading provider of high quality, affordable health care” it claims to be — unless you think a woman’s health is defined solely by her reproductive system.

Under questioning from Representative Mia Love during a recent hearing, Planned Parenthood’s president, Cecile Richards, finally admitted that, despite all the propaganda to the contrary, her organization does not actually provide mammograms. Nor does it provide other health-care services women routinely need to access — treatment for hypertension, diabetes, depression, osteoporosis, and other diseases and ailments.

So what exactly are taxpayers getting for the $528 million they provide to Planned Parenthood each year? And more important, what could they get if that money were spent instead at the thousands of federally qualified health centers around the country that do provide a full range of services and diagnostic screenings, as well as birth control, pap smears, and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases?  

In fact, women have the most to gain from a congressional decision to reallocate money away from Planned Parenthood and to community-based health centers that already serve their localities. The quality of women’s health care will be improved by shifting money to medical providers that focus on the health and well-being of the whole woman; the priority should not be funding an organization that treats women’s reproductive health in isolation.

Women’s access to health care will improve, as well. There are more than 13,000 qualified health centers providing a full range of health-care services to women, including 4,000 in under-served rural areas.

In comparison with the more than 13,000 health centers across the country, there are fewer than 700 Planned Parenthood facilities nationwide. In Los Angeles, for example, a woman could choose to receive services from any one of 43 health-care providers within a five-mile radius of the city’s downtown Planned Parenthood facility — including one clinic just 213 feet away. In Houston, there are 13 full-service health centers within five miles of Planned Parenthood; in Washington, D.C., there are 23 health centers already serving the community around the Planned Parenthood facility that is currently under construction, including one center just half a mile away. Research done by the Alliance Defending Freedom and the Charlotte Lozier Institute demonstrates that in every state, women will have more options and greater choice if federal funds are shifted away from Planned Parenthood and to community health centers.

The curtain has finally been pulled back on Planned Parenthood’s claim to be a champion of women’s health. Just as it reduces unborn babies to a collection of body parts for sale, Planned Parenthood reduces women’s health to their reproductive organs. Women deserve health care that focuses on the full range of their health and well-being. Reallocating Planned Parenthood’s federal funding to community health centers will be a major step in that direction. 

 Marjorie Dannenfelser is the president of the Susan B. Anthony List.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425585/shifting-money-from-planned-parenthood-to-community-health-centers-benefits-womens-health

Experts: Abortion Not Medically Necessary to Save the Life of a Mother

by Committee for Excellence in Maternal Healthcare and The Life House | Dublin, Ireland | LifeNews.com | 9/11/12 6:12 PM

Leading medical experts speaking at a major International Symposium on Excellence in Maternal Healthcare held in Dublin have concluded that “direct abortion is not medically necessary to save the life of a mother.”

Professor Eamon O’Dwyer, speaking for the Committee of the Symposium, said that the outcome of the conference “provided clarity and confirmation to doctors and legislators.”

Experts in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, mental health, and molecular epidemiology presented new research, and shared clinical experiences on issues surrounding maternal healthcare to the packed Symposium attended by more than 140 Irish medical professionals.

Particular attention was paid to the management of high-risk pregnancies, cancer in pregnancy, foetal anomalies, mental health and maternal mortality.

The Symposium’s conclusions were issued in the Dublin Declaration on Maternal Healthcare which states:

-“As experienced practitioners and researchers in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman.

-We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child.

-We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.”

Professor Eamon O’Dwyer said that the Symposium was timely given that the issue of abortion was one of current public debate, and that attempts were being made to confuse legitimate medical treatment with abortion.

“Irish Obstetricians and Gynaecologists have previously pointed out that treatment for conditions such as ectopic pregnancy are not considered abortion by doctors, yet misinformation in regard to this abounds in public debate. The Symposium clarifies that direct abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of a woman, and that’s good news for mothers and their babies,” said Professor O’Dwyer

Dr Eoghan de Faoite of the organising Committee for the Symposium said that the research presented at the Symposium provided clear evidence that best practice medical care for pregnant women does not involve abortion.

“It was fascinating to learn about new therapies involving the safe delivery of chemotherapy during pregnancy and the exciting field of in-utero fetal surgery” he said. “When discussing matters of pregnancy and medicine it is vital that the voices of the real experts, those that actually care for pregnant women, be heard. This Symposium puts an end to the false argument that Ireland needs abortion to treat women, and it was encouraging to hear the international speakers commend Ireland’s high standards of maternal healthcare and low rates of maternal mortality.”

The Medical Advisor to the Life Institute, Dr Seán Ó Domhnaill welcomed the outcome of the Symposium. “The Dublin Declaration stating that abortion is not medically necessary was a statement of fact agreed by medical experts and reflected best medical practice in maternal healthcare”, he said. “This is a globally significant outcome, which shows abortion has no place in treating women and their unborn children.”

Rebecca Roughneen of Youth Defence said that the outcome of the Symposium affirmed the pro-life position which had long held that abortion was not medically necessary to preserve women’s lives. “Ground-breaking research and new clinical practices were presented at this hugely important Symposium, and the good news for mothers and babies is that experts agree that abortion is not necessary to save the life of a mother,” she said.

LifeNews Note: This originally appeared in WorldWatch, a publication of Human Life International.

Culture of Life

ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL FRANCIS TO THE PARTICIPANTS IN ORGANIZED BY THE INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF ASSOCIATIONS OF CATHOLIC DOCTORS
Clementine Hall Friday , September 20, 2013

 I apologize for the delay, because today ... this is a morning too complicated for audiences ... I apologize. 1. The first point that I would like to share with you is this: we are witnessing today in a paradoxical situation , dealing with the medical profession. On the one hand we see - and thank God - the progress of medicine, thanks to the work of scientists who, with passion and with no savings, are dedicated to finding new cures. On the other hand, however, we find also the danger that the doctor might lose its identity as a servant of life. The cultural disorientation has also affected what looked like an unassailable area: your, medicine! Although by their nature at the service of life, the health professions are sometimes induced to disregard life itself. Instead, as we remember the Encyclical Caritas in Veritate , "openness to life is at the center of true development." There is no true development without this openness to life. "If you lose the personal and social sensitivity towards the acceptance of a new life, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away. The acceptance of life strengthens moral fiber and makes people capable of mutual help "(n. 28). The paradoxical situation is seen in the fact that while you give the person new rights, sometimes even alleged rights, does not always protect the life as a primary value and basic right of every man. The final objective of doctor is always the defense and promotion of life. 2. The second point: in this context, be heard, the Church appeals to the conscience, the conscience of all health care professionals and volunteers, in a particular way you Gynecologists, called to collaborate in the creation of new human lives. Yours is a unique vocation and mission, which requires study, conscience and humanity. At one time, the women who helped in childbirth called "comadre" is like a mother to the other, with the real mother. You too are "comadri" and "compadri", too. A widespread mentality of profits, the "culture of waste", which now enslaves the hearts and minds of many, has a very high cost: it requires to eliminate human beings, especially if they are physically or socially weaker. Our response to this mentality is a "yes" and decided without hesitation to life. "The first right of the human person is his life. He has other goods and some of them are more precious, but is the fundamental good condition for all others "(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith , Declaration on Procured Abortion , November 18, 1974, 11). Things have a price and are sold, but people have a dignity, worth more than things and do not have money. Many times, we find ourselves in situations where we see what it costs less is life. For this attention to human life in its totality has become in recent years a real priority of the Magisterium of the Church, particularly to the most defenseless, that is, the disabled, the sick, the unborn child, the child, the elderly, which is the most defenseless life. In the human fragile each of us is invited to recognize the face of the Lord, who in his human flesh has experienced the indifference and loneliness that often condemn the poorest, both in countries in the developing world, both in affluent societies . Every child is not born, but unjustly condemned to be aborted, has the face of Jesus Christ, the Lord's face, that before he was born, and then newborn has experienced rejection in the world. And every senior, and - I talked about the child: let's go to the elderly, another point! And every elderly, sick, or even if at the end of his days, carries the face of Christ. You can not discard, as we proposed the "culture of waste"! You can not discard! 3. The third aspect is a mandate: be witnesses and speakers of this "culture of life" . Your being Catholic entails greater responsibility: first of all to yourself, for the effort to be consistent with the Christian vocation, and then to contemporary culture, to help recognize the transcendent dimension in human life, the imprint of the creative work of God, from the very first moment of her conception. This is a commitment to the new evangelization that often requires going against the current, paying in person. The Lord counts on you to spread the "Gospel of life." In this perspective the gynecology hospital departments are privileged places of witness and evangelization, because wherever the Church is "the vehicle of the presence of God" living at the same time becomes an "instrument of the true humanization of man and the world" (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith , Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization , 9). Growing awareness that the focus of medical care is the human person in a position of weakness, the health facility becomes' the place where the care relationship is not job - your job is not caring relationship - but mission , where the charity of the Good Samaritan is the first chair and the face of the sufferer, the Face of Christ "(Benedict XVI, Address at the University Cattolica del Sacro Cuore in Rome , May 3, 2012). Dear Friends doctors, who are called to take care of human life in its initial phase, remind everyone, with facts and words, this is always, in all its phases and at any age, sacred and is always quality. And not for a discussion of faith - no, no - but with reason, for a discourse of science! There is no human life more sacred than another, as there is a human life qualitatively more significant than another. The credibility of a health care system is measured not only for efficiency, but also for the attention and love towards people, whose life is always sacred and inviolable. Do not ever neglect to pray to the Lord and the Virgin Mary for having the strength to do your job well and bear witness with courage - courage! Today it takes courage - courage witness with the "Gospel of life"! Thanks a lot. -
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 © Copyright - Libreria Editrice Vaticana

Response to a letter from Senator Durbin

March 8, 2013

 

Dear Ms. Gisburne:

 

Thank you for contacting me about abortion (post - Effects of Abortion on Society, February 13, 2013). I appreciate hearing from you.

 

While abortion is an issue that has tended to divide Americans, I believe we can acknowledge women’s rights and still work together to reduce the number of abortions. I believe abortion should be safe and legal, consistent with Roe v. Wade. A decision this personal is best left to a woman, her family, her doctor, and her conscience. Late-term abortions, including so-called partial birth abortions, should be strictly limited to cases where the life of the mother is in danger or she faces a medically certified risk of grievous physical injury.

 

At the same time, we can do more to diminish the frequency of abortion. We must make family planning services and age-appropriate sex education more available. This will help couples avoid the unplanned pregnancies that often lead to abortion. I support the federal family planning program, which provides more than five million women with a wide range of services designed to improve maternal and infant health, lower the incidence of unintended pregnancy, and prevent abortions. This program has a proven record of success. I oppose gag rules that would prevent women from receiving full information about their pregnancy options.

 

In addition, we must go beyond contraception. We need to support pregnant women when they find themselves in a difficult situation by working to ensure that they have access to health care, before and after the baby is born. Providing programs that teach parenting skills, nutrition assistance, income support, and caring adoption alternatives is critical to family planning.

We should also address the underlying conditions that can affect a couple’s response to an unplanned pregnancy. Minimum wage increases, affordable health care, expanded child care options, and improved educational assistance can make it easier for a couple to welcome a child into the family.

I also favor tax breaks to help families afford adoptions, and I have cosponsored legislation, subsequently enacted into law, that extended and increased the tax credit for adoption expenses.

 

Thank you again for sharing your views with me. Please feel free to stay in touch.

Sincerely,

 

Richard J. Durbin

United States Senator

RJD/ab

 

Senator Durbin:

 

Abortion is wrong. Nothing can be said to ever make it right.

 

Abortion is wrong. Your position, as you continually state in your letters, is pap and sounds more ludicrous every time I read it. It shows a lack of a sense of right and wrong. It is as if you were taken to the dome of the Capitol and shown the power you could have if you subjugated your principles to the Democratic platform, no matter how it conflicted with morality.

 

Abortion is wrong. “While abortion is an issue that has tended to divide Americans, I believe we can acknowledge women’s rights and still work together to reduce the number of abortions.” Women’s rights is a misnomer. I am a woman. I have been one for 62 years. My rights end where they harm someone else. Abortion kills, therefore abortion cannot be a “right”. Nothing is being done, especially by the Democratic party to reduce the number of abortions. In fact, the position of the party today is to push for more abortions through increased access, funding, and decreased regulations, both on the federal and state levels.

 

Abortion is wrong. “I believe abortion should be safe and legal, consistent with Roe v. Wade.” Neither rulings of the Supreme Court, legislation of Congress, nor a position in the Democratic platform will ever make it right. Abortion laws were founded on lies and is continues to be protected not for the good of women but for the bottom line of the industry. The rights of a human being to life ought not be subject to the decisions of another, even the woman who is carrying that life in her womb.

 

Abortion is wrong. “A decision this personal is best left to a woman, her family, her doctor, and her conscience.” By regurgitating the lies of the abortion industry, as taken on by the Democratic party, you are harming women by letting them believe that abortion is “an acceptable method of birth control”. By regurgitating the lies of the abortion industry, as taken on by the Democratic party, you have helped condemn millions of human beings to brutal deaths. By regurgitating the lies of the abortion industry, as taken on by the Democratic party, you are ultimately violating the my rights since the standards of personhood in abortion ‘rights’ could be applied to anyone with just an alteration of parameters. Do not think that this has not already happened.

 

Abortion is wrong. “At the same time, we can do more to diminish the frequency of abortion.” ... “I oppose gag rules that would prevent women from receiving full information about their pregnancy options.” What world are you living in? Planned Parenthood continuously lobbies against any law which would force them to give any information which could dissuade a woman from going through with an abortion. Ultrasounds, information on fetal development, alternative options, etc. all could cause a woman to not abort, which in turn means loss of revenue for the abortion clinic. The new health mandate requires companies to pay for contraception and ‘abortion’ pills, against the conscience of the owner. I learned back in the 1960’s that the ‘pill’ could cause an abortion, by preventing the embryo from implanting. Where have you been?

 

Abortion is wrong. “We need to support pregnant women when they find themselves in a difficult situation by working to ensure that they have access to health care, before and after the baby is born.” In spite of the efforts, of mainly churches, to advertise services, women turn to Planned Parenthood when they are faced with a ‘difficult situation’. Why? Planned Parenthood’s visibility, guaranteed now by its connection to the White House. Even the federal family planning program is invisible. I tried a search for clinics in Chicago with no results. The only way to ensure that money for health care is truly used for health care is to separate all abortion services from health care. Planned Parenthood does not encourage alternatives to abortion, just look at the numbers. Women have stated that Planned Parenthood has told them that they are NOT a social service. No amount of social services can make abortion right. No amount of social services can aid someone who is already dead.

 

Abortion is wrong. “We should also address the underlying conditions that can affect a couple’s response to an unplanned pregnancy.” I agree.

 

Abortion is wrong. Nothing can be said to ever make it right.  You ought to be doing everything you are able to do to eliminate abortion.  In accepting abortion as a rightful law of the country, you are NOT doing everything you could in your position of power.  "It was once said that the moral test of Government is how that Government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped," Hubert H. Humphrey

 

Abortion is wrong.  You are a scandal to the Catholic Church.  'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.' Matthew 25:40.  In the end, those millions of humans whom you allowed to be brutally destroyed will stand as witnesses.

 

Mary Ann Gisburne

 

"We are not some casual or meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary." Pope Benedict XVI, April 24, 2003

 

 

Cardinal Dolan's Letter in support of the Blunt Amendment

Dear Brother Bishops,

Since we last wrote to you concerning the critical efforts we are undertaking together to protect religious freedom in our beloved country, many of you have requested that we write once more to update you on the situation and to again request the assistance of all the faithful in this important work. We are happy to do so now.

First, we wish to express our heartfelt appreciation to you, and to all our sisters and brothers in Christ, for the remarkable witness of our unity in faith and strength of conviction during this past month. We have made our voices heard, and we will not cease from doing so until religious freedom is restored.

As we know, on January 20, the Department of Health and Human Services announced a decision to issue final regulations that would force practically all employers, including many religious institutions, to pay for abortion inducing drugs, sterilizations, and contraception. The regulations would provide no protections for our great institutions—such as Catholic charities, hospitals, and universities—or for the individual faithful in the marketplace. The regulations struck at the heart of our fundamental right to religious liberty, which affects our ability to serve those outside our faith community.

Since January 20, the reaction was immediate and sustained. We came together, joined by people of every creed and political persuasion, to make one thing resoundingly clear: we stand united against any attempt to deny or weaken the right to religious liberty upon which our country was founded.

On Friday, February 10, the Administration issued the final rules. By their very terms, the rules were reaffirmed “without change.” The mandate to provide the illicit services remains. The exceedingly narrow exemption for churches remains. Despite the outcry, all the threats to religious liberty posed by the initial rules remain.

Religious freedom is a fundamental right of all. This right does not depend on any government’s decision to grant it: it is God-given, and just societies recognize and respect its free exercise. The free exercise of religion extends well beyond the freedom of worship. It also forbids government from forcing people or groups to violate their most deeply held religious convictions, and from interfering in the internal affairs of religious organizations.

Recent actions by the Administration have attempted to reduce this free exercise to a “privilege” arbitrarily granted by the government as a mere exemption from an all-encompassing, extreme form of secularism. The exemption is too narrowly defined, because it does not exempt most non-profit religious employers, the religiously affiliated insurer, the self-insured employer, the for-profit religious employer, or other private businesses owned and operated by people who rightly object to paying for abortion inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception. And because it is instituted only by executive whim, even this unduly narrow exemption can be taken away easily.

In the United States, religious liberty does not depend on the benevolence of who is regulating us. It is our “first freedom” and respect for it must be broad and inclusive—not narrow and exclusive. Catholics and other people of faith and good will are not second class citizens. And it is not for the government to decide which of our ministries is “religious enough” to warrant religious freedom protection.

This is not just about contraception, abortion-causing drugs, and sterilization—although all should recognize the injustices involved in making them part of a universal mandated health care program. It is not about Republicans or Democrats, conservatives or liberals. It is about people of faith. This is first and foremost a matter of religious liberty for all. If the government can, for example, tell Catholics that they cannot be in the insurance business today without violating their religious convictions, where does it end? This violates the constitutional limits on our government, and the basic rights upon which our country was founded.

Much remains to be done. We cannot rest when faced with so grave a threat to the religious liberty for which our parents and grandparents fought. In this moment in history we must work diligently to preserve religious liberty and to remove all threats to the practice of our faith in the public square. This is our heritage as Americans. President Obama should rescind the mandate, or at the very least, provide full and effective measures to protect religious liberty and conscience.

Above all, dear brothers, we rely on the help of the Lord in this important struggle. We all need to act now by contacting our legislators in support of the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, which can be done through our action alert on www.usccb.org/conscience.

We invite you to share the contents of this letter with the faithful of your diocese in whatever form, or by whatever means, you consider most suitable. Let us continue to pray for a quick and complete resolution to this and all threats to religious liberty and the exercise of our faith in our great country.

Timothy Cardinal Dolan
Archbishop of New York
President, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

Most Reverend William E. Lori
Bishop of Bridgeport
Chairman, Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty

Our Bodies, Our Consciences, By Kathryn Jean Lopez

February 4, 2013 12:00 A.M.

We are not alone. We can’t afford to pretend we are.

 

 

On the morning of the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s infamous Roe v. Wade ruling, I felt a chill. And it wasn’t brought on by the appropriate bitterly cold weather that particular January morning. After Mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, some 500 or so New Yorkers walked through the streets of midtown Manhattan, in front of God, man, and Grand Central Station, praying the Rosary. Our prayers were for life and love and mercy. Our prayers were not in judgment of others but that we may do better, that women and men may see better options than abortion, that the hurt may be healed, that God may forgive us for letting anyone think she is alone and has no choice but the death of her child.

 

The chill was brought on by the knowledge that some of the commuters streaming into Grand Central knew the pain of abortion all too well. By the certainty that someone, on her morning commute, was thinking that was her only option. By the sharing in a community’s pain and guilt and sorrow.

We tend to live our lives masked in a veil of the imperial self. We pretend that we live alone. But as alone as we might sometimes feel, we make decisions that affect others. We need one another.
We do realize this, on some level. We’re decades into a welfare state premised on the idea that the government is our safety net. But the government cannot be a brother. The government cannot be a mother and a father. Where love thrives is in a flourishing civil society. That is where we flourish. Where our dreams are. Where we get the support that allows us to believe they can be fulfilled.

Our problems today run so deep. Now is the time to take a few steps back. Not to turn back the clock. But to reflect. To talk about some of the most contentious issues now that we are past the frenzy of a presidential election campaign.

Our problems won’t all be solved through legislative action. And legislative action, while it may sometimes be crucial, can’t be maximized without a fuller context. Congress may vote to defund Planned Parenthood, but we can’t assume that the political message that vote sends will cause the culture to change — that people will suddenly remember the poisonous eugenics upon which that organization was founded, that we will celebrate and protect human dignity, live chastely, and see adoption as a brilliant and generous option. A congressional vote is not a magic wand. There are so many steps that need to precede and follow it.

In a new book, Fill These Hearts, author Christopher West works on helping us with the backstory of our lives, a starting point for changing the terms of our debates and untangling our confusions. “Consider,” he writes, “the idea that our bodies tell a story that reveals, as we learn how to read it, the very meaning of existence and the path to the ultimate satisfaction of our deepest desire.”

“To call God ‘Father’ with a sincere heart is to recognize him as the ultimate origin of every good gift and to rest in his benevolent providence, trusting unflinchingly — despite life’s many sorrows and sufferings — that God does indeed have a perfect plan for our satisfaction. To call God ‘Father’ is to believe wholeheartedly that, in due time, he will provide precisely that for which we ache.” West quotes Psalm 145: “You give them their food at the proper time. You open your hand and satisfy the desires of every living thing.”

West makes the point that our bodies and our souls are not separate things, and that our very physical design speaks to our creation and destination. “In the biblical understanding, there exists a profound unity between that which is physical and that which is spiritual. This means that our bodies are not mere shells in which our true ‘spiritual selves’ live. We are a profound unity of body and soul, matter and spirit. In a very real way, we are our bodies.”
West writes as a Christian, but perceiving a person as an integrated whole does not depend on being a Christian, or a believer of any sort. Nor does understanding that men and women are different and complementary, and that that is a good thing. However, we can no longer take for granted that everyone understands that, let alone accepts, embraces, even celebrates it. Not when our federal health-care policy treats a woman’s fertility as a disease, a condition that she is expected to medicate away in order to achieve freedom and equality. Not when we are sending women into combat.

The world-famous former mayor of New York Ed Koch, who died just last week, was good friends with John Cardinal O’Connor. In 1989 they collaborated on a book, His Eminence and Hizzoner, in which Mayor Koch wrote: “The future of our nation depends on our ability to inculcate a strong sense of morality in our young people. That moral sense should be based on philosophical, ethical and religious teachings, which are the underpinnings of conscience. The way to oppose abortion is by challenging the conscience of those who advocate it. If the battle cannot be won at the level of conscience, it cannot be won.”

But what is conscience? What is right and wrong, and who are we and why are we? If we do not agree that there are answers to these questions — even if we don’t agree on what those answers are — we will never have a constructive debate about abortion, whether in terms of policy or of culture. That is the foundational work we need to return to. No election campaign is ever going to be better without it. Our culture is never going to be renewed without it. No lives are going to be truly redeemed without it. We won’t start making sense again without it. The dark bitter cold of winter will be warmed by the renewal that comes with embracing life, living life lovingly, supporting life, letting someone know she is not alone.

— Kathryn Jean Lopez is editor-at-large of National Review Online. This column is available exclusively through Andrews McMeel Universal’s Newspaper Enterprise Association. She is a director of Catholic Voices USA.