Click on this link for the MP3 file for Father Swink's homily.Meanwhile, one of the leakers has made an anonymous appearance on Italian television
By Paolo Gambi on Thursday, 23 February 2012
Benedict XVI at the consistory last weekend (CNS photo/Paul Haring)
A Vatican clerk has appeared anonymously on an Italian TV show as one of the 20 leakers. He claimed that the “Vatileaks” had taken place because of the kidnap of a girl, Emanuela Orlandi, 30 years ago and because of the 1998 Swiss Guard murders. He was talking through his hat. Everyone knows the leaks are being driven by a war between Vatican officials.
I have already said I would like to see the back of these leakers, but I am just an angry lay man. The Holy Father has shown a better attitude towards the problem. This attitude is summarised in his request for prayer: “Pray also for me, that I may continually offer to the People of God the witness of sound doctrine and guide holy Church with a firm and humble hand.” Let us see how this sound doctrine and his firm and humble hand apply to this internal war.
Talking to the new cardinals he commented on the “scene of the two sons of Zebedee, James and John, who are still pursuing dreams of glory beside Jesus. They ask him, “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory” (Mk 10:37)”. And he shows how this “erroneous logic” conquers the 12, who “began to be indignant at James and John” (Mk 10:41). Two thousand years ago the war had already begun.
Jesus’s answer is very clear: “Whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all.” (Mk 10:43-44). Is the Pope talking to his bishops, showing them in the Gospel the way to stop this internal war? If so, there is a reason the Pope said: “These words shed light upon today’s public consistory with a particular intensity. They resound in the depths of the soul and represent an invitation and a reminder, a commission and an encouragement.”
Once again the Pope has subtly answered his critics. We have the Holy Spirit. We have the Holy Father. And thank God they are on the same page.
Source: Catholic Herald
Pope Benedict said : “The human and Christian dignity of procreation, consists not in a "product", but in its connection with the conjugal act, an expression of love of the spouses, their union which is not only biological but also spiritual”.
Published February 23, 2012
| Associated Press
AP
The prospect of free, government-ordered contraceptives and even agents to induce abortion, has ignited a national debate.
TACOMA, Wash. – In a ruling that appears headed toward appeal, a federal judge has ruled that Washington state cannot force pharmacies to sell Plan B or other emergency contraceptives.
The state's true goal in adopting the rules at issue was not to promote the timely access to medicine, but to suppress religious objections by druggists who believe that such drugs can have an effect tantamount to abortion, U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton said in his ruling Wednesday.
Washington's rules require that pharmacies stock and dispense drugs for which there is a demand. The state adopted the dispensing regulations in 2007, following reports that some women had been denied access to Plan B, which has a high dose of medicine found in birth-control pills and is effective if a woman takes it within 72 hours of unprotected sex.
State lawyers argued that the requirements are legal because they apply neutrally to all medicines and pharmacies, and because they promote a government interest -- the timely delivery of medicine, including Plan B, which becomes less effective as time passes.
But a pharmacy and two pharmacists sued, saying the rules infringed on their religious freedom, and the judge agreed.
The state allows all sorts of business exemptions to the rules, he noted. Pharmacies can decline to stock a drug, such as certain painkillers, if it's likely to increase the risk of theft, or if it requires an inordinate amount of paperwork, or if the drug is temporarily unavailable from suppliers, among other reasons.
"The most compelling evidence that the rules target religious conduct is the fact the rules contain numerous secular exemptions," the judge said. "In sum, the rules exempt pharmacies and pharmacists from stocking and delivering lawfully prescribed drugs for an almost unlimited variety of secular reasons, but fail to provide exemptions for reasons of conscience."
The decision comes as contraception has been debated in political and health care circles around the nation. A controversy erupted this month when religious groups protested a new federal rule that required church-affiliated universities, hospitals and nonprofits to include birth control without co-pays or premiums in their insurance plans.
The outcry prompted President Barack Obama to change the rule to shift the burden from religious organizations to insurance companies. Lawmakers in a few conservative states have taken up the fight with proposals that serve as direct challenges to Obama's ruling.
Leighton, in his decision Wednesday, did not strike down Washington's rules, but said simply that the way they were applied to the plaintiffs in this case was unconstitutional.
The state remains free to try to enforce the law against other pharmacies that violate the stocking and dispensing rules, whether for Plan B or other drugs; it remains unclear whether courts would reach a similar conclusion if pharmacies objected to selling other drugs for religious reasons.
"I remain concerned about the impacts on patients if pharmacies are allowed to refuse to dispense lawfully prescribed or lawful medications to patients," said Gov. Chris Gregoire, who insisted on the dispensing rule's adoption. "I am especially concerned about those living in rural areas, many of whom may have few alternatives and could suffer lengthy delays in receiving medication or go without entirely."
The judge, an appointee of President George W. Bush, first blocked the state's dispensing rule in 2007. But a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel overruled him, saying the rules did not target religious conduct. It sent the case back to Leighton, who held an 11-day trial before reaffirming his original decision.
Further appeals were expected, both from the state and from groups that intervened on the state's behalf. Before taking more than an hour to read his 48-page opinion in court, Leighton acknowledged that he crafted it for the benefit of a "skeptical" appeals court.
The interveners included women who were denied timely access to Plan B when they needed it -- one of whom cut short a vacation in central Washington to return home to Bellingham, where she knew she could obtain Plan B from her regular pharmacy -- as well as HIV patients, who argued that if druggists could refuse to dispense Plan B for religious reasons, some might also refuse to dispense time-sensitive HIV medications.
"The question really is whether the patient's rights come first or the pharmacist's rights come first," said Andrew Greene, a lawyer for the interveners.
Assistant Attorney General Rene Tomisser said Leighton's ruling was "more detailed" but made the same mistake he made in 2007.
Margo Thelen, of Woodland, one of the pharmacists who sued over the rules, said she had to leave one job because she refused to dispense Plan B -- and now she can continue working at her new job without fear of being fired.
"Speak to anyone who shops in a pharmacy," she said. "Their product isn't always available."
Two Supreme Court cases guide judges in determining whether laws that infringe upon the free exercise of religion are legal.
In one, the court held that the state of Oregon could outlaw the use of the hallucinogenic peyote for everyone, even though some groups might use it in religious conduct.
In the other, the court held that a city in Florida could not outlaw animal sacrifices for religious purposes, while allowing the slaughter of animals for food, hunting and pest eradication.
Leighton said Washington's rules are akin to the Florida case. Though they appear to be neutral by their plain language, the state allows pharmacies not to stock or sell drugs for various business reasons, he said.
by Chris Kahlenborn, MD, and Ann Moell, MD
Download a printable version of this publication. You may print and distribute this freely provided that it is printed without alteration. To do so you will need to download and install the free Acrobat Reader. All methods of birth control are efforts to separate sexual intercourse from procreation. This separation supports sexual relationships that are much weaker than traditional marriage—hooking up, cohabitation, adultery, and serial monogamy. These relationships erode society by leading to divorce, unexpected pregnancy, abortion, single parent households, abuse, and poverty. The consequences of birth control clearly demonstrate an unhealthy, anti-culture and anti-life, impact that raises major ethical concerns. Use of birth control is like intentionally eating unhealthy, nutrition-less, food just for the pleasure of eating. A steady diet will kill you. In much the same way, a steady diet of birth control kills relationships.
“The Pill”
The birth control pill is used by over 10 million women in the US and about 4 million of those are under age 25.1 The Pill consists of a combination of two types of artificial hormones called estrogens and progestins. It works by inhibiting ovulation and sperm transport and by changing the lining of the inside of a woman’s uterus (called the endometrium) so that if the woman does conceive she may have an early abortion.
Ethical concerns: It is estimated that a sexually active woman will experience at least one very early abortion every year that she is on the Pill.2 Both pro-abortion and pro-life groups acknowledge that the Pill causes early abortions.3
Medical side effects: The birth control pill increases the risk of breast cancer by over 40% if it is taken before a woman delivers her first baby.4 This risk increases by 70% if the Pill is used for four or more years before the woman’s first child is born.5 Other side effects that women have experienced include high blood pressure, blood clots, stroke, heart attack, depression, weight gain, and migraines. Diabetics who take oral contraceptives may note increased sugar levels. Some women who stop taking the Pill do not have a return of their fertility (menstrual cycles) for a year, or even longer. Although the Pill decreases ovarian and some uterine cancers, it increases breast, liver, and cervical cancer.4 At least three studies have noted that the AIDS virus is transmitted more easily to women who are taking the Pill if their partner(s) have the HIV virus. 6 , 7 , 8
“The Shot” and Norplant
Commonly known as “the shot,” Depo-Provera, a long acting progestin hormone, is injected into a woman’s muscle every three months. It works by decreasing ovulation, by inhibiting sperm transport and by changing the lining of a woman’s uterus. Norplant is another progestin in silastic (rubber-like) tubes that are placed under her skin, and left there for up to five years.
Ethical concerns: By changing the lining of the uterus, Norplant and Depo-Provera both can cause an early abortion when conception does occur. Women who use Norplant will probably experience more than one such abortion each year since the average woman ovulates in more than 40% of her cycles while using Norplant.9 Depo-Provera may theoretically cause just as many abortions as Norplant since it is also a type of progestin.
Medical side effects: The results of two major world studies have shown that women who take Depo-Provera for two years or more before age 25 have at least a 190% increased risk of developing breast cancer.10 In addition, Depo-Provera may reduce a woman’s bone density, and worsen her cholesterol level. One study found that women who had received injectable progestins (i.e., usually Depo-Provera or norethisterone enanthate) for at least five years suffered a 430% increased risk of developing cervical cancer.11 Several studies have shown that women who receive injectable progestins have a much higher rate of contracting the AIDS virus if their partner is infected, with one study showing a 240% increased risk.12 Norplant, which was developed later than Depo-Provera, has received less scrutiny, but may carry just as high a risk as Depo-Provera. Over 50,000 women have participated in law suits against the manufacturer of Norplant, citing complaints of irregular bleeding, scarring, muscle pain, and headaches.13
Other Hormonal Contraceptives
The same artificial hormones used in the Pill, Depo-Provera, and Norplant are packaged in a variety of other delivery systems: the Patch, the “Morning after Pill,” the monthly injection Lunelle, hormone impregnated IUDs and vaginal inserts, and others. More are in development. Most are so new that their side effects have not been well researched. They use the same chemicals as the Pill and can be expected to have generally the same effects. All the hormonal contraceptives can also cause extended periods of unintended infertility after they are discontinued.
Barrier Methods:
The Condom and the Diaphragm
The condom has a failure rate that is estimated to be between 10-30%.14, 15 There are several reasons: breakage or slippage during use, manufacturing defects, and defects caused by shipping and storage in a hot or very cold place.
Medical side effects: The condom does not adequately stop the transmission of the AIDS virus. CM Rowland, PhD, editor of Rubber Chemistry and Technology, tells us that electron micrographs (pictures taken with a very powerful microscope) reveal voids (holes) in the condom that are up to 50 times bigger than the HIV particle.16
The diaphragm is a barrier method of birth control so it theoretically does not cause early abortion. At least one study has noted that women who use barrier methods such as the diaphragm or condom, or the withdrawal method, had a 137% increased risk of developing preeclampsia.17 Preeclampsia, a complication occurring in some pregnant women, is a syndrome of high blood pressure, fluid retention, and kidney damage, which may eventually lead to prolonged seizures and/or coma. It is theorized that exposure to the male’s sperm plays a protective role against preeclampsia.
Spermicides
A spermicide is an agent that is designed to kill the man’s sperm and is often sold as a gel or as an ingredient in the vaginal sponge. Toxic Shock Syndrome has been associated with the spermicide sponge.18 One researcher has noted that couples who have used certain spermicides within a month of conception have experienced a doubling in the rate of birth defects, as well as a doubling of the rate of miscarriage.19
The IUD (Intrauterine Device)
This is a T-shaped device made of hard plastic. It may also contain copper or contraceptive hormones. A doctor inserts it into a woman’s uterus. It works by irritating the lining of the uterus and obstructing sperm transport.
Ethical concerns: When conception occurs with an IUD in place, the IUD can prevent implantation, or destroy the new embryo by copper poisoning or by attack from the body’s immune system, thus causing an early abortion.20
Medical side effects: These include uterine perforation, which may lead to a hysterectomy, and infection, such as a pelvic or tubo-ovarian abscess. Use of all IUDs has been associated with an increased incidence of PID (Pelvic Inflammatory Disease) and of ectopic pregnancy.20 An ectopic pregnancy is one in which the unborn child implants himself/ herself in a location other than in the mother’s uterus, usually in the fallopian tube. According to Rossing and Daling, two prominent researchers, women who had used an IUD for three or more years were more than twice as likely to have a tubal pregnancy as women who had never used an IUD. Among these long-term users of an IUD, risk of ectopic pregnancy remained elevated for many years after the device was removed. Ectopic pregnancy remains the leading cause of maternal death in the United States. The IUD may also cause back aches, cramping, dyspareunia (painful intercourse), dysmenorrhea (painful menstrual cycles), and infertility.
“Permanent” Sterilization:
Tubal Ligation and Vasectomy
Surgical sterilization attempts to achieve permanent sterility through closing a woman’s fallopian tubes (called “tubal ligation”) or a man’s vas deferens (called “vasectomy”) by tying the tube closed and in some cases by cutting, burning, or removing part of the tube.
Medical side effects: Tubal ligation does not always prevent conception. When conception does occur, it is associated with a much higher incidence of ectopic pregnancy,22 which, as was noted, is the leading cause of death in pregnant women. In addition, women who undergo the procedure may experience complications from the anesthesia or from surgery. Complications include bladder puncture, bleeding, and even cardiac arrest after inflation of the abdomen with carbon dioxide.23 Some women who have undergone a tubal ligation experience a syndrome of intermittent vaginal bleeding associated with severe cramping pain in the lower abdomen.24 Reduced intimacy, lower libido, and a greater risk for hysterectomy often follow tubal ligation; deep regret for having been sterilized is common.
About 50% of men who undergo a vasectomy will develop anti-sperm antibodies.25 In essence, their bodies will come to recognize their own sperm as “the enemy.” This could lead to a higher incidence of autoimmune disease. Several studies have noted that men who undergo a vasectomy have a higher incidence of developing prostate cancer, especially 15-20 years after their vasectomy,26, 27, 28, 29 although one large study did not find a link.30
Wise Options
The best option before marriage is abstinence. The obvious benefits include greater self-respect, freedom from the risk of venereal disease, as well as monetary savings and no chance of a surprise pregnancy.
Within marriage it should be noted that an openness towards having children yields specific medical benefits. Every additional child a woman bears reduces her risk of breast cancer, some uterine cancers, and ovarian cancer.
NFP: Natural Family Planning
Natural Family Planning is a totally natural method by which couples can manage their fertility. In NFP a woman determines when she is either fertile or infertile by observing the consistency of her cervical mucus. The WHO (World Health Organization) has performed several large-scale trials that have demonstrated an unintended pregnancy rate of between 0.3 and 3%, which is as good as any artificial form of birth control except sterilization. One very large trial involving about 20,000 Indian women showed an unintended pregnancy rate of less than 0.3%.32
Some obvious benefits of NFP are that it is virtually cost-free and there is no increased risk of cancer. Couples who use NFP have a divorce rate that is less than 5%33__far lower than the national rate of about 50%.
REFERENCES:
1 Faust JM. Image change for condoms. ABC News Report. [Internet E-mail]. 6/8/97.
2 Kahlenborn C. “How do the pill and other contraceptives work?” Breast Cancer, Its Link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill. Dayton, OH: One More Soul; 2000; 315-335.
3 Alderson Reporting Company. Transcripts of oral arguments before court on abortion case. New York Times. April 27, 1989; B12.
4 Kahlenborn C, et al. “Oral Contraceptive Use as a Risk Factor for Premenopausal Breast Cancer: A Meta-analysis” Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 2006: 81(10):1290-1302
The study re-enforces the classification of OCs as Type 1 carcinogens by the International Agency for Cancer Research (WHO).
5 Romieu I, Berlin J, et al. Oral contraceptives and breast cancer. Review and meta-Analysis. Cancer. 1990; 66: 2253-2263.
6 Allen S. et al. Human immunodeficiency virus infection in urban Rwanda. JAMA. 1991; 266: 1657-1663.
7 Simonsen et al. HIV infection among lower socioeconomic strata prostitutes in Nairobi. AIDS. 1990; 139-144.
8 Mati et al. Contraceptive use and the risk of HIV in Nairobi, Kenya. Inter. J. of Gyn. and Ob. 1995; 48: 61-67.
9 Croxatto HB, Diaz S, et al. Plasma progesterone levels during long-term treatment with levonorgestrel silastic implants. Acta Endocrinologica 1982; 101: 307-311.
10 Skegg DCG, Noonan EA, et al. Depot medroxyprogesterone acetate and breast cancer [A pooled analysis of the World Health Organization and New Zealand studies]. 1995; JAMA: 799-804.
11 Herrero et al. Injectable contraceptives and risk of invasive cervical cancer: evidence of an association. Int. J. of Cancer. 1990; 46: 5-7.
12 Ungchusak et al. Determinants of HIV infection among female commercial sex workers in northeastern Thailand: Results from a longitudinal study. J. of Ac. I. Def. Syn. and H. Retro. 1996. 12: 500-507.
13 Taylor D. Spare the Rod. The Guardian ( U.K.) March 12, 1996; 11.
14 Collart D. Biochemistry & Molecular Biology. Condom failure for protection from sexual transmission of the HIV-a review of the medical literature. 5393 Whitney Ct., Stone Mountain, GA 30088.
15 Rahwan R. Chemical Contraceptives, Interceptives and Abortifacients, 1995. College of Pharmacy, Ohio State University.
16 Rowland CW., The Washington Post (letter) June 25, 1992.
17 Klonoff-Cohen HS et al. An epidemiologic study of contraception and preeclampsia. JAMA. 1989; 262: 3143-3147.
18 Faich G et al. Toxic shock syndrome and the contraceptive sponge. JAMA. 1986; 255: 216-218.
19 Jick et al. Vaginal spermicides and congenital disorders. JAMA. 1981; 245:1329-1332.
20 Ortho Pharmaceutical. Description of Paraguard. Physician Desk Reference. 1997: 1936-1939.
21 Ibid.
22 Gaeta TJ et al. Atypical ectopic pregnancy. Am J Emer Med. 1993; 11: 233-234.
23 Dunn HP, Unexpected Sequellae of Sterilization. International Review of Natural Family Planning, 1:4 (Winter, 1977) 318.
24 Townsend DE et al. Post-ablation-tubal sterilization syndrome. Obstet Gynecol. 1993; 82: 422-424.
25 Rosenberg et al. Vasectomy and the risk of prostate cancer. American J. of Epidemiology. 1990; 132: 1051-1055.
26 Giovannucci E et al. A prospective cohort study of vasectomy and prostate cancer in US men. JAMA. 1993; 269: 873-877.
27 Giovannucci E et al. A retrospective cohort study of vasectomy and prostate cancer in US men. JAMA. 1993; 269: 878-882.
28 Hayes RB et al. Vasectomy and prostate cancer in US Blacks and Whites. American J. of Epidemiology. 1993; 137: 263-269.
29 Rosenberg L et al. Vasectomy and the risk of prostate cancer. American J. of Epidemiology. 1990; 132: 1051-1055.
30 John EM et al. Vasectomy and prostate cancer: results from a multiethnic case-control study. JNCI. 1995; 87: 662-669.
32 Ryder RE. “Natural Family Planning”: Effective birth control supported by the Catholic Church. BMJ. 1993; 307: 723-6.
33 Kippley JF, Kippley SK. The Art of Natural Family Planning (Fourth Edition). Couple to Couple League, Cincinnati, USA, p. 245.
Bookmark on Delicious Digg this post Recommend on Facebook Buzz it up Share on Linkedin Share via MySpace Share on netvibes share via Reddit Share with Stumblers Share on technorati Tweet about it Buzz it up Subscribe to the comments on this post Bookmark in Browser
Lent begins on Ash Wednesday, 22 February. The season of Lent is a time in which we do penance and prepare ourselves for the wonder of Easter. We pray more. We make a greater effort to financially help those in need. (This is called almsgiving.) We make special efforts to make amends for our sinfulness (penance), and we curb our physical desires by restricting our intake of food.
In an interview with Vatican Radio, Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison said that a “divide and conquer” strategy is being used against the Church in the public debate over religious liberty and conscience rights--a strategy that he fears marks the beginning of a “sophisticated persecution.” “Everybody sees that their freedom of conscience is at stake,” he said. “It just depends who is up to be curtailed at any given moment for whatever reason. If they can do it to Catholics, they can do it to anybody.”
“There seems to be an approach that seeks to divide the Church, even more than she is already divided, along liberal and conservative lines. We should not be this way,” he added. “All the liberal/conservative bit is an import from the political sphere, which really does us nothing but damage.”
Bishop Morlino continued:
To take advantage of the fact that this has already happened in our culture, this division, and then to start to pit the bishops – as if they were merely one group within the Church – [against] what other groups might think, is clearly a straightforward attempt to divide and to deepen division in the Church, and to weaken the Church – the old saying, divide and conquer.
After discussing his fears that the strategy marked the beginnings of a nonviolent but sophisticated persecution, he said that organizations that call themselves Catholic must “really be Catholic” and spoke about his efforts to ensure the Catholic identity of Catholic institutions within his diocese.
Stating that there is “too much liturgical diversity“ among parishes, Bishop Morlino said that “commonality in liturgy,” assisted by the new translation of the Roman Missal, is the foundation of a robust public witness.
Source: CatholicCulture.org
"Father, I have a question" she asked. I looked around and there she was. I've known her for years. She had accused an older Irish Pastor of being too mean to children because he had explained the Crucifixion in a religious education class. I had to be careful.
She went on, "Do I have to remove my Obama 2012 sweatshirt before receiving Communion?" She had a look in her eye that said "I'm testing you." I said "That depends on what you're wearing under it." She grinned, knowing that her first attempted trick had failed. "No, I mean, if I support Obama can I still receive Communion?"
Now she had gotten to the heart of the matter. I smiled and said "I don't know why you'd ask. The choice is clear, either you worship Obama or you worship Jesus Christ. Who is your savior?"
She didn't expect that question and looked a little confused.
"If Jesus is your savior, you are Catholic and free from serious sin, you may receive Communion." She said "But I want to know if I can support Obama." I said "Of course you CAN support Obama, but after reading what the Bishops are saying you have to decide for yourself if you can support Obama and still receive Communion."
She said "I support Obama".
I said "Then you've made your choice."
Source: Priest on Facebook.
Hear us, Almighty God, that as we today celebrate the birth into eternal life of your blessed martyr Valentine, we may be freed through his intercession from all evils that threaten us. Through Jesus Christ, your Son, our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God forever and ever. Amen.
February 10, 2012WASHINGTON— The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops offers the following clarifications regarding the Health and Human Services regulations on mandatory coverage of contraceptives, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs.
1.The mandate does not exempt Catholic charities, schools, universities, or hospitals. These institutions are vital to the mission of the Church, but HHS does not deem them "religious employers" worthy of conscience protection, because they do not "serve primarily persons who share the[ir] religious tenets."HHS denies these organizations religious freedom precisely because their purpose is to serve the common good of society—a purpose that government should encourage, not punish.
2.The mandate forces these institutions and others, against their conscience, to pay for things they consider immoral. Under the mandate, the government forces religious insurers to write policies that violate their beliefs;forces religious employers and schools to sponsor and subsidize coverage that violates their beliefs; and forces religious employees and students to purchase coverage that violates their beliefs.
3.The mandate forces coverage of sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs and devices as well as contraception. Though commonly called the "contraceptive mandate," HHS's mandate also forces employers to sponsor and subsidize coverage of sterilization.And by including all drugs approved by the FDA for use as contraceptives, the HHS mandate includes drugs that can induce abortion, such as "Ella," a close cousin of the abortion pill RU-486.
4.Catholics of all political persuasions are unified in their opposition to the mandate Catholics who have long supported this Administration and its healthcare policies have publicly criticized HHS's decision, including columnists E.J. Dionne. . . , Mark Shields. . . , and Michael Sean Winters. . . ; college presidents Father John Jenkins. . . and Arturo Chavez. . . ; and Daughter of Charity Sister Carol Keehan. . . , president and chief executive officer of the Catholic Health Association of the United States.5.Many other religious and secular people and groups have spoken out strongly against the mandate. Many recognize this as an assault on the broader principle of religious liberty, even if they disagree with the Church on the underlying moral question.For example, Protestant Christian. . . , Orthodox Christian. . . , and Orthodox Jewish. . . groups--none of which oppose contraception--have issued statements against the HHS's decision.The Washington Post. . . , USA Today. . . , N.Y. Daily News. . . , Detroit News. . . , and other secular outlets, columnists. . . , and bloggers. . . have editorialized against it.
6.The federal mandate is much stricter than existing state mandates. HHS chose the narrowest state-level religious exemption as the model for its own.That exemption was drafted by the ACLU and exists in only 3 states (New York, California, Oregon).Even without a religious exemption, religious employers can already avoid the contraceptive mandates in 28 states by self-insuring their prescription drug coverage, dropping that coverage altogether, or opting for regulation under a federal law (ERISA) that pre-empts state law.The HHS mandate closes off all these avenues of relief.
Additional information on the U.S. Catholic bishops’ stance on religious liberty, conscience protection and the HHS ruling regarding mandatory coverage of contraceptives, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs is available at http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/conscience-protection/index.cfm.
ROME, February 7, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In an interview this week with Vatican Radio, the Catholic bishop of Toledo, Ohio, said that until the Susan G. Komen Foundation had clarified its position with regards to funding Planned Parenthood, Catholics should consider donating instead to local Catholic charities. Komen’s apparent decision on Friday to reverse their initial decision to discontinue funding the abortion giant “came as a great disappointment,” Bishop Leonard Blair said.
“We were very happy recently with the welcome news that Komen for the Cure was disassociating itself from Planned Parenthood, it would no longer provide funds to them; only to find out within a few days afterward that they had reversed that decision.” Bishop Blair said that the events of last week demonstrate that Komen was clearly making “an attempt to separate themselves from Planned Parenthood.”
Bishop Leonard Blair is in Rome on his traditional “ad limina” visit, meeting with Vatican officials and Pope Benedict. He spoke to Vatican Radio after last week’s uproar over Komen’s initial announcement. Following the media frenzy, a confusing follow-up statement from Komen in which they appeared to leave the door open to future funding of Planned Parenthood left pro-life people in a quandary.
The reality is that Planned Parenthood—with annual revenues exceeding $1 billion—does little in the way of screening for breast cancer. But the organization is very much in the business of selling abortions—more than 300,000 in 2010, according to Planned Parenthood. At an average cost of $500, according to various sources including Planned Parenthood's website, that translates to about $164 million of revenue per year.
So how did Planned Parenthood and its loyal allies in politics and the media react to Komen's efforts to be neutral in the controversy over abortion?
Faced with even the tiniest depletion in the massive river of funds Planned Parenthood receives yearly, the behemoth mobilized its enormous cultural, media, financial and political apparatus to attack the Komen Foundation in the press, on TV and through social media.
The organization's allies demonized the charity, attempting to depict the nation's most prominent anti-breast cancer organization as a bedfellow of religious extremists. A Facebook page was set up to "Defund the Komen Foundation." In short, Planned Parenthood took breast-cancer victims as hostages.
Komen's leaders had good reason to believe their organization could disintegrate under Planned Parenthood's assault. On Friday the charity issued a statement "apologizing to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women's lives." The statement assured Planned Parenthood's supporters that, like any other organization, it is eligible to apply for grants in the future.Among Komen's reasons for discontinuing grants to Planned Parenthood was its policy of avoiding entanglements with entities under government investigation. Planned Parenthood has been and is under congressional and criminal investigation (by attorneys general, local prosecutors and various regulatory agencies in Arizona, Indiana, Alabama, Kansas and Texas) for allegations including failure to report criminal child sex abuse, misuse of health-care and family-planning funds, and failure to comply with parental-involvement laws regarding abortions.
Planned Parenthood is very far from the uncontroversial organization the Susan G. Komen Foundation aspires to be. According to its most recent annual report, for 2010, Planned Parenthood sells abortions to nine out of every 10 pregnant women who come to its clinics. And it's known throughout the country as an implacable and aggressive opponent of any meaningful restrictions on deliberate feticide.
Planned Parenthood has spent millions fighting even those legislative initiatives that command extremely wide public support, such as laws requiring parental notification and informed consent for abortions, and those banning late-term abortions when the child developing in the womb is fully viable. Planned Parenthood even opposes a bill recently introduced in Congress to ban abortions for the purpose of sex selection.
It is easy to see why Komen might not wish to be associated with Planned Parenthood. Fighting breast cancer is something all Americans can and do agree on; promoting and performing abortions is something that divides us bitterly.
While Planned Parenthood's target in the Komen case was new, its tactics are not. In the past two years, we have seen the abortion giant (and the politicians it funds) hold for ransom a diverse array of hostages.
In 2010, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress risked and narrowly averted the rejection of their signature health-care law in order to block the inclusion of provisions (such as the 1970s Hyde Amendment) that prevent federal abortion funding. At the 11th hour, a handful of "pro-life" Democrats capitulated, giving Mr. Obama and Planned Parenthood their victory.
Last year, in April, Mr. Obama risked a government shutdown over language in a resolution that would have defunded Planned Parenthood at the federal level. At the last moment, congressional Republicans gave way and allowed the federal money to keep flowing.
Also in 2011, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services threatened to withhold billions of dollars in Medicaid funds from those states such as Indiana that prohibit state funding of Planned Parenthood and other entities that provide elective abortions. Planned Parenthood strongly opposed Indiana's attempt to cut off its funding and celebrated the federal government's intervention. Indiana is currently litigating the matter in federal court.
Most recently, after intense lobbying, the Department of Health and Human Services did the bidding of Planned Parenthood by imposing a mandate on virtually all employers to provide insurance coverage (without cost-sharing) for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilizations and contraceptives. This threatens to force many religiously affiliated charitable institutions out of the business of providing education, health care and social services to the poor.
Breast-cancer victims are only the latest hostages taken by Planned Parenthood. Unless the organization is finally held to account, they will surely not be the last.
Mr. George is professor of jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program at Princeton University. Mr. Snead is professor of law and was recently appointed director of the Center for Ethics and Culture at the University of Notre Dame.
In Photo: Supporters of Planned Parenthood demonstrate in Washington, D.C., to keep federal subsidies for the organization, April 7, 2011. Source: Getty Images
