A pro-life betrayal and wake-up call

A reader recently asked me if I didn't think that emergency contraception is okay in the case of rape, if it is administered with due regard to the time of the woman's cycle, so as to not cause an abortion. Since the sexual act is not consented to, it constitutes an intrusion that the woman is justified in resisting. And I think that is true if the claim is correct. 

We have to be cautious in these matters, because unbeknownst to many, the definitions of certain key terms have been politicized. In order to get abortion past the pro-life watchdog, even scientists and medical practitioners have re-defined conception to mean implantation, contrary to reason -- an entity is what it is, regardless of its position. A dog is a dog even if you shoot it into space; a baby is a baby even if it is in the fallopian tube and not implanted in the uterus.

Even if we accept the shaky claim that the morning after pill can simply prevent ovulation if taken at the right point in the woman's cycle, we must admit the difficulty of imagining a scenario in which this distinction between a potential life not yet conceived and one in its earliest stages would be observed. We have to be realistic about how these things play out.

 If the woman is willing to observe her status and abstain from using the "morning after pill" to kill developing life within her (again, assuming that the claim is true, which I have not been convinced), then she can make that determination in her conscience. But for society to approve the chemical protocol being given to her as a policy would likely trample on any opportunity to examine conscience; it would simply become business as usual to resort to abortion in the case of rape. And that is wrong. 

Well, the matter has come to a point for the Louisiana Conference of Catholic Bishops (LCCB). They have endorsed a new state law requiring hospitals to dispense emergency contraception to sexual assault victims. 

The Louisiana Conference of Catholic Bishops (LCCB) has come out in favor of emergency contraception for cases of rape, despite the abortifacient nature of the measure and the Vatican’s insistence that it is morally impermissible.

According to The Advocate, Costanza said the language of the law “was reviewed by the church” and found to conform with directives issued by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USSCB).

“A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault,” Costanza said, adding that “after appropriate testing, she can be treated with appropriate medication to prevent ovulation.”

Emergency contraception is commonly believed to prevent pregnancy by stopping ovulation. But recent research has shown that it does little to prevent a woman from ovulating, though it can effectively kill an embryo by blocking it from implanting in the uterus.

The key, again, is to realize the subterfuge, specifically designed to pass abortion measures under the noses of those who oppose killing the unborn, of redefining what constitutes conception. I can't imagine the naïveté of a bishop going along with such a basic error of fact (and failing to offer teaching to help those under his care navigate the difficulties of modern life).

Stunningly, in a concession that calls into question the point of even having a pro-life group to vet political challenges, "Benjamin Clapper, the executive director of Louisiana Right to Life, also endorsed emergency contraception in a statement to The Advocate, suggesting that the destruction of an embryo before implantation doesn’t constitute an abortion."

I don't know if the good pro-life people of Louisiana realize that their donations and work on behalf of the unborn are not represented by this group, but everyone needs to wake up and check on who is minding the store. If bishops and pro-lifers are going to start endorsing bills that are clearly meant to provide abortions -- i.e. kill the unborn -- then we need a change in leadership. 

Here is a detailed article that explains the scientific error in claiming that life begins at implantation. 



10 comments:

  1. Thank you for alerting us to these things and hopefully shaming the folks who did this into repenting of their erroneous compromise with the culture of death! Maybe you can do a post soon on the Pontifical Academy for Life's wrongful approval of hysterectomies? I can't believe that has gone under the radar, although maybe it will cause less harm that way...?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I need to write about that. It's not the PAL -- it's the CDF (congregation for the doctrine of the faith), the official teaching arm of the Church. It's really scandalous and a situation, actually, that affected me directly, as I faced that exact dilemma.

      Delete
    2. I mean it is the PAL but it's the CDF that said it a couple of years ago in a supposedly decisive way.

      Delete
    3. It's so confusing how the CDF and PAL seem to be interacting! So the CDF gave its stamp of approval to the PAL conclusion? And I can't help but remember that the CDF is now headed by an Opus Dei prelate...it's all so horrible and wrong! I remember when I was converting, people would point to Humanae Vutae as proof that God protected the Church...what do we say now? "Oh well, it's only the CDF"??

      Delete
    4. Forgot to out a name for that last comment! ~Heather

      Delete
    5. The CDF changed the teaching (contradicted it, actually) a few years ago.
      The head of the CDF is a Jesuit, Cardinal Luis Ladaria.
      However, I was counseled by a numerary in Opus Dei to have an elective hysterectomy many years ago. Thank God I listened to my conscience and didn't do it. I wouldn't have our Bridget if I had.

      Delete
    6. I think you do need a follow up post. What was the decision regarding hysterectomy? And what is the issue with Opus Die?

      Delete
    7. Somehow it automatically has me posting as anonymous...Jennifer

      Delete
  2. The implementation of the LA law sounds very confusing. The morning-after-pill has to administered so soon after the act, there would be no time to really confirm that rape is actually what happened. So they would have to go off claims of rape, which seems like it would increase the number of false claims just to allow access to the desired medications. The whole thing seems primed to go terribly wrong, for a whole host of reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This also seems to open up the dangers to sex trafficking of young girls with little to not consequences for the perpetrators of sex abuse.

    ReplyDelete