Like others, I am deeply concerned about recent moves in Congress that would restrict access to reproductive healthcare services, especially for poor women. The situation reminds me of other experiments where a few people with extreme views sought to pass policy that impacted a significantly wider group of people -- with devastating consequences. Below, I will recount how the hierarchy of the Catholic church hijacked a process that was on the verge of overturning the complete ban on contraception. But today, in the U.S. Congress, an antichoice cabal in the Republican Party is seeking to prevent poor women from accessing federally funded family planning and other reproductive health services. There are currently three bills that would do just that: the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" (HR 3), the "Protect Life Act" (HR 358) and the "Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act" (HR 217). They, along with the budget which passed the House and did not include crucial family planning funding will severely impact the lives of millions of American families. As a Catholic, the fact that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has supported these attacks on healthcare services for poor women adds insult to injury.
In the 1960s, the Vatican began a new era that promised openness and optimism for the Catholic church with the start of Vatican II -- a series of conferences and conversations involving many thousands of Catholics, lay and clerical alike. That era ended badly with the release of the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae in 1968, which rejected all modern forms of family planning because, it said, "Each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life." In coming to that decision, the pope appointed a panel that included laypeople and clerics to examine how family planning issues affected their lives. The laypeople came into conflict with the clerics who claimed to be experts on procreation, by recommending the church change its stance on the prohibition of contraception. The clerics were concerned about what an about-face to prior church teaching would mean -- or, as one of these experts, Father Marcelino Zalba, said, "the millions we have sent to hell" by a previous prohibition that "was not valid." Patty Crowley, one of the commission participants, responded by asking: "Father Zalba, do you really believe God has carried out all your orders?"
The commission decided that revising Catholic teachings on family planning did, in fact, make sense and was permissible within church teachings. The pope, however, ignored this decision and opted for a ban on the most effective methods of family planning, introducing standards that continue to be impossible for most Catholics to live with -- and we don't.
Since the fateful decision behind Humanae Vitae, Catholicism has split into two groups -- conservatives, mostly but not exclusively clergy, who want to control our sexuality, and those who see their decisions about sexuality and childbearing as intrinsically connected to a life lived according to their conscience-based decisions. This dichotomy has deeply undermined the cohesion of the Catholic community as a whole.
Since the prohibition on contraception thirty-nine years ago, church attendance has plummeted alongside a rise in the percentage of Catholics who feel the hierarchy is not in tune with their lives. That the vast majority of Catholics do use birth control has become a "don't ask, don't tell" situation that has been difficult for both the laity and the clergy. Bishops' conferences in Europe and North America tried initially to allow room for couples to "form their consciences in [the] light [of Humanae Vitae]" but were forced by the Vatican to "clarify" that Catholics must follow the pope's teaching to the letter.
Just as many Catholics held the hope that Vatican II would herald a new era, many U.S. voters saw the election of Barack Obama in a similar light. That promise may also be dashed if the current administration and voters allow the conservative trend in Congress to usher in a new, restrictive age for women, men and their families.
If the most conservative minority wasn't able to re-route the will of the Catholic majority with Humanae Vitae, then why am I so concerned about the efforts by some in Congress to de-fund Planned Parenthood and other Title X-supported programs? In the 1960's the conservatives at the Vatican were able to drive a wedge between doctrine and practice. Those who felt the dictates of their conscience trumped the Vatican's demands were still able to access contraception. But the current federal legislation seeks to remove the means of following one's conscience, so that, believe in it or not, all people who currently rely on federally funded family planning services will be forced to walk in the steps of someone else's conscience.
One of the things that has helped push conservative legislation like the Title X cuts through Congress is the rhetoric used by people like Tom Grenchik, the director of the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities for the USCCB. Grenchik recently issued a special briefing to excoriate the services Planned Parenthood provides to low-income women and to attack Sen. Harry Reid for saying the Senate wouldn't go along with the attempt to de-fund Planned Parenthood. These inflammatory statements make supporting federally funded family planning services and other reproductive rights legislation seem to contradict any spirit of reasonable compromise -- indeed, not a single Republican spoke out against the Title X cuts in the first version of the budget. Nevertheless, the 2008 Republican Party platform placed a premium on "the empowerment of patients," a value that seems incompatible with legislation that would prevent thousands of Americans from accessing family planning.
Though I recognize that people of many faiths feel called to work toward what they consider a better society, one of the essential strands keeping the United States woven together as one vibrant tapestry is the freedom of religious belief -- and its extension into reproductive choices. Catholic teachings, specifically the 1965 Declaration on Religious Freedom (Dignitatis Humanae), charge the faithful to live up to a standard of pluralism that prohibits any form of "coercion" towards people of a different faith, or no faith at all. As Catholics and as citizens, we must oppose the move to de-fund Planned Parenthood and other Title X-funded clinics and stand up for our rights and freedom to follow our own consciences on these personal issues. (For that reason, I was delighted to see so many Catholic state legislators sign onto an open letter to Congress that opposed cuts in funding for family planning.) In so doing, we can counteract the misconception among policymakers that listening to Catholics means listening solely to the bishops, which is what happened during the healthcare reform debate. When Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders met with representatives of the USCCB, they were drafting "compromise" proposals with the very people whose fundamentalism does not recognize the value of compromise, and whose vision of reproductive rights does not see them as a "right" at all.
My Catholic conscience tells me that my pro-choice position is worth fighting for. But it also tells me that family planning shouldn't be a point of contention at all. Lawmakers of all political hues can come together to support access to contraception and comprehensive sexuality education. Family planning services make sense for all those who want to provide more options to women seeking to decide when and whether to have a child. They make sense for those who want to keep the government's involvement in healthcare to a minimum. And they make sense for those who think that it is the government's role to facilitate the healthcare decisions that people want to make. Above all, they make sense for a society that believes in freedom of religion -- a right one can't claim for oneself without extending it to one's neighbor. The bottom line is that promoting and providing contraception and comprehensive sexuality education services aren't an experiment -- they're the right thing to do.
This article originally appeared in The Revealer.
Follow Jon O'Brien on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Catholic4Choice
House Votes to Strip Planned Parenthood of Federal Funding - ABC News
Planned Parenthood Funding Blocked In House Vote
Planned Parenthood Funding Is Caught in Budget Feud - NYTimes.com
Scott Brown: Funding ban for Planned Parenthood "goes too far ...
Many Catholics employ and enjoy Natural Family Planning (NFP) which respects God's design for sex, marriage, and family. They've abandoned the empty promises of the "sexual revolutions" and gained a deeper understanding of their own sexuality and identity.
How this thread got hijacked by the ideology police is a mystery, but let's keep the issue clear: whether or not you are pro-life (as I am), or pro-choice (as many of you are), the article is about continuing to provide public funding for women's health services and family planning education.
If there is ANY FURTHER QUESTION about the issue, the federal government does NOT provide funding for abortion. DOES NOT. WILL NOT. MAY NOT. CAN NOT.
That said - how that Master's Tournament, huh ? And who the heck is Charl Schwartzel ? Been watching and playing golf my whole life...never heard of him.
Peace.
'kay ?
I'm a pro-choice Catholic. I believe in this because I believe the role of government is to allow people to live together without war. It's role is not to enforce one group's morality on another.
Yet forcing people who find abortion evil to pay for abortions at the point of a gun doesn't seem to be a good way to to achieve peaceful coexistence. If others believe in abortion, let them fund it themselves.
And killing an innocent person for your own convenience is Evil with a capital "E". I know of no ethical system that allows abortion for trivial reasons. Even those that don't believe life starts at conception believe the potential for life is there and should be honored.
You speak of a Catholic conscience, then you conflate issues and otherwise avoid the truth while spewing vile hatred against people unable to defend themselves. How does that work?
What does it mean to be Catholic? Anything goes?
Time to tax all churches to the hilt, especially the RCC which holds weapon as just slightly above chattel, and would not bat an eyelash in seeing gays and lesbians rounded up and put into concentration camps.
In trying to understand your "Catholic conscience" I was looking for two topics in your article:
* the child (in the womb)
* the Bible
.
The court had three choices.
It could deny standing which it did.
It could allow standing broadly, which would allow anyone to sue the government over it's spending choices. Thus, if I don't like General Electric, I could sue them because they receive federal money. I could argue there was no due process in the payments. I could examine G.E.'s books and hold their earnings hostage. Further so could you and everyone else in the world.
Finally the court could allow such suits only on religious grounds. Yet this itself would be an entanglement on religious grounds and is not allowed by the doctrine of separation of church and state.
So how do we solve this impasse? Luckily we have two other branches of government. The legislature could do their jobs and not vote money for religious purposes. Failing that the executive could refuse to pay such moneys. Then the religious groups would be forced to sue and standing is established.
That's how checks and balances work.
Evolution, or whatever you want to credit it to, made us *different*. Gave us something to strive for above and beyond food and shelter. Provided us with a motivation to invent, explore, dare, and create. You have to want to impress your fellows to do something like tame fire or paint your cave's walls.
The other animals don't have that motivation. During the brief time for reproduction everyone is willing/eager and the rest of the time contentment's name is a full belly.
But us ... we are interested all the time. Whether we are fertile or not. And in fact if you look at primitive humans we spent most of our time infertile. It's like aerobics instructors today that exercise so much that they stop having their periods. This happens if your body fat ratio is to low to safely become pregnant and studies of modern hunter/gatherer women show they do a lot of physical labor and eat food with low caloric value so they only have a couple periods a year and don't ovulate for all of them.
Which means their sex is primarily inspirational, not procreational.
Things went all wonky when we started farming as having lots to eat and not much to do over the winter shot our fertility through the roof. Hence agricultural religions' sexual hangups.
It's an odd argument for defunding Planned Parenthood, but I suppose it works sort of. I'm sure someone will come by and point out how unconvincing it is from a broader perspective.
It wasn't only Britain but most of Europe was also under the thumb of the RCC and their dogma. Religion has no place in the law of any land. If that's your choice, go to Iraq or any country that is run as a theocracy. If that's your desire, fine. Just don't drag it in by the hair here in the USA. The women's health issues are strictly because of religious fanaticism. It has to do with the belief of the Abrahamic and many other patriarchal religions that women are just for making babies, and supplying progeny.
It isn't pro life if the life and autonomy of the woman is ignored. It isn't pro life to add more unwanted and abused children for the sake of producing as many offspring as possible.If anyone is pro life it's the pro choicers who realize children aren't commodities like wheat, but human beings deserving of a loving home and a healthy and positive environment. They are not weeds.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then we had best think of aborting millions of protestants and their clergy who, like the Catholics, lobby congress for their pet projects. I would try to learn something more intellectually stimulating and which makes you think. Rather than getting your history from "The Tudors", and your religious instruction from the TV Guide, Sunday morning insults to one's intelligence aired by the TV preachers, and religious coloring books produced by evangelicals.
"The Tudors", is indeed very entertaining at times, but the English Reformation is far more complicated than you'll find in "The Tudors".
Let me clear your misconceptions and conclusion jumping as to my familiarity with the history of religions. I do not limit my knowledge to what is on TV. Excellent though it may be, "The Tudors" Is merely historical fiction. I base my conclusions on actual HISTORICAL facts about religion and its effects on society. You know nothing about where I get my KNOWLEDGE from. You probably are a dyed in the wool believer and wouldn't accept the truth of religion if it bit you on your nose.
Believe me, historically, the reality of how religions overpowered the masses, and how it affected the world is much worse than they could even show on television, even on cable. Or perhaps you know and the truth hurts. True factual history reveals the insidiousness of religions. Especially, but not exclusively, the Abrahamic beliefs. You can't ignore that, unless you choose to. So I leave you to your illusions. I have seen the reality and the veil is lifted from my eyes. Religions themselves are based on HISTORICAL FICTION.