Archive for the ‘Legislation’ Category

« Older Entries

On the Edge of the Abyss — Updated

Sunday, June 27th, 2010

New York State stands poised on the edge of an abyss.  Our State Legislature is contemplating enacting an evil law, called “The Reproductive Health Act”.  As with all acts of the Evil One, this bill is a lie.  It has nothing to do with the health of anyone’s reproductive system.

It is instead dedicated to the killing of unborn children, to enshrining that iniquitous practice in our laws to the maximum extent possible, and to forcing compliance with this monstrous practice by all citizens.

I have written about this bill before (see here), and the New York State Catholic Conference has an exhaustive analysis of the bill and an action alert to allow people to contact their legislators.  Anyone interested in the details of the bill should consult these sources, and consider what our legislators are on the verge of enacting.

For me, I would like to return to first principles, and contemplate the bigger picture.   We have to start talking seriously about the disturbing fact that the legal regime that permits abortion, and this bill in particular, undermine the nature of civil society itself, and call into question the fundamental legitimacy of our current system of laws.

In his great encyclical, The Gospel of Life, Pope John Paul had this to say:

The real purpose of civil law is to guarantee an ordered social coexistence in true justice, so that all may “lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way” (1 Tim 2:2). Precisely for this reason, civil law must ensure that all members of society enjoy respect for certain fundamental rights which innately belong to the person, rights which every positive law must recognize and guarantee. First and fundamental among these is the inviolable right to life of every innocent human being. (71)

Laws which authorize and promote abortion and euthanasia are therefore radically opposed not only to the good of the individual but also to the common good; as such they are completely lacking in authentic juridical validity. Disregard for the right to life, precisely because it leads to the killing of the person whom society exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good. Consequently, a civil law authorizing abortion or euthanasia ceases by that very fact to be a true, morally binding civil law. (72)

Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection…  In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to “take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it”. (73)

Lest anyone think for a moment that this is merely a Catholic sectarian position, allow me to add another quote, this time from a man who was not Catholic, and is considered so significant a figure in American history that his birthday is recognized as a federal holiday:

… [T]here are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all”

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.

Those words were written by Rev. Martin Luther King, in his famous “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”.

Make no mistake.  Legalized abortion has pushed America far into a Culture of Death.  The Reproductive Health Act would cast us even further into an abyss where death is celebrated, life is denigrated, good is called evil and evil good.

We must stand firm, and oppose this evil.

UPDATE –

The New York State Legislature adjourned on July 2 without taking any action on the Reproductive Health Act.  However, the state budget has not been finished and it is likely that the Legislature will return during the summer to finalize their fiscal negotiations.  As a result, it is still possible that RHA may be taken up by the Legislature when they return into session later this summer.  We need to be alert, since we may be called back into action on short notice.

Tags: ,
Posted in Abortion, Cult of Moloch, Legislation, State Legislature | No Comments »

Stop the Radical Reproductive Health Act!

Friday, June 18th, 2010

Our dysfunctional New York State Legislature, having failed for months in its fundamental duty to govern our state responsibly, is now threatening to ram through a radical pro-abortion bill, hoping that the public won’t notice.

The so-called “Reproductive Health Act”, which was first introduced by disgraced Governor Eliot Spitzer, and then adopted by Governor David Paterson, has languished in the State Senate for months, with no action imminent.  Now, on a Friday before the last week of the legislative session, it has been suddenly introduced in the Assembly, and may be pushed through the Legislature with virtually no consideration, public input, or debate.  Typical Albany shenanigans.

Make no mistake here.  This bill has nothing whatsoever to do with reproductive health.  It is an extremist pro-abortion bill that would establish the destruction of unborn human beings as a “fundamental right”, and make it impossible to pass common-sense regulations, like parental notification laws. It would also undermine or eliminate the conscience protections in law that protect religious liberties, under the guise of eliminating “discrimination” against the newly-recognized “fundamental right”. Church-owned hospitals, social service agencies, and schools could be required to promote, perform, or refer for abortions. Our schools could be required to help pregnant girls to get an abortion, or risk being sued for “discrimination”. And the licenses of doctors, nurses, and other professionals could be at risk if they don’t promote, perform or refer for abortions.  More information about the bill can be found on the New York State Catholic Conference’s website.

Any legislator who votes for this bill will not be able to hide behind the phony rubric of being “pro-choice”.  This bill is pro-abortion, pure and simple, and would compel every part of society to acquiesce in the legal regime that refuses to recognize the most fundamental right, the right to life, for unborn children.

The Catholic Conference is calling upon everyone who values human life to immediately contact their State Senator and Assembly Representative.  The easiest way is to send an e-mail through the Catholic Conference web site.  Phone calls should also be made; representatives’ phone numbers can be found on the Catholic Conference’s website.

Please don’t let the State Legislature get away with this injustice.  Take action now.  Spread the word.  And pray.

Tags: ,
Posted in Abortion, Legislation, State Legislature | 3 Comments »

Misguided “Personhood” Initiatives

Thursday, May 6th, 2010

In a number of states, pro-lifers are sponsoring what they call “personhood” initiatives — either legislation or state constitutional amendments that they claim will overturn Roe v. Wade and grant legal protection to the unborn. Unfortunately, this is a well-intentioned but legally and tactically misguided strategy.

We need to recall the state of the law. The Supreme Court held in Roe v. Wade, and has upheld in every subsequent abortion decision, that an unborn child is not a “person” who is entitled to protection by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and that a woman’s right to an abortion is protected by that same Fourteenth Amendment. Obviously, I believe that this is an awful miscarriage of justice, but that’s the law as it stands.

Because the federal constitution is the supreme law of the land (see Article VI of the Constitution), the Supreme Court’s rulings on abortion override all state laws or constitutions.  Congress cannot overrule a Supreme Court decision interpreting the Constitution. Nor can a Supreme Court decision interpreting the federal constitution be overruled by state constitutional amendments or legislation. Only a federal constitutional amendment (e.g., the Human Life Amendment) or a subsequent Supreme Court decision can overrule the holding in Roe that an unborn child is not a “person” within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

As a result, “personhood” bills like the federal “Sanctity of Human Life Act” or the “Life at Conception Act” simply cannot accomplish what their sponsors desire — they cannot overturn Roe v. Wade by simply defining an unborn child as a “person” under the Fourteenth Amendment.  The same holds true for similar state constitutional amendments that are being proposed around the nation.  I wish it were otherwise, but there it is.

We also have to consider the state of the judiciary. Some people are proposing these “personhood” initiatives as a way of starting a case that will challenge the Supreme Court to overturn Roe. The problem with this approach is two-fold.

First, no justice who has ever sat on the Supreme Court has ever given any indication that he or she would hold that an unborn child is a “person” under the Fourteenth Amendment. In fact, only two justices currently on the Court have ever said that they would overrule Roe on any grounds (Justices Scalia and Thomas). Even if we assume (without any factual foundation) that Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito would also vote to overrule Roe, there’s no indication that they would support the “personhood” theory.  In any event it would still not be enough — you need five votes, and there just isn’t another Justice on the Court who would vote to overrule Roe. Second, the result of this strategy will almost certainly make things even worse.  Instead of overturning Roe, a case involving a “personhood” law would likely produce an even stronger Supreme Court decision upholding the right to abortion, either by affirming Roe on the non-personhood of the unborn, or (God forbid!) by holding that abortion rights are necessary to ensure women’s equal status in society, based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Justice Ginsburg’s favorite rationale for abortion rights).

On the whole, I believe that these “personhood” initiatives are a distraction from practical, achievable ways that we can reduce abortions and increase legal protection for the unborn. Parental notification, limits on public funding, and fetal homicide/assault bills are far more profitable ways for the pro-life movement to spend our time. We have to use these kinds of bills to build an authentic pro-life culture, so that a real Human Life Amendment, or a pro-life Supreme Court, becomes politically possible.

So, while I fully respect the intentions of those who promote “personhood” bills or amendments, I would not endorse or support them, or encourage anyone else to do so.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Abortion, Law, Legislation, Pro-Life, Supreme Court | 4 Comments »

What Are You Supporting?

Tuesday, August 11th, 2009

It is simple common sense that when you support a piece of legislation, you are supporting what the bill will actually do. It doesn’t matter what your private motives are, or even what your long-term goals are. If you support a bill, you support what it will do.

This is relevant because another of those “common ground to reduce abortions” bills has been introduced in Congress, and a number of Catholics have announced their support for it.

This time, it’s the so-called “Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act.” (H.R.3312). The Pro-Life Secretariat of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops calls the bill “the Planned Parenthood Economic Stimulus Package of 2009″. I prefer the name the “Phony Baloney Common Ground Pretend to Reduce Abortion by Throwing Obscene Gobs of Money at the Temple of Moloch, er, I mean Planned Parenthood, so They Can Flood the World With Contraceptives and Degrading Sex Education Act”. It’s a little long, but it captures the essence of the thing.

Like it or not, and regardless of their motives, here is what the backers of this bill are supporting:

  • A requirement that all states pay for all abortions for low-income women through “family planning” and Medicaid programs — despite the fact that the clearest way to reduce abortions is to restrict public funding for them, and the best way to increase abortions is to pay for them.
  • A massive increase funding for the federal Title X Family Planning Program — despite the fact that the bulk of this money goes to the largest abortion “provider” in the United States, Planned Parenthood, we already spend over $1 billion on this program, and Title X requires that teenagers receive contraceptives without parental knowledge or consent.
  • Relying almost exclusively on contraceptives to reduce pregnancy — despite the fact that it has been documented that such a strategy does not reduce pregnancy or abortions, but rather increases them.
  • Making family planning services a mandatory Medicaid entitlement in all states, and greatly expanding family planning eligibility under Medicaid — despite the fact that there is hardly a shortage of contraceptives in the United States (New York City’s Health Department gives out over a million free condoms each month!).
  • Increased funding for indecent sex education programs that do more to corrupt the morals of minors than encourage them to abstain from sex until marriage. In fact, the bill doesn’t even mention the word “abstinence”, and it says absolutely nothing about reserving sex for marriage, but instead merely talks about teaching teens to “delay” sex (until when, senior prom?).
  • Encourages even more grants to “nonprofit community” groups to do sex education — which is to say, throw more money at Planned Parenthood so they can sell more contraceptives and do more abortions when they fail.

Look, “common ground” is a nice place to be, and it’s encouraging that people want to reduce the number of abortions. Plus, the bill does have some good elements, such as support for adoption, expansion of prenatal and neonatal health care, and support for nutrition programs. But those good elements — without the bad stuff — are already present in a genuine pro-life bill that will likely result in real reductions in abortion, the “Pregnant Women Support Act”.

Remember, you have to look carefully at what it is you’re supporting. Good ends can never justify evil means. The “Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act” uses evil means, funds evil organizations, and is likely to have evil results.

No Catholic in good conscience can support such a bill.

Posted in Abortion, Congress, Contraception, Legislation | No Comments »

A Pilgrimage for Marriage

Wednesday, June 10th, 2009

Another early morning departure. Pouring rain. A long trip up and back. Another pilgrimage to Albany.

On Tuesday, I traveled to our state capital to participate in the Rally for Marriage — to show our Legislature that we oppose efforts to re-define marriage, in particular to oppose the legalization of same-sex “marriage”. This event was sponsored by New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, a very active evangelical organization that has long been an ally of the Church’s on issues like the defense of human life and family.

Through the generosity of my brothers in the Knights of Columbus, the Family Life Office was able to offer two free buses to the Rally. The buses quickly filled, as people were eager to have the chance to make their position known to the Legislature.

Virtually every time I have traveled to Albany for these kinds of events, it rains, snows, ices, etc. That’s God’s way of reminding me that discipleship has its costs, and that pilgrimages shouldn’t be easy.

Yet, despite the rain and the early start, the bus ride was actually very pleasant. The company was good — I was lucky enough to sit with a very fine priest, and right near two of the Sisters of Life and two of the Friars of the Renewal. The lay people on the bus were enthusiastic and happy.

Most of the upbeat atmosphere came from prayer. We started the day off with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and we prayed the Divine Office (Morning Prayer and the Office of Readings) and the Rosary on the bus. On the way home, we watched a very entertaining soap opera-like film about the life of St. Rita of Cascia.

That was particularly appropriate, since we were going to Albany, which many consider to be a hopeless case.

I would be happy to explain to you what was going on in Albany on Tuesday, the day after the bizarre coup that may have resulted in a change in leadership in the Senate. However, I am not a science fiction writer, so I couldn’t do the subject justice. Suffice it to say that nobody knows what’s going on, who’s going to lead the Senate, what their agenda is, or what it means for the bills we’re concerned about. Chaos reigns.

For our part, though, we were there to witness to our faith in God and our commitment to defend marriage. And that we did. The rally was led by a series of evangelical preachers, and it was really something to hear them testifying to their faith on the steps of the Capitol, the sounds reverberating off of the surrounding buildings as if echoing back the “Amens”. Maggie Gallagher, the national leader in the defense of marriage, also spoke. The crowd was bid, it was a real rainbow coalition of races, sexes and faiths. And God, having tested us with the rain on the way up, blessed us with good weather during the rally.

Afterwards, we went over to the Capitol building and my fellow pilgrims visited their legislators’ offices. It was amazing to me, cynic that I am, to see the fresh enthusiasm on their faces as they got ready to speak the truth to power, and their happiness in having had the opportunity to do God’s work in such a place.

Of course, one trip to Albany isn’t enough to get this message across, and I urge everyone to contact their State Senator through the Catholic Advocacy Network. We have to keep the effort going — one rally isn’t enough.

Albany during legislative session can be a depressing, dispiriting place. The game is played in the corners, all the angles are used, and people have sharp elbows. Sometimes you wonder what kind of luck Abraham would have had in finding ten righteous men in the city.

But that didn’t matter to the pilgrims that day. The rain meant nothing. The fatigue of a long day and the long bus ride didn’t matter. There was authentic joy among the travelers. God was with us, and we were speaking His truth in fidelity.

It was a good day. Thank you, God, for giving us such an opportunity.

Posted in Knights of Columbus, Legislation, Same-Sex "Marriage", State Legislature | No Comments »

Do They Really Want to Reduce Abortions?

Tuesday, May 26th, 2009

Much ink has been spilled about the President’s expressed desire to find “common ground about abortion”. He even delegated a staff member to conduct outreach to pro-life groups to discuss strategies.

Well, as I’ve pointed out before, you have to look carefully at what the President and his Administration are actually doing or planning to do, and not just at the rhetoric.

Recently, the head of Conservative Women for America attended one of the meetings that are part of this “common ground” effort. She reported that, in an unguarded moment, the Administration’s point woman (who just so happens to be a former board member of Emily’s List, the pro-abortion PAC) inadvertently gave the game away: “It is not our goal to reduce the number of abortions… [the goal is to] reduce the need for abortions.”

Finally, some straight talk from the Administration about its true goals.

Read that statement and let it sink in a bit.

Note the subtle difference in language, and understand the huge practical difference. The President’s plan is not to reduce the number of abortions. Instead, the Administration apparently intends to rely on the failed and damaging policy of flooding the nation with contraceptives while keeping abortion as a back-stop as the contraception of last resort. That policy is anti-life from start to finish.

Here’s the proof. The President, when he was in Congress, co-sponsored the so-called “Prevention First Act”. His Administration supports the bill now. This bill is basically the Planned Parenthood wish list. It would provide the following:

  • Hundreds of millions of dollars for Title X Family Planning programs, the bulk of which goes to Planned Parenthood;
  • Requirements that all employer insurance plans include contraceptive coverage (with no exceptions for religious employers (so much for the President’s respect for conscience rights);
  • Wide promotion of the abortifacient “emergency contraception”;
  • Finding for “prevention programs”, with a specific exclusion of abstinence-only initiatives, leaving wicked Planned Parenthood-style sex education programs as the only ones that will qualify — this despite the clear proof that states that fund abstinence lessons have a lower abortion rate than states that do not.

Further proof — the Administration does not support the Pregnant Women’s Support Act, which would actually reduce the number of abortions by encouraging adoption and supporting those women who will carry their babies to term.

Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City-St. Joseph, had this to say recently about the Administration’s strategy:

I fear that the specific way that the President frames this in terms of “reducing unintended pregnancies” is through the promotion of Planned Parenthood and contraceptive services… This is not about abstinence education. This is about promoting contraception and giving Planned Parenthood a huge blank check. If Catholics don’t see a problem with this then I don’t think they understand the threat it represents to the meaning of marriage, to fidelity, to chastity, to the very sanctity of human life and intimate love.

If the Administration continues down this path, a great opportunity will have been lost to unite people behind an effort to reduce the number of children killed by abortion and women and men scarred by their experience.

Posted in Abortion, Legislation, President | No Comments »

Thanks for Breaking Your Promise

Friday, May 1st, 2009

Usually, we are outraged when a politician breaks a campaign promise. We feel betrayed, or even a little used. But this week brought an instance of a politician breaking a strong campaign promise, and I’m grateful.

You may recall that in the early stages of his campaign, the President spoke to the Cult of Moloch, er, I mean the supporters of Planned Parenthood. He told them that “the first thing I’d do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.” In fact, the President had been a sponsor of the Freedom of Choice Act, or FOCA, while he was in the Senate, so this commitment was entirely in character.

The thing is that FOCA is a very radical pro-abortion bill that:

  • would go much further than current Supreme Court or State laws and would declare abortion a “fundamental right.”
  • would ensure that abortion is legal through all nine months of pregnancy, for any reason.
  • would make abortion immune from any reasonable state regulation such as parental notification or informed consent requirements, or bans on partial birth abortions.
  • could force all hospitals to provide abortions and contraceptives, including religious hospitals and others whose mission statements oppose it.
  • would force all insurance plans, including those of Catholic employers, to cover abortion and sterilization.
  • would force all other Catholic institutions that have state licenses (i.e., our charitable and educational institutions) to counsel and refer for abortions, sterilization and contraception.
  • could endanger the state licenses of medical and other professionals who do not wish to perform, counsel or refer for abortion, sterilization or abortion.

The President’s promise to sign FOCA energized pro-lifers across the country, and Congressional offices and the White House have been deluged with postcards, letters, emails, and calls opposing it. Here in the Archdiocese, we’ve collected thousands of postcards opposing FOCA and it’s New York State counterpart, the Reproductive Health Act (RHAPP).

Well, somebody at the White House must have been keeping their ear to the ground, because at his press conference the other night, the President stated that FOCA “is not my highest legislative priority.”

Thanks for breaking that promise, Mr. President.

Now, this doesn’t mean that we’re out of danger. There are serious concerns that the Administration and Congress will try to enact FOCA piecemeal, and we’re still very worried about the New York State RHAPP bill.

Nor does this transform the President into a pro-lifer. He’s still in favor of the gross injustice of abortion on demand. He opposes all reasonable regulations on abortion that most Americans support. He has appointed a team of pro-abortion activists to key policy positions. He has made promotion of abortion a key feature of American foreign aid policy. He has moved to remove important protections for the right to conscience for those who oppose abortion. He has committed to using abortion rights as a litmus test for appointing federal judges. He is not a pro-lifer by any stretch of the imagination. Make no mistake. He is firmly and 100% pro-abortion.

But it’s nice that he broke this promise. Maybe he can break some more just like it.

Posted in Abortion, Legislation, President | No Comments »

Junk Journalism from Time Magazine

Friday, February 20th, 2009

Just in case anyone on Earth still thinks that Time magazine is unbiased in its news coverage, they have published a “news” story that puts any such doubts to rest permanently.

The story is titled “The Catholic Crusade Against a Mythical Abortion Bill” (why is it always a “crusade” when we do something that the cultural mandarins don’t like?). It’s written by Time’s “National Editor” (so you know it must be a big deal), and purports to be a news story/analysis of the Catholic bishops’ national postcard campaign against the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) and related pro-abortion legislation.

In reality, it is a propaganda hit piece that holds tight to the pro-abortion party line that FOCA is a mirage of our own creation, pushed just to raise money for the bishops and pro-lifers. The story is so chock full of howling factual errors that wouldn’t pass muster in a Journalism 101 class. For example, it claims that FOCA was first introduced in 2003, when it was actually placed before Congress as far back as 1989. It claims that FOCA would merely write the provisions of Roe v. Wade into law, when in fact everyone who has analyzed the bill — including its proponents — realizes that it goes far beyond Roe, Casey, or any of the Supreme Court’s rulings on abortion. It claims that the USCCB started its postcard campaign only after the President’s inauguration, and in response to an anonymous chain email. That’s preposterous — the bishops approved this campaign back in November, and it’s been spoken about publicly by USCCB and other pro-lifers since then. The article even claim that the President has given pro-lifers “little evidence” that he’s the most pro-abortion president ever — so I guess we’re just supposed to forget about the overturning of the Mexico City Policy, all of his appointments of ardent pro-abortion people to key positions, the imminent reversal of the stem cell policy, and the fact that he and the First Lady recently met with the leader of Planned Parenthood (and other “progressive” interest groups) and told them that they would be essential in promoting his agenda.

The article even got an elementary cultural reference wrong. It referred to the bill as “the dog that didn’t bark”, meaning that there’s no threat there. Well, that’s a completely off-based reference to a Sherlock Holmes story (“Silver Blaze”), in which the dog’s failure to bark is a critically important clue that leads to the identification of a murderer — he didn’t bark because he recognized the killer. It was not evidence that nothing was happening. (I only make a big deal out of this because I’m a Holmes buff, but if you’re a National Editor, and you’re going to make a cultural reference in a story, you should get it right, no?)

The article also alleges that there’s nothing to worry about because the bill hasn’t even been introduced in Congress yet. Leave aside for a second the fact that it’s only a month into the latest term. Was the author not paying attention while the huge and complex “stimulus” bill was introduced, amended, passed, negotiated between House and Senate, passed again and signed into law, all in a matter of a couple of weeks? Are we supposed to wait until the President is ready to sign the bill before we come out against it? Remember, last year Candidate Obama told Planned Parenthood that signing FOCA would the the first thing he did as President. If it’s such a “mythical bill”, then why does the Cult of Moloch — NARAL and Planned Parenthood — support it?

Even by basic journalistic standards, the article fails. They somehow lost their Washington phone book so they couldn’t figure out how to reach anyone at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops — an organization that is not that hard to find — or any other pro-lifer to talk about the postcard initiative or the bill itself. But they did manage to find some spokesman for a “Catholic” pro-Moloch, er, I mean “pro-choice”, group to say all the expected nonsense.

Look, we’re used to this kind of stuff by now. The mainstream media looks upon pro-lifers — especially faithful, orthodox Catholic pro-lifers — as dangerous and weird specimens with a variety of lingering mental illnesses.

That’s fine. But don’t insult our intelligence with junk journalism like this.

Posted in Abortion, Legislation, Media | No Comments »

The Threat of FOCA to Religious Liberty

Thursday, January 29th, 2009

There is an argument going around right now by some uninformed persons — and some people with an agenda — that alleges that pro-lifers are playing “Chicken Little” about the Freedom of Choice Act. They are saying that FOCA would not be a threat to the conscience rights of Catholic institutions, and that it is false to say that Catholic hospitals might have to close if FOCA becomes the law of the land.

Actually, the threat of FOCA is very real, and cannot be so easily brushed away.

FOCA is a very far-reaching bill. It would change current law by establishing a “fundamental right” to abortion before viability for any reason, and for reasons of the mother’s life and health after viability. It would prohibit any level of government from “discriminat[ing] against the exercise of [the right to an abortion] in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information”. Note that FOCA’s definition of “government” would encompass not just federal agencies, but also states, cities, counties, and local school districts; no public agency or institution would be exempt, and all would be required to enforce it. It also has a provision that ensures that all previous laws or regulations are superseded — no currently existing laws would remain valid if they conflict with FOCA.

Remember also that federal law supersedes all inconsistent state laws, thanks to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. As a result, all federal and state conscience protection laws that conflict with FOCA would be void.

Here’s what this means for institutions and individuals. All state licensing and regulatory decisions would have to ensure that there is no “discrimination ” against the “fundamental right” to abortion declared by FOCA. Hospitals, social service agencies, and schools could all lose their tax exempt status and operating licenses if they refuse to perform, refer for, or provide information about abortion. Medicaid and Medicare won’t be permitted to reimburse hospitals that “discriminate” against abortion, so they’ll go broke. Medical, social service and education professionals who choose not to be involved in abortion for religious or moral reasons could also be denied state licenses or subject to professional disciplinary actions. FOCA would also would require state governments to ensure that all health insurance plans do not “discriminate” against abortion, so even the Church would have to pay for abortion for their employees.

FOCA would leave Catholic institutions and individuals defenseless against these threats.

There’s a legitimate argument over whether FOCA has any chance of passing Congress any time soon. But there’s no question of the reality of the threat.

Posted in Abortion, Congress, Legislation, Religious Liberty | No Comments »

Let’s Keep Our Eyes on the Ball

Tuesday, December 9th, 2008

Hardly a day goes by any more without me receiving one of those emails. No, not the ones you’re thinking of, although occasionally one of those slips through the spam filter.

I’m talking about the emails that call me to action because the President-elect is actually NOT AN AMERICAN CITIZEN (caps in original, of course). Or the ones that breathlessly denounce the bishops for supporting their own Campaign for Human Development because the recipients of some of the grants turn out to be left-wing community organizing groups that — horrors! — favor Democrats. Or the ones urging me to drop everything and oppose some piece of legislation or another that has been introduced in one of the houses of the New York legislature, and don’t I know what horrible things will ensue! Or the ones reminding me that the head of a major pro-life organization has denounced a pro-life newspaper and a religious community known for loyalty to the Church, because he thinks they are now “part of the problem” since they dared to call for civility in dealing with the incoming President.

Sorry, but I’m not biting. I can’t handle so many distractions. We need to do “issue triage” and work on the most urgent issues, leaving others aside for the time being. As I see them, here are the priorities:

1. The “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA), and its New York State equivalent, the “Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection Act” (RHAPP) — These extremist bills would go far beyond the horrors of Roe v. Wade and make it impossible to pass any reasonable regulation of abortion. They would also endanger the freedom of conscience of Catholic hospitals and health care workers.
2. Same-sex “marriage” — This would transform the traditional understanding of marriage to include relationships that are not rooted in the natural complementarity of the sexes, and would permanently de-link human sexuality from the procreation and education of children. It would also inevitably threaten religious liberty by coercing religious people and institutions into recognizing these unions.
3. Waiving the Statute of Limitations — This bill would permit lawsuits by victims of clerical sexual abuse, even though their claims are so old that the law would otherwise prohibit them, if they had been brought against any other defendant (which is made clear by the fact that all public institutions — like public schools — are exempt from this bill). Make no mistake — this bill is a direct, targeted attack on the Catholic Church, and would threaten to bankrupt our dioceses, parishes, and institutions.

Just for the record, in my opinion, the ludicrous and baseless “President-elect isn’t a citizen” stories should be relegated to the fever swamps of the Internet where the UFO enthusiasts reside. Sure, I wish the Campaign for Human Development would support other groups — maybe some pro-life ones would be nice — but I’m not consulted about that (or about much else, to tell you the truth); if I don’t like the recipients, I should withhold my donation. Yes, there are lots of bad bills out there, but I can’t fight them all. And no, I refuse to go along with pro-life “friendly fire” incidents that only sap morale and give aid and comfort to the enemy.

The fact of the matter is that we are at war. We cannot fight every battle. We must concentrate our forces on the most significant strategic threats, not on side shows. We’re out-numbered, out-gunned, and out-moneyed by our opposition. We can’t afford to be distracted.

So, please don’t send those emails around any more, and please focus on the most important issues.

The game is at stake. We need to keep our eyes on the ball.

Posted in Abortion, Congress, Legislation, Religious Liberty, State Legislature | No Comments »

« Older Entries