Contraception, Politics, and Culture

Catholics have been energized politically since the revelation of the religious-liberty-destroying HHS mandate forcing contraception coverage in violation of the consciences of Catholic employers. While it is clear to most orthodox Catholics, some Protestants, and those well-versed in Constitutional law that the HHS mandate is abhorrent, it is equally clear that nominal Catholics, other Protestants, and secular society see no problem with contraception as health care.

There is something to be said for winning small battles, and for winning political battles, and I certainly don’t want Catholics or the Bishops to let up their pressure on the Obama administration for forcing its mandate on us. I think it is shortsighted, though, to see the endgame as simply overturning the mandate; similarly, I don’t think it suffices to express our dissent from the mandate as simply because “it violates our first amendment rights.” A huge proportion of the population not only doesn’t see anything wrong with contraception, but considers it a great good for society. I imagine most of these people think it is just as odd for Catholics to be against contraception as it is for the Amish to be against electricity. Therefore, we need to not only explain why we are against the contraception mandate, but why we are against contraception itself (which T&C bloggers have done many times; some examples are here, here, and here).

In discussions among faithful Catholics about contraception, the point usually gets made that we do not hear enough about the evils of contraception from the pulpit. Not being a priest myself, I can only speculate on why this might be: 1) some priests do not know (I can’t imagine) or 2) do not agree with the Church’s teaching, continuing the “tradition” of dissent from Humanae Vitae, but the most likely reason seems to be that 3) priests do not want to alienate their flock, the vast majority of whom (they assume) buy into the secular mindset that contraception is kosher.
Why would priests assume this? Well, again, in discussions among faithful Catholics about contraception, the point also usually gets made that “90% of Catholics contracept.” It isn’t clear where this high percentage comes from, but our priests deserve to know about recent polls that refute it. Matt mentioned one a while ago, and Emily at CatholicVote mentioned another last week:

The data confirms that most Catholic women do not fully support the Church’s teachings on contraception and natural family planning. However, Catholic women who regularly participate in the Church’s sacramental life (Mass and Confession) agree with the teachings on contraception and family planning in significantly higher numbers than women overall. Moreover, many Catholic women express partial agreement with these teachings and show encouraging receptivity to learning more about them. This receptivity offers the Church a previously unrealized opportunity to communicate those teachings more persuasively and effectively…

Our data suggests that the Church might do well to focus pastoral outreach on the “soft middle,” women who neither embrace the Church’s teaching on contraception, nor reject it out of hand. A strong plurality (44%) of church-going women express a nuanced view of Church teachings, saying they accept “parts” but “not all” of the teaching on contraception. These women embrace their faith (90% overall say their Catholic faith is an important part of daily life) and few show hardened opposition to the Church’s authority (just 18% say their partial rejection of the Church’s teaching is because they do not accept the Church’s moral authority on these issues).

Fifty-three percent of weekly Mass-goers who accept parts but not all of Church teaching indicate some openness to learning more about the Church teachings on contraception. And two-thirds (67%) of these receptive women are already connected in some way to parish life. In short, they are reachable, given the right message and approach. The most persuasive messages may be more practical and benefits-oriented than spiritual or authoritative. Women show interest in hearing testimonies from other couples on the health and relationship benefits of natural family planning (23%) and natural family planning’s effectiveness (22%). They also indicate interest in a doctor’s recommendation of natural family planning and its effectiveness (23%) and studies that show natural family planning is highly effective (22%).

The research doesn’t paint the rosiest of pictures; Catholics have not been immune from the sexual licentiousness our culture has been bent on promoting for the past half-century. But I think the following conclusions can certainly be made:

1. If priests do not talk to their congregations about contraception, the culture will. I can’t imagine another issue of Church teaching where priests would defer to the majority opinion on the matter. The culture doesn’t seem too keen on accepting that Jesus is really present in the Eucharist or that he was God as well as man, but no priest would back down on these teachings. While every priest would promote the eighth commandment, what is contraception if not lying with one’s body?
2. The people in the pews every week are a much more sympathetic audience than priests may think. Even if a large proportion of Catholics use contraception (which is disputed), the proportion falls dramatically when you look at regular Mass attendees. And even among those who don’t fully agree with the Church’s teaching, many are open to hearing more.
3. Educating the parish is not just the priests’ job. The laity, who may have more medical knowledge or practical experience with NFP and the side-effects of contraception, need to step up as educators, mentors, and friends for those who struggle with the Church’s teaching or with using Natural Family Planning.

So be emboldened, priest-readers of T&C. Many in the pews agree with the Church’s teaching on contraception, many want to hear more about the Church’s teaching on contraception, and very few adamantly disagree with it. Don’t be concerned that some may think  “this saying is hard; who can accept it?” When you preach on this subject, you will be preaching to the choir but the choir will thank you for it.

Posted by Tim Shaughnessy on Sep 10, 2012 in The Faith

Truth and Charity 

Abortion Laws for Teens by State

Here is a list of abortion standards, state by state.

Abortion Laws for Teens by State

 

 http://parentingteens.about.com/od/teenpregfact/a/abortion_laws.htm 

A Picture is Worth 1000 Words

"I know a former pro-choice nurse who was converted to a pro-life position after seeing premature babies being frantically saved by a medical team in one room, while down the hall, babies the same age were being aborted."

  ~Randy Alcorn

 

Aborted Human Fetal Tissue Used By PepsiCo, Kraft, and Nestle

The Obama Administration has given its blessing to PepsiCo to continue utilizing the services of a company that produces flavor chemicals for the beverage giant using aborted human fetal tissue. LifeSiteNews.com reports that the Obama Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) has decided that PepsiCo's arrangement with San Diego, Cal.-based Senomyx, which produces flavor enhancing chemicals for Pepsi using human embryonic kidney tissue, simply constitutes "ordinary business operations."

The issue began in 2011 when the non-profit group Children of God for Life (CGL) first broke the news about Pepsi's alliance with Senomyx, which led to massive outcry and a worldwide boycott of Pepsi products. At that time, it was revealed that Pepsi had many other options at its disposal to produce flavor chemicals, which is what its competitors do, but had instead chosen to continue using aborted fetal cells -- or as Senomyx deceptively puts it, "isolated human taste receptors"

A few months later, Pepsi' shareholders filed a resolution petitioning the company to "adopt a corporate policy that recognizes human rights and employs ethical standards which do not involve using the remains of aborted human beings in both private and collaborative research and development agreements." But the Obama Administration shut down this 36-page proposal, deciding instead that Pepsi's used of aborted babies to flavor its beverage products is just business as usual, and not a significant concern.

"We're not talking about what kind of pencils PepsiCo wants to use -- we are talking about exploiting the remains of an aborted child for profit," said Debi Vinnedge, Executive Director of CGL, concerning the SEC decision. "Using human embryonic kidney (HEK-293) to produce flavor enhancers for their beverages is a far cry from routine operations!"

To be clear, the aborted fetal tissue used to make Pepsi's flavor chemicals does not end up in the final product sold to customers, according to reports -- it is used, instead, to evaluate how actual human taste receptors respond to these chemical flavorings. But the fact that Pepsi uses them at all when viable, non-human alternatives are available illustrates the company's blatant disregard for ethical and moral concerns in the matter.

Back in January, Oklahoma Senator Ralph Shortey proposed legislation to ban the production of aborted fetal cell-derived flavor chemicals in his home state. If passed, S.B. 1418 would also reportedly ban the sale of any products that contain flavor chemicals derived from human fetal tissue, which includes Pepsi products as well as products produced by Kraft and Nestle

(http://www.naturalnews.com).

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/035276_Pepsi_fetal_cells_business_operations.html#ixzz1s07TanhM

First Lawsuit From Business Owner Challenges Obama HHS Mandate

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 3/15/12 12:02 PM

A first-of-a-kind federal lawsuit has been filed against the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on behalf of a business owner who contends the HHS contraceptive mandate violates his constitutionally-protected religious beliefs.


While most of the attention on the controversial new mandate has been focused on religious groups who are opposed to the Obama mandate forcing them to pay for birth control and drugs that may cause abortions for their employees, this new lawsuit brings attention to religious employers who are not running church or church-related organizations.

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a pro-life legal organization that focuses on constitutional law, file the lawsuit on behalf of the Missouri employer. The lawsuit also requests that the court issue a permanent injunction prohibiting the HHS from requiring those who have religious objections to abide by the mandate, which requires employers to purchase health insurance for their employees that includes coverage for contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs.

The ACLJ represents Frank R. O’Brien and O’Brien Industrial Holdings, LLC (OIH) – a holding company based in St. Louis, Missouri. O’Brien is chairman of OIH which operates a number of businesses that explore, mine, and process refractory and ceramic raw materials, with its products going to more than 40 countries.

The lawsuit marks the first legal challenge to the HHS mandate from a private business owner and his company. Until now, only religious organizations or institutions have brought lawsuits challenging the mandate.

“The HHS mandate would require business people like our client to leave their religious beliefs at home every day as a condition of doing business in our society,” said Francis J. Manion, Senior Counsel of the ACLJ who is representing O’Brien. “The HHS mandate tells people like Frank O’Brien that they have to choose between conducting their business in a manner consistent with their moral values, or conducting their business in a manner consistent with the government’s values. The constitution does not allow the government to impose such a choice.”

O’Brien, a Catholic, says his religious beliefs provide the framework for the operation of his businesses, which employ 87 people. The company website states the OIH mission “is to make our labor a pleasing offering to the Lord while enriching our families and society.” OIH’s statement of the company’s values begins with the following: “Integrity. Our conduct is guided by the Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments. We will not discriminate based on anyone’s personal belief system.”
O’Brien also has implemented a variety of company-participating programs to assist employees in purchasing homes, saving for the college education of their children, and being able to retire.
The lawsuit contends that the HHS mandate “imposes a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion by coercing Plaintiffs to choose between conducting their business in accordance with their religious beliefs or paying substantial penalties to the government.”

Manion rejects criticism that opposition to the mandate somehow prohibits others from obtaining insurance coverage they desire.

“O’Brien and other people of faith aren’t looking to stand in the way of anybody’s access to anything,” said Manion. “They just don’t want the government forcing them to pay for services that go against their sincerely-held beliefs. The State of Missouri has its own ‘contraceptives mandate,’ but, unlike the Obama Administration’s Department of HHS, Missouri respects and protects those employers, like Frank O’Brien, with religious objections. There is no good reason why the federal government couldn’t — and shouldn’t – do the same. The Constitution, in fact, demands nothing less.”

The lawsuit, posted here, asks the court to declare that the HHS mandate violates the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The suit also requests the court to issue a permanent injunction to halt implementation of the HHS mandate for those who have religious objections.

 

The lawsuit names as defendants, the Department of Health and Human Services and Secretary Sebelius; the Department of the Treasury and Secretary Geithner; and the Department of Labor and Secretary Solis. The ACLJ is being assisted in this lawsuit by the Fidelis Center for Law and Policy, a Chicago-based educational and advocacy group.

 

Polling data shows Americans are strongly opposed to the Obama mandate. A February Rasmussen Reports national telephone surveyfinds 38 percent of likely voters think health insurance companies should be required by law to cover the morning after pill without co-payments or other charges to the patient. But 50 percent of Americans disagree and oppose this requirement while 13 percent are undecided.

 

Also in February, a CNN survey indicated half of Americans oppose the new mandate pro-abortion President Barack Obama put in place that requires religious employers to pay for birth control or drugs that can cause abortions.

 

The new Obama mandate that requires religious groups to pay for birth control and drugs that may cause abortions for their employees could result in fines as much as $2,000 per employee or $100 each day if they refuse to comply.

Despite a vote in the Senate against overturning it, nation’s Catholic bishops and leading pro-life groups vow to continue fighting the Obama mandate that forces religious employers to pay for birth control and drugs that may cause abortion.

The mandate has already become the subject of several lawsuits.

Tell Obama: Stop This Pro-Abortion Mandate
Meanwhile, more than a dozen state attorneys general have signed onto a joint letter Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning started coordinating  against the controversial Obama mandate requiring religious employers to cover birth control and drugs that can cause abortions
Bruning has contacted each of his colleagues in 49 states and has already been joined by a dozen, including South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. Together, the three lawmakers have co-signed a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebilius, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis over the Obama mandate.

Also, the largest Catholic pro-life group and Catholic television station have filed suit against the new Obama mandate that forces religious employers like them to pay for birth control and abortion-causing drugs in employee health insurance. The EWTN Global Catholic Network filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Birmingham, Alabama against the Department of Health & Human Services, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and other government agencies seeking to stop the imposition of the anti-conscience mandate as well as asking the court for a declaratory judgment that the mandate is unconstitutional.

Priests for Life, a New York based international pro-life organization of Catholic clergy and laity, filed a lawsuit against the Obama Administration in an effort to seek injunctive relief from impending regulations that would require the organization to pay for employee health insurance that covers abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization.

The Obama administration asked a federal court to dismiss yet another lawsuit filed against the Obama administration over its mandate.

This was its first opportunity to explain to the court and the country why the mandate is not illegal and unconstitutional. The Obama administration did not defend the constitutionality of the mandate, but said the lawsuit should be thrown out because the administration plans to revise the mandate to make it on insurance companies to pay for coverage rather than employers, who will still have to make referrals.

“Plaintiff’s challenge to the preventive services coverage regulations is not fit for judicial review because defendants [Obama and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius] have indicated that they will propose and finalize changes to the regulations that are intended to accommodate plaintiff’s religious objections to providing contraception coverage,” the Department of Justice (DOJ) wrote in its brief to the Washington, D.C. District Court.

Obama officials claim the mandate does not put forth any “immediate injury” to religious groups.
Luke Goodrich, Deputy General Counsel of the Becket Fund, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of Belmont Abbey College, a Catholic university, says he thinks the Obama administrations argument will not stand up in court.
“It doesn’t argue that the mandate is legal; it doesn’t argue that the mandate is constitutional,” Goodrich said. “Instead, it begs the court to ignore the lawsuit because the government plans to change the mandate at some unspecified date in the future.”

“Apparently, the administration has decided that the mandate, as written and finalized, is constitutionally indefensible,” said Hannah Smith, senior counsel at The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty “Its only hope is to ask the court to look the other way based on an empty promise to possibly change the rules in the future.”

The panel that put together the mandate has been condemned for only having pro-abortion members even though polling shows Americans are opposed to the mandate.

More than 50 members of Congress banded together at a press conference to demand legislation to stop the new mandate pro-abortion President Barack Obama put in place forcing religious employers to pay for insurance coverage including birth control and abortion-inducing drugs.

Congressman Jeff Fortenberry held a press conference with supporters of the bipartisan, bicameral Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. His legislation would protect the religious liberty and conscience rights of every American who objects to being forced by the strong-arm of government to pay for drugs and procedures recently mandated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

The Fortenberry bill currently has the support of approximately 220 Members of Congress and Senators, the most strongly-supported legislative remedy to the controversial HHS mandate.  This measure would repeal the controversial mandate, amending the 2010 health care law to preserve conscience rights for religious institutions, health care providers, and small businesses who pay for health care coverage.

H.R. 1179 enjoys the endorsements of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, National Right to Life Committee, Americans United for Life, and other organizations.  Numerous other organizations, including the Christian Medical Association and Family Research Council, have urged support of the bill.

Sen. Roy Blunt, a pro-life Missouri Republican, is putting forward the Blunt Amendment, #1520, again, and it is termed the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. According to information provided to LifeNews from pro-life sources on Capitol Hill, the Blunt Amendment will be the first amendment voted on when the Senate returns to the transportation bill. The amendment would allow employers to decline coverage of services in conflict with religious beliefs.

Republicans are moving swiftly with legislation, amendments, and potential hearings on the mandatethe Obama administration has put in place that forces religious employers to pay for birth control and abortion-inducing drugs for their employees.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops  issued a statement saying Obama’s revised mandate involves “needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions” and it urged Congress to overturn the rule and promised a potential lawsuit.

Meanwhile, the Republican presidential candidates had been taking verbal swings at Obama for imposing the original mandate on religious employers, which is not popular in the latest public opinion poll and which even some Democrats oppose.

Congressman Steve Scalise has led a bipartisan letter with 154 co-signers calling on the Obama Administration to reverse its mandate forcing religious organizations to include drugs that can cause abortion and birth control in the health care plans of their employees.

The original mandate was so egregious that even the normally reliably liberal and pro-abortion USA Today condemned it in an editorial titled, “Contraception mandate violates religious freedom.”
The administration initially approved a recommendation from the Institute of Medicine suggesting that it force insurance companies to pay for birth control and drugs that can cause abortions under the Obamacare government-run health care program.

The IOM recommendation, opposed by pro-life groups, called for the Obama administration to require insurance programs to include birth control — such as the morning after pill or the ella drug that causes an abortion days after conception — in the section of drugs and services insurance plans must cover under “preventative care.” The companies will likely pass the added costs on to consumers, requiring them to pay for birth control and, in some instances, drug-induced abortions of unborn children in their earliest days.

The HHS accepted the IOM guidelines that “require new health insurance plans to cover women’s preventive services” and those services include “FDA-approved contraception methods and contraceptive counseling” — which include birth control drugs like Plan B and ella that can cause abortions. The Health and Human Services Department commissioned the report from the Institute, which advises the federal government and shut out pro-life groups in meetings leading up to the recommendations.

SOURCE:
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/03/15/first-lawsuit-from-business-owner-challenges-obama-hhs-mandate/

Doctor Reminds Crowd Contraceptives Pose Real Medical Dangers

National Director Column  

February 28, 2012    
also see: 6 More Things Everyone Should Know About the HHS Mandate
from USCCBlog

Arland K. Nichols

Dear Friends of Life and Family, 

  

Not only should Americans be aware of the attack on religious liberty by the Obama administration through the implementation of the HHS contraception mandate, the mandate also attacks women's health by spreading disinformation about the risks associated with contraception use.

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommendation adopted by HHS makes the claim that for women who use contraception "side effects are generally considered minimal." A sweeping statement such as this warrants detailed argumentation and support; instead, the citation for this statement constitutes three "educational pamphlets" from the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and one other dated study. The public was repeatedly assured that the IOM report was an "exhaustive review of the scientific evidence." Yet one of the primary cruxes of the committee's argument -- and one which directly impacts the health of millions of American women -- is sustained by educational pamphlets (here, here and here) which state at the bottom of each that the information given relies on "opinions on subjects related to women's health," and shockingly that "the average readability level of the series ... is grade 6-8." These promotional brochures do not cite even one scientific study.

Thankfully, many medical professionals have not remained silent about the dangers to women's health being pushed for by the Obama administration. One of those medical professionals is Dr. Bill Mueller.

Dr. Mueller, President of the Catholic Physician Guild of San Antonio and a friend of HLI America, recently spoke at a rally opposing the HHS contraception/abortifacient mandate in which he reminded the crowd about the medical dangers posed to women. The rally was organized by "Faith and Freedom First" outside of the San Fernando Cathedral in San Antonio, Texas on February 18, 2012.

During his speech Dr. Mueller told the crowd:

What you may not already know is that contraception poses real medical dangers, and this is why we all should be concerned. These dangers have been concealed by lies about the safety and necessity of contraception. These lies have misled Americans to believe that pregnancy is a disease. ... As a physician of good conscience, I am here to tell you that contraceptives increase a woman's risk for cancer, strokes, heart attacks, and even death. As a physician of good conscience, I am here to tell you that contraceptives can cause abortions before a woman even knows she is pregnant. As a physician of good conscience, I am here to tell you that women who think contraception will keep them safe in a relationship often end up used, abused and discarded by men who should be upholding the dignity of our sisters in Christ.

Medical journals have for years published study after study that indicates the deleterious side-effects of oral contraception, but none of these studies were cited in the IOM report. Just last year, the FDA announced a safety-review of the most popular oral contraceptives (Yaz, Yasmin, and Beyaz) on the market in response to recent studies that show that these drugs bring a two to three times greater risk of arterial clots compared to the already high risk associated with other forms of oral contraceptives. This review, conducted by the federal government itself, is not even cited by the IOM.

Dr. Mueller deserves great credit for telling the truth about the danger that contraception poses for women's health in a forum where one might not expect to hear that message. I hope that his courage and clarity serves as an example to all physicians, as their leadership and expertise is desperately needed in this struggle. Please share this video (below) with physicians you know and ask that they consider taking a similar stand in support of women's health.

[Watch Dr. Mueller's full speech.]
[Dr. Mueller’s prepared remarks reproduced below]

Good Afternoon!

My name is Dr. Bill Mueller and I am very proud to be representing the Catholic Physicians Guild of San Antonio at this important event! Thank you to the Faith and Freedom Now coalition for organizing this rally and inviting me to speak today.

You already know that the HHS-mandate violates the First Amendment.

You already know that the HHS-mandate is an unjust attempt by the executive branch of the federal government to bypass Congress.

You already know that the HHS-mandate is just one example of how the federal government is imposing controversial medical practices on employers by trying to pass it off as “health care.”

What you may not already know is that contraception poses real medical dangers, and this is why we all should be concerned. These dangers have been concealed by lies about the safety and necessity of contraception. These lies have misled Americans to believe that pregnancy is a disease. Many Americans now believe that taking a “pill,” when you are not sick, is normal, that sex outside of marriage is okay and that young women are somehow “protected” from harm as long as they are “on the pill.” And now Obamacare and the HHS-mandate are attempting to impose access to contraception by trying to call it “standard preventive health care.”

As a physician of good conscience, I am here to tell you that contraceptives increase a woman’s risk for cancer, strokes, heart attacks, and even death. As a physician of good conscience, I am here to tell you that contraceptives can cause abortions before a woman even knows she is pregnant. As a physician of good conscience, I am here to tell you that women who think contraception will keep them safe in a relationship often end up used, abused and discarded by men who should be upholding the dignity of our sisters in Christ.

Now, Obamacare and the HHS-mandate are targeting organizations, companies and insurers who do not comply with deceitful bureaucratic regulations. I believe that Obamacare and the HHS-mandate is the first step in targeting medical professionals and their right to practice medicine according to their moral and ethical beliefs. Indeed, Obamacare and the HHS-mandate are targeting the First Amendment right to freedom of religion and conscience. Rights endowed to us by our Creator.

And so today I urge you to stand up for our Constitution and the divine gift of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; to stand up for the First Amendment rights to freedom of religion and conscience; and most importantly, to challenge a government that violates personal freedoms, misrepresents preventive medical services and endangers the viability of organizations that cannot and will not breach their principles.

Finally, I leave you with a quote from Edmond Burke as a reminder of why we must act: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

Thank you all for being here today.

Arland K. Nichols is the National Director of HLI America. He writes for the Truth and Charity Forum.

Become a fan of HLI America on Facebook, subscribe to the Truth & Charity Forum via RSS, and follow HLI America on Twitter.

Hands Off My Body