Note: Third in a series
If you are a fetus, it is "legal" for your mother to kill you. But is it "moral?" That is what this battle between President Obama and the Catholic bishops is all about.
The bishops contend that it remains "immoral" for a woman to kill her fetus, even if the government says, "it's legal." For the bishops, "legal" does not equal "moral." So, does something become "moral" when it is declared "legal?"
In 1857, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney penned the majority opinion in the Dred Scott case. He framed the issue as follows: "The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges and immunities, guarantied by that instrument to the citizen? One of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the Constitution."
His answer was as follows: "It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate (black) race, which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted. But the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken. They (blacks) had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.
"The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives. ... The question before us is, whether the class of persons (blacks) described in the ... (pleading) ... compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they (blacks) are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they (blacks) were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them."
Abe Lincoln, both before and after the Dred Scott decision, rejected the premise "that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery." For Lincoln, slavery -- regardless of the "legality" -- was "immoral. If the negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that 'all men are created equal;' and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man's making a slave of another. Slavery is founded in the selfishness of man's nature -- opposition to it, is (in) his love of justice. I object to it (slavery) because it assumes that there can be moral right in the enslaving of one man by another." -- Abe Lincoln, Peoria Speech. October 16, 1854
"Judge Douglas declares that if any community want slavery they have a (legal) right to have it. He can say that logically, if he says that there is no (moral) wrong in slavery; but if you admit that there is a (moral) wrong in it, he cannot logically say that anybody has a (legal) right to do (a moral) wrong." -- Abe Lincoln, Galesburg Debate, October 7, 1858
Now, 155 years after Dred Scott, we have Roe v. Wade. The Catholic bishops and those who agree with them, now stand in Lincoln's shoes. But instead arguing that it is "morally wrong" to enslave blacks, they teach that it is "morally wrong" to kill fetuses. They reject the notion, that because abortion has be made a "legal right," that is has now become "morally right." And they are treated by their fellow citizens with the same scorn as abolitionist were treated by many of the fellow citizens, and a significant portion of the press.
If you are reading this op ed, you are undoubtedly a "person," and a "human being." The fact that you are a "human being" is an incontrovertible medical and scientific truth. But are you a "person" in a "Constitutional sense?"
If you were a "person" "born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," you are a "citizen of the United States and of the State wherein you reside." And if that's the case, no state shall "deprive" you of life "without due process of law. -- 14th Amendment, U. S. Constitution.
But if you are merely a fetus, under the Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade, while you may be a "person" or a "human being" in a "medical or scientific sense," you are not a person in a "Constitutional sense." As such, you have no Constitutional protections, and under Roe v Wade, your mother -- at her whim -- can kill you.
Under Roe v. Wade, you are not a "person" from the moment of conception. You are not a "person" from the point when you could live independently outside the womb. You are not a "person" even after 9 month in the womb -- even though you will be a naturally born healthy child within the next five minutes.
In Roe, the U. S. Supreme Court defined the word "person" for us to exclude "unborn [human] persons."
The Obama Administration now seeks to redefine "contraception" (preventing conception) to include "abortion" (killing a conceived fetus). And still not satisfied, the same Obama Administration is not redefining the term "religious employer" to exclude Catholic hospitals and Catholic Colleges, because the employ non-Catholics. And still not content, the Administration redefines killing fetuses as a "women's health issue -- as a "woman's right."
There is something intentionally intellectually deceptive in the word games and redefinitions of this administration. When a government redefines moral issues as "women's rights" and "women's health" issues, it obliterates "moral issue."
What then stops the government from ordering abortion of mentally impaired fetuses, or limiting the size of families in the name of "maternal health?" The power to define is the power to destroy.
Posted Online: Feb. 29, 2012, 6:10 am - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2012, John Donald O'Shea
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Friday, February 17, 2012
What Became of Freedom of Conscience?
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of the law?
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? ... Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake! "A Man for All Seasons"
Notwithstanding all I said in Part I of this op ed, and notwithstanding Roe v. Wade, which holds that a woman has a constitutional right to choose to have an abortion, serious moral questions remain for anyone who feels abortion is a moral wrong.
(1) Because you may choose to have an abortion, must I perform that abortion?
(2) Must I assist you?
(3) Must I pay for your abortion?
(4) Must I provide you with insurance to cover the cost of your abortion?
(5) Must my business do "one of the above?" Must I do "one of the above" even if I happened to believe abortion to be murder, or tantamount to murder? Must I do so even though I believe abortion to be a grave sin? If you have "freedom to choose" abortion, why do you not recognize my "freedom to choose" to have nothing to do with your abortion? Why does your "freedom of choice" trump mine?
The bishops are fighting for their own "freedom of conscience." They are also fighting for all people — Catholics and non-Catholics — who believe as they do. Even those who administer colleges and hospitals which have employees!
When a woman has an abortion, an embryo, fetus or child is unquestionably killed. The only question is this: was the victim a human being? If life begins at conception, and if the victim is a human being, then abortion is murder or tantamount to murder.
And if committing, or assisting in an abortion, is morally wrong, I do not want to stand before my maker having assisted with an abortion — even if my assistance was only financial — there to be reminded that "whatever you did to the least of my brothers, that you did unto me."
That is what this battle is all about.
The Catholic Catechism contains this sublime teaching: "Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. ... For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. ... His conscience is man's most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1776)
Defending freedom of conscience is not just a Catholic issue. It is a fundamental human right to refuse to take part in morally evil actions: "To refuse to take part in committing an injustice is not only a moral duty; it is also a basic human right. Were this not so, the human person would be forced to perform an action intrinsically incompatible with human dignity, and in this way human freedom itself — the authentic meaning and purpose of which are found in its orientation to the true and the good — would be radically compromised.
"What is at stake therefore is an essential right, which, precisely as such, should be acknowledged and protected by civil law. In this sense, the opportunity to refuse to take part in the phases of consultation, preparation and execution of these acts against life should be guaranteed to physicians, health-care personnel, and directors of hospitals, clinics and convalescent facilities. Those who have recourse to conscientious objection must be protected not only from legal penalties but also from any negative effects on the legal, disciplinary, financial and professional plane." (Pope John Paul II, The Gospel of Life, no. 74)
One last thing must be noted. The USCCB position was not the position of every Catholic bishop. Some saw from the outset the USCCB position was fraught with peril. The dissenters felt that the USCCB operated under the naive assumption that placing unspecified control of the U.S. health care system in the hands of the federal government to get health care insurance for the uninsured outweighed the obvious risks. The USCCB chose to overlook the fact that the law would be implemented by an administration that did not shares it values as to the value of human life.
The bishops should have had my mother.
Posted Online: Feb. 16, 2012, 2:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2012, John Donald O'Shea
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? ... Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake! "A Man for All Seasons"
Notwithstanding all I said in Part I of this op ed, and notwithstanding Roe v. Wade, which holds that a woman has a constitutional right to choose to have an abortion, serious moral questions remain for anyone who feels abortion is a moral wrong.
(1) Because you may choose to have an abortion, must I perform that abortion?
(2) Must I assist you?
(3) Must I pay for your abortion?
(4) Must I provide you with insurance to cover the cost of your abortion?
(5) Must my business do "one of the above?" Must I do "one of the above" even if I happened to believe abortion to be murder, or tantamount to murder? Must I do so even though I believe abortion to be a grave sin? If you have "freedom to choose" abortion, why do you not recognize my "freedom to choose" to have nothing to do with your abortion? Why does your "freedom of choice" trump mine?
The bishops are fighting for their own "freedom of conscience." They are also fighting for all people — Catholics and non-Catholics — who believe as they do. Even those who administer colleges and hospitals which have employees!
When a woman has an abortion, an embryo, fetus or child is unquestionably killed. The only question is this: was the victim a human being? If life begins at conception, and if the victim is a human being, then abortion is murder or tantamount to murder.
And if committing, or assisting in an abortion, is morally wrong, I do not want to stand before my maker having assisted with an abortion — even if my assistance was only financial — there to be reminded that "whatever you did to the least of my brothers, that you did unto me."
That is what this battle is all about.
The Catholic Catechism contains this sublime teaching: "Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. ... For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. ... His conscience is man's most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1776)
Defending freedom of conscience is not just a Catholic issue. It is a fundamental human right to refuse to take part in morally evil actions: "To refuse to take part in committing an injustice is not only a moral duty; it is also a basic human right. Were this not so, the human person would be forced to perform an action intrinsically incompatible with human dignity, and in this way human freedom itself — the authentic meaning and purpose of which are found in its orientation to the true and the good — would be radically compromised.
"What is at stake therefore is an essential right, which, precisely as such, should be acknowledged and protected by civil law. In this sense, the opportunity to refuse to take part in the phases of consultation, preparation and execution of these acts against life should be guaranteed to physicians, health-care personnel, and directors of hospitals, clinics and convalescent facilities. Those who have recourse to conscientious objection must be protected not only from legal penalties but also from any negative effects on the legal, disciplinary, financial and professional plane." (Pope John Paul II, The Gospel of Life, no. 74)
One last thing must be noted. The USCCB position was not the position of every Catholic bishop. Some saw from the outset the USCCB position was fraught with peril. The dissenters felt that the USCCB operated under the naive assumption that placing unspecified control of the U.S. health care system in the hands of the federal government to get health care insurance for the uninsured outweighed the obvious risks. The USCCB chose to overlook the fact that the law would be implemented by an administration that did not shares it values as to the value of human life.
The bishops should have had my mother.
Posted Online: Feb. 16, 2012, 2:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2012, John Donald O'Shea
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Catholic Bishops Should Have Known My Mom
Two of my mother's most-used cautions were, "Birds of a feather, flock together," and "fools rush in where angels fear to tread." It was her way of warning me to avoid certain companions and certain situations.
To get Affordable Health Care, the Catholic Bishops ignored both of my mother's cautions (Part I, today). But on the issue, of Freedom of Conscience, they are right (Part II, tomorow).
Many Americans didn't vote for President Obama. Many looked at the Rev. Wright and saw a minister seething with hatred and calling for the damnation of the United States. They were not persuaded that Mr. Obama was unaware of the content of Rev. Wright's rants. Then too, there was Mr. Obama's relationship with the now "respectable" William Ayers, who co-founded the Weather Underground, a self-described revolutionary and terrorist involved in a campaign of bombing public buildings during the 1960s and 1970s. And his position on abortion was there for all to see.
But many Americans looked beyond those relationships and voted for Mr. Obama. Many were Catholics who knew, or should have known, of Mr. Obama's positions on contraception and abortion. That includes some members of the Catholic clergy.
In his presidential campaign literature, candidate Obama hid nothing. Mr. Obama stated that he had stood up for women's choice throughout his entire time in the Senate and that he understood that there would be those who disagreed with his positions. He further stated that he believed abortion is a moral choice which no woman makes lightly, but that each individual woman is capable of making that decision on their own.
At an event sponsored by Planned Parenthood in June of 2008, Senator Obama re-affirmed his pro-choice views.
"I have stood up for the freedom of choice in the United States Senate, and I stand by my votes against the confirmations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. With one more vacancy on the court, we could be looking at a majority hostile to a woman's right to choose for the first time since Roe vs Wade, and that is what is at stake in this election."
President Obama spoke openly about abortion position. Nevertheless, President Obama captured 53 percent of the Catholic vote.
Once elected Mr. Obama embarked upon an all-out effort to enact Affordable Health Care legislation (Nation Health Insurance), with an "individual mandate" (a law which requires individuals to purchase health insurance and threatens punishment for those who don't). The United States Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) actively supported President Obama's Nation Health Care legislation. Indeed on June 2, 2009, in an Action Alert, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops called upon Catholics to help reform health care.
"In our Catholic tradition, health care is a basic human right. Access to health care should not depend on where a person works, how much a family earns, or where a person lives. Instead, every person, created in the image and likeness of God, has a right to life and to those things necessary to sustain life, including affordable, quality health care. This teaching is rooted in the biblical call to heal the sick and to serve 'the least of these,' our concern for human life and dignity, and the principle of the common good. Unfortunately, tens of millions of Americans do not have health insurance. According to the Catholic bishops of the United States, the current health care system is in need of fundamental reform."
The bishops had a overriding goal. Christian charity had not provided every American with "affordable, quality health care." So, the bishops opted venture into the realm of politics and asked their flock to petition the government to create a system which would provide "affordable, quality health care" to those Americans without.
To get the legislation enacted, they arrayed themselves with groups whose views on abortion and contraception were utterly incompatible with the church's tenets on abortion. Then to make matters worse, they allowed the President and his friends in Congress to specify the details of what an affordable, quality health care should cover. Not satisfied with the efforts of individuals and charities to provide for the sick and the poor, the bishops asked the government to intervene, and relied upon their caveat in their call for reform "that the federal ban on funding abortions be continued."
Now the bishops see the details. Now they find they got what they bargained for — and sadly more!
The new Department of Health and Human Services interim final rules provide that the Health Resources and Services Administration "may establish exemptions" for "religious employers and health insurance coverage provided in connection with group health plans established or maintained by religious employers with respect to any requirement to cover contraceptive services under such guidelines."
The problem that the bishops have is with the definition of "religious employers." The term "religious employer" does not include "an organization (other than one that) primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the organization," or an "organization (other than one that) that serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the organization."
As such, the exemption is not broad enough to cover Catholic universities and Catholic hospitals.
Now, having entered the political thicket, the church now, seeks to avoid this peculiar form of individual mandate, requiring it to procure unwanted contraception, including the Morning After, or (abortion) Drug, insurance coverage, and complains that the government is ignoring the separation of church and state.
Having enlisted with the president and Congress in getting Affordable Health Care passed, the bishops now may have to look to that same President Obama, or perhaps the third branch of government, the courts, to extricate them from the consequences of their own doing because they now believe that a regulation passed pursuant to the legislation violates their freedom of conscience. Buyers' remorse! It now appears the Catholic bishops should have had my mom.
Posted Online: Feb. 15, 2012, 2:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2012, John Donald O'Shea
To get Affordable Health Care, the Catholic Bishops ignored both of my mother's cautions (Part I, today). But on the issue, of Freedom of Conscience, they are right (Part II, tomorow).
Many Americans didn't vote for President Obama. Many looked at the Rev. Wright and saw a minister seething with hatred and calling for the damnation of the United States. They were not persuaded that Mr. Obama was unaware of the content of Rev. Wright's rants. Then too, there was Mr. Obama's relationship with the now "respectable" William Ayers, who co-founded the Weather Underground, a self-described revolutionary and terrorist involved in a campaign of bombing public buildings during the 1960s and 1970s. And his position on abortion was there for all to see.
But many Americans looked beyond those relationships and voted for Mr. Obama. Many were Catholics who knew, or should have known, of Mr. Obama's positions on contraception and abortion. That includes some members of the Catholic clergy.
In his presidential campaign literature, candidate Obama hid nothing. Mr. Obama stated that he had stood up for women's choice throughout his entire time in the Senate and that he understood that there would be those who disagreed with his positions. He further stated that he believed abortion is a moral choice which no woman makes lightly, but that each individual woman is capable of making that decision on their own.
At an event sponsored by Planned Parenthood in June of 2008, Senator Obama re-affirmed his pro-choice views.
"I have stood up for the freedom of choice in the United States Senate, and I stand by my votes against the confirmations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. With one more vacancy on the court, we could be looking at a majority hostile to a woman's right to choose for the first time since Roe vs Wade, and that is what is at stake in this election."
President Obama spoke openly about abortion position. Nevertheless, President Obama captured 53 percent of the Catholic vote.
Once elected Mr. Obama embarked upon an all-out effort to enact Affordable Health Care legislation (Nation Health Insurance), with an "individual mandate" (a law which requires individuals to purchase health insurance and threatens punishment for those who don't). The United States Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) actively supported President Obama's Nation Health Care legislation. Indeed on June 2, 2009, in an Action Alert, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops called upon Catholics to help reform health care.
"In our Catholic tradition, health care is a basic human right. Access to health care should not depend on where a person works, how much a family earns, or where a person lives. Instead, every person, created in the image and likeness of God, has a right to life and to those things necessary to sustain life, including affordable, quality health care. This teaching is rooted in the biblical call to heal the sick and to serve 'the least of these,' our concern for human life and dignity, and the principle of the common good. Unfortunately, tens of millions of Americans do not have health insurance. According to the Catholic bishops of the United States, the current health care system is in need of fundamental reform."
The bishops had a overriding goal. Christian charity had not provided every American with "affordable, quality health care." So, the bishops opted venture into the realm of politics and asked their flock to petition the government to create a system which would provide "affordable, quality health care" to those Americans without.
To get the legislation enacted, they arrayed themselves with groups whose views on abortion and contraception were utterly incompatible with the church's tenets on abortion. Then to make matters worse, they allowed the President and his friends in Congress to specify the details of what an affordable, quality health care should cover. Not satisfied with the efforts of individuals and charities to provide for the sick and the poor, the bishops asked the government to intervene, and relied upon their caveat in their call for reform "that the federal ban on funding abortions be continued."
Now the bishops see the details. Now they find they got what they bargained for — and sadly more!
The new Department of Health and Human Services interim final rules provide that the Health Resources and Services Administration "may establish exemptions" for "religious employers and health insurance coverage provided in connection with group health plans established or maintained by religious employers with respect to any requirement to cover contraceptive services under such guidelines."
The problem that the bishops have is with the definition of "religious employers." The term "religious employer" does not include "an organization (other than one that) primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the organization," or an "organization (other than one that) that serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the organization."
As such, the exemption is not broad enough to cover Catholic universities and Catholic hospitals.
Now, having entered the political thicket, the church now, seeks to avoid this peculiar form of individual mandate, requiring it to procure unwanted contraception, including the Morning After, or (abortion) Drug, insurance coverage, and complains that the government is ignoring the separation of church and state.
Having enlisted with the president and Congress in getting Affordable Health Care passed, the bishops now may have to look to that same President Obama, or perhaps the third branch of government, the courts, to extricate them from the consequences of their own doing because they now believe that a regulation passed pursuant to the legislation violates their freedom of conscience. Buyers' remorse! It now appears the Catholic bishops should have had my mom.
Posted Online: Feb. 15, 2012, 2:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2012, John Donald O'Shea
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)