Jimmy Akin on the Plan B decision
Jimmy Akin weighs in on the Connecticut Bishop Conference controversy regarding Plan B and Catholic hospitals.
THE BIG RED DISCLAIMER: What I am about to write is not indicative of my own view. I'm trying to explain the apparent reasoning of the Connecticut bishops. I'm not saying that they are correct or incorrect. Rome could rule either way on this, and it may well get involved. What I'm trying to do is explain a position, not defend it.
His post is well worth reading especially regarding contraception in a non-marital context, something that many do not realize that this still requires some magisterial development.
He later addresses the possible abortafacient properties of Plan B.
I'm far from being an expert on Plan B, but any time there is a possibility that something is abortafacient, I want to apply the Deerhunter Principle: If you're out in the woods hunting, you cannot open fire if the result is reasonably foreseen to involve the possible death of a human.
I used the hunter principle in my original post, but I did this mainly because I have heard Jimmy Akin use it before and it is quite apt in this situation. Though I do wonder if we can get embryos to wear orange?
His post shows why Jimmy's writings are so valuable since while he states he "finds troubling about the whole situation" he also shows the scope of the issue.
Known as 
Roe v. Wade = Dick Cheney's hunting accident x 44,000,000
I am a pharmacist who has what is known as a 'conscience clause' in place and by that I mean that I do not have to dispense any abortifacients including the 'morning after pill' or Plan B nor do I dispense birth control pills. At one point in time, I took 8 years away from my profession as a retail pharmacist because I could not, in good conscience, be a part of the possibility of an abortion.
To have bishops now say that the 'morning after pill' is okay to use in hospitals for 'emergencies' jeopardizes my position as a retail pharmacist with a conscience clause. It can be shown that our bishops are not against this emergency contraceptive, so permission for me to refuse to dispense these drugs can be revoked. And I work in a college town and I can tell you that there are many 'emergencies' every weekend. And if is okay in one instance, then why not another? And another?
When our bishops do not stand up for what the Church teaches, it leaves us without a good handle to hold on to and makes a mockery of the true teachings.
The Pontifical Academy of Life in October 2000 condemned the use of the morning after pill writing, among other things, that:
3. It is clear, therefore, that the proven "anti-implantation" action of the morning-after pill is really nothing other than a chemically induced abortion. It is neither intellectually consistent nor scientifically justifiable to say that we are not dealing with the same thing.
Moreover, it seems sufficiently clear that those who ask for or offer this pill are seeking the direct termination of a possible pregnancy already in progress, just as in the case of abortion. Pregnancy, in fact, begins with fertilization and not with the implantation of the blastocyst in the uterine wall, which is what is being implicitly suggested.
4. Consequently, from the ethical standpoint the same absolute unlawfulness of abortifacient procedures also applies to distributing, prescribing and taking the morning-after pill. All who, whether sharing the intention or not, directly co-operate with this procedure are also morally responsible for it.
I am once again deeply disappointed and ashamed of the actions of some bishops. And I know that in my state and in others, this activity is going on in 'catholic' hospitals. There is the continued 'wink and nod' at the teachings of the Church, and then some just do what they want. Lord, have mercy on us! Lord, grant us holy and true shepherds!
I agree 100%. It is said when a Priest such as myself has to lecture my own Bishop on the intrinsic evil of the abortifacient ru486. I apologize of behalf of them.
Fr. Andrew Walter, Sacred Heart Church Stamford, CT
It is said when a Priest such as myself has to lecture my own Bishop on the intrinsic evil of the abortifacient ru486.
It is also sad when a priest decides to lecture his own bishop without first knowing what he's talking about. RU486 and Plan B are two totally different drugs (the former is actually a combination of drugs). RU486 causes the abortion of an already implanted fetus much further along. Plan B prevents ovulation and may thin the uterine lining, making miscarriage more likely if ovulation and fertilization do occur.
Actually RU486 and "Plan B" are pretty similar chemicals.
Anonymous genius: Father Andrew didn't say they were the same.
The bottom line for me is that I feel sold down the river. If this stuff wasn't as bad, why call us to the capitol for these rallies and letter writing campaigns. If it is bad, why not have the courage to admit that you're caving instead of snaking off?
It looks like Vatican will have to address this issue.
James is exactly right. If some new research shows that this drug is purely contraceptive and will not abort then this information should have been released with the statement. Otherwise this is a very odd thing to do. Very, very odd.
The risks associated with Plan B® (Levonorgestrel) are very real.
Contrary to the statement of the Connecticut Catholic Bishops that there is “serious doubt” about how Plan B® (Levonorgestrel) works, the prescribing information is very clear.
The product is a synthetic progestogen (female hormone) which slows tubal transport of sperm to the ova. The product works by preventing sperm from getting to the ova.
However, if sperm have already reached the ova, slowing tubal transport also may have the effect of causing an ectopic pregnancy. Up to 10% of pregnancies in women taking this product are expected to be ectopic. This means that this product increases, by 500%, the risk of ectopic pregnancy.
Additionally, if sperm have already reached the ova and the fertilized ovum has already made it through the tubes, the product also alters the endometrium and may inhibit implantation. Once the process of implantation has begun, the product has no effect.
I suspect that the State of Connecticut threatened to stop Medicaid or CHIP funding to any hospital that did not use emergency contraception in their sexual assault protocols.
The Bishop's of CT should have put it this way: Pass the legislation that forces us to act against our faith, we close the doors of our hospitals. End of story. These bishops dishonor the sacrifices of the martyrs by giving in to this.
I dunno.
a) Regardless, even in cases of rape, it isn't the baby's fault.
b) Let God decide whether there's to be a baby.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas