Thomas A. Szyszkiewicz has a detailed post on Catholic hospitals and emergency contraception on his blog that originally appeared in the November issue of Catholic World Report (this is his original version, not the final printed copy).
Category:
Pro-life
An attempt by the Vatican to reduce the number of abortions in one of central Europe’s most staunchly Roman Catholic countries is being challenged by the EU. A legal panel appointed by the European commission has attacked a draft treaty between Slovakia and the Vatican that would have restricted sensitive medical treatment such as abortions and IVF.
The group of lawyers warned that the treaty, known as a concordat, could place Slovakia in breach of its obligations as a member of the EU. Slovakia could find itself "violating its obligations", says the EU Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights.
The panel’s intervention came in a 41-page report on the draft treaty, which was drawn up in March 2003. The treaty would allow healthcare workers in hospitals founded by the Catholic church to refuse to perform abortions or carry out fertility treatment on "conscience" grounds if they believe such work conflicts with their faith.
Their concerns were backed by the EU group. It said "certain religious organisations" should have the right not to perform "certain activities where this would conflict with [their] ethos or belief". But it added: "It is important the exercise of this right does not conflict with the rights of others, including the right of all women to receive certain medical services or counselling without any discrimination." [Source]
Talk about a paragraph that spouts complete nonsense. You can exercise your conscience as long as it doesn’t conflict with what somebody else wants. This is the Animal Farm view of consciences "All consciences are equal, but some consciences are more equal than others."
"
Late this Friday evening, Democrat proponents of destructive human embryonic stem cell research have lifted their hold/objections to passage of the Cord Blood bill-the "Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005" (H.R.2520/S.1317). Following this, the Senate just proceeded to pass this legislation by Unanimous Consent." [Via Secondhand Smoke]
Unfortunately though Sen Orrin Hatch who is the sponsor of this bill thinks that the passage of it should lead also to the passage of HR 810 which is for pretty much Federal government support of embryo destruction to harvest stem-cells.
I do wonder where in the debate on setting up umbilical cord blood banks that there was no outcry of their obstruction of science? That they were not charge with obstruction and possibly allowing people to die. It only proves yet again that the whole ESCR debate is not about science and cures, but about keeping abortion legal.
H.R. 810 Which is called the "Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005" soon betrays it real intentions in Sec 2 as "HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH" where laughably they talk about ethical requirements before sacrificing a human person in a embryonic state for scientific research.
H.R. 810 which is sponsored by Sen. Arlen Specter will come up for a vote in early 2006 in an agreement reached with Sen. Frist. Pray that they won’t continue to prey on the innocents.
Interesting post at The Dark Side – A True Crime Weblog in reaction to the story on Planned Parenthood covering up rape as first reported by Dawn Eden. Dawn tipped me off to this post and it is interesting because it comes from the perspective of PP enabling predators and not necessarily from an anti-abortion view.
Update: No surprise that Planned Parenthood has now taken down the link to the original testimonial on their site. Though the internet archive has a backup. Much harder to cover your tracks in the digital age. I wonder how long it will be till PP puts a robots.txt file on their site to prevent archiving and caching?
Dawn Eden sent me this tip on teenwire’s latest bit of propaganda concerning hawking the patch to teens.
They start off with highly scientific reasons for using the patch.
Supermodel Naomi Campbell wore it. So did players on Norway’s Olympic beach volleyball team. Millions of women buy it every year. But this hot item isn’t a bit of bling or a cute bikini. It’s the birth control patch — a highly effective way to reduce the risk of pregnancy.
Yes supermodels and Nordic volleyball players use it – defeat that argument.
Is the patch safe?
Yes. Despite alarming stories from some news outlets, the patch has been shown to be as safe as other combined hormone methods when used as prescribed, and that is very safe.
Yes you can always believe the person who is selling you the product that it is safe. From Corvair’s to contraceptives – no worries. We don’t need to mention what generated those alarming news stories or to go into any details. Move along to the next question in the FAQ because this is where we sell it to you.
How can I get the patch?
Although in some states it is possible to get a prescription online, women usually have to visit a health care provider in order to get a prescription for the patch and other forms of hormonal birth control. You can schedule an appointment to get the patch at your local Planned Parenthood health center by calling 1-800-230-PLAN.
Would anybody reading Teenwire ever ask such a question. It is like standing in a supermarket and wondering where you might buy food. Teenwire has one purpose and one purpose only. Not to inform but to deform. To market their products whether it is abortion or contraceptives. Promoting promiscuous sex is just a necessary means to an end to get you into one of their clinics stores. Sexual license is only a marketing tie in.
Now of course those "alarming" news stories were based on a report by a fringe pro-life group called the Food and Drug Administration. Well okay the FDA isn’t a fringe pro-life group, but there must be some reason to so easily dismiss them when they warned users of the popular Ortho Evra birth control patch that they are being exposed to more hormones, and are therefore at higher risk of blood clots and other serious side effects, than previously disclosed. The simple reason is that facts get into the way of sales.
Now contrast what Teenwire aka Planned Parenthood said that "the patch has been shown to be as safe as other combined hormone methods" with information from this story.
Although most birth control pills and the patch have the same amount of estrogen, hormones from patches go directly into the bloodstream while pills are swallowed and digested first. The result is that women using the patch have much higher levels of estrogen in their bodies.
Thursday’s warning comes four months after The Associated Press reported that patch users die and suffer blood clots at a rate three times higher than women taking the pill.
The paragraph in Teenwire’s article on safety unsurprisingly was the shortest one in their featured article. Now they did mention some side effects:
- Bleeding between periods
- Breast tenderness
- Changes in mood
- Headache
- Nausea — rarely, vomiting
- Weight gain or loss
I guess blood clots and death aren’t side effects. Though maybe death comes under changes in mood or weight loss.
The ever vigilant and bane of Planned Parenthood – Dawn Eden – posts about a story on PP’s site showing that they covered up the rape of an 11 year old and did not report it to the police. We will see how long PP leaves the story up on their site since when their shenanigans are exposed to light they scatter like roaches.
IT is baby bonus with an additional twist. In baby-strapped Italy, politicians are proposing that women be paid not to have abortions.
The scheme – put forward by the left – comes at a time when the Roman Catholic church is urging a rethink of the country’s 1978 abortion law, reported The Guardian.
It allows abortion on demand in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.
Last year a majority of MPs from across all parties succeeded in bringing in a law on assisted fertilisation that gave embryos full rights from the point of conception. This could affect the abortion law. [Source]
If consistancy was ever a measure when it came to abortion laws it would have an effect.
With a general election due in four months, both sides are keen to woo the decisive Catholic vote.
Under the scheme, women with financial problems would get between 250 euro ($495) and 350 euro a month for up to six months before giving birth.
I wonder if the word scheme is used as a perjoraitve here? Regardless this looks to be a serious attempt at one of the causes for women to choose abortion.
The low fertility rate threatens to undermine Italy’s competitiveness and make its welfare system unsustainable.
We must stop abortion not because it is the murder of an innoncent human being, but much worse because it threatens competiveness and the welfare system.
Mr Giuseppe Fioroni, one of three MPs sponsoring the budget amendment, said: ‘We want to prevent children being considered as luxury goods in the way that they are now.’
Mr Rocco Buttiglione, a staunchly Roman Catholic member of the Cabinet, said research showed that ‘a significant share of abortions – between 10 per cent and 15 per cent – take place for economic reasons’.
Of course the story had to include a tie in to the Vatican.
The language issuing from the Vatican has grown stronger in recent weeks with one cardinal describing abortion as ‘the worst kind of murder’.
Stephen S gives us a report on an abortion debate that included Peter Kreeft.
I have seen several reports around the blogs on Tom Cruise and his buying an ultrasound machine.
Walters then asked him, "So what do you see?" and he answered "a little baby."
I think that the ultrasound machine is the Rorschach test for the Culture of Death. Some can look at the ultrasound picture and see a baby, while others can see a tissue mass. Though this isn’t consistent. Some can see a baby at one time while seeing a fetus at another. This seems to be contingent on the element of wantedness. Just the right amount of wantedness and the picture automatically transforms from just a tissue to a baby with no adjustment of the controls required. Of course NARAL which once called the 3D ultrasound a weapon, because people can’t handle the truth (yes mandatory Tom Cruise movie tie in).
Democrat Mike Blouin, known for his anti-abortion views, told The Associated Press that if he is elected governor, he will not support any new restrictions on abortion.
The abortion issue has taken on a higher profile in the 2006 Iowa gubernatorial campaign because of the recent nominations to the Supreme Court. President Bush’s conservative nominees fueled speculation that the 1973 decision could be overturned.
"Regardless of the U.S. Supreme Court’s future actions regarding Roe v. Wade, I would not sign any legislation to further restrict or expand access to abortion in Iowa," said Blouin, the state’s former economic development director and a former congressman from eastern Iowa.
While Blouin said his beliefs are "at the very heart of who I am as a person, I also understand that our laws must be acceptable to and enforceable within society."
Among the five current Democrats seeking their party’s gubernatorial nomination, Blouin was the only one to hold anti-abortion views. The others are pro-choice, though they have in the past supported minor restrictions.
This is just so tiring an mind-numbing. Exactly how would signing a bill put forward by the democratically elected legislature be not acceptable within society? Or that he is basically saying that he would veto any legislation the put restrictions on abortion be in any way in accord with "at the very heart of who I am as a person."
"I believe from the very core of my being in a culture of life – the dignity of all life," said Blouin.
But I will do nothing about protecting the dignity of life. But at least some people are pleased.
Judy Rutledge, of Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa, found Blouin’s position interesting: "It might help some with the issue. I’ve never heard him make that statement before."
The reaction from anti-abortion forces was swift and predictable.
That’s funny I thought the action from Planned Parenthood was swift and predictable. But then again what is wrong with predictability or swiftness in answering? Do we really expect pro-life groups to come out in favor of pro-abortion positions or for pro-abortion types to come out against abortion?
"As a Democrat and a Catholic, my position on this issue has been consistent throughout my life in public service," he said. [Source]
Faith without work is dead except I guess if you have a consistent position.