Jimmy Akin on the Plan B decision

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?

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!

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.

Anonymous genius: Father Andrew didn’t say they were the same.

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 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.