71 Comments

• GLENBEIGHNATIVE | Mar 05, 2012, 11:04 PM EST

  all they want is to make it all about "womens Health".......it's all bogus .... sandra is part of the realelection campaign

• Nicoletta | Mar 05, 2012, 03:47 PM EST

  Mr O'Dowd "the harsh social teaching" you speak of is actually Catholic teaching. Despite the Church's many great social endeavors the bald fact is that Catholic institutions must comply with Catholic doctrine first; this is why sadly, I believe you will see Catholic hospitals etc becoming Catholic no more or closing as did the Catholic adoption agencies in the UK.

• BishopSean | Mar 04, 2012, 05:40 PM EST

  Thanks for sharing this, Eiriamach. Points for agreement here. But according to the CDC, some 98% of abortions in USA are elective, meaning they had nothing to do with rape, incest or life-threatening situation of the mother. I would like to get some stats on pre-teen and early teen pregnancies. I would argue that, for the first time in the USA (other than the 1875(?) Supreme Court decision that stated to Mormons that they had to forego legal polygamy in the USA because it is a Christian nation, President Obama's administration is trying to coerce Churches into an inconscienable (sp) decision. In fact, it seems that the Secular Humanists are overriding the separation of Church and State in the opposite direction, a la USSR. Regards.

• eiriamach | Mar 04, 2012, 03:45 PM EST

  Bishop Sean, I agree that parts of Humanae Vitae discuss important dimensions of marital relations. (I would appreciate this encyclical better if it and other Vatican documents were translated into inclusive, contemporary English. Reading such documents, as well as the new Roman Missal, reminds me of a physiology class I took as an undergrad. Lecturing on genetics one day, the prof went on and on for an hour about the calves produced when a brown cow mates with a white cow, with a spotted cow, etc. as we students tried to suppress our giggles. It's the opposite, of course, when the pope talks about sex and "man" and "men": he does not mean to suggest homosexual mating, but that's the effect!) Unless I see statistical evidence, I cannot believe that more liberal forms of marriage objectify women (Hollywood sex goddesses of the 1940s-50s did that; the 1960s went in a different direction). More adultery or government coercion now? Hardly: consider the Roman environment that the early Christians faced-- talk about sexual degeneration and government coercion! Abortion is more necessary now than earlier, when it was rare for children (pre-teens) to become pregnant; the largest share of abortions is among the youngest, often rape and incest victims. As I age I am more and more grateful for the salvific moments when I see my mistakes and can revise, and thus control the consequences of errors. RCC cannot share that saving grace as long as it refuses to revise its teachings in accord with current epistemology and science. Galileo's still under house arrest in HV.

• Gearoid4 | Mar 03, 2012, 07:59 PM EST

  Wrong, Eiriamach, the Catholic Church has always been consistent in it's condemnation of contraceptive practices and abortion which prevented or destroyed the life in the womb. Early theories about the reproductive processes about fertilization and conception were speculative due to the absence of sophisticated scanning technology in ancient times. We have the comfort of growing up in a highly-advanced technical era where we know in minute detail about the life journey of sperm on it's way to fertilize an egg etc. But this does not invalidate the truth of the Church's opposition to the the unethical act of preventing or destroying life in the womb. Updated medical knowledge does not render in any meaningful sense this line of argument. Because some theologians at one time or another expressed an alternative view-point is neither here nor there, as it is the official teachings of the Church will eventually counts To reduce it to the subjugation of a woman to the wishes of her husband or partner is typical of a certain type of militant feminist who wants to strike out against any perceived sign of patriarchal dominance. The Church is simply following her biblical principles in promoting the life-giving procreative aspect of the sexual act in unity with the mutual love which it creates between a man and woman in their married state. The contraceptive act cheats them both of that fulfillment and leads to an empty, mechanical view of love-making.

• BishopSean | Mar 03, 2012, 07:53 PM EST

  Hi, Eiriamach. Legitimate critiques of the Roman Catholic and other Churches notwithstanding, it behooves us to evaluate if there was a positive side even to Humanae Vitae (HV). The R.C. Church teaches that intimate love, sex, and procreation are all things that belong together in marriage. Isn’t this important? HV warned of the following results if widespread use of contraceptives were accepted: general lowering of moral standards, a rise in infidelity and (paradoxically) illegitimacy; reduction of women to objects used to satisfy men; and Government coercion in reproductive matters. Does this ring true? Things were bad enough in poor communities and sub-cultures where men don’t feel responsible socially for their children; now even some modern educated women chose by abortion to not be physically responsible for their children. Why should society consider this more humanizing, progressive and better? Let’s give credit where credit is due and look hard at mistakes on all sides.

• eiriamach | Mar 03, 2012, 06:40 PM EST

  Gearoid4, you claim RCC has always taught with one voice that contraception and abortion were wrong. It has not, and its own tracts on physiology show why it couldn't. The long-lived belief that sperm contained "homunculi," diminutive humans ready to be implanted in wombs to grow until birth, led Aristotelian theologians to condemn both contraception and male masturbation as murder. Physiology has evolved, but not Catholic doctrine, lest the laity lose faith in its apostolicity. Thus Pius XI's 1930 Casti Connubii imposed a false uniformity on the history of RCC teaching; it ignored its theologians' reception of inherited practices of contraception and early abortion. Pius XI, however, would not abandon the phallocentrism of the homunculus theory, so he condemned equality in marriage: "The same false teachers who try to dim the luster of conjugal faith and purity do not scruple to do away with the honorable and trusting obedience which the woman owes to the man. Many even go further and assert that such a subjection ... is unworthy of human dignity, that the rights of husband and wife are equal; wherefore, they boldly proclaim the emancipation of women.... (We have already said that this is not an emancipation but a crime)." One may search such enciclicals in vain for scriptural references besides the OT story of Onan (because of the pre-science that masturbation murders the conceptus). It's better to discard whatever does not serve the moral law: salvation lies in ending misogynist wishful thinking about science and the history of theology.

• Gearoid4 | Mar 03, 2012, 10:41 AM EST

  The Church from the earliest times preached against the intended ending of any pregnancy before it came to full term or indeed the prevention of conception. The first century document Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (dated about 94 A.D) condemned the use of "magic or drugs" to procure a contraceptive or abortive outcome to pregnancies. St Clement of Alexandria(150-215), one of the famous early Fathers of the Church, stated in one of his very influential works, The Paidagogas-.."To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom should take as our instructor.." (Paedagogues, 2, 10; 95, 3, GCS, 12, 214). As for ensoulment, the ancient Fathers or theologians during the Medieval age, did not have the luxury of ultrascound technology, to give an exact reading of when the foetus would receive the soul. They just knew instinctively that the sacredness of life was inviolate from it's conception. As for the insertion "Research, as well as common sense, shows that abortion rates drop where contraceptives are available", the polar opposite would seem to be the case when one reviews the evidence in countries like the US or GB are reviewed. It is a well known fact in the US that some clinics have resulted 50% of their abortion referrals were for contraceptive failures. Thus the relationship between the two has been well established.

• eiriamach | Mar 03, 2012, 10:20 AM EST

  The statistics do not lie. Maternal and infant mortality in the US rose sharply into the 1950s and 60s. The 1973 decision began to reduce both mortality rates and safe, legal abortion, as well as effective contraception and genetic testing, continues that process in the interest of women and children and families. By far the best counter-force to abortion is effective and accessible contraception. RCC's expensive lobbying efforts against mandated insurance coverage of contraception is irrefutable proof of its disregard for maternal and infant health and for the moral capacity of women's free will.

• BishopSean | Mar 03, 2012, 09:55 AM EST

  Hi,@Eiriamach. Nurse Midwife is an honored profession. One delivered our third child.The midwife/physician’s Hippocratic oath says (s)he should save both lives; or then at least the life most able to be saved. Contraception and infanticide were known and common among pagans since earliest biblical times, but God’s Word dictates against infanticide/abortion. I will gladly explain if you ask. Term “Back alley abortions” referred historically to licensed medical doctors who would have more private entrance for clients seeking abortions. Pejorative meaning says something about quality of care of MD abortionists. Pregnant Actress Sharon Tate and her 8.5 month old baby had lives ended by Charlie Manson gang. Was that one murder or two—or did that depend only on mother’s subjective disposition?

• eiriamach | Mar 02, 2012, 10:26 PM EST

  The irony of the 'pro-life' cause is that it has caused so much avoidable death! For the first half of the 19th century in the US, midwives delivered babies at home as they had done since ancient times. A midwife would also abort pregnancy when a woman's life was endangered by it or the fetus was dead or too deformed to survive. Not until medical schools professionalized medicine and MDs needed licenses did deliveries by male MDs begin. This coincided, not mere coincidence, with RCC's first teaching against abortion. Church overlords supported medical overlords. (At least one canonized saint, Antoninus, approved early abortion; contraception and infanticide were common practice from biblical times; the doctrine of ensoulment at fertilization could not arise before 19th century obstetric science, and current knowledge of molar pregnancies and related anomalies challenges ensoulment at conception.) Before 1860, abortion was legal throughout the USA. But when the states began passing anti-abortion laws to enforce male control of obstetrics by driving out female midwives, back-alley abortions soon accounted for half of all pregnancy deaths. Estimates of illegal abortions by the 1960s range as high as 1.2 million. In '69, 23% of all pregnancy-related hospitalization in NYS resulted from illegal abortions. But deaths of women and infants in childbirth steeply declined after the Supreme Court decided Roe v Wade, 1973. Research, as well as common sense, shows that abortion rates drop where contraceptives are available. The HHS rule would have that result.

• BishopSean | Mar 02, 2012, 07:10 PM EST

  Hi,@ciaradexy. The 75% figure was from an American study. Perhaps Americans have a different worldview concerning being law-abiding. I once had a great Irish professor, Fr. George Lawless. The surname makes greater sense in the Irish context. Regards.

• ciaradexy | Mar 02, 2012, 01:22 PM EST

  Bishop Sean-you said ''75% said they would not have sought an abortion if it had been illegal.'' Well abortion is illegal in Ireland and over 4000 Irish women had abortions in 2010.

• BishopSean | Mar 02, 2012, 11:46 AM EST

  --Continued: We have special ministries to foreign prisoners and parolees here in Peru who are destitute and we stress to them that God will always give them a way out of their crimes and crises, if they trust and obey Him, rather than doing things their own sinful way. Their cynical solutions invariably lead to disasters. There are many personal testimonies of this. I believe this is also true when a lady is faced with an abortion “choice.” Proverbs 3:4-6 says “…Then you will win favor and a good name in the sight of God and man. Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight.”

• BishopSean | Mar 02, 2012, 11:30 AM EST

  Continued--Our Father God gladly forgives all our sins, including multiple abortions. But Truth would compel us to judge the act of abortion as wrong, rather than try to justify. There are complications also for the aborted women: (1) medical: vacuum abortions have an immediate complication rate of 12%, which is very high but less than D&C, etc. Depending on countries, between 17 and 50% of all aborted women suffer long-term complications. (2) Psychological effects. The woman’s ambiguity towards morality of abortion, plus her sense of being forced into it, lead her to guilt, remorse and self-hatred. Many have been driven to alcohol, drug addiction, suicide. In a study of American Journal of Psychiatry, 43% of aborted women had immediate negative response to abortion and in later review, 50%. 10% suffered serious psychiatric complications. 10% were suffering severe mental problems.

• BishopSean | Mar 02, 2012, 11:29 AM EST

  Hi, @Eiriamach. Thanks for continuing with the thread. “ought entails can”— We have long been living and working by choice in poor and LDCs (Least Developed) Countries and poor women here frequently do not see abortion as a moral choice, even when legal. In his book ABORTED WOMEN; SILENT NO MORE, social scientist David Reardon worked with WEBA (Women Exploited by Abortion). His book details attitudes of hundreds of aborted women and shows that dissatisfaction and regrets over abortion grow with time. One big discovery is that the majority of women did not experience the abortion as a choice at all. 83% of women surveyed indicated they would definitely have chosen against abortion if their husbands or boyfriends, abortion counselors, doctors and family members had suggested and encouraged alternatives. 55% said they had been “very much forced by others” to abort. Furthermore, 75% said they would not have sought an abortion if it had been illegal. (to be followed).

• eiriamach | Mar 01, 2012, 10:35 AM EST

  Bishop Sean, it would be a mistake to assume that all women who have abortions have adopted a "moral relativism" perspective in their lives. Far from it! The statistics that show the abortion rate increasing among poor women and also show the majority of abortion clients already have families reveal the desperation of women who literally CANNOT care for another child and who may not have financial access to effective birth control. It is a time-honored maxim of ethics-- and common sense-- that "ought entails can": if a woman *cannot* financially provide the means and time that child rearing requires, then it makes no sense at all, in fact it's cynical, to argue that she *ought* to do so. What we physically or financially cannot do, we have no moral obligation to try to do. Those who oppose abortion on "moral" grounds must begin to take seriously the principled reasons most women have when they choose abortion. That would mean getting serious about economic inequality and other such political issues, rather than just brushing aside the seriousness of such a decision with a catchphrase like "moral relativism." That would mean having respect for the moral sensitivity of women (and the parents of pregnant children) confronting the choice of abortion.

• BishopSean | Mar 01, 2012, 10:04 AM EST

  Dear @Eiriamach, I stand corrected on my earlier statement that abortions are now higher than ever in the USA. The latest Guttmacher Institute statistics (2008 data) show that there were 1.21 million abortions in 2008 and a rate of 19.6 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44. These figures are up from 2005 survey stats but down from 1990 figures which peaked at 1.6 million and the abortion rate was 27.4. Still appalling. They are over 30 in urban states Delaware, New York and New Jersey. Cumulatively, there have been 55 million abortions in USA since 1974, 3,767 per day. Now that early medication abortion is more available, there’s an increase—from 161,000 to 199,000 between 2005 and 2008, accounting for 17% of abortions. Guttmacher’s Rachel Jones expects this trend to accelerate. Where State Governments are more permissive, there are more abortions. Secular humanist thinking produces moral relativism so what is legal is moral, making Government the final decider of morality. Scary.

• eiriamach | Feb 29, 2012, 11:32 PM EST

  The women "simply got careless," Bishop Sean, or were they using less effective, failure-prone methods such as NFP? The US abortion rate has been steadily decreasing since 1997 and remains stable now. Thirty-five years after Roe vs. Wade, the US had fewer abortions, despite population growth (in 2008, the last year of available data: 825,564). Sixty per cent of women having abortions are already mothers; the proportion of poor women having abortions, however, has dramatically increased. NPR reported on "Abortion in the United States: Incidence and Access to Services, 2005," by Rachel K. Jones, Zolna, Henshaw, Finer: "[T]he abortion rate in 2005 was lower than the rate in 1975, two years after Roe v. Wade.... In 2005 we had an abortion rate of 19.4 per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44," said Rachel Jones, a senior research associate with the group and the study's lead author. That's down 'considerably' from a high point of 29.3 abortions per 1,000 women in 1980.... In 2005, there were 1.2 million abortions in the U.S., down 8 percent from 1.3 million in 2000." These statistics include RU-486 abortions. IF it is true that Planned Parenthood performs more abortions now, that fact is surely due to the closure of many local clinics and the fact that PP has a nation-wide network of clinics. About 84 counties, containing one-third the female population, have no provider.

• jpf | Feb 29, 2012, 09:30 PM EST

  Catholic hospitals employ more than 525,193 full-time employees and 233,394 part-time workers. More reason why contraception SHOULD BE COVERED. Its just not right to claim to help but only if you believe like a Catholic. Providing care or employment does not mean the employer decides what someone should use for their family life.

• BishopSean | Feb 29, 2012, 05:33 PM EST

  If I might follow one statement (out of context) by Eiriamach:“...The ridiculous premise is that only a woman who would abort a pregnancy would support birth control. How illogical can they get before they become completely laughable?”—I would like to respond. Obviously, there are many men and women who agree that using contraceptives is moral, who do not maintain that abortion is moral. However, there are statistics available from the CDC that most women who have aborted in the USA had in fact been using other contraceptive methods prior to their abortions and simply got careless, etc. If PP’s goal of making more (non-abortifacient) contraceptives available is to decrease the need for abortions, why is the rate of abortions increasing over time, rather than decreasing, especially in their Centers (they’re the US’s largest provider of abortions) and elsewhere in the USA? What is wrong with this picture?

• ciaradexy | Feb 29, 2012, 08:07 AM EST

  Howareya-I work in a maternity hospital so I meet these women with cancer and other medical issues who cannot terminate their pregnancy here. This is pro-foetus, anti-women. Some women do not want children so they have options when they get pregnant-go ahead with it or terminate it. This is up to their conscience not yours. Im not bitter, Im not judging women. They have a right to chose to be more than just an incubator.

• BishopSean | Feb 29, 2012, 06:26 AM EST

  I wpuld like to than @howareya for her personal testimony which is based on right reasoning and is from the heart. You have done a good thing, @howareya, and should not be surprised at some responses that are designed to generate more heat than light. "Every good deed is its own...punishment," said Claire Booth Luce--but she went on to say we have to do the good deeds anyway.

• IrelandNorth | Feb 29, 2012, 06:15 AM EST

  The Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church preaches the Billings Method of 'coitus interruptus' (a sort of Irish white-tantra) as its form of immaculate con[tra]ception[?]. As an ex-psychoanalytic counsellor with ACCORD: Catholic Marriage Care Service (CMCS) here in Dublin, Ireland, I can vouch that they are very progressive in their paradigm. Psycho[anal]ytically, homosexuality is considered an inverse sexuality, (i.e. turned inwards) due to over-identification with same sex parents. Freud considered it a sexual perversity, though only in the sense of being incomplete.

• IrelandNorth | Feb 28, 2012, 09:36 PM EST

  ciaradexy, I agree completely with you - and for good reason. I lived and worked In San Francisco for more than 20 years. Through my work, initially, I came to know many gays and a few lesbians. A good many were friends that I worked with day in and day out (our company was the largest international banking and financial services organization in the world), had dinner with them, visited their homes and, sadly, attended too many funerals. Without a single exception, they told me the same thing, that they knew from a very early age that they were different, not like other children in fundamental ways. I learned how confusing and frightening this was and always the compelling need to keep these feelings secret. To hear people say that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, that it can be cured with hand-holding and prayer betrays a level of ignorance that I truly believed could not exist in the human mind in the 21st century A.D. Eiriamach, your posts are always beautifully articulate, intelligent, humane, moderate and amongst the very best offered on this website.

• eiriamach | Feb 28, 2012, 05:32 PM EST

  I'm one of many whose tax money supports Catholic hospitals and agencies through federal and state "faith-based" program funding. That fact makes it imperative that we speak out when religion-affiliated institutions that take public funding refuse to provide equal health care insurance for their female employees. So no, @Madeliene, I will not keep my opinion to myself. This is very much a public issue. I not surprised that the people who demand their own "religious liberty" to discriminate against women try to silence those who disagree with them.

• Madeliene | Feb 28, 2012, 03:37 PM EST

  Birtif you do not wish to become pregnant buy your own- if you do not want a child do not have it but keep your opinipons to yourself and your God- and not impose the opinions or the price of your contaceptives on others!h conrol has been around for a lot of years

• eiriamach | Feb 28, 2012, 01:33 PM EST

  BTW, let's not for a moment believe that howareya is female. This creature is just another screen name for the reactionary RCC defenders on IC (whatever happened to angelprecious et al?). A woman would not write, "But, unfortunately, you can't..you are the ones that get pregnant!" Every once in a while, these men slip up this way, and their identity becomes obvious.

• eiriamach | Feb 28, 2012, 01:25 PM EST

  No, howareya and Bishop Sean are both wrong, and both grossly misrepresent the issue AGAIN. The current debate is about CONTRACEPTION, not abortion. Howareya, I'm sorry you did not have either the sense of responsibility or the financial means to use contraceptives when you should have. So you're happy with how your accidental pregnancy turned out, good for you. I hope your accidental daughter has the wisdom and the moral sense to take responsibility for her childbearing. She certainly does not have a role model for morality in her mother. A role model for moral responsibility would fight for her daughter's equal rights to employment, to self-sufficiency, and to equal health care. She would never allow men to impose a subordinate status or mindless obedience on her daughter or on herself.

• howareya | Feb 28, 2012, 12:50 PM EST

  "Gearoid, youre not female. You will never know what it is like to be pregnant with a potential baby you do not want therefore you will never ever have the options. You will never have to make the decision. You will never have to be faced with carrying a pregnancy or having to push a baby out of your body so until you do, you will never understand" Well, ciaradexy, I am female and I did get pregnant at a time that was difficult. I chose to take responsibility for my actions and have my baby. She is 39 now and been a great joy to me. I am sorry, but women need to realize they have more responsiblity than men when it comes to sex. They are the ones that get pregnant. They can't walk away from the situation. Sadly, with the sexual revolution, some women feel that they should have the same rights as men. But, unfortunately, you can't..you are the ones that get pregnant! I have known women who used abortion as a form of birth control...oops pregnant again...gotta get rid of it, not convenient for me now. Our society is breaking down because women are being told their babies are just a bunch of cells. Ever notice when a baby is planned or wanted, it's a baby from the time it is conceived. But if it's not wanted it's just a glob. ciaradexy, I feel sorry for you, you always sound so bitter in your comments.

• BishopSean | Feb 28, 2012, 12:34 PM EST

  Hi, Eiriamach. Perhaps I can explain by this analogy. The Rockwell Company during many years made spaceshuttles and submarines. These were their “stock in trade.” Rockwell also made many, many more spare parts and related—rivets, nuts, bolts, air systems, etc. However, their raison d’être was not making the spare parts: it was making spaceshuttles and submarines. Similarly, the raison d’être of PP is providing abortions and related. To argue otherwise seems to be false advertising, in my view. To become the largest abortion provider of the USA, either by surgeries or abortifacient pills, PP needs to have a certain worldview, such as that provided by Ms. Sanger. PP’s worldview and ethic have been and are at variance with the Christian worldview and ethic from PP’s inception. This is why I maintain that orthodox Bible-believing Christians have every right, and even a duty, to object to their government and tax dollars going to support PP. Regards.

• eiriamach | Feb 28, 2012, 10:36 AM EST

  Here's a reminder from PPaul VI that, if necessary to conserve its teachings, RCC can refuse the billion$ in public money it collects for health, education, and other services: "The Church.... will even give up the exercise of certain rights which have been legitimately acquired, if it becomes clear that their use will cast doubt on the sincerity of her witness" (Gaudium et Spes, 1965). The defenders of Catholicism ask us not to let the sexual abuses of priests represent their religion, yet here we see lies and personal attacks by religious fanatics warring against women's health care. And where have the moderate Catholics gone? Silenced by the kind of polemic they see below? Then here is a warning from the Commonweal editors, who cite the book "American Grace": "By the 1990s, after decades of the culture wars waged by Protestant and Catholic groups, many younger people came to think of 'religion' as politically divisive and overly judgmental, especially on questions of sexual morality. As a result, the number of Americans who have abandoned institutional religion has risen dramatically. One-third of adult Catholics have already left the church. Isn’t that sobering fact more deserving of a national campaign than this self-defeating battle over contraception coverage?" Do these words prophesy the kind of RC Church that will remain-- empty of everyone but aging male culture-warrior fanatics?

• eiriamach | Feb 28, 2012, 08:54 AM EST

  What in the world does Margaret Sanger's political views have to do with the current issue: equal health care insurance for women workers? Sanger has been dead for a long time, and she is completely irrelevant to this discussion, another red herring intended only to distract readers from the issue! Planned Parenthood is the US's largest reproductive health care resource for women: PP provides, as I told Bishop Sean elsewhere, free or at low cost, medical procedures that would be expensive at gynecologists' offices and unaffordable by many: cervical, uterine, ovarian, and endometrial cancer screening, breast exams and referrals for mammograms, tests and treatments for STDs and yeast and other infections, HIV tests, exams for contraceptives, treatments for fibroid tumors, endometriosis testing and treatments, pregnancy testing, pre-natal and post-natal care, adoption referrals, wellness clinics, training for health professionals, counselors, and teachers; and sexuality- and family-planning education for millions of teenagers and adults. It is no argument at all to cite the fact that 3% of PP procedures relate to abortion: there is NO federal funding of abortion services anywhere in the USA. Get off your lie! Obama's Affordable Health Care law will make the essential health care services listed above-- but NOT abortion-- insured for women workers. Again the opposition to fairness for women comes exclusively from men who cannot tolerate the notion that women will avail of services not fully dictated and limited by men.

• BishopSean | Feb 28, 2012, 08:21 AM EST

  Another thing we should know about Planned Parenthood (PP) is that historically Margaret Higgens Sanger was a believer in Nazi Eugenics and considered Afro-Americans and other chosen minorities as “human weeds.” She published articles by Hitler’s Director of Eugenic Sterilization, Ernst Ruden, and she spawned the “Negro Project,” to eliminate the black population. She once wrote to her supporters, “We do not want the word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.” At the March 1925 conference of Sanger’s “American Birth Control League” (now known as PP), Dr. Adolphus Knopf warned of the menace posed by the “black” and “yellow” peril. African-Americans are growing aware of the fact that, while they are only 12% of the US population, some 35% of abortions are of black children. I will gladly provide citations for these statements, if requested.

• BishopSean | Feb 28, 2012, 08:09 AM EST

  Since the topic of President Obama’s health care initiative is still under discussion, I would like to add some points. Mr. Obama is supported by Planned Parenthood (PP) and under his US Presidency, PP has gotten up to some US$ 500 m of taxpayers’ money per year. PP is the largest provider of abortions in the USA. The then Illinois Sen. Obama voted for abortion rights, including partial birth abortions. He also did not support, for political reasons, the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) which would have extended legal protections to children who survived a botched abortion. (Yes, Virginia, the abortion business does not attract the “cream of the crop” of the medical profession). In his July 17, 2007 address to PP, Sen. Obama stated he would “not yield” on abortion and attacked the Supreme Court decision which holds that the national ban on partial-birth abortion is constitutional.

• eiriamach | Feb 28, 2012, 04:44 AM EST

  From a 2/16 Commonweal editorial, "Bad Reaction": "What is not warranted is the USCCB’s demand that the contraceptive mandate be done away with entirely. This is a novel interpretation of the First Amendment, and one that will almost certainly be rejected by the courts. It is also a political gift to abortion-rights groups, who will use it to make the case that the church’s opposition to abortion is motivated by a larger disregard for the health of women." The editors of this highly respected Catholic journal see that the connection between Obama's contraceptive mandate and abortion is bogus. But they foresee that one side or the other will conjure up such a connection to give weight to their cause. I've been wondering why people who wish their religious motive to be taken seriously would engage in obvious lies, misrepresentations --calling birth control abortion-- when there is no support in medical science for such claims. The slippery slope is very real in their frightened minds: they think if women have access to contraceptive prescriptions as a matter of workers' rights, women will next demand access to abortions as a matter of workers' rights. Bruscandoli! Garbage thinking! But Toronthab and Gearoid4 are in the grip of such fear. Since they have no relevant facts to offer, they engage in personal attacks: "eriamach is on a full tear here. She survived abortionists." The ridiculous premise is that only a woman who would abort a pregnancy would support birth control. How illogical can they get before they become completely laughable?

• ciaradexy | Feb 27, 2012, 04:03 PM EST

  Majority of first time mums here are not married and 20% of Irish people attend mass. Do we all have a complex developmental disorder too?

• ciaradexy | Feb 27, 2012, 04:02 PM EST

  ''It is a complex developmental disorder and young vulnerable kids should be helped to full and natural lives, including marriage and family.''-So this isnt homophobic or patronising? So gay friends of mine who are in relationships 10 or 15 years have a developmental disorder? Seriously?

• Gearoid4 | Feb 27, 2012, 03:54 PM EST

  To legitimately query the assertion that children know at 4 their sexuality, is not by any stretch of the imagination homophobic or disparaging of any other group in society. It is intellectually very lazy to say such a thing. I have no hatred or animus for anybody in society. I was questioning your statement solely on the basis of how it is at odds with the conventional knowledge on child psychological and physical development.

• ciaradexy | Feb 27, 2012, 03:12 PM EST

  Gearoid, my male gay friends said they always knew they were different and from a very early age they knew they had closer female friends than boys. I'll believe gay people when they tell me how they felt growing up rather than a straight religious man who is obviously homophobic.

• Gearoid4 | Feb 27, 2012, 02:23 PM EST

  Well said, Toronthab. I could not have put it better, myself. Wow!, people who have known that they were "gay" since they were 4 years of age. I think that most child development experts would be raising more than a quizzical eyebrow at such a dubious assertion(that is putting it mildly). Children are trying to head their heads around the "ABCs.." at that very formative stage and you believe that they have an advanced knowledge of their sexuality at 4 years of ago.

• ciaradexy | Feb 27, 2012, 12:16 PM EST

  Toronthab, youre talking sh1te. I have gay friends who ive known since I was 4. They have always been gay and its been pretty obvious with most of them. Dont be so ignorant and patronising.

• Toronthab | Feb 27, 2012, 10:45 AM EST

  eriamach is on a full tear here. She survived abortionists. Good for her. Others should be so lucky. Western civilization is dying.. by its own hand. If it weren't for immigration.. and their chiildren.. somebody else would have to come in to turn out the lights.

• Toronthab | Feb 27, 2012, 10:40 AM EST

  Don't mean to be a bore on the issue, but vis a vis homosexual 'rights' to 'marry'. Leaving aside the obvious cluess from biology, identical twin studies show that only a small number of identical twins with one homosexually attracted find the other also homosexually attracted. This with the same hormone influences too. Sorry folks, nobody is "just born that way". It is a complex developmental disorder and young vulnerable kids should be helped to full and natural lives, including marriage and family. To deny them a normal life due to the prevailing cultural dogma is a very grave injustice. The Denmark 2006 registry study confirms all of these points.

• Toronthab | Feb 27, 2012, 10:33 AM EST

  eiramach is apparently ignorant of the fact that some of the drugs the church is being forced to pay for through their insurer.. are indeed intended to be abortifacients. So.. rather than call others 'liars'.. usually the signature style of someone claiming vast erudition and amazing psychic powers that reads minds and knowledge across thousands of miles, perhaps review his 'truth'. I for one will not be forced to pay to kill little kids in the womb. Whoever seeks to bring the power of the state to bear to force such monstrosities has earned a life-time opponent. Humanae Vitae ..in this country where 75% used to be married and where now less than half of Americans are and where children have to be innoculated against sexual diseases at eight years of age.. those who aren't killed outright in the womb.. says plenty about just whether the pope or the "sex , drugs and rock n'roll" crowd was speaking with integrity.

• eiriamach | Feb 27, 2012, 06:59 AM EST

  Once again, Gearoid4 and PiperMac refuse to recognize that the Obama Affordable Care Act and its HHS Rules have absolutely nothing to do with abortion! Federal funding of abortion has long been prohibited by the Hyde Amendment and is now a matter of settled law. Do not be taken in by this lie, that opposing full and equal health insurance for women workers is a way of opposing abortion. What is at stake is contraception. The law must not, on the basis of the bishops' "religious" objections, deny women workers access to medically approved contraceptives-- that is all that is at stake--nothing having to do with abortion at all. And in terms of church teaching, Humanae Vitae is as weak as it gets: it gives no scriptural reference because neither Jesus nor the evangelists ever prohibited contraception! Exclusion from the community of God's children, bigotry, and unnatural, socially-imposed 'gender roles,' yes, scripture rejects those, but imposes no view of "disordered" sexuality on women or gays and no "separate rolls [roles] for men and women" as the two reactionaries below would like to imagine. The time has arrived for Christians to speak out and call this particular lying devil by its name, and we all know that its name is not "Christianity." We know what its name is.

• eiriamach | Feb 27, 2012, 06:34 AM EST

  Again, we read PiperMac52's distortion of the struggle for equal rights: "this new age moral relativism that indoctrinates through intimidation and revsionist/ corrupt interpretation of law both secular and Sacred scripture." The arguments in favor of full civil rights for gays and women are the most respectable and time-honored in the American ethos, and far from "relativist." You will, indeed, find them in the Rev. King's writings about natural law. No one would want "relative" equal rights, here today, gone tomorrow, according to the whim of the majority! Christianity too embraces the equal moral worth of all human beings-- but not your version of Christianity, which excludes and demonizes and masks its own inherent bigotry as "civilization." Calling it a "gay lobby" is no argument against its principles of equal treatment under the law. And your demonizing has EVERYTHING "to do with misogyny" and homophobia. As the Dogmatic Constitution of the [Roman Catholic] Church, Lumen Gentium, declares, "There is, therefore, in Christ and in the Church no inequality on the basis of race or nationality, social condition or sex, because 'there is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all 'one' in Christ Jesus'." You present the ugliest, most intolerant, regressive and Pharisaic face of Catholicism when you vilify women and gays under the pretense of religious doctrine or scripture. God save us from such "Christians"!

• PiperMac52 | Feb 26, 2012, 07:07 PM EST

  eiriamach: You seem to view everything through the feminist lens which dull logical objectivity. To say that Obama care can not and never will lead to forcing religious institutions to provide for abortions is quite naive. The "Gay lobby" in collusion with feminists have gradually through stealth advanced their agendas against the will of the majority and through back door legislation and Judge shopping. There is a reason that every state where homosexual marriage was put on the ballot it was voted down. But that doesn't stop the nihilists. This has nothing to do with misogyny. This is about upholding what has been understood throughout the history of civilization as right and in tune with natural law/order(instituted by God). If you read the bible properly and in it's original intent and context it becomes clear that there are equal but separate rolls for men and women, Homosexuality is a disordered pathology(recognized as such till 1973 and Gay lobby pressure). From Genesis on the flow of God's plan is clear to all who are open to it. I am old enough to remember that it has only been the last few decades that has ushered in this new age moral relativism that indoctrinates through intimidation and revsionist/corrupt interpretation of law both secular and Sacred scripture. Many Blacks are Christians and resent the false assertion that legitimizing Homosexuality through equating it with Black civil rights movement.

• Towngate | Feb 26, 2012, 06:12 PM EST

  Niall, a chara. Nice to see somebody standing up for the GOOD things the catholics do at last! But! ~ would you ever tell the people in the photo; that is not how to wear a condom!

• eiriamach | Feb 26, 2012, 05:23 PM EST

  Gearoid4, Your warped illusion of mystical motherhood is misogyny trumped up to mimic religion. It has nothing to do with the Gospel, which sets us free to transform this world, to deal with problems like sexual abuse of children and denial of just wages for workers, just to mention some tasks needing women's efforts. Childbearing takes anywhere from nine months to a few years of a woman's four-score-and-some life expectancy. If she is doing all the child rearing while the father is doing something else, those children will know they are deprived, but even then she will spend only 25-33% of her lifetime engaged in child rearing. What do you imagine she should do with the rest of her life-- hang out at the local pit stop soliciting horn*y truck drivers? You've already told us that women who use birth control are sluts, so probably that's where your imagination would place us.

• Gearoid4 | Feb 26, 2012, 04:37 PM EST

  I do not put access to abortion or contraception, which prevent or brutally terminate pregnancies which are perfectly natural outcomes in the biology of women after sex, on the same level as the great social legislation which gave women the vote, equality in the jobs market or much needed improvements in survival rates during childbirth. It is nonsense to portray those who oppose abortion and contraception as attempting to drive women out of the workplace and back home. Rather it is an ethically-based attitude, founded on Christian principles, which celebrates the family structure, the natural bonding of husband and wife and the procreation of children. All natural processes which some regard as a "threat" to their rights and health. What an inversion of the truth and how society has fallen for this.

• eiriamach | Feb 26, 2012, 03:16 PM EST

  I understand, Gearoid4. You blame women for the decline and imminent fall of Western Civilization! It's all our fault, we women wanting to take our destiny out of the hands of husbands, boyfriends, and fathers (both ecclesiastical and biological) and shape it within our own capable hands. We brought you abolition, contraceptives, preventive health care, vastly improved infant and maternal mortality rates, women's suffrage, democratic access to education, and sex before or even without marriage, along with your worst nightmare, abortion. We women brought you the modern world even after you'd done that phenomenal pushback on Vatican II that assured über-conservatives that nothing would change in your safe, church-guarded moralistic, hierarchic world forever. It's all our fault, this bizarre new world of equal rights for women and gays, and we women should do penance for it. So you will drive us out of the business offices, nursing, teaching, all the professions, and back into the impoverished kitchens and over-crowded nurseries in the walk-up tenements of our immigrant foremothers. You will teach us again who is really in charge. No thanks, we worked too hard over the generations for ourselves and our children's future to be classified as "sluts" for demanding our rights. We're talking about health care for responsible nurses, teachers, and file clerks, not promiscuity for sluts!

• ciaradexy | Feb 26, 2012, 01:47 PM EST

  Gearoid, youre not female. You will never know what it is like to be pregnant with a potential baby you do not want therefore you will never ever have the options. You will never have to make the decision. You will never have to be faced with carrying a pregnancy or having to push a baby out of your body so until you do, you will never understand.

• Gearoid4 | Feb 26, 2012, 12:48 PM EST

  At the end of the day we are being duped by the inclusion of contraceptive services and sterilization under "health services". Here is a revealing quote by a prominent U.S feminist and supporter of contraception and abortion, Pamela Haag, who let the cat out of the bag with her exposure of the distorted language used by those who back the recent Obama Health Care Act- “I understand why they’ve done this, in terms of narrow political expediency. We’ve been on the defensive about reproductive rights and women's sexual liberty for decades. We’ve used a euphemism of 'choice' for years.” Haag further enlightens us as to the motivations behind this- “When deeply-settled rights are most in danger, it’s not the time to euphemize, or retreat from assertions of sexual liberty and self-governance. It’s time to gun it instead,” she declared. “So here’s the subject I advocate for, because no one dares to speak her name: It’s the 20-something unmarried heterosexual woman who wants to have sex, has sex, enjoys a good sex life with her boyfriend, and, in that sex life, uses birth control. Or, she accidentally gets pregnant.” “I advocate for the slut who sleeps with lots of men, as well as the woman who sleeps with only one, ever. Promiscuously heterosexual, and happy about it? I’ve got your back.” Yeah, it is all about a license to do what you like with your body and damn the consequences. This is what Catholic hospitals, schools etc and other religious institutions are being asked to sign up to.

• Rwnevnstr | Feb 26, 2012, 09:55 AM EST

  The gov't and our fearless leaders NEED to leave the Catholic institutions to be what they are and have been. There is no point to being Catholic if they aren't permitted to BE that. Catholics provide more to the destitute and poor than do any governments, and if violating consciences is required to do this good work, it damages the individuals providing service far too much. The need for people to have the 'right' to slaughter their young does not come with the privilege of forcing that onto the rest of us, our acts of charity, our work, or our souls. Keep that to yourselves.

• ciaradexy | Feb 26, 2012, 09:19 AM EST

  Theres no doubt that the catholic church has done some great work in hospitals etc but they need to learn to stay out of peoples bedrooms and womens wombs.

• eiriamach | Feb 26, 2012, 08:36 AM EST

  @PiperMac, the HHS Rule has no slippery slope to abortion. The Hyde Amendment has prohibited federal funding for abortions for many years, and the Obama HHS Rule cannot alter that prohibition in any way. The "abortion" red herring is an unconscionable lie created to dupe Catholics, who almost universally use or have used contraceptives. Catholics will not oppose equal health care for women, which by definition includes access to contraceptives and related gynecological services, but some will oppose abortion, so the bishops call contraceptives abortifacients-- lies, lies, and dam*ed lies! Gearoid4 pretends to be concerned about "the core values which religious bodies cherish." Apparently he thinks those values include the domestic, political, and social subordination of women, as well as his scorn for equal treatment of women under the law. The bishops have no hope of the courts supporting their refusal to obey the Affordable Care Act. Catholic institutions will obey the law or suffer closure: equality is fundamental to every other right in the US Constitution, and no religious doctrine that flouts it can gain the protection of "religious liberty," any more than the Mormons succeeded in keeping polygamy legal by citing the bible or the 19th century Christian bible thumpers succeeded in keeping race slavery legal. You cannot use YOUR "religious liberty" to nullify MY freedom of conscience. The US Constitution prohibits a self-"established" religion dictating laws, thank God!

• ciaradexy | Feb 26, 2012, 06:03 AM EST

  Piper, you know that 'sodomy' can occur between a man and a woman too, yeah?

• PiperMac52 | Feb 26, 2012, 02:09 AM EST

  jetsnoone is correct, this is just the start and abortion will surely be next on the agenda. Just as the homosexual lobby assured everyone that when the sodomy laws were overturned in Texas it it was only to protect privacy in the bedroom and would "never lead to a push for homosexual marriage". Well they lied as do all nihilistic moral relativists who want to recreate the world in their debased image while shoving it down the throats of the majority who still hold to protected 1st amendment faith based beliefs(which are increasingly under attack). eiriamach, this argument is not about women's health care or contraceptives, which they have never been denied. Moreover, contraceptives are not truly health care. This is clearly about an unprecedented move by a President to abrogate the 1st amendment rights of religious institutions in holding to their faith based beliefs.

• jetsnoone | Feb 25, 2012, 10:00 PM EST

  Obama will eventually want Catholic hospitals to do abortions. To their credit they'd close shop before they start killing babies....

• Gearoid4 | Feb 25, 2012, 09:32 PM EST

  The bible celebrates fertility and child-birth. As the Psalmist stated:..".Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one’s youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate. (Psalm 127:3-5;). One could consider the story of Abraham's wife, Sarah, who was barren for a long time but God blessed her with a son called Isaac. These are a few pointers to the biblical attitude to the gift of children in a marriage. US hospitals are private establishments founded by religious benefactors and thus should be covered by the first amendment which stipulates that no federal agency should interfere with the activities of Faith communities. The fact that they receive some public funds should not override this. You reduce the protests of the bishops to a "political" attack on women's "rights". This is typical of those who claim that the provision of contraceptive services is some sort of universal right that women are entitled to under "health" coverage. It is nothing of the sort. The Church along with the representatives of the religious groups right across the Faith spectrum, are resisting totalitarian interference by central government which threatens the core values which religious bodies cherish.

• eiriamach | Feb 25, 2012, 06:59 PM EST

  What in the world is Gearoid4 preaching about now? "The Church rightly will not sacrifice key biblical principles" that he thinks are threatened by Obama's health care policy? Does the bible prohibit health insurance for women workers? Cite book, chapter and verse, please. Let's not forget the billions of American taxpayers' dollars that pour into Catholic hospitals and other Catholic institutions. American taxpayers have been too tolerant: it's unconstitutional to use public money to fund political activities, and the public is fast wearying of the USCCB lobbying. Despite the work done by healthcare workers (members of various religions and no religion) in Catholic hospitals, we should expect to see a sharpening of the protests against the tax-exempt status of Catholic institutions if the bishops don't very soon back off from their blatantly political war against women.

• PiperMac52 | Feb 25, 2012, 06:46 PM EST

  Overshadows the good work of Catholic Hospitals? A history lesson: Until the 1930s and the increasing debasement/secularization of the culture in the west contraception was held as immoral and sinful by ALL Christian religions as against natural (god's) law. Only the orthodox and Catholic churches still hold to these immutable teachings that date to ancient Judaism/Christianity. Ill formed consciences and a lack of Christian formation has led new agers to accept historically debased behaviors as "normal". Thus the push for sexual orientation/homosexual marriage as a civil rights issue. Yes, we are on the slippery slope and wolves in sheep's clothing are leading the flock.

• arx754 | Feb 25, 2012, 05:09 PM EST

  Niall states: "...less of the harsh social teaching and more of the focus on the amazing work they do in education and health care". Can you have one with another (as RedBranch asks)? Well, either you do that OR you refuse all Federal funding. Separation of Church and State is vital part of the US Constitution. Nowadays in the US, the Constitution is only quoted when it's convenient to try to prove a point. Kinda like the Bible. ; )

• RedBranch | Feb 25, 2012, 04:29 PM EST

  Niall states:'...less of the harsh social teaching and more of the focus on the amazing work they do in education and health care.' Can you have one without the other? Personally I don't think you can...

• Gearoid4 | Feb 25, 2012, 03:17 PM EST

  Catholic hospitals are part of the very considerable outreach of the Catholic Faith throughout the US and indeed the world, in terms of health/social care as mandated by gospel values. They cannot be separated from the Faith upon which their vocational outlook is based. But the federal encroachment of the tentacles of government through the Obama-inspired Health Care Act now threatens the very integrity and existence of these establishments of medical excellence and patient care. The Church rightly will not sacrifice key biblical principles for a "mess of pottage"

• BishopSean | Feb 25, 2012, 02:07 PM EST

  Nice article, Niall, giving credit where credit is due. However, I would respectfully disagree on one item--what you call "harsh social teaching." I would call this "ethical" or "moral" teaching. On occasion, it has had to be corrected and refined, but it cannot be at variance with the teachings of the Gospel. For example, Fidel Castro's mentor, a Spanish communist, advised him to not wipe out complete the Catholic Church in Cuba. Instead, he advised, make the Catholic Church identify with one function--say education or health--and once their institutional goals would be met, there would be no more need for the Church and it would cease to have a "raison d'etre." The Church has to be about the Good News of Jesus Christ, preaching and doing it properly, "walking our talk," or we will be useless and fit only to be "trodden underfoot," as Jesus said--meaning the world has a right to judge us when we fail. It's a tough and important job, if we really do it properly.

• peterson | Feb 25, 2012, 01:17 PM EST

  Regardless,--Government should not dictate rules to the Church. I agree that the Church needs to soften it's policies on birth control and toughen it's policies on the sexual abuse by the clergy instead of coverups. No wonder the Church is in trouble !!

• like2tweet | Feb 25, 2012, 12:16 PM EST

  work oc church in this area never acknowledged

• SingleDonald | Feb 25, 2012, 10:24 AM EST

  I agree! More time should be spent highlighting the positive impact Catholic Hospitals & Health Care Services have had on American life. The contraception issue is real, and something the Church needs to soften up on. Yet we should never loose sight of the overall good the Church has provided, by way of health care.

• donal1951 | Feb 25, 2012, 10:07 AM EST

  As an Orthodox Christian, I don't buy into the Roman Catholic Church's stand on contraception, so long as it is not an abortificant. But I have received wonderful care at Catholic hospitals. In Maine, from where I just moved, to Indianapolis, where I'm located mow, I have selected Roman Catholic hospitals as my first choice for care should I need to be admitted. My favorite doctor is on the consulting staff of a Catholic hospital on the other side of town.