Category Archives: Abortion

You can’t stop abortion by killing abortionists

Late-term abortionist George Tiller was killed at his church Sunday morning in Wichita, Kansas. Tiller was a controversial figure in the abortion debate. He was one of the few doctors to perform late-term abortions, and had previously been the victim of attempts on his life.

No doubt the murderer feels justified in killing Tiller because of Tiller’s actions in killing unborn babies. But he’s not justified. I agree with President Obama’s reaction to the killing:

Today Obama said he was “shocked and outraged” by the killing. “However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion,” he said in a statement, “they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence.

My mother always taught me that two wrongs don’t make a right. Killing an abortionist is not a justified response to the scourge of abortion on demand in this country. I still have hope that abortion will be abolished through peaceful, legal means over time through persuasion, the way slavery was abolished in England.

Catholic archbishop confronts pro-choice Democrats

My position is that I am personally opposed to abortion, but I don’t think I have a right to impose my few on the rest of society. I’ve thought a lot about it, and my position probably doesn’t please anyone. I think the government should stay out completely. I will not vote to overturn the Court’s decision. I will not vote to curtail a woman’s right to choose abortion. But I will also not vote to use federal funds to fund abortion.

–Sen. Joe Biden, Promises to Keep (2007), p. 104-105

This is Sen. Joe Biden’s official stance on abortion — a common one among Democrats, whose party platform includes a pro-choice stance as a key plank. Biden was asked to defend his fence-straddling position recently on Meet the Press, and what he said raised the ire of the Archbishop of Denver. The archbishop thinks that politicians like Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are misrepresenting the church’s beliefs on abortion to the American public, and he’s published a letter to set the record straight and expose these politicans’ “flawed moral reasoning”:

Public Servants and Moral Reasoning:A notice to the Catholic community in northern Colorado

To Catholics of the Archdiocese of Denver:

When Catholics serve on the national stage, their actions and words impact the faith of Catholics around the country. As a result, they open themselves to legitimate scrutiny by local Catholics and local bishops on matters of Catholic belief.

In 2008, although NBC probably didn’t intend it, Meet the Press has become a national window on the flawed moral reasoning of some Catholic public servants. On August 24, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, describing herself as an ardent, practicing Catholic, misrepresented the overwhelming body of Catholic teaching against abortion to the show’s nationwide audience, while defending her “pro-choice” abortion views. On September 7, Sen. Joseph Biden compounded the problem to the same Meet the Press audience.

Sen. Biden is a man of distinguished public service. That doesn’t excuse poor logic or bad facts. Asked when life begins, Sen. Biden said that, “it’s a personal and private issue.” But in reality, modern biology knows exactly when human life begins: at the moment of conception. Religion has nothing to do with it. People might argue when human “personhood” begins – though that leads public policy in very dangerous directions – but no one can any longer claim that the beginning of life is a matter of religious opinion.

Sen. Biden also confused the nature of pluralism. Real pluralism thrives on healthy, non-violent disagreement; it requires an environment where people of conviction will struggle respectfully but vigorously to advance their beliefs. In his interview, the senator observed that other people with strong religious views disagree with the Catholic approach to abortion. It’s certainly true that we need to acknowledge the views of other people and compromise whenever possible – but not at the expense of a developing child’s right to life.

Abortion is a foundational issue; it is not an issue like housing policy or the price of foreign oil. It always involves the intentional killing of an innocent life, and it is always, grievously wrong. If, as Sen. Biden said, “I’m prepared as a matter of faith [emphasis added] to accept that life begins at the moment of conception,” then he is not merely wrong about the science of new life; he also fails to defend the innocent life he already knows is there.

As the senator said in his interview, he has opposed public funding for abortions. To his great credit, he also backed a successful ban on partial-birth abortions. But his strong support for the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade and the false “right” to abortion it enshrines, can’t be excused by any serious Catholic. Support for Roe and the “right to choose” an abortion simply masks what abortion is, and what abortion does.

Roe is bad law. As long as it stands, it prevents returning the abortion issue to the states where it belongs, so that the American people can decide its future through fair debate and legislation. In his Meet the Press interview, Sen. Biden used a morally exhausted argument that American Catholics have been hearing for 40 years: i.e., that Catholics can’t “impose” their religiously based views on the rest of the country. But resistance to abortion is a matter of human rights, not religious opinion. And the senator knows very well as a lawmaker that all law involves the imposition of some people’s convictions on everyone else. That is the nature of the law.

American Catholics have allowed themselves to be bullied into accepting the destruction of more than a million developing unborn children a year. Other people have imposed their “pro-choice” beliefs on American society without any remorse for decades. If we claim to be Catholic, then American Catholics, including public officials who describe themselves as Catholic, need to act accordingly. We need to put an end to Roe and the industry of permissive abortion it enables. Otherwise all of us – from senators and members of Congress, to Catholic laypeople in the pews – fail not only as believers and disciples, but also as citizens.

+Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.
Archbishop of Denver

+James D. Conley
Auxiliary Bishop of Denver

Sanctity of Human Life Walk and Rally

About 200 people marched from the Peoria County Courthouse to Sacred Heart Catholic Church on Fulton Thursday night. It’s an annual event protesting the 1973 Supreme Court decision that made abortion-on-demand legal in all 50 states. The keynote speaker was Pastor Luke Robinson, an African American minister from Quinn Chapel A. M. E. Church in Frederick, Maryland.

In a sermon that decried abortion-on-demand in general, Robinson pointed out that abortions are disproportionately high among African Americans. He distributed literature that included this information:

  • “Abortion services have been deliberately and systematically targeted towards African Americans. A disproportionate number of the nation’s abortion clinics are located in minority neighborhoods.” (The Destiny o fhte Black Race, Carlisle Peterson, Planned Parenthood 1992 Service Report)
  • “35% of abortions in the United States are performed on African American women, while they represent only 12% of the female population of the country.” (US Center for Disease Control, Abortion Surveillance Report 7/30/99, US Census Bureau)
  • “The abortion rate among married African American women is 4.4 times greater than it is among married white women.” (Center for Disease Control, National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 47, No. 29)
  • “According to the 2000 Census, Hispanics have replaced African Americans as the largest minority group in the US. The loss of 14 million African American children through abortion has played a significant part in this population decline.” (US Census Bureau, 2000 Census)

The literature also compares the “approximate number of African American deaths since 1973” by various causes, “based on cumulative statistics provided by the U.S. Center for Disease Control National Vital Statistics Reports.” They are: Abortion (14,000,000), heart disease (2,503,789), cancer (1,824,350), accidents (409,723), violent crimes (329,313), and AIDS (227,695).

Robinson compared the fight against abortion to Nehemiah’s fight to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. There were those who opposed the rebuilding who plotted to kill the workers and stop the construction. Nehemiah 4:18ff says, “As for the builders, each wore his sword girded at his side as he built, while the trumpeter stood near me [Nehemiah]. I said to the nobles, the officials and the rest of the people, ‘The work is great and extensive, and we are separated on the wall far from one another. At whatever place you hear the sound of the trumpet, rally to us there.'”

Robinson said this was not a racial issue, and that he believes abortion-on-demand should be stopped regardless of what color one’s skin is. The fight against abortion-on-demand is like the fight to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. But he argued that the abortion battle right now is highest in the African American community. Thus, he’s “sounding the trumpet,” and calling everyone to rally to that front at this time, while not ignoring the larger goal.

Women’s Pregnancy Center director Myfanwy Sanders gave an update on the center’s work to help women. She stressed that we should not ask a woman who’s considering abortion to carry her baby to term unless we’re willing to help and support her in that decision. She gave an example of a woman whose husband was in jail and the baby she was carrying was not her husband’s. Through the work of the Women’s Pregnancy Center, she kept the babies (she had twins), and the family ended up staying together once her husband got out of jail.

Sondra McEnroe gave an update on Central Illinois Right to Life. They’re taking a couple of buses to Washington, D. C., to attend the 35th Annual March for Life. (Incidentally, Robinson was the keynote speaker at last year’s March for Life in Washington.) She said some seats were still available, but to call her soon because the buses leave on Monday. The march is Jan. 22. Central Illinois Right to Life also has a 24-hour help line. The number is 645-8000.

Rev. A. J. Guyton of Trinity Missionary Baptist Church said the opening prayer, and Rev. Mark Henninger of Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA) said the closing prayer. Refreshments were served after the event. The Journal Star has pictures of the walk and rally on its website here.

Middle ground impossible in abortion debate

The Journal Star’s editorial today included this line: “…rather than seize on intentionally divisive issues, pro-choice and pro-life forces ought to be working together to reduce the number of abortions.”

Wishful, simplistic thinking.

Consider this quote from the National Abortion Federation: “Opponents of abortion often portray abortion as a negative problem that society should try to eliminate. While we work to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies, abortion is a valid and acceptable reproductive choice.”

And now compare that to the mission statement of the National Right to Life Committee: “The ultimate goal of the National Right to Life Committee is to restore legal protection to innocent human life.”

It may seem at first glance that these two groups want what the Journal Star says, i.e. “to reduce the number of abortions.” But that’s not really accurate. Their positions are more nuanced than that.

NRLC isn’t satisified to simply reduce abortions from, say, 800,000 per year to 650,000 per year. They want to eliminate it as an option, and for this reason: they believe that abortion kills a person — a living human being with a constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Pro-life advocates often compare abortion to slavery, pointing out that just because something is legal and sanctioned by the Supreme Court doesn’t make it right. So to them, the Journal Star’s idea to work with pro-choice advocates to reduce abortion but not eliminate it is as morally repugnant as if they were living prior to the Civil War and were asked to reduce slavery but not eliminate it.

NAF, on the other hand, isn’t really interested in reducing abortions at all, per se. They want to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies. The thought is that if there are fewer unplanned pregnancies, then there will be less demand for abortion. But if unplanned pregnancies went down but abortion demand stayed the same, they would still feel their goal was achieved.

In the final analysis, there is a gulf fixed between pro-choice and pro-life forces — one sees abortion as a “valid and acceptable reproductive choice” and the other sees it as the destruction of “innocent human life.” Hoping for middle ground is a pipe dream.

Morales morass highlights mixed messages

I was morbidly amused while listening to NPR this morning. They have been following the story of Michael Morales, a man in California who was convicted of raping and murdering a 17-year-old girl, Terri Winchell, in 1981. He is on death row and was supposed to be executed a couple of nights ago.

But there have been complications. California first couldn’t find any anesthesiologists who would make Morales unconscious so he could receive his lethal injection. Then, when given the okay by the court to kill him using sodium pentothol only, they couldn’t find a licensed medical professional willing to do it. They complained it violated the Hippocratic Oath, “first, do no harm.”

This amuses me because there’s another story in the news right now that has to do with so-called “partial-birth abortion.” Pro-choice advocates prefer to call the procedure by its medical name, “D&X,” or “dialation and extraction.” It was a procedure thought up by two doctors — one from Ohio, and the other from (you guessed it) California.

So, it seems that a perfect solution to the Michael Morales problem would be to get an abortionist — perhaps the co-inventer of D&X himself — to perform the execution. After all, if they can end human life at its most innocent and vulnerable state, what should stop them from ending the life of a murderer/rapist who has been tried, convicted, and sentenced to death by a jury of his peers?

But if that doesn’t work, I have a backup plan. They can always starve him to death.

You may remember that when Terri Schiavo was still alive and they wanted to remove her feeding tube, there were several experts who said that, not only is starvation not painful, there’s instead a feeling of euphoria one experiences as the bodily systems shut down. I remember reading with disbelief this description in the Journal Star, wondering if all those starving people in Africa were feeling this “euphoria,” too.

But hey, if there’s one thing I’ve learned from the evolution/intelligent-design debate, it’s that you don’t ever question state-endorsed science. Such science is the only true truth in the western world. So if science says you feel euphoric while starving, then by golly you feel euphoric while starving, and don’t give me any lip. And in a country where we’re more concerned about rapists and murderers having as painless an execution as possible (too bad Morales didn’t extend the same courtesy to his victim), what could be more painless than the euphoria one feels while one’s body wastes away?

One of the anti-death-penalty advocates interviewed by NPR called capital punishment “immoral.” Yet isn’t there something morally askew about a country that so easily assuages its conscience when it comes to killing the unborn and the infirm, yet has a moral crisis about executing murderers?