Cardinal DiNardo to US bishops: Avoid despair, presumption in addressing abuse crisis

Philadelphia, Pa., Aug 6, 2019 / 10:50 am (CNA).- Gun control laws alone will not stop mass shootings effectively, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia, said in a column written in response to the recent shootings in Gilroy, Calif., El Paso, and Dayton, Ohio.

Chaput belives that there needs to be societal shift to transform the present “culture of violence.”

Writing in his Aug. 5 column, Chaput said that while he fully supports the use of background checks and restrictions on who is able to purchase firearms, “only a fool can believe that ‘gun control’ will solve the problem of mass violence.”

“The people using the guns in these loathsome incidents are moral agents with twisted hearts. And the twisting is done by the culture of sexual anarchy, personal excess, political hatreds, intellectual dishonesty, and perverted freedoms that we’ve systematically created over the past half-century.”

Chaput drew from his experience as Archbishop of Denver consoling the community after the shooting at Columbine High School. At the time, he buried some of the victims, and met with their families.

During his testimony to the U.S. Senate shortly after the Columbine shooting, Chaput spoke of “a culture that markets violence in dozens of different ways” that has become “part of our social fabric.”

“When we build our advertising campaigns on consumer selfishness and greed, and when money becomes the universal measure of value, how can we be surprised when our sense of community erodes,” he asked at the time. “When we glorify and multiply guns, why are we shocked when kids use them?”

Chaput also addressed the use of the death penalty and the legality of abortion as “certain kinds of killings we enshrine as rights and protect by law,” which creates a societal “contradiction.” This contradiction has reduced the view of human life, he said.

In 1999, Chaput suggested that America embrace a “relentless commitment to respect the sanctity of each human life, from womb to natural death,” and that he did not think the shooting at Columbine High School would be the last mass shooting.

“In examining how and why our culture markets violence, I ask you not to stop with the symptoms,” he said. “Look deeper.”

Chaput repeated this call in his column Monday, saying, “treating the symptoms in a culture of violence doesn’t work. We need to look deeper. Until we’re willing to do that, nothing fundamental will change.”

In focusing on the hearts of those who commit mass schootings, twisted by the culture created in the past 50 years, Chaput’s statement was markedly different than others published by Catholic bishops in the wake of the shootings.

The USCCB issued a sweeping statement Aug. 4 requesting “effective legislation that addresses why these unimaginable and repeated occurrences of murderous gun violence continue to take place in our communities.”

“As people of faith, we continue to pray for all the victims, and for healing in all these stricken communities. But action is also needed to end these abhorrent acts,” said the bishops.

Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh called for various gun control measures in an Aug. 5 statement, including “limiting civilian access to high capacity weapons and magazines.” Zubik also said there was a need to address websites that encourage violent acts, as well as to improve access to mental healthcare and work to overcome racism.

Bishop Mark Seitz of El Paso did not call for increased gun control measure, but instead urged the people of El Paso to “recommit to love” and to “brace ourselves for just action that will overcome the forces of division and build a more loving society.”

And Archbishop Dennis Schnurr of Cincinnati said Aug. 4 that “it is with a heavy heart that we turn to the Lord in prayer on this Sunday. As tragic and violent shootings continue in our country … I ask for everyone of faith to join in prayer for the victims and their loved ones. May we, the Catholics of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati, in unity petition our Blessed Mother to intercede for our families and neighbors to know the peace and healing of Jesus, her Son.”

[…]

CNA Staff, Apr 20, 2020 / 01:19 pm (CNA).- Eight states that have enacted temporary bans on abortion during the coronavirus pandemic are contending with legal challenges, and judges have prevented many of the temporary bans from coming into effect.

Judges have so far intervened to allow abortions in some form in Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Ohio, Texas, Iowa, Louisiana, and Tennessee, after the leaders of those states attempted to classify elective abortions as non-essential procedures.

In Iowa, abortion advocates had filed a lawsuit against the state’s order, but reached an agreement with the state outside of court before the lawsuit could progress.

In Alaska, a move by state officials to “delay” abortions until June has not been legally challenged; and in Mississippi, the state’s order banning all “elective” medical procedures also has not been challenged. Louisiana’s order to stop elective abortions is facing a lawsuit but has not been blocked.

Many states have suspended medical procedures deemed non-emergency or non-essential in an attempt to stem the spread of the virus among healthcare professionals, and to free up medical resources and hospital capacity.

Texas

In Texas, a three-judge panel for the Fifth Circuit Court ruled April 7 that Texas has the authority to halt elective abortions as non-essential medical procedures during a public health emergency. Governor Greg Abbott had on March 22 issued a statewide order halting abortions, and abortion clinics in the state immediately sued.

Abortion clinics in states like Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico, which have not introduced any kinds of ban on abortion, have seen increases in patients traveling from Texas to obtain abortions.

On April 14, a federal appeals court ruled that so-called medication abortions can continue in Texas despite the order. Most surgical abortions are still prohibited in Texas, except for emergencies or pregnancies “nearing the state’s 22-week cutoff,” NPR reports.

Tennessee

On April 17, a federal judge ruled that despite Tennessee’s temporary ban on nonessential medical procedures, the state must allow abortions to continue.

Governor Bill Lee had issued an emergency order April 8 banning abortions for three weeks, with the goal of freeing up protective medical equipment for doctors caring for COVID-19 patients and limiting interactions between patients and abortionists.

The reason the judge gave for allowing abortions, according to the AP, is that the defendants did not show that an appreciative amount of protective medical equipment would be saved by halting abortions in the state.

Alabama

On April 12, a federal judge ruled that the state of Alabama cannot move to limit abortion procedures through measures intended to focus medical resources on fighting coronavirus. Governor Kay Ivey had issued a statewide order March 19 which stopped all medical procedures except for emergencies or those needed to “avoid serious harm from an underlying condition or disease, or necessary as part of a patient’s ongoing and active treatment.”

Granting a preliminary injunction, U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson wrote that “efforts to combat COVID-19 do not outweigh the lasting harm imposed by the denial of an individual’s right to terminate her pregnancy, by an undue burden or increase in risk on patients imposed by a delayed procedure, or by the cloud of unwarranted prosecution against providers.”

Oklahoma

Governor Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma issued an executive order halting non-essential surgeries and minor medical procedures in the state during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Stitt clarified March 27 that the order prohibited elective abortions, except in cases where the mother’s life or health was deemed to be at risk, among the non-essential surgeries that were to be halted. The order also stopped “routine dermatological, ophthalmological, and dental procedures, as well as most scheduled healthcare procedures such as orthopedic surgeries.”

On April 1, Stitt extended the order’s prohibitions until April 30. On March 30, abortion providers in the state challenged the halt to elective abortions in court. On April 7, Judge Charles Goodwin of Oklahoma’s Western District Court put a temporary stay on Stitt’s order, allowing some abortions, including medication abortions, to continue.

The court’s restraining order is in effect until April 20, after which the court can let it expire or address the situation again.

Ohio

On April 6, a court ruled that Ohio cannot stop abortion clinics from operating due to COVID-19.

Ohio had ordered a halt on surgical abortions as “non-essential” medical procedures during the pandemic, before a district court put a temporary restraining order on that policy March 30.

Arkansas

U.S. District Judge Kristine Baker on April 14 granted a temporary restraining order against the state of Arkansas’ order to halt elective abortions.

Iowa

Governor Kim Reynolds issued an order March 30 classifying abortion as an elective procedure and banning them during the pandemic, but the state later acknowledged that the order only suspends “nonessential” surgical abortions that can be delayed without undue risk to the health of the patient, the Des Moines Register reports.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa had filed a lawsuit against the state’s order but voluntarily withdrew its motion for an emergency injunction after the state responded to the lawsuit.

Louisiana

The Louisiana Department of Health on March 21 ordered all medical and surgical procedures be postponed until further notice, with exceptions for emergencies.

Abortion clinics in the state have sued to block the measure.

Mississippi

Governor Tate Reeves issued an executive order April 10 banning all “elective” medical procedures, including abortions, with the order expiring April 27.

Alaska

Governor Mike Dunleavy on March 19 added surgical abortions to a list of procedures that should be delayed until June 15.

The state’s list, updated April 7, includes several other types of surgeries including cancer, cardiac, and children’s procedures, including circumcisions, that could be postponed, Alaska Public Media reported.

[…]

CNA Staff, Oct 1, 2020 / 01:07 pm (CNA).- A federal judge on Tuesday temporarily blocked a Tennessee law that requires doctors to inform patients seeking medical abortion that the procedure could be reversed if the patient acts quickly.

The law, which was signed by Gov. Bill Lee in July, requires abortion providers to notify patients that medical abortions can be reversed; a procedure that is becoming more common among pro-life doctors, but which has not yet been evaluated by the FDA.

Medical abortions made up around 40% of at U.S. abortions in 2017, according to the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute. The FDA allows the two-pill regimen of mifepristone and misoprostol to be used until 10 weeks gestation.

Tennessee’s law required the physician to offer notification of the possibility of reversal at least 48 hours before the abortion, again in writing after the first pill of the regimen has been administered, and written on “conspicuously” displayed signs in private offices, ambulatory surgical treatment centers, facilities, and clinics that have provided more than 50 abortions in the previous calendar year, CNN reported.

Tennesee’s five abortion clinics, along with Planned Parenthood and the ACLU, filed suit against the law in August.

The federal judge, William Campbell, wrote that he was “unable to assess fully the competing expert opinions as to whether the mandated message is ‘truthful and not misleading,’ in the absence of the experts’ testimony,” but also that the plaintiffs had demonstrated “a strong or substantial likelihood” that the mandate violates the First Amendment.

The judge’s block on the law will last until Oct. 13.

Several other states, including Oklahoma, North Dakota, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Nebraska have passed laws requiring abortion providers to inform patients about abortion pill reversal. A district judge granted a preliminary injunction against North Dakota’s requirement during Sept. 2019. 

In July, a federal judge overruled FDA requirements that women visit with a doctor in-person before they can be prescribed a medical abortion.

Since 2000, the FDA has placed the chemical abortion protocol of mifepristone and misoprostol under its Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy list, requiring it to be prescribed in-person in a hospital, clinic, or medical office. The patient must sign a form acknowledging that she has been adequately informed of the risks.

Pro-abortion groups, however, have pushed for the pill to be dispensed remotely via telemedicine during the coronavirus pandemic, due to apparent difficulties women could face traveling to a clinic in-person.

The first drug, mifepristone, effectively starves the unborn baby by blocking the effects of the hormone progesterone. The second drug, misoprostol, is taken up to two days later and induces labor.

Side effects that women suffer from the pills, such as heavy bleeding, abdominal pain, or severe infections, are usually treated at emergency rooms, which are not required to report the incidents to the FDA.

After the federal judge’s decision, pro-life leaders and senators asked the FDA to remove the abortion pill from the market altogether by classifying it as a public health hazard. Nearly two dozen pro-life leaders said that pro-abortion groups were “using the coronavirus pandemic as a ruse” in their efforts to deregulate the pills.

A 2018 study, published in Issues in Law and Medicine, a peer-reviewed medical journal, examined 261 successful abortion pill reversals, and showed that the reversal success rates were 68 percent with a high-dose oral progesterone protocol and 64 percent with an injected progesterone protocol.

Both procedures significantly improved the 25 percent fetal survival rate if no treatment is offered and a woman simply declines the second pill of a medical abortion. The case study also showed that the progesterone treatments caused no increased risk of birth defects or preterm births due.

The study was authored by Dr. Mary Davenport and Dr. George Delgado, who have been studying the abortion pill reversal procedures since 2009. Delgado also sits on the board of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

The Abortion Pill Rescue Network, which Delgado serves as a medical advisor, has claimed to have saved over 500 babies from abortion. The network is a program of Heartbeat International, a longstanding network of pro-life pregnancy assistance.

The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which tends to oppose abortion regulations, has criticized the scientific claims behind abortion pill reversal.

[…]