Catholic Exchange

Georgia’s Tragedy: Catholic Bishops Fail to Support Personhood

Written by

Judie Brown

in

Perhaps this is the first time you  have discovered that there are several states pursuing efforts to restore personhood to the preborn children of that state from the first instant of the child's life. Among those states is Georgia, and the heroic leaders of Georgia Right to Life have been pursuing this goal for a couple of years now. The bill they support is House Resolution 536–a proposed amendment that would protect every single preborn child in the state as a person.

Sadly, however, it seems that the opposition keeps tossing roadblocks in their way, but even when that occurs, they just keep moving on. God bless Dan Becker and his organization.

At American Life League we praise pro-lifers with integrity like this for it means that they have understood the value of personhood and are willing to keep at it until they reach the goal. But sadly this is not the case with the Catholic bishops of that state.

In a prepared statement Archbishop Wilton Gregory and Bishop Kevin Boland tell the Catholic people in their care that "the approach taken by HR 536 to amend the state constitution does not provide a realistic opportunity for ending or reducing abortion in Georgia."

The bishops do not support the passage of the proposed amendment and have made it clear that they will not change that position. I find this a tragic event in the history of the pro-life movement and one that I cannot even begin to assess in terms of the damage it has done to the movement in that state. 

If given the chance, I would ask these two shepherds: If not now, when?  If not personhood, what?

Oh, but wait! Planned Parenthood certainly understands the impact of HR 536 and said so in a related news report. Metro Sprit newspaper published the statement of  Mary Beth Pierucci, director of public policy for Planned Parenthood of Georgia, which says in part:

More Georgians need to understand the broad legal and medical ramifications of HR 536. Its supporters blatantly state that their intention is to outlaw legal abortion in Georgia. This amendment is so extreme that it could potentially prohibit the use of hormonal birth-control options that doctors commonly prescribe like the birth control pill and IUDs. It could even stop women from accessing in-vitro fertilization.

It is not extreme to work toward an end to any action, surgical, medical or chemical that kills a preborn human being! It is not extreme to outlaw in vitro fertilization which is a direct assault on God's procreative design for marriage. In fact, it is long past time that the entire pro-life movement took up this cause and worked hard to achieve personhood. It seems me, frankly, that the bishops of the United States, including Georgia, would be leading this struggle to defend each and every defenseless child at every stage of his development rather than running away from the very activity that makes Planned Parenthood shudder!

I ask you to join me in this prayer:

Dear God in heaven, please grace each bishop with wisdom, fortitude, and pro-life integrity.  We ask this in Christ's name, Amen.

Comments

  1. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Today is the feast of St. Thomas Aquinas. Let us pray for his intercession for God to to grant wisdom and understanding to those who just dont get it.

  2. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    This is just astounding.  For those of us involved in this fight for 35 years, how the Bishops can be so dense, so politically protective of their own position rather than what the Gospel calls for is beyond anyone who holds this issue in their heart.  Do I sound angry?  You bet. 

    This fight for personhood should have been the focus of the legal battle all these years.  Where have they been?  You do what is right and let the chips fall where they may.  The rest will sort itself out.  They are making a politcal judgment, not making a teaching.  In fact, they couldn't support this with any teaching, nor is it in the interest of the Church.  It would seem they think they are being reasonable, or want to be seen that way, in not threatening contraception and the whole scary bugaboo that PP is raising.  But THEY get it!  So now that they are dragged out into the light of day, win the argument, since the day is on OUR side. 

    Years ago, I attended an historic Pro-Life rally in Washington, DC, during which the main speaker was Dan Quayle.  I have rarely heard a more eloquent defense of life.  Yet, as he wrote in his book after that, his interest in the Pro-Life movement was strictly in how to be part of controlling it.  When he debated Al Gore during the '92 election campaign he could find nothing to respond in aswer to Gore's harrassing banter about Quayle's pro-life position.  He didn't have it in his heart or he would have had something to say in challenging Gore's own hypocrisy.  This is where some Bishops seem to be.  How do we control these people?  The blood of children and women is crying out from the streets.  God have mercy on their lack of leadership and simple courage. 

  3. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    It is difficult to understand the Bishop's response. They say one thing about wanting to end legalize abortion, even very eloquently, and then don't support an attempt to do just that. After I read the Planned Parenthood response the thought came to mind that maybe the end to the right to contraception, also an intrinisic evil, is the point of departure that the misguided Bishop's are trying to protect, under the guise of being unrealistic. My take is that the Bishop's don't agree with the Church's teaching on the contraception issue and that fact is being manifested here in their untenable position. Their guilty conscience sees the support of this bill incongruent with their stance on contraception and this represents an attempt at trying to separate the two, which can not be done. In the words of the prophet Nathan "You are that person". On another issue I saw Mike Huckabee on Fox News say that he supported a Human Life ammendment and I made the inference from his statements that if we don't get it right on that issue we can't get it right on other issues. I believe Catholic's should embrace Mike Huckabee as he requested on Fox News Sunday by asking for the Catholic vote. He offers the opportunity for us to vote for a candidate that has stated that this is the reason he is running for President, to end the American slaughter of the unborn. He gets it right on all of the 5 non-negotiable issues and then supports his stance with the very practical way to end abortion by proposing and passing the Human Life ammendment. Even the Supreme Court opinion on Roe v Wade stated that if it could ever be proven that Life began at conception the right to an abortion would not exist. Dear heavenly Father God please forgive us our ways and give us holy Priests and Bishops for we sheep are longing for holy sheperds.

  4. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I don’t pretend to know the mind of the bishops on the matter and why they have chosen such a seemingly contradictory stance on this subject viz Church’s position on abortion, but I think that words like those quotes that follow demonstrate a serious lack of charity toward the bishops and represent a knee-jerk reaction to their statement.

    “[H]ow the Bishops can be so dense,” “They are making a political judgment,” “My take is that the Bishop’s don’t agree with the Church’s teaching on the contraception issue and that fact is being manifested here in their untenable position. Their guilty conscience sees the support of this bill incongruent with their stance on contraception and this represents an attempt at trying to separate the two, which can not be done.”

    I would ask what evidence you have that they are 1. dense and have not considered the matter fully, that 2. they “don’t agree with the Church’s teaching on contraception,” or that 3. the stance is a [strictly] political one?

    Here’s the full text of the statement from the bishops.

    Statement Of Georgia Bishops Regarding HR 536
    Published: January 17, 2008

    As the Catholic bishops of Georgia, we, along with our brother bishops throughout the world, have unceasingly advocated for the sanctity of human life and continually supported legislative efforts to increase the protection of human life.

    While we agree with the objective of HR 536 to defend human life at all stages and share the conviction that human life begins at the moment of conception, we have come to the conclusion that the approach taken by HR 536 to amend the state constitution does not provide a realistic opportunity for ending or reducing abortion in Georgia. With admiration and respect for those who have crafted this legislation, we do not support the passage of HR 536. We understand that similar state constitutional approaches have been considered in other states and we share our concerns with the bishops and Catholic people of those states.

    We continue to support a human life amendment to the federal constitution to support legally feasible means for bringing about an end to legalized abortion and to oppose legislation seeking to expand abortion rights and abortion funding. We will not retreat from the fight to gain recognition of each child in the womb as a unique individual created by God. May God bless our efforts and answer our prayers to end the destruction of human life.

    Archbishop Wilton D. Gregory, Archdiocese of Atlanta
    Bishop J. Kevin Boland, Diocese of Savannah

    Perhaps they could have more fully expounded on their reasons; thrown in some CCC, magisterial documents, Canon, or other theological underpinning to support it and make it more clear to the faithful, but to go as far as tacitly or explicitly accusing them of either stupidity or heresy (either of which, in essence, suggests that they are unfit for the office they hold) without support, other that one’s own opinion, is beyond ken. Perhaps as we pray for the bishops [an almost adversarial statement as presented above] we should also pray for understanding and, where called for, obedience even if we fail at understanding.

    If the bishops are, in fact, provably heretical, stupid, or otherwise unfit for office, then I humbly seek pardon for attempting to defend them.

    In Christ,
    Michael

    “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried”
    – GK Chesterton
    “The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese.” – also GKC

  5. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    "While we agree with the objective of HR 536 to defend human life at all stages and share the conviction that human life begins at the moment of conception, we have come to the conclusion that the approach taken by HR 536 to amend the state constitution does not provide a realistic opportunity for ending or reducing abortion in Georgia. With admiration and respect for those who have crafted this legislation, we do not support the passage of HR 536. We understand that similar state constitutional approaches have been considered in other states and we share our concerns with the bishops and Catholic people of those states." – would be nice if they explained why.

  6. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I agree, before I decide on the merits of this situation, I wish to know exactly what the Bishops are saying.

    Dick

  7. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Georgia's Tragedy: Catholic Bishops Fail to Support Personhood . Judie Brown American Life League. You asked for proof. I don't have any. I could be wrong on the contraception link. I only proposed it as one possibility. But there is a link somewhere to a definitive Church Teaching that clouds the judgment on this issue that brought forth the headline from American Life League's President Judie Brown. "Georgia's Tragedy: Catholic Bishops Fail to Support Personhood." One definitive Church Teaching that may be at the root is the more publicly known lack of the USCCB to deny Communion to Pro-Choice Politicians. No one in Heaven is Pro-Choice. No one in Heaven Fails to support the personhood of the unborn under any guise

  8. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Steve:

    I don’t understand the sentence, “One definitive Church Teaching that may be at the root is the more publicly known lack of the USCCB to deny Communion to Pro-Choice Politicians.” It’s a Church Teaching that the USCCB denies communion to Pro-Choice politicians? You’ll have to be clearer.

    Aside from clarity, it’s simply a mis-statement to say that the USCCB has any say at all in communion to pro-choice politicians. One need only reference the 2004 document “Worthy to Receive” (which the Archdiocese of Atlanta’s former Archbishop Donahue co-authored and which, to my knowledge, [I defer to those more informed on the topic] has not been repudiated under the current administration) to see evidence that your belief about the power of the USCCB is in error. Others include the statements of both Excellencies Burke (St. Louis) and Chaput (Denver).

    Back to topic, however…

    Your “proposed possibility,” couched as it was by “My take” and completely unsupported by evidence is where I take issue. The bishops have nowhere in their letter stated that they disagree with the idea of the personhood of the pre-born. Yes, they could have explained a little better what their reasons are for withholding support for the proposed amendment – is it too broad in allowing for future interpretation which may be antithetical to Church position in other areas of morality or faith; is it more appropriate, legally, to make the statement a resolution; are the bishops, in fact, absolutely right that the change must come first at the federal level? There may be good reason not to support the bill on these or other grounds and to hold reasons close-to-the-vest, e.g. to keep from tipping their hand on another issue, thereby frustrating efforts of the real enemy to thwart advantageous legislation. Again, I don’t pretend to know, but I do know that it is best to judge the bishops’ actions first in Charity and then, if presented with proof that they err, to withhold support.

    All:

    I also stated that the prayers offered above may be “adversarial” in that one could read them to say, “God, give us bishops who agree with us, and get rid of these whom we don’t understand.” I pray that the bishops have not erred in their decision and that the same Spirit who, we hope, inspired them will give us either the Wisdom with which He graced them, the wisdom to find demonstrable error, or the Counsel to remain obedient when in doubt.

    In Christ,

    Michael

    “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried”
    – GK Chesterton
    “The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese.” – also GKC

  9. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I love you, Jesus. I love you, Mary. I love you, Joseph. I want to spend eternity with you in Heaven. Amen

    Michael:Thank you for the discussion. St. Michael and St. Stephen pray for us. Is it a correct assumption that you also take issue with Judie Brown's apparent lack of evidence when she allowed the Title of her article to be Georgia's Tragedy: Catholic Bishops Fail to Support Personhood? In the article she stated "At American Life League we praise pro-lifers with integrity like this for it means that they have understood the value of personhood and are willing to keep at it until they reach the goal. But sadly this is not the case with the Catholic bishops of that state. …

    If given the chance, I would ask these two shepherds: If not now, when?  If not personhood, what? "

    Oh, but wait! Planned Parenthood certainly understands the impact of HR 536 and said so in a related news report. Metro Sprit newspaper published the statement of  Mary Beth Pierucci, director of public policy for Planned Parenthood of Georgia, which says in part:

    More Georgians need to understand the broad legal and medical ramifications of HR 536. Its supporters blatantly state that their intention is to outlaw legal abortion in Georgia. This amendment is so extreme that it could potentially prohibit the use of hormonal birth-control options that doctors commonly prescribe like the birth control pill and IUDs. It could even stop women from accessing in-vitro fertilization.

     

    It is not extreme to work toward an end to any action, surgical, medical or chemical that kills a preborn human being! It is not extreme to outlaw in vitro fertilization which is a direct assault on God's procreative design for marriage. In fact, it is long past time that the entire pro-life movement took up this cause and worked hard to achieve personhood. It seems me, frankly, that the bishops of the United States, including Georgia, would be leading this struggle to defend each and every defenseless child at every stage of his development rather than running away from the very activity that makes Planned Parenthood shudder!

    '————- 

    from Steve: You questioned "It’s a Church Teaching that the USCCB denies communion to Pro-Choice politicians? You’ll have to be clearer." I apologize. I'll try. It is the Church teaching that the reception of the Eucharist be denied to those of us who manifest grave sin. The manifestation can take place in many ways including one of which is publicly supporting the Right to Chose as did Coach Rick Majerus of St. Louis university. He was called out by Bishop Burke and told that he would deny him reception of Holy Communion. It is the charge of the Bishop's and Priest to guard the reception of the Eucharist from being received unworthily to those of us who manifest grave sin. Much like God sending immediately to the Garden of Eden Angels to guard the fruit from the Tree of Life in order to prevent Adam and Eve from reception, since they manifested grave sin to God, how? – in their being dressed, God has sent forth His Bishop's and Priests to do the same. The wearing of clothes by Adam and Eve manifested grave sin- much like the no direct mentioning in the Bishop's statement of not supporting the personhood and -they went to great lengths to say otherwise -is made clear by their resulting actions. While if you asked them, the answer surely would be different. The devil's pawn, Planned Parenthood certainly understood the impact of the Proposition. There is no need for further proof, there is demonstrable error.

  10. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Steve:

    I appreciate your passion on the subject and admit that I find the bishops’ stand perplexing. However, I think we can do no other than leave it at that for the time being. I am not going to accuse them of “grave sin” as you seem to when you say :

    “The wearing of clothes by Adam and Eve manifested grave sin- much like the no direct mentioning in the Bishop’s statement of not supporting the personhood and -they went to great lengths to say otherwise -is made clear by their resulting actions.” [emphasis mine]

    The bishops may have strong reasons for their stance. But contrasting their reasons to Planned Parenthood’s is specious at this stage. While neither supports the idea of the constitutional amendment, the reasons may be entirely different – the bishops’, we trust, is informed by Faith and the Spirit. The “bishop bashing” by members of the lay-faithful, especially in areas where reason isn’t clear (either by design or otherwise), also plays into the devil’s hands – “Why do we need these ‘overseers’ when we know better?” So yes, I absolutely, for now, take issue with the author’s assessment and provocative title when she can offer nothing to suggest that the bishops reject “personhood” or an end to abortion, – only that they reject the idea of an amendment to a state’s constitution, supporting, rather, a different manner of achieving an end to Moloch’s power. Both you and the author are setting up a false dichotomy (or false dilemma, pick your poison) –Either the bishops support this legislation or they are in league with the abortionists. There may well be any number of valid reasons for the bishops to take the stand they have, only a few of which I’ve presented above.

    With respect to proper disposition for the receipt of the Eucharist, I have no disagreement with your amended statement. I don’t see how it fits the current argument, though. Unless you are saying that the bishops’ statement comes out in favor of abortion and so they should be denied Eucharist. I don’t see that they support abortion at all…just that they have some issue with the current legislative proposal.

    In Christ,
    Michael

    “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried”
    – GK Chesterton
    “The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese.” – also GKC

  11. Guest Avatar
    Guest

     "is it more appropriate, legally, to make the statement a resolution; are the bishops, in fact, absolutely right that the change must come first at the federal level?"

    The change has to come at the heart level, and without good solid teachings on why abortion and all the slippery slope issues that take place in our society, people will never have a change of heart.

    The silence from the pulpit lets those in the pew form their own consciences. The people in the pews are having abortions. They have no sense of needing forgiveness because they have not been exposed to the truth. Their truth is: pregnancy is incovenient and every body is doing it, it's legal, so it must be alright.

    How incongruous that a bishop would get on his bandwagon with ESC teaching and not be concerned with the limbs and bodies in the trash 5 blocks from the Cathedral. And the priest have been told to not preach on abortion because people get tired of hearing it.

    Frustration is my middle name. 

    "Do not try to please everybody. Try to please God , the angels, and the saints. These are your public. If you are afraid of other people's opinion, you should not have become Christian." St John Vianney

  12. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Bambushka:

    ”‘is it more appropriate, legally, to make the statement a resolution; are the bishops, in fact, absolutely right that the change must come first at the federal level?’

    The change has to come at the heart level, and without good solid teachings on why abortion and all the slippery slope issues that take place in our society, people will never have a change of heart.”

    I’m afraid I don’t see where you’re going. At first blush it seems that you are taking my quote out of context and applying a different contextual reference. I don’t think we’ve got disagreement that individual change must come from the heart, but we are discussing legislative change. Unless you are supporting the contention that the bishops may have valid reason to withhold support of the proposed amendment based on the need to exercise their pastorship through other means…but I don’t think that’s what you’re saying.

    ”The silence from the pulpit lets those in the pew form their own consciences. The people in the pews are having abortions. They have no sense of needing forgiveness because they have not been exposed to the truth. Their truth is: pregnancy is inconvenient and every body is doing it, it’s legal, so it must be alright.”

    If you are saying that better instruction is needed, you’ll get no disagreement here. But, while the proposed amendment may provide a venue for catechesis, this is no basis for necessarily supporting the proposed.

    ”How incongruous that a bishop would get on his bandwagon with ESC teaching and not be concerned with the limbs and bodies in the trash 5 blocks from the Cathedral. And the priest have been told to not preach on abortion because people get tired of hearing it.”

    What evidence do you have that the bishops are supporting the teaching on ESC (embryonic stem cell, I’m guessing) and not on abortion. Why do you suggest that they have no concern for the victims of abortion? That’s a long stretch from their statement. Where have you seen that the bishops in question have told the priests not to preach about abortion? Cite please.

    In Christ,

    Michael

    “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried”
    – GK Chesterton
    “The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese.” – also GKC

  13. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Michael,

    I have received this info from a few of the diocese's priests and the bishop has reprimanded me in writing for trying to upstage his ESC presentation by my asking the priests of the diocese to give 40 Days for Life a mention or even consideration.  

    "Do not try to please everybody. Try to please God , the angels, and the saints. These are your public. If you are afraid of other people's opinion, you should not have become Christian." St John Vianney

  14. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    If you click on the link to the previous story in this section: Where the Legal Battle Stands Now, you will see that the Thomas More Law Center was very involved in crafting this legistlation. Pro-lifers in GA are shocked and don't understand. 

  15. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    If this legislation is so well written why does the NATIONAL Right to Life NOT support it?  Again, I call for a time to wait (which any pro-lifer hates to hear) and listen for the reasons behind the bishops deciding to NOT support the HLA in GA.  There are other NATIONAL pro-life groups who do not support this as well…something to think about…its not JUST bishops in GA.   Hateful words about our bishops do no good – KMc

  16. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Bambushka:

    You don’t feel that a reprimand is in order for trying to “upstage” the bishop?

    I can’t address what you’ve heard from the priests because, though it may be true, its simply hearsay.

    In Christ,
    Michael

    “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried”
    – GK Chesterton
    “The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese.” – also GKC

  17. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Where is the information that National Right to Life does not support it?  And do they usually address state issues? Georgia RTL supports it. Are they a "chapter" of the national organization?

  18. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Here from the GRTL website is their list of common objections to GA's human life amendement:

    Responses to Common Objections

    Click here for an extensive article exploring the constitutional argument for Personhood.

    Several objections have been made against the proposed Human Life Amendment.  These objections are addressed below.  As a general response, the proposed amendment establishes a constitutional principle; it does not enact legislation.

    Privacy & Reproductive Rights Issues

    Objection:  Because there is no "maternal" exception to the homicide laws, the adoption of the proposed amendment would subject a pregnant woman to criminal prosecution for undergoing an abortion.
    Response:  The proposed amendment does not criminalize any behavior.  Nonetheless, if the legislature wanted to immunize a woman from criminal prosecution for participating in an abortion, then that would be the prerogative of the legislature.

    Objection:  If a woman has a miscarriage or a spontaneous abortion, she will be investigated to determine whether it was spontaneous or intentional. She could be subject to criminal prosecution.
    Response:  Under the Human Life Amendment, this would be no more true than it was under pre-1973 abortion laws. The common sense of the medical and legal professions can be relied on to prevent abuse here. This objection, incidentally, raises an interesting question with respect to child abuse and infanticide. If a child accidentally falls and dies, it is possible that the question might arise as to whether the death was due to child abuse. Yet the possibility of such questions being raised does not mean that we should abolish child abuse and homicide laws.
               
    Objection:  The Human Life Amendment would bring invasions of privacy. The government would require monthly pregnancy tests for all women; all pregnancies would have to be registered; the state could require the mother to give up smoking, drinking and so on.
    Response:  These objections ignore the fact that we have in our Constitution a Fourth Amendment that prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures." The Human Life Amendment would not abolish the right of privacy. All it would do is restore to the unborn child the protection of the traditional principle that lesser rights such as the right of privacy do not outweigh the right to life. Secondly, if these and other conjectures of the pro-abortionists were realistic, why were no such excesses evident under the pre-1973 abortion laws? The answer is that the good sense of legislatures, courts and the people can be counted on now as before to prevent abuse.

    Objection: The Human Life Amendment would outlaw contraception.
    Response:  This is absolutely false. Abortion is the taking of life while genuine contraception is the prevention of life. The Human Life Amendment would not restrict contraception in any way. The Human Life Amendment does no more than guarantee the rights of personhood once life has begun.

    Objection:  The proposed amendment would create, unintentionally, both a life of the mother exception and a serious physical health exception, as well, (arguing that the amendment would permit an exception for the use of "deadly force" and the right of "self-defense").
    Response:  This strikes us as an odd objection.  First of all, the amendment does not enact legislation; therefore, it does not purport to make exceptions to any legislation.  Nonetheless, recognizing the "personhood" of the unborn does not mean that the law now neglects the "personhood" of the mother.  One would expect that any legislation that followed the proposed amendment would take into account the fact that a pregnancy involves two persons. 

    Consider, as a first example, the unintended consequence of the removal of a pregnant woman's cancerous uterus to save her life.  Such a procedure would likely cause the death of her fetus. (It should be noted that the law does not treat this as an abortion in the first instance.)   This, however, should not trigger any criminal homicide laws because the principle of the "double effect" would apply. The use of "deadly force" and the right of "self-defense" would be inapplicable in this context because there is no aggressor. 

    As another example, consider a situation where a gynecologist is delivering a child and is confronted with a circumstance in which the mother's life may now be in jeopardy as a result of the delivery.  The gynecologist is required to take steps that comply with the applicable standard of care to save the mother from the life-threatening condition and to do what is medically reasonable to save the child that is in the birth process.  There is nothing extraordinary about this. 

    Objection:  How can the duty to provide bodily sustenance to another be confined to pregnant women? Under the Human Life Amendment, why can't the state require everyone, male and female, to provide a needed organ or other bodily material to save another person?
    Response:  The Fourteenth Amendment is the guide here, since the Human Life Amendment would merely correct the Supreme Court's erroneous interpretation which excluded the unborn child from the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, the state cannot require people in general to donate an organ even to save another's life. The law here is protective. It sets a minimal standard to prevent invasion of rights. Only in very limited situations does the law impose affirmative duties. The pregnant woman has the duty merely to provide sustenance and protection to the child she is carrying. This is merely a recognition of her unique relation to the child she is carrying. After birth the parental duty of sustenance and protection continues, though in a different form. But it is fantasy to suggest that the Human Life Amendment would lead to such things as mandatory organ transplants.

    "It Won't Work" Arguments

    Objection: "The proposed amendment would outlaw abortion and would, therefore, be successfully challenged in federal court without the chance of review by the Supreme Court."
    Response:  The amendment would be a direct challenge to the fundamental holding in Roe v. Wade, therefore, it is likely that it will be challenged in federal court on that basis.  However, there is no basis for claiming with absolute certainty that the Supreme Court would not review the case.  There is no meaningful way to restrict abortion without providing the Court with a case that directly challenges Roe.  A challenge to the proposed amendment would provide the Court with that case.  Indeed, in our view this is not a valid criticism – it is the fundamental reason for passing the proposed amendment in the first instance.
               
    Objection:  If the amendment is challenged under federal law then it would have no operative effect in limiting state abortion rights either.
    Response:  Presently, there is no state limitation on abortions rights, nor will there ever be without first challenging Roe v. Wade. 

     Miscellaneous Objections

    Objection: The amendment would repeal by implication all of Georgia's regulatory legislation on abortion.
    Response:  The "repeal by implication" argument rears its head every time a legal proposal is made that could meaningfully restrict abortion.  Is the Georgia legislature concerned that if this amendment passes and is then challenged the legislature will no longer be able to meaningfully regulate abortion?  The reality is, until Roe is challenged, the Georgia legislature will never be able to meaningfully regulate abortion – that is the point of the amendment.  Moreover, the constitutional amendment does not enact any legislation.  Nonetheless, even if certain legislation is considered repealed by the proposed amendment-and the amendment is then successfully challenged, the Georgia legislature could simply reenact the legislation.  Critics of the proposal make it seem as if "back alley abortions" will be occurring overnight throughout the State if the amendment is challenged. That will not happen nor would the Georgia legislature allow it to happen.

    Objection:  There is tension in the language of the amendment between the terminology referring to "unborn offspring" and "every state of biological development, including fertilization," and you may not want to address in vitro fertilization through a constitutional amendment.
    Response:  Constitutional amendments are often drafted in general terms because they are designed to state general principles of law.  And while we are not committed to any particular language and would welcome suggestions that achieve the ultimate purpose of the amendment, we do not see the conflict or ambiguities in the chosen language that is highlighted by this objection.  The plain language is quite clear: human life begins at fertilization and is protected from that moment (i.e., "personhood" for purposes of the law attaches at fertilization).

    Regarding the question of in vitro fertilization, the proposed amendment does not explicitly address the details of this issue because, once again, it states a general principle of law.  Nonetheless, because of Roe and its progeny the present presumption in the law is to destroy life-this amendment will arguably shift this presumption.  The common practice with in vitro fertilization is to fertilize several eggs, let them mature for a time, select the best one for use and discard the others.  The proposed amendment would, arguably, ensure that we no longer have "throw-away" human beings.  We see this as a good thing.

    Objection:  The proposed amendment may have consequences for "end-of-life" issues.
    Response:  A "born" person is currently afforded all of the protections under the law, as even Roe acknowledges.  Nonetheless, an unfortunate consequence of the abortion mentality has been a decline in the respect for all human life, as evidenced by the cases involving in vitro fertilization.  If a consequence of this proposed amendment is to shift the presumption in favor of respect for all humans at all stages of life, then so be it.  Human life has intrinsic value that cannot be measured in qualitative or utilitarian terms.  And while the amendment does not specifically address "end-of-life" issues, any consequences it might have on those issues can only be viewed as positive.

    Objection:  If the right to life is guaranteed by the Human Life Amendment "irrespective of age, race, sex, health, function, or condition of dependency," would not the state then be required to provide the basic necessities of life for people of all ages?
    Response:  No. The experience under the Fourteenth Amendment is the guide here. The Human Life Amendment, like the Fourteenth, is a protective amendment. It would require the states to protect life. But the fact that the life of a teenager or an adult is protected by the state does not mean that he has a right to a state subsidy. The Human Life Amendment would make no change in this regard.

    Objection:  Under the Human Life Amendment, wouldn't the unborn child have to be counted in the census, be considered a dependent for tax purposes, etc.?
    Response:  No. The Human Life Amendment would require only that the unborn child be treated as a person with respect to his right to life. It was with respect to that right to life that the Supreme Court denied his personhood. Inclusion in the census, etc., would not be required under the Human Life Amendment because those issues do not involve the deprivation of his right to life.

    Objection:  Isn't the Human Life Amendment an effort to enact into law a sectarian Catholic doctrine?
    Response:  No. The Human Life Amendment coincides with Catholic teaching, but so do the laws forbidding bank robbery. In neither case can such a law be condemned as a sectarian intrusion on public policy. The Human Life Amendment is justified on grounds essential to the maintenance of any civilized society.

  19. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I thought this article had been taken down, since it didn't appear on my CE web page when I checked all day. I am only writing again because someone made some childish accusation quoting what I wrote originally and saying that it demonstrated a serious lack of charity toward those bishops. Then the writer goes on to quote the entire statement of those bishops, which clearly demonstrates the accuracy of my criticism, as the statement gives the only reason for their lack of support: they find it unrealistic. That is a political judgment.

    Judy Brown is a Pro-Life leader of impeccable credentials, who was involved in this fight before Roe. When she writes such a clear article, and we get mumbo jumbo by way of discussion of this horrendous let-down of leadership, you must wonder if the writer read the article at all, or is too young to understand all the particulars. What has always distinguished Judy Brown has been her highest of standards in defending Catholic doctrine and the natural moral law, and her no nonsense approach to trying to get the job done. There are other national organizations who have become comfortable in earning a living being part of the Washington power scene, and who don't support anything at any level that would definitely put an end to abortion. They only say that the states should decide. Read your history on the infamous Hatch Amendment. Judy has always taken the approach that we are not in it for anything but ending the law that allows the killing of children. She wants to "lay the ax at the root of the tree" as St John the Baptist says of God's approach to the problem of evil. The article makes a prima facie case against the actions of the Bishops. I share her obvious sense of betrayal. They have cut the legs out from the real effort in Georgia to change things, make a difference, and to thereby re-invigorate the Pro-Life movement in America, perhaps for the last time in a generation.

    May I remind my critic that the Decree on the Laity of Vat II specifically states that the laity have the right and even the duty to create their own organizations to promote the works of the Gospel in society irregardless of the bishops. The job of the Laity is to subject the temporal order to Christ. The bishops are not the sole leaders in these matters, nor are we required to march to their tune in them. These are the most serious of issues, and it is the requirement of charity to fraternally correct those who are acting against the progress of the Gospel. I just wish that if those bishops don't want to lead, that they not sow the seeds of discouragement in the flock by cutting the heart out of any attempt by others to do good.

    When Joan of Arc was charging straight at the enemy, there were those in power who could have helped, but who instead counseled the path of waiting. And they had no plan either. If not now, when? If not personhood, what?

     

  20. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I received the information on National Right to Life from the head of the Pro-Life office for the Arch-Diocese of ATL (unless I misunderstood her) – I do not believe she would say such a thing if it were not true.  I have been in this fight as long as anyone but I want to hear a clarification from the bishop before deciding.  KMc

  21. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Qhrpfu:

    Since your critic is me, I am glad to respond.

    Your “analysis” of the situation began with a statement about the bishops’ mental faculty, a charge for which you can offer no evidence other than the fact that they disagree with your position. I seriously doubt that you will find in Apostolicam Actuositatem the right to call a bishop “dense” for disagreeing with you; nor, I think, does this represent “fraternal” correction. That you think it childish to call you on this by stating that it is un-charitable suggests a curious definition of “charity.” Further, statements like “childish,” questioning “[whether I] read the article at all, or [am] too young to understand all the particulars,” also demonstrate that you prefer to attack the person than address the argument.

    I don’t believe that I cast any aspersions on either the author of the article or yourself for supporting passage of the amendment in Georgia. Nor have I made any suggestion that the “credentials” of either of you, or anyone on this forum are in question viz. the pro-life movement. What neither of you have demonstrated is that there is a “let-down in leadership,” “horrendous” or otherwise. That there may be such a let down, I don’t contest, I merely state that the bishops have taken a particular stand which, while having political implications, may also be driven by other considerations.

    Bringing up the Decree on the Laity has nothing at all to do with my point, that the bishops may have valid reasons for withholding support. What those reasons may be I do not know, and, as I’ve said, if I’m wrong in a defense of their persons and office with respect to the decision they’ve made, I offer my apology. But the bishops have not suggested that the organizations supporting such a measure should simply disappear, should be excommunicated, or should be regarded as mere dilettantes in the matter – so your point is either specious or obfuscatory.

    Mary

    Thank you for the list of common objections. I, too, find it somewhat disconcerting that the GA bishops are taking this stance; I’m just not willing, at this point, to publicly chastise and berate their decision (not that you have) without further understanding of their intent. And I thought you made a very strong point last week when the initial article was presented – that those whom the bishops trust on the subject and whose advice they have taken should be more transparent. I do pray that the bishops have made the right decision, guided by the Spirit, in this matter and that, if they haven’t, they recognize it and quickly take appropriate action.

    In Christ,
    Michael

    “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried”
    – GK Chesterton
    “The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese.” – also GKC

  22. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    As an added note, I find the headline somewhat disingenuous in that, from the bishops’ statement, they recognize and support the “personhood” of the pre-born when they state both “human life begins at conception” and “We will not retreat from the fight to gain recognition of each child in the womb as a unique individual created by God.”

    It is as if the headline was crafted specifically to suggest that the bishops are (or should be) excommunicate.

    In Christ,
    Michael

    “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried”
    – GK Chesterton
    “The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese.” – also GKC

  23. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I believe that life begins at conception and that abortion is wrong. However, I believe that a woman has a right to choose. Paraphrase of a John Kerry quote. I feel certain that John Kerry whole heartedly believes what he stated. However, we should detect a problem with his next statement knowing our culture and the fruits of John Kerry's work in our government. He should be permitted to receive communion on the strength of his first sentence. Since he is receiving Communion, may be the thought is we should wait and see what he means by his second sentence. Does he mean that a woman has a right to chose whether life begins at conception or at what point during the process of conception does God instill the soul to that would determine personhood or does he mean that a woman has a right to chose an abortion. Clarification would be nice from Mr. Kerry but is it really "realistically" needed, if we examine the fruits.

    Abortion has reigned in the US for many years on our watch and our shepherds watch. Vatican City -Pope John Paul II, cracking down on what he considers serious abuses in his flock, issued a stern reminder that divorced Roman Catholics who remarry cannot receive Communion. John Paul's warnings were contained in an encyclical. … Although the Pope did not specifically mention the plight of divorced Catholics experts said that his intent was clear.—

    Has his intent been clear here, have divorced and remarried Catholics that presented themselves for Communion last Sunday or those whose only Mass attended last year was Christmas. No, but everyone who received Communion had there cell phone off. Remember the Prophet Nathan's encounter with David. Majoring on the Minors is a sign of a guilty conscience. You can tell by their fruits- clergy abuse, Catholics practicing contraception at the same rate as everyone else, Catholics voting for Pro-Choice Politicians. We don't even get mentioned in the media, its our Evangelical brothers and sisters that are the Religious right. St. Louis University going to great links to dissassociate itself from the Catholic religion to even going to court to prove as much so it could receive a multi-million dollar governmental grant for an arena, Catholic schools ignoring Pope John Paul II's mandatuum. Clergy stating that it is OK to vote for John Kerry when a Pro-Life option is available there is a proportionate reason -regardless of what Cardinal Ratzinger says, Where is the clarification? Do we really need Tax Exempt status to examine that prohibits us from identifying politicians by name and from our pulpits?

     

    John the Baptist was beheaded for confronting a divorced and remarried situation. Did he wait and assume that may be the first marriage was invalid and that God only knows that for sure, how could His Vicar really know that. Or since John Paul II didn't specifically mention the plight of divorced Catholics may be we should wait for some clarification. All the while Jesus is being received unworthily, and on our watch.

     

     

    There would be a big boost to the Pro-Life movement if the laity received more help from the shepherds. In fact, since we have failed for many years it appears that we may have to call out even more clearly incongruent behavior of our shepherds, like Judie Brown did. St. John the Baptist said you brood of vipers. At least history tells us if we continue the way we are going now, we appear to be doomed to fail.

    Someone may have to take it on the neck. And it appears that it is those like Judie Brown that are taking it and it is us inflicting the blow. Our comments are the ones she looks to for support. We should be encouraging Judie. I remember seeing a quote from a Saint that said that it was our right and responsibility to call out our shepherds under similar circumstances.

    Praised be to Jesus Christ Now and Forever.

    I love you, Jesus. I love you, Mary. I love you, Joseph. I want to spend eternity with you in Heaven. Amen

  24. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Steve:

    Steve:

    When you say “Clarification would be nice from Mr. Kerry but is it really ‘realistically’ needed, if we examine the fruits” I believe you are probably correct; Mr. Kerry’s voting record is one of advancing anti-life issues in the U.S. However, a hypothetical Mr. Kerry’s abstention from an anti-abortion vote, (not a “Nay” vote, necessarily), would require clarification, because we wouldn’t know if he disagrees with the pro-life platform of proposed legislation, disagrees with some other provision in that legislation, or sees a possible regulatory or judicial interpretation with which he might disagree in the future.

    Sorry, I’m not clear on what your third paragraph means.

    I actually have no issue with Judie Brown’s stance on the GA amendment. I think it makes sense. But absent clarification from the bishops’ as to why they choose to withhold support, one cannot make the assertion that they lack integrity or are providing a failure of leadership. They may have sound reason for what they do. Charity would require that we ascribe to them that their decision is guided by the Holy Spirit, however, vigilance is required for “positive” statements against Church teaching. Disagreement with the author does not rise to the level of a “positive” statement against a pro-life agenda.

    Finally, “real” prayer and mortification for our bishops is the responsibility of every Catholic.

    God, send us holy priests,
    All for the sake of the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus,
    All through the sorrowful, Immaculate Heart of Mary,
    All in union with St. Joseph, her most chaste spouse.

    In Christ,
    Michael

    “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried”
    – GK Chesterton
    “The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese.” – also GKC

  25. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I love you, Michael

    I love you, Jesus. I love you, Mary. I love you, Joseph. I want to spend eternity with you in Heaven. Amen

  26. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Thank you, Steve.
    and in Christ, I you.

    Sorry about the double-Steve above. If I edit it now it will change the order of the posts.

    Michael

    “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried”
    – GK Chesterton
    “The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese.” – also GKC

Leave a Reply

More posts