Are you a medical professional?
Do you resent being forced to provide emergency contraception to victims of sexual assault?
Are you sick and tired of the government demanding that you offer women an adequate standard of medical care?
If you answered yes to at least one of these questions, then the Family Institute of Connecticut has an opportunity for you!!!
From an email sent out to FIC supporters:
We are looking for plaintiffs who would be willing to work with us in suing Connecticut for the unconstitutionality, on its face, of the so-called “Act Concerning Compassionate Care for Victims of Sexual Assault”. We are specifically looking for hospital technicians, nurses, doctors and other hospital personnel whose exercise of religious beliefs would be burdened by the implementation of this bill. The act requires that in the event of any “emergency treatment”, which means any medical examination or treatment provided in a licensed health care facility to a victim of sexual assault, the services set out in the statute must be provided.
Many Christians object to providing emergency “contraception” under these circumstances which includes Plan B, also known as the “morning after pill”, because Plan B may bring about an abortion. We are looking for individuals who work for hospitals who believe that this contraceptive procedure violates their religious beliefs. The basis of the suit is that the First Amendment rights of these individuals are being violated under the Free Exercise Clause and that Connecticut’s RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) is also violated because the exercise of those persons’ religious beliefs are being burdened without a compelling state interest or the use by the state of the least restrictive means of meeting their goals (i.e. no alternative is provided for those whose beliefs are offended.)
If you meet this description, please call the Family Institute of Connecticut at (860) 548-0066. If someone you know meets this description, please forward this message to them and ask them to call us.
It’s no surprise that the FIC plans to continue their anti-woman fight against Compassionate Care through the court system. When it became clear that the bill would pass, they stated their intention to fight on the FIC blog. I’m fairly certain that their complete lack of compassion for rape victims will go over just as well in a courtroom as it did with the citizens of Connecticut.
Meanwhile Compassionate Care goes into effect starting on October 1.
52 responses so far ↓
Abortion survivors unite!
It’s not unusual that legislation should be tested in this way by passing it under the noses of judges. James Madison lives.
“Anti-woman fight …” … it sounds to me like there’s already been an anti-Catholic fight … and the liberal extremism of the current legislature is clear …
Come on CGG, “anti-women”? I expect better than that from you. That’s like FIC calling Gay Marriage Proposals “anti-family.”
cranemeister said:
Speaking of the current legislature, they should be embarrassed and ashamed for the circus act they put on yesterday. Not only did they want to exclude every democrat-controlled elected office (including the entire legislature) from the clean contracting bill, they couldn’t even get legislative procedure correct.
The FIC’s Peter Wolfgang, what a freak!
He actually believes that if a woman were to become pregnant as the result of rape, she should then have no other choice but to carry said pregnancy to term and become mother to the rapist’s child. Ditto if things were even more horrible with the rapist being a family member.
I wonder what Wolfgang’s own wife and daughters think about his rigid ideology…
Yet so many of you ugly Republicans support the FIC, not because you believe in their extreme ideology, but because the anti-reproductive freedom crowd delivers votes.
Abortion survivors unite? Indeed! In outright shame.
Meh. Seems to me this issue was decided months ago. And, correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the compromise passed that an independent third party would be administering the contraceptive, and not anyone from the actual hospital?
So where the heck is their argument? Can anyone construct a reasonable argument that having Plan B administered in the same building by someone unconnected with the hospital violates religious freedom?
Silly FIC. I give them credit for trying, though.
TBCT,
I have a feeling you’re about to star on the FIC blog as one of those crazy liberals. Hi, Peter!
Pro-Life advocates, please read this piece:
UN EXPERT ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN EXPRESSES SERIOUS CONCERNS FOLLOWING VISIT TO DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO
http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/B5D0053875B01B8CC1257328003A8FEE?opendocument
Pro-Choice advocates, please read this piece:
Rise in India’s female feticide may spark crisis
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSDEL22936620070831?pageNumber=1
(This problem is widely spread in other countries as well).
Respectfully,
Bo ItsHaky
Don Pesci said:
No it isn’t. And as I said in the post, we knew they were planning to. I just thought I’d help our friends at the FIC spread the word.
Yeah, well Peter can be a star too. I wonder how many of his neighbors know what an ideological freak he is.
I’m against abortion but I’d never be so asinine as to argue that a rape victim should have to worry about becoming pregnant to boot.
But their position is even more far out, considering a conception caused by rape a “gift of God”, and claiming the rape victim should have no choice in the matter.
And politicians like New Haven State Rep. Juan Candelaria stand by thse f**ktards?
Glidden said:
No, I think denying women access to medical care after they have been assaulted is pretty damn anti-woman.
Genghis Conn said:
Nah, that’ll be me. What was it they called me last time? “Far Left Feminist Blogger” I soooo want that on my tombstone.
Since we’re going to touch on the subject of abortion, here is my question to CGG and any other pro-choicer who cares to answer.
Science has advanced far enough for us to determine early on in a pregnancy if a child has a number of disorders, including physical handicaps and mental retardation.
Do you support a pregnant woman making the determination to end her pregnancy based on the knowledge that the child will have a malformation or disorder?
If you do, do you support a pregnant woman making the choice to terminate a pregnancy based on undesired eye color, hair color, or sex?
If you do, is there ANY REASON whatsoever that you would oppose a woman having an abortion?
TrueBlueCT said:
Indeed. Be ashamed that you lived. You clearly inconvenienced someone
Great Headless. Just great.
You want to equate screening for genetic defects or disabilitating disease with eye color or sex of the child?
That’s the dumbest slippery slope argument I’ve heard in a while…
I suggest that you try and get real. Bearing a child (or choosing not to) is a huge deal for any woman, and you trivialize things with your hypotheticals.
Repeat after me. Abortion has nothing to do with emergency contraception. Abortion has nothing to do with emergency contraception. Repeat 100 times.
Mike CT - Repeat after me - if you are Catholic then emergency contraception has everything to do with abortion. If you are Catholic then emergency contraception has everything to do with abortion. Repeat 101 times.
The emergency contraception bill passed last year requires hospitals to provide medication which may cause a fertilized egg to not implant in the lining of the uterus (sp?). The Catholic Church believes that life begins when the sperm fertilizes the egg. Therefore, preventing it from implanting in the uterine wall, and thus killing it, is abortion. If it was merely a medication that prevented fertilization and did not endanger a human life the church would not have so strenuously opposed it.
TBCT - It actually brings up a good point. If a woman cn have an abortion on demand, then what is stopping her from aborting her child if it is determined that the child has a bad hair color, or an ugky face? What if we can isolate a gene that directs sexuality and a child is gay? W have already seen a huge decline in the number of down -syndrome babies because of screening and subsequent aborting of the child. Why not the other stuff?
My only point is that when an unborn child has no rights, we can’t draw a line. It doesn’t trivilaize the decision, it highlights one of the big problems.
Tony Stark said:
Sure, if you ignore the facts. Plan B doesn’t prevent fertilization of an egg. All it does is prevent a woman from ovulating. There was testimony to that effect in the hearings.
I am Catholic, and I am pro-life. However, I part with my church on the issue of emergency contraception. The Catholic Church, and FIC for that matter, should recognize that access to emergency contraception is going to go a long way towards preventing unwanted pregnancies, and logically, abortions.
I’m not even suggesting that the Church and FIC compromise. I don’t view this as a compromise at all. Support for emergency contraception will reduce abortions. They should count that as a victor.
CGG said:
No, I choose to call it what it is, anti-choice and incompassionate. Okay, it’s not as inciting and divisive as “anti-women”, but it is more accurate. Reproductive rights is just one of many women’s issues. “Anti-women” is a very broad generalization to make based on a single issue.
I guess it’s just a pet peave of mine. If someone supports gay marriage or civil unions, they are labelled “anti-family”. If someone wants stronger enforcement against illegal immigration, they are labelled “anti-immigrant”. If someone is opposed to the Iraq War, they are labelled “anti-America”. These are broad, inaccurate over-generalizations and only serve to divide rather than help deal with the issues.
I thought you felt the same way. I was wrong. Sorry.
The majority of Roman Catholics have no idea that birth control of any kind is to this day a violation of canon law. This isn’t about abortion, Plan B is birth control - a high dose of it!!!!! And the RC Hospitals are working as government contractors so it’s more than reasonable that they abide by government rules when providing governement services. And nobody is forced to work at the hospital either nor are the employees required to follow every tnenet of canon law or even to be RC’s themselves.
Connecticut Catholics are not represented by the pseudo-religious right. They also back the law.
The other thing that’s amazing in all this is that the RC Hospitals apparentlety had a better compliance rate with offereing up Plan B before the legislation went down. When the compliance issue came to light the bishops got their panties all in a bunch that the medical profession was doing best practices in the hospitals.
And does everybody know that the Vatican in that last few weeks issued a directive that feeding tubes should never be removed from individuals who are brain dead and in a persistent vegeatative state - like Terry Schiavo. I wonder when that rule will hit the hospitals!!!
That’s not the point - you said:
“Repeat after me. Abortion has nothing to do with emergency contraception. Abortion has nothing to do with emergency contraception. Repeat 100 times. “
The fact of the matter is, that, according to the teachings of the Catholic Church, it does have something to do with abortion. Now, reasonable minds can differ about when life begins, but it is a valid point and represents the teachings of a church that represents 1/5 of the world’s population.
I’m not asking you to agree with it, just to recognize that there is a legitimate argument on the other side.
says Stark at 26.
says Jim at 21.
Hmm.
CGG - I am not ignoring any facts - the EC under the bill may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. According to the curch that is an abortion. The church believes that life begins at conception - not at the point whren the fertilized egg attaches.
Now, this is as valid an argument as to when life begins as any. You don’t have to agree with it, but you must at least recognize that it is a legitimate point.
As for contraception, the RC Church did forbid its use until very recently when it made an exception for married couples. Which, makes sense, considering only married couples should be having sex.
How many Catholics follow these rules? Not many. How many think they should be followed? A lot. We’re talking abut sin here - everybody sins, it doesn’t make you a bad person, but it also doesn’t excuse you from trying to do the right thing.
Jim at 21 - You must feel honored that toucan thinks you speak for the Roman Catholic Church and all of it’s members. Or just a little curiosu as to why he thinks that. Either way…..
Tony Stark said:
Not what I said at all Stark but people aren’t as dumb as you think.
I don’t think people are dumb at all - I just want them to hear all sides of the story. There are two legitimate sides to this story.
How come this new guy at the FIC has not commented once on the issue of all the priests that are anally raping children in the state and have been convicted. How come this issue is never at the forefront of their concerns within their own church organization?? They always seem to gloss over this. The only reason they rape boys is so that they can avoid the whole abortion situation. I’ve never once seen compassion from the Catholic Church and organizations like the FIC. Those who live in glass houses……….
Over the line jujubee!!!!!
Huh??? These cases are fact. The churches force these people to come out and report these instances in courts of law and through the police in an attempt to shame themselves instead of just admitting their wrong doing. This has been a big problem particularly here in Connecticut over the last 10 years. Over the line, is the fact that this is happening and the FIC and Catholic Church refuse to address the problem and remove these individuals before they are called out by their victims, even when they know it is happening. Very similar to National Republcans and the like of Foley and Craig. So while you find compassionate care to be an atrocity in that it attacks Catholics, many of us find it to be an atrocity that the FIC and Catholic church refuse to address their own internal problems while trying to impose a so-called morality on the rest of us. So, Mr. Stark, no it’s not over the line it’s an issue that needs to be dealt with, in order for people who are not associated with this organization to accept them and their ideologies as nothing more than lunacy.
The Catholic Church is about sacrifice and forgiveness and people in America are not willing to do either. ..as jujubee points out.
First of all I never said that I “find compassionate care to be an atrocity in that it attacks Catholics” nor did I “try to impose a so-called morality on the rest of us. ” I responded to a statement from MikeCT at post #17 that said “Repeat after me. Abortion has nothing to do with emergency contraception. Abortion has nothing to do with emergency contraception. Repeat 100 times.” I was merely correcting him by pointing out that the, if you believe life begins at conception, then the emergency contraception required in hospitals has everything to do with abortion. In other words, the drug wil prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall - causing an abortion in the eyes of many.
I didn’t say that you had to agree with it, I didn’t say that we should ban it, I merely pointed out that it was a legitimate issue with the Catholic Church.’s teachings. Now, if you don’t think life begins at conception, then you probably don’t think this is an abortion, if you do, you probably think it is. MikeCT was suggesting that the issue of when life begins has been settled. Last I checked it has not been settled.
Also, what teachings of the church are “lunacy”, exactly?
And, last I checked jujubee, the Catholic Church has addressed its problems and paid a heavy price for its cover-ups.
Tony Stark said:
My question is why you felt my comment was over the line? I apologize if I lumped you in with other arguments that I heard on here. I consider telling a woman who has been raped that she cannot take a pill to not have to be forced to have the child of a rapist lunacy. Forbidding condoms and other forms of birth control is on that list too. And if you feel that the Catholic Church has fully addressed the issue of the child rapings, then you are only part of the problem. And, do tell me what condemnations or comments the FIC has sent out in regards to this on-going problem.
I don’t want to speak for MikeCT, but I think the part that you said that people would disagree with is not when the life begins, but that Plan B prevents implantation.
TrueBlueCT said:
Yes… your outrage over my question is duly noted.
So is your failure to answer it.
It is also noted that no liberal has attempted to answer this question.
I’m going to ask your indulgence in these hypotheticals you find so morally outrageous. Let us suppose you have three pregnant women. One tells you she wants to have an abortion because she just isn’t ready to be a mother. The second says she has discovered the baby will be a redhead, and she wants a brunette. The third one says she has learned the baby has a genetic predisposition to homosexuality, and wants to terminate.
I’m just wondering if there is a liberal out there who will say these are all acceptable reasons for an abortion, or tell me which reason of these would be unacceptable to them and why.
I’m wondering, too.
Selective abortion is, by the way, completely legal. There’s nothing in the law stopping someone from trying over and over again until they have the perfect genetic child. I don’t suggest for a second that it’s common, but it’s legality is disgusting at best.
Also, I don’t speak for any Catholic other than myself. I’m flattered at the suggestion, but I think we’re all better off. Then again, I’m drinking a glass of wine as we speak… err… blog.
Christ’s teaching would be to turn the other cheek and sacrifice. That’s exactly what he did, it’s also about forgiveness to those who did wrong. Forgiveness and sacrifice is difficult to do and every year Catholics go to celebrate Christ’s sacrifice yet most are not willing to do this themselves. It’s not the religion that is wrong here it is the people who say they believe in the religion who are wrong.
According to church teaching Christ was the most innocent person in the world and what happened to him? He was crucified!!! Today’s society would be calling for him to sue or get revenge and neglect moral teaching.
The church believes that all people are fallible…and that includes priests. The church also believes that people should try to follow in the steps of Christ, unfortuantely that includes sacrfice and forgiveness.
Headless Horseman said:
Wow, you’ve just made the argument for banning guns outright!
Who am I to get in the middle of why someone feels the need to buy a gun, or have an abortion. Is it any of my business?
What I do know is that contrary to your fear-mongering, most people make these decisions very deliberatively. Women don’t go to the abortion clinic on a whim.
Jim wrote:
Selective abortion is, by the way, completely legal. There’s nothing in the law stopping someone from trying over and over again until they have the perfect genetic child. I don’t suggest for a second that it’s common, but it’s legality is disgusting at best.
What are you smoking? Can you find me one of those women who abort over and over in hopes of having that perfect genetic child?
If you guys don’t believe in screening for severe genetic disabilities, don’t do the screening. It’s a free country.
Gabe - The drug’s own website says that taking the drug may prevent implantation. It also says it does not cause abortion, but then defines abortion as terinating a pregnancy after implantation. We’ve had this discussion many times on this blog, and we all agreed that whether you think the EC drugs cause abortions is based on when you think life begins.
As for the RC church, guy on guy rape, any child molestation, anything of that sort is inexcusable. The church is now dealing with it as other organizations do - as with many things it was the cover up that caused most of the problems - the church simply shuffled the deck and more people were hurt.
Now, as for the incidents of these perverts getting their hands on kids? It is no higher among priets than among any other group that deals with kids (teachers being the notable example).
As for birth control, you need an updated catchism - married couples are allowed to use it now. Look it up - the church just thinks it is better to have sex only when you are married. Do you disagree? Of course not. Now, will everyone abide by this? Of course not, even the Church recognizes that we all sin. That doesn’t mean it is wrong to encourage people to wait until they are married.
As for EC, the church thinks it is abortion because the drugs prescribed may prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus - thus killing it.
To put it another way, if you think life begins at conception isn’t is lunacy to allow something that will end that life? That is what EC is for the Church.
Also, TBCT, people do kill their kids based on these screenings. The question is what happens when we can screen for other things? Homosexuality?
Not true Doctor Stark; and that’s why they oppose Plan B, which is a form of birth control not abortion.!!! Don’t let facts get in the way of your argument though…..
In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, “Human Life”), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.
Contraception is “any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp
Wishful Thinking (by Doctor Stark)
Ignoring the mountain of evidence, some maintain that the Church considers the use of contraception a matter for each married couple to decide according to their “individual conscience.” Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. The Church has always maintained the historic Christian teaching that deliberate acts of contraception are always gravely sinful, which means that it is mortally sinful if done with full knowledge and deliberate consent (CCC 1857). This teaching cannot be changed and has been taught by the Church infallibly.
There is no way to deny the fact that the Church has always and everywhere condemned artificial contraception. The matter has already been infallibly decided. The so-called “individual conscience” argument amounts to “individual disobedience.”
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 20
Like I said, you might want to get an updated catechism - 2004 is a little stale toucan:
“Some re-thinking already appears to be underway; the Vatican recently granted married couples permission to use condoms when one of them has a sexually transmitted disease.”
http://www.crosscurrents.org/balasuryiasummer2006.htm
As for Pan B and other EC drugs I will reiterate: WHETHER OR NOT YOU THINK IT CAUSES AN ABORTION ALL DEPENDS ON WHEN YOU BELIEVE LIFE BEGINS. The church has been very clear and consistent in saying that life begins at conception. When a sperm fertilizes an egg. Anything that kills that fertilized egg after that moment is killing a human life. The church is opposed to that. These drugs prevent a fertilized egg from iplanting in the uterine wall and thus kills it.
How do you not get this? You can spout off talking points all you want, but there isn’t an objective answer to this. This isn’t a debate on the merits - I am just saying that there is another side to the story, you seem to think there isn’t. Seriuosly, it’s like 1984 on this blog sometimes.
“Eurasia is the enemy. Eurasia has always been the enemy”
Stark, nice spin. People aren’t that dumb though.
toucan - Huh? Aren’t that dumb to do what? What, exactly do you disagree with in my last post? The fact that the Church changed it’s stance on abortion? The fact that there is another side to the debate? The fact that whether something kills a human life depends on what your definition of life is? Isn’t that what the whole abortion debate has been about for the last 25 years?
Look, whether you like it or not, people disagree about when life begins. That disagreement extends to this debate because a large group of people believes life begins when an egg is fertilized. That’s all I am saying. Do you agree or disagree with that statement.
No, the fact that your statement was wrong and you continue to spin it. Unless you think all maried RC’s have on partner who has been infected with AIDS.
C;mon toucan - you’re better than that. As any vatican watcher will tell you, it was an implicit nod to the fact that sex isn’t simply for procreation.
Now, as for the other stuff, you should answer:
“Look, whether you like it or not, people disagree about when life begins. That disagreement extends to this debate because a large group of people believes life begins when an egg is fertilized. That’s all I am saying. Do you agree or disagree with that statement. ”
You must log in to post a comment.