Matt Harrison to testify to Congressional committee today

I have it on good authority that Rev. Matthew Harrison, president of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, will testify before a Congressional committee investigating the religious liberty issues in the Obamacare abortion pill/contraception mandate.  Testimony is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. ET.  I’m told that you can watch it here:  Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

I’m glad he is doing this.  It’s important to demonstrate that this is not just a Roman Catholic issue.

Do you think this is good for him to do?  Or is this a violation of the Lutheran doctrine of the Two Kingdoms?  Or is it an example of that doctrine?

Do 98% of Catholic women use contraceptives?

Apologists for the administration’s abortion pill & contraceptive mandate are pointing to statistics that say as many as 98% of Roman Catholic women use contraceptives in defiance of the teaching of their church.  This is then used to encourage Democrats to not back down from the mandate, despite what the bishops say, as if rank and file Catholics will support the Obama administration anyway.

It turns out, though, that the 98% numbers are yet another way to lie with statistics, as Mark Misulia explains, quoting an analysis linked in the post:

The study excludes women who are not sexually active, where this is defined as “sexual intercourse in the past three months,” postpartum, pregnant, or women trying to get pregnant. The study was designed to “include only women for whom a pregnancy would be unintended and who are ‘at risk’ of becoming pregnant.” It is not clear whether the study includes women who are neither trying nor not trying to become pregnant. . . .

“The deliberate design of the study to cover only women who, at the time of the study, were having sexual intercourse while regarding a pregnancy as unintended would be likely to make it unrepresentative of Catholics and particularly unrepresentative of devout Catholics. Yet the study is now being cited to show the percentage of Catholic women generally who are not following the teaching of the Catholic Church in this area…a statistic based on a study that explicitly excluded those who have no use for contraception is obviously irrelevant to a question about the percentage of Catholic women who have a use for contraception!”

The fact that women who are celibate, postpartum, and those not trying to avoid pregnancy are excluded is enough. That such a misrepresentation is being used as leverage in serious political discourse is truly unfortunate, regardless of the content of the study, and says as much about contemporary American politics as the mandate itself.

via The Bogus 98 Percent » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog.

Here is how Mollie Hemingway puts it, analyzing in more detail the original study from the Guttmacher Institute (which happens to be an organization affiliated with Planned Parenthood):

So I guess we could say that among women aged 15-44 who had sex in the last three months but aren’t pregnant, post-partum or trying to get pregnant, 87 percent of women who identify as Catholic used contraception. It’s worth pondering just who is left out of this 87 percent, other than, you know, everyone who doesn’t use contraception.

Certainly lots of Roman Catholics don’t follow their church’s teaching in this matter, but that doesn’t change the right of the church to set those teachings, as they themselves for the most part surely realize.

A man gives birth?

Well, a transgendered man, one who used to be a woman.  And evidently still is:

The man, who is believed to be in his 30s, was able to carry a child after taking female hormones to reverse the effects of his female-to-male sex change treatment.

The Daily Telegraph understands that the man, whose identity has not been diclosed, is from the West Midlands and is in a long-term relationship. It is not clear whether his partner is male or female.

Last night medical ethics experts called for a full inquiry into the issues surrounding transgender births, saying the interests of the child should not be risked to “fulfil the rights of an adult”.

Although he has legally changed his gender to male, the man in question was able to give birth last year because his womb was not removed during the original sex change procedure.

It is possible for transgender men who were born women, who still have functioning ovaries and a uterus, to become pregnant while still identifying and living as men.

via Sex change British man gives birth to son – Telegraph.

So in what sense is a woman who gets a sex-changed operation a man?  Or a man who gets a sex-change operation a woman?  It isn’t just the external sex organs that make the difference, the focus of the plastic surgeon’s work.  In reality every cell of a person’s body, in its very DNA, inscribes that person’s gender.

Obama, Henry VIII, and tooth-level surveillance

Mark Steyn compares President Obama’s religion policies to those of Henry VIII, whose “Act of Supremacy” gave him sole authority over his subjects’ faith and practice.  You need to read what he says.

But I draw your attention to just two parts of that essay.  The first, where he quotes a provision of Obamacare that gives Secretary of Health & Human Services Kathleen Sibelius authority over our teeth:

“The Secretary shall develop oral healthcare components that shall include tooth-level surveillance.”

The second is his conclusion, which is a strikingly-phrased statement of the dangers of big government:

The bigger the Big Government, the smaller everything else: First, other pillars of civil society are crowded out of the public space; then, the individual gets crowded out, even in his most private, tooth-level space. President Obama, Commissar Sebelius, and many others believe in one-size-fits-all national government — uniformity, conformity, supremacy from Maine to Hawaii, for all but favored cronies. It is a doomed experiment — and on the morning after it will take a lot more than a morning-after pill to make it all go away.

via The Church of Obama – Mark Steyn – National Review Online.

Compromise on insurance birth control mandate?

President Obama has announced a compromise he is willing to enact on his mandatory abortion pill and contraceptive mandate.  Employees of religious institutions that don’t believe in that sort of thing will have to ask the organization’s insurance company for the coverage, whereupon the insurance company will have to provide it free of charge without raising the institution’s rates.  Thus the insurance company, not the faith-based employer, will be paying for the morning after pills and contraceptives.  And the faith-based employer would not be directly providing for them.  Rather, the employee would get them off the books.

See White House compromise still guarantees contraceptive coverage for women – The Washington Post.

Does this really solve the problem?

Aren’t all of the expenses of an insurance company ultimately and necessarily passed on to the customers?

And isn’t the result exactly the same apart from the moral casuistry of trying to shuffle around the responsibility?

And the administration isn’t saying  how this would work with institutions, such as many non-profits, that are self-insured, in which employers collect premiums but then pay for employee health expenses themselves.

The Roman Catholic bishops note other problems:  The government’s apparent dispensations apply only to non-profit organizations.  A Catholic or other pro-life business owner would still have to directly provide free abortion pills and contraceptives, which would mean for the Catholic, being forced by law to be complicit in a grave sin.

Also church-related insurance companies (like Concordia Health Plan and its numerous Catholic equivalents) are not exempt from having to provide this kind of coverage.

Because of earlier H.H.S. machinations, the Morning After pill is now available over the counter.  What insurance plans cover non-prescription medication?  Your health insurance won’t pay for a bottle of aspirin or Nyquil.  And yet the Obama administration is insisting that this over-the-counter medication be covered free of charge, without even a deductible.  The agenda here is clearly that of pro-abortion fanaticism.

Pro-abortionists have the money and the power

Russell D. Moore at Christianity Today on the Susan G. Komen foundation’s caving to Planned Parenthood:

This is an important victory for Planned Parenthood and the abortion rights lobby. First of all, the association with Komen is a key piece in Planned Parenthood’s effort to present itself as a “women’s health provider” rather than simply as an abortion provider. Beyond that, the surrender of the nation’s leading breast cancer awareness group to this kind of political pressure proves the clout of Planned Parenthood and their allies.

Evangelical and Catholic Christians, and our pro-life allies of all faiths, might be tempted to draw some wrong conclusions from this tragic affair. After all our years of trumpeting opinion polls showing a “pro-life majority” in the United States, this demonstrates that, when it comes to money and power, the pro-choice forces aren’t sustained simply by the penumbra and emanations of an old Supreme Court decision.

Some pro-life persons might wish that the Christian churches had as much influence in the public arena as Planned Parenthood, that we were able to mobilize as many callers and threaten as many boycotts. Some might see this as a sign that we need more money and respect. After all, if some Christian foundation had more financial firepower than Planned Parenthood, Komen might have stood firm.

In all of this, though, we can gain an opportunity to see what the abortion culture is all about: cash. Planned Parenthood and their allies use the thoroughly American language of freedom of choice and women’s empowerment, but what’s at stake, as seen here, are billions of dollars. That’s why, despite their talk about adoption as a “choice,” Planned Parenthood and others hardly ever lead women through an adoption process relative to how often they promise them the “fix” of a “terminated pregnancy.” There’s a profit motive involved in every abortion.

Christians shouldn’t be surprised by any of this. Money and power, abstracted from the lordship of Christ, always lead to violence. Pharaoh ordered the execution of the Hebrew children because they threatened his position in “the 1 percent” of ancient Egypt. Herod carried out the same decree because he wanted to protect his kingship, a kingship that carried with it the financial support of the Roman Empire.

No one, Jesus told us, can serve both God and Mammon. In saying this, Jesus personalized money in a disturbing way. When capital becomes God it, somehow, is no longer something, but someone. The demonic force of rapaciousness so distorts the soul that, when it’s threatened, someone is going to die.

The answer for those of us who cherish the lives of women and their children, regardless of stage of development, isn’t to long to compete with Planned Parenthood in the influence that comes with massive amounts of wealth. It’s instead to see, first of all, how our own captivity to Mammon devolves us in the same way.

via The Pink Ribbon and the Dollar Sign | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction.

The author goes on to exhort Christians to stop their emphasis on money and power.

He is surely right to criticize the worldliness of contemporary churches–manifested especially in those that proclaim the “prosperity gospel,” but also in the general deference we tend to pay to wealth and power.

And yet, if we are to battle legalized abortion, don’t Christians have to pursue the power to change the laws?  Don’t pro-life organizations need more money?  Might we become so spiritual that we withdraw from the world’s concerns and thus become complicit in the institutionalized slaughter that is the abortion industry? Don’t the world’s battles require the world’s weapons, and isn’t this legitimate in our vocation as citizens in God’s kingdom of the left?

By the way, I like Dr. Moore’s phrase” Evangelical and Catholic Christians, and our pro-life allies of all faiths.”  This is not just a Catholic issue!  All conservative Christian organizations will be put into the position of having to pay for not just birth control pills but also abortion pills.

UPDATE:  See also Mollie Hemingway’s more hopeful article in Christianity Today entitled “The Komen Fiasco’s Silver Lining.”   She points out how at least the affair unveils (1) that the Komen foundation funds abortions (2) that Planned Parenthood, contrary to the common assumption, does NOT provide mammograms  (3) that the media is flagrantly biased in favor of abortion (4) that Planned Parenthood practices extortion.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X