Get updates from Catholic and Enjoying It! delivered straight to your inbox
Obama tells faith-based groups they must refer refugees for abortion.
Dear. Mister President: No. We refuse.
Well, its that or yet another way to gradually force non-profits out of the business of actually helping people. That way the state will get to control everything in the public sphere.
Well, assuming the article is accurate about the requirements, all it does is force non-profits not to rely on federal funds to continue helping people. This will certainly reduce the resources that Catholic charitable organizations have at their disposal, and so will probably reduce the amount of good they can practically do. But it won’t force them to stop helping people.
Now, the laws restricting such actions as providing food or other care for homeless people are far more disconcerting. They are a direct attack on religious practice.
Likewise, if the government forbade non-government-approved organizations from working with refugees at all, which does not seem all that implausible based on recent policies and decisions, that would be a direct attack on religious practice.
Well said. I still think it’s sad that it can’t be arranged in a better way, apparently. If a government is convinced that both access to abortion and caring for the poor are worthy of being subsidized, they could just as well let organization A handle the first and organization B the second, without forcing either to engage in, promote or even mention the others’ business.
Also, and this question has kept me busy at times, I think Roki here aims at the heart of a Catholic’s relation with the worldly power. My apologies for the following bit of Roman emperor analogy, but I can come up with nothing better right away. We, like the American bishops when dealing with Obama, can live with Constantine. Perhaps we’re not even entirely sure Theodosius is better for our souls and the life of the Church, but we’re only beginning to figure out how to deal with a creeping tendency towards a reign of Julian, if not necessarily one of Nero or Diocletian.
Can you show me where it is in the new rules? I’m looking and I want to know what exactly was said in the rules which they are getting this interpretation from. I expect there is an element of truth here, but I want to see it fully spelled out, because C-FAM has a tendency to stretch things like Lifesite (headed by Austin Ruse).
It’s very similar to the Little Sisters for the Poor issue. The Administration “acknowledges” that some providers may have moral issues with contraception and abortion, so do not directly have to provide them. But, they would have to either be a “subgrantee” meaning that they not be responsible for all services required (meaning less participation in the program) so long as the main grantee *does* provide those services. This means that the organization would be a contractor of an abortion provider. I can’t imagine a Catholic organization in good standing agreeing to this. The other is to join a “consortium” where they will partner with organizations that *would* provide those same services. Thus, the same moral issue arises. Those services required by the program are listed here:
§ 411.92 Access to emergency medical and mental health services:
“(a) Care provider facilities must provide UC victims of sexual abuse timely, unimpeded access to emergency medical treatment, crisis intervention services, emergency contraception, and sexually transmitted infections prophylaxis, in accordance with professionally accepted standards of care, where appropriate under medical or mental health professional standards.
(b) Care provider facilities must provide UC victims of sexual abuse access to all medical treatment and crisis intervention services regardless of whether the victim names the abuser or cooperates with any investigation arising out of the incident.”
§ 411.93 Ongoing medical and mental health care for sexual abuse and sexual harassment victims and abusers:
“(d) If pregnancy results from an instance of sexual abuse, care provider facility must ensure that the victim receives timely and comprehensive information about all lawful pregnancy-related medical services and timely access to all lawful pregnancy-related medical services”
Where does that say “refer to abortion”? I might be a little dense, but I don’t see “refer to abortion” in there. To say that the children must be given a “referral” sounds as if they are being told they must have one — you are pregnant, here, have an abortion. That is the claim. I don’t see that claim supported there.
I see a few things which are vague and can be interpreted many ways, but not that they must be interpreted as “children must be given over to have an abortion.” Some things are vague, such as they must be given information on “all pregnancy related medical services,” which includes abortion – information is not the same thing as referral. And I would say a Catholic doctor could reason out it is not a “pregnancy related medical service” and so not even say anything (of course, it would be a fight in courts, but in theory it could go either way). It is for that reason, not so strong, it is not great but it is not exactly the “must refer” suggested by the article. Which again shows the point of exaggeration going on. And I would be interested in knowing if this is recent or if this has been the policy for quite some time and just highlighted now? And if it is not a change in policy, how long has it been going on? If it is a change, how did the change get introduced? I still don’t have enough info.
You know what that means…
That can mean many things, including things which Catholic hospitals still do for rape victims (whether or not they should, we must at least acknowledge they do):
And remember this is about sexual abuse.
I really don’t think Obama et al are concerned with (or even aware of) such ethical nuances, but I’m glad loopholes to such instructions exist.
There is emergency contraception that is not abortifacient (most, outside of implantation of an IUD, these days) and allowed to be used in case of rape by at least the USCCB if not the Vatican. It does not refer to RU-486.
I’m not sure how one could reason an abortion is not a pregnancy related medical service. It can only be performed on a pregnant person, so it is by definition pregnancy related, and it is medical procedure performed by a doctor or nurse, so it is a medical service (even if not beneficial). and it very clearly states “all lawful” not “some subset of services which the doctor believes should be included”. “timely and comprehensive information and access” means a referral, if not actual transportation, scheduling and most likely payment, since the minor is unlikely to have their own funds.
Because it is not pregnancy related when there is no pregnancy because of it. Just like sin is not God related.
What? that is a nonsense analogy. Appendectomies are appendix related. Tooth extractions are dental related. Tonsillectomies are tonsil-related. There might be no X at the end of it, but there was an X to begin with.
Anyway, if you want to go with your analogy: sin might not be God’s fault, but it is most definitely “God related” — I go to a priest (a dude that works in God related matters) to fix my sin problem and a sin is a breach in my relationship with God.
No, sin by definition is not God related. The point is that the negation of a thing is by definition not related to the thing itself.
This is why I said the analogy made no sense since clearly you are using it is a way that does not map directly to the objects originally described.
In any case, negations are logically related to the thing itself, by the operation of “negation”.
Are you really arguing that tooth extractions are not a dental issue to be seen by a dentist or dental surgeon? Or that appendectomies are not appendix related? If that is the case, there are no appendix-related surgeries, ever.
Abortion is a subspecialty of OB/GYN, and performed on pregnant women on the baby in utero and the placenta (i.e. the things that make one pregnant). It is a horrible thing, but it is absolutely pregnancy related. It is the “termination of a pregnancy”. There is no way to describe abortion without the word pregnancy. It is more pregnancy related than miscarriage.
No, it is not related to the object: a dog is not a horse, therefore, a dog is related to the horse by not being the horse? No.
You are still arguing nonsense, and your analogies are getting less and less “analogy-like”. An ultrasound is not a pregnancy either, it is therefore not pregnancy related?
Dogs are not in the set horses, it is true. Both are in the set domesticated mammals. They are related by being both animals but not in each other’s species. None of this maps to either “abortion” or “pregnancy procedures”.
Killing a dog is dog related, and might be more like the negation of a dog. Sin, being a lack of good/God, is more like this than “horse” which is a different being altogether.
Let’s look a this another way. There is the set “medical procedures”. You haven’t argued with me on this point, so I’m placing abortion in this set. There is a subset of this which is “pregnancy related procedures”. There is a subset of that which is “procedures performed on pregnant women because they are pregnant” (as opposed to other pregnancy related procedures, like infertility treatments, post-pregnancy care, etc). Abortion is in this set, and not in the negation of this set.
You are the one who says a thing which is not something else is, by not being the something else, by not being it, is related to it. The point is this is not the case. And I’ve demonstrated it. And I’m done.
Put it another way: Birth is *clearly* the most pregnancy related thing ever to be pregnancy related. But, there is no pregnancy after birth.
you need to read it again and pretend you are the government tool who wrote it. Or pretend you’re an IRS agent getting ready to audit someone or something.
Issued on Christmas Eve?