US Senate narrowly rejects protection of conscience measure

By a vote of 51-48, the United States Senate rejected an amendment in the form of the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act of 2011, which Senator Roy Blunt had moved to have appended to a bill.  Three Democratic senators voted in favour of the amendment.[News release][CNN]  In response to the vote, a spokesman for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops said that the bishops “will not rest until the protection of conscience rights is restored and the First Amendment is returned to its place of respect in the Bill of Rights.” [USCCB news release]

 

Scottish judge rules objecting midwives can be forced to facilitate abortions

Two Catholic midwives who brought suit against National Health Services Greater Glasgow and Clyde have lost the case in the Court of Session.  The judge ruled that midwives, while expected to supervise and direct staff providing abortions, were not required to directly participate in the procedure, and were “sufficiently removed” from the procedures that their beliefs had been appropriately accommodated. Nonetheless, the judge did acknowledge that they were causally connected, but ruled that the protection of conscience clause in the Abortion Act (1967) must be interpreted to refer only to direct participation.

Statement by Glasgow midwives after abortion judgment

NEWS RELEASE
29 February 2012, 17:15

Society for the Protection of Unborn Children

The two Glasgow midwives at the centre of today’s court judgment on conscientious objection to abortion have made the following statement:

Miss Mary Doogan said:

“Connie [Wood] and I are both very disappointed and greatly saddened by today’s verdict.

“For most of our 20-plus years of employment as midwifery sisters at the Southern General Hospital we have been proud to be associated with a maternity unit in which the right of all midwifery staff to freedom of conscience has been acknowledged, protected and upheld with no detrimental outcome to any mother whatsoever.

“Neither Connie nor I stand in judgement of any woman who chooses to terminate her pregnancy for whatever reasons. We are more than aware of the difficult choices that some expectant mothers may be faced with in a crisis pregnancy.

“However, in holding to the view that life should be protected from conception to natural death, neither do we wish to be judged for exercising what is our legal right to refuse to participate in the process of medical termination of pregnancy.

“We wish now to take some time to consider all options that are available to us (including appeal) before making any further comment.”

Notes for editors:

Since both women remain employees of the health board they are not in a position to make further comment or give interviews.

The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) has supported the midwives in bringing their case, underwriting their legal costs, and will now be considering their further legal options with them. Please see SPUC’s release of earlier today  and of 17 January.SPUC’s communications department can be contacted on:

  • mobile: 07939 177683
  • direct dial: 020 7820 3129
  • email: news@spuc.org.uk
  • Twitter: @spucprolife

Study reveals US Catholic hospitals are providing surgical sterilization

A study by Dr. Sandra S. Hapenney has revealed that almost half the Catholic hospitals surveyed in seven states performed over 20,000 surgical sterilizations and billed them as “sterilization for contraceptive management.”   The results of the study are disputed by Catholic Health Association of the United States, which, despite not having reviewed it, has stated that it contains “gross errors.”

Dr. Hapenney has demanded that the CHAUSA identify the errors. “Until they establish facts contrary to the findings of my research, they should avoid inaccurate and uniformed disparaging characterizations. Such attacks are as unjust and unwarranted as they are unworthy of the Catholic heritage these institutions represent.” [Daily Record]