Category: Abortion

Equality Act’s Attack on Religious Liberty, Medical Conscience

National Review

Reproduced with permission

Wesley J. Smith

President Biden said during the campaign that he supported the Equality Act, which is being sold as a means of guaranteeing equality for LGBT people.

But it does more than that. It would destroy medical conscience by removing existing protections that permit doctors and nurses to refuse participation in abortion, and it would gut the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The Charlotte Lozier Institute’s associate scholar Richard Doerflinger explains in a white paper he authored on the bill. From “The ‘Equality Act’: Threatening Life and Equality:”

The Equality Act’s new freestanding ban on pregnancy discrimination . . . adds the new requirement for women to receive “treatment” for pregnancy that is as “favorable” as treatment for any other “physical condition” . . . . It provides rules of construction indicating that the new requirement should be interpreted as broadly as possible. . . . And it negates the existing religious freedom law that allows believers to seek an exemption from such requirements based on sincere religious beliefs such as respect for human life.

That’s the end of medical conscience, an aspect of freedom of religion that permits doctors and nurses to refuse to participate in the termination of pregnancies.

That’s not all. The bill guts the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as a defense against acts deemed discriminatory in the bill. Among other wrongs, this could force Catholic hospitals to permit sterilization, contraception, abortion, and transgender surgeries on premises despite their being prohibited by Catholic moral teaching.

Interestingly the ACLU once understood the importance of protecting Catholic hospitals from such impositions. It now supports the Equality Act:

It is notable that in 1992 the ACLU recognized a religious hospital’s right to decline involvement even in contraception. This is also a service related to pregnancy, so would presumably be required of religious hospitals under the Equality Act – as would removal of a woman’s healthy uterus, surgically sterilizing her, to facilitate her transition to a male gender identity.

As noted above, the Equality Act’s mandates and its elimination of any defense under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act would also reverse the outcome of Supreme Court cases on the Affordable Care Act, subjecting the Little Sisters of the Poor and other religious entities to a mandate for contraceptive and early abortifacient  coverage.

Read the whole paper. It is a sobering assessment.

The Equality Act is a blatant act of cultural imperialism and a high-priority agenda item for the new administration and the Democrat-controlled Congress. So much for “unity.”

Examining the thorny moral problem of foetal reduction

BioEdge

Michael Cook

It is a truth universally acknowledged that defending an opinion on abortion will make at least half of one’s readers unhappy. But Joona Räsänen, a Finnish bioethicist at the University of Oslo, defends an opinion on abortion in the Journal of Medical Ethics which is bound to make all of them unhappy.

He tackles the controversial question of foetal reduction: killing one or more foetuses in a multiple pregnancy. This may happen when one of them is diseased or has a birth defect or when the mother feels incapable of caring for more than one child. It often happens after IVF when a woman ends up with triplets or quadruplets – or even octuplets. Some doctors have refused to “reduce” the pregnancies because they regard it as immoral. . . [Full Text]

Navigating Vaccine Ethics

CMDA’s The Point

Reproduced with permission

Jonathon Imbody

CMDA Senior Vice President for Bioethics and Public Policy Dr. Jeff Barrows and I recently wrote a piece for The Public Discourse, “Is Receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Ethical?” that suggested principles to consider as we navigate ethical issues related to COVID-19 vaccines. I’ve included brief highlights below; more from the original article and also new observations will be published in an upcoming edition of CMDA Today (previously known as Today’s Christian Doctor).  

CMDA has approved an ethics statement that can help guide individuals’ analyses of immunizations and the potential for moral complicity with evil:

  1. “Using technology developed from tissue of an intentionally aborted fetus, but without continuing the cell line from that fetus, may be morally acceptable.
  2. “Continued use of a cell line developed from an intentionally aborted fetus poses moral questions and must be decided as a matter of conscience, weighing the clear moral obligation to protect the health of our families and society against the risk of complicity with evil.
  3. “Using a vaccine that requires the continued destruction of human life is morally unacceptable.”

Deciding which COVID-19 vaccine poses the least ethical concerns hinges in part on the implication of abortion in (a) the initial design of the vaccine, (b) the confirmatory testing of the vaccine and (c) the ongoing production of the vaccine. Vaccines that continue to use the abortion-derived cell line in ongoing production pose the most obvious ethical barrier to use by pro-life individuals. This category includes vaccines by AstraZeneca–University of Oxford and by Janssen–Johnson & Johnson. In fact, these vaccines employ abortion-related cell lines in all three stages—design, confirmation and production.

While still ethically concerning, the fact that this remote and limited interaction with abortion does not involve the continuing use of an aborted fetal cell line makes it less ethically problematic compared to its competitors that use these cell lines for ongoing vaccine production.

Unlike the aforementioned COVID-19 vaccine candidates that rely on abortion-derived cells for their ongoing production, the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine used the HEK-293 cell line from a 1972 abortion only to confirm that messenger RNA was properly coding for the spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. While still ethically disconcerting, the fact that this remote and limited interaction with abortion does not involve the continuing use of an aborted fetal cell line makes it less ethically problematic compared to its competitors than use these cell lines for ongoing vaccine production.

A consideration of the harm to others that can come without vaccination goes to the heart of Christian ethics in a way that virtually every believer understands: Vaccinating yourself and those who depend on you is an important component of following the command to love thy neighbor.

We recognize that each individual must weigh ethical considerations before making a vaccine decision. When we examine the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in light of ethical principles of (a) loving our neighbor by protecting them through our own vaccination, (b) the distance in time from an abortion connection and (c) the fact that the vaccine does not continue to use cell lines derived from an abortion, we find these factors considerable in mitigating the ethical concerns and opening the door to receiving the vaccine in good conscience.

Is Reducing Down Syndrome Births a Form of Eugenics?

We are still choosing who lives and who dies based on genes.

Psychology Today

Richard Gunderman

A recently released study finds that Europe has reduced the number of babies born with Down syndrome by 54%. In 2016, the same researchers found that the U.S. rate of Down syndrome births had declined by 33%. Some friends and colleagues have asked me whether such reductions, which entail prenatal diagnosis and elective pregnancy termination, mean that we are still practicing some form of eugenics.

Down syndrome is a genetic disorder usually associated with an extra copy of chromosome 21 – hence its other name, trisomy 21. Children with Down syndrome generally exhibit growth delays, reduced intelligence, and a shortened life span of around 60 years. The risk of having a baby with Down syndrome increases with parental age. When prenatal testing reveals the diagnosis, some parents, including apparently many in Europe and the US, elect to terminate the pregnancy. . . [Full text]

NJ Legislature Considering ‘Reproductive Freedom Act’

Strips Medical Workers of ‘Conscience Protection,’ Legalizes Infanticide of Born-Alive Children

News Release

Rev. Clenard H. Childress Jr.,

MEDIA ADVISORY, Dec. 1, 2020 /Standard Newswire/ — “Cowardice asks the question, is it safe? Expediency asks the question, is it politic? Vanity asks the question, is it popular? But conscience asks the question, is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because it is right.” – Martin Luther King

A coalition of pro-life groups and concerned activists are holding a “Day of Outrage” protest at the offices of legislators sponsoring the “Reproductive Freedom Act.” This bill removes the “conscience clause,” meaning healthcare workers must assist in abortion through all 9 months of pregnancy. It gives impunity to those who would kill a child born alive.

“The Reproductive Freedom Act is a human trafficker’s best friend,” said Rev. Greg Quinlan for Garden State Families. Quinlan stated, “The Reproductive Freedom Act will allow anyone, of any age, regardless of their residency, to receive an abortion at the expense of New Jersey taxpayers. New Jersey taxpayers will be paying for abortions for women victimized by Human Traffickers.”

“This outrageous bill strips babies of their right to live, strips women of their right to safe healthcare, strips NJ healthcare workers and taxpayers of their rights of conscience not to participate in abortion, and even disenfranchises citizens from being able to rescind it in the future. This anti-freedom bill must be stopped in its tracks,” said Christine Flaherty, Executive Director, LIFENET.

The Working Together coalition has been designed to educate the public on the details of the bill and how this bill will detrimentally affect women. New Jersey will be joining California and New York in not requiring an abortionist to be a licensed medical doctor.

Shawn Hyland, director of advocacy for the Family Policy Alliance of New Jersey, said, “This unsafe bill threatens women’s health, jeopardizes children’s safety and criminalizes medical health professionals.”

Gwen Schwarzwalder, an activist with South Jersey Pro-Life Coalition, quoted from Albert Einstein,  “Never surrender conscience even if the state demands it.”

“The Reproductive Freedom Act shamefully disregards advances in prenatal medicine. Instead, it seeks to dehumanize and deprive babies in the womb of their life and dignity. It consigns them to inhumane procedures that would not be tolerated if done to a cat or a dog” said Marie Tasy, executive director, New Jersey Right To Life.

Rev. Clenard H. Childress Jr., founder of BlackGenocide.org, stated, “This change will further endanger women’s health and put their lives at risk. This lowering of care for disproportionately African American women is typical of the callous abortion industry. Abortion is the most performed surgery on women. No doctors?”

The coalition will have another “Day of Outrage” that will span over three counties, Wednesday, December 2, starting at these NJ legislative offices

10 a.m. – Assemblywoman Mila Jasey, 511 Valley St., Maplewood (Essex County

1 p.m. – Assemblyman Vincent Mazzeo, 2312 New Rd., Northfield (Atlantic County

2 p.m. – Senator Vin Gopal, 35 West Main St., Freehold (Monmouth County

The Pro-life coalition is a promoter of Prayerful and Peaceful protest. The civil rights of all our citizens is a chief priority of the coalition.

S-3030/A-4848

SOURCE Rev. Clenard H. Childress Jr.

CONTACT: Rev. Clenard H. Childress Jr., 201-704-9325; 

John Tomicki, League of American Families, 201-725-2154