Fr. Roger J. Landry
The Anchor
Editorial
October 19, 2007
At the beginning of October in Connecticut, a new law went into effect that illustrates once again that “pro-choice” politicians and proponents will stop at nothing to force their immorality on those who wish to choose life, or on doctors who do not wish to act against the best interests of their patients.
The law forbids all hospitals in the state — but it was targeting Catholic hospitals — from using an ovulation test prior to the administration of emergency contraception for victims of sexual assault. Catholic hospitals in Connecticut have long given emergency contraception to rape victims, but only after determining through pregnancy and ovulation tests that the powerful drug would be working to prevent the conception of new life rather than to abort a new boy or girl already conceived.
From a clinical point of view, the Catholic protocol is the only sane one. There is absolutely no medical reason to give a powerful drug with various side effects to a woman if it is not going to help her. If a woman is already pregnant and therefore incapable of ovulation, or if a woman has already ovulated, then there is no purpose to give her a potent anovulatory medication like Plan B or any other emergency contraception. That is unless there is another effect to emergency “contraception.”
Barr Pharmaceuticals, the manufacturer of Plan B, clearly thinks that there is. In the insert they include with the drug’s packaging, they state, “This product works mainly by preventing ovulation (egg release). It may also prevent fertilization of a released egg (joining of sperm and egg) or attachment of a fertilized egg to the uterus (implantation).” To prevent implantation of a fertilized egg is a medical way of saying that it will cause a chemical abortion by preventing a 5-7 day old boy or girl from attaching to the mother’s womb. It’s clear that Connecticut legislators and proponents of forcing Catholic hospitals to give Plan B to sexual assault victims who have already ovulated are also aware of this abortifacient mechanism; otherwise, there would be no purpose to administering it to women who have already ovulated.
That is where the double injustice and evil of this new law comes in: Not only does it advance abortion but it also forces Catholic medical personnel and institutions to cooperate in its administration against freedom of religion and freedom of conscience.
The three Catholic dioceses of Connecticut fought hard to defeat the legislation, but, as we reported in last week’s edition of The Anchor, announced to the surprise of many inside and outside the Church that Catholic hospitals would “reluctantly comply” with it. The bishops of Connecticut said that, even though they will still be fighting to see the unjust law changed, it is possible morally to obey it, since even a rare positive ovulation test would not indicate necessarily that a conception has taken place, but only that one may have taken place. Therefore, the administration of a drug with an abortifacient mechanism in those circumstances would not mean they are necessarily cooperating with a chemical abortion. They did announce, however, that if a test were developed that allowed doctors to determine medically that conception has taken place during or after the assault, then Catholic hospitals would refuse to administer the emergency contraception. They added that Catholic hospitals will still administer a pregnancy test (which the Connecticut law allows) and will not administer the emergency contraception if the test shows that a woman is already pregnant since it might cause the abortion of a child already conceived. Even pro-abortion doctors note that a positive pregnancy test during the first 72 hours after an assault would indicate not that the woman was impregnated during the assault, but before it, since pregnancy tests assay for the presence of a hormone secreted after implantation, which occurs five to seven days after conception of a newborn child.
Many pro-lifers and Catholics inside and outside Connecticut have expressed concern that, even though the Connecticut bishops were technically correct in saying that it was possible morally to comply with the law as written, it was unwise to do so, first, because it could potentially lead to a chemical abortion in rare cases, and, second, because it will likely embolden pro-abortion legislative forces in Connecticut and elsewhere to continue to force Catholics hospitals to act contrary to Catholic principles.
Here in Massachusetts, after the legislature in 2005 passed a law mandating all hospitals, including Catholic ones, to dispense emergency contraception to rape victims upon their request, the Caritas Christi Catholic health care network (which includes St. Anne’s in Fall River and is owned by the Archdiocese of Boston) courageously announced that they would continue to follow the Catholic protocol and distribute Plan B only if it were serving as an anovulatory contraceptive and not as an abortifacient. These Catholic hospitals based their defiance not just on Church teaching and freedom of religion and conscience, but also on a 1975 law that bars the Commonwealth from forcing private hospitals to dispense contraceptive devices or participate in abortions.
A recent undercover study by NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts shows that the refusal of Catholic hospitals to comply with an unjust law has created space even for non-Catholic hospitals to make protocols that respect the consciences of medical personnel. The study showed that 14% of Massachusetts hospitals are not in full compliance with the letter of this unjust law. Half of them allow doctors to make determinations according to the criteria of their discipline as well as their conscience about whether to dispense the emergency contraception or not; the other half, including all nine Catholic hospitals in the State, administer emergency contraception only after a rape kit determines that the effect of the pill would be contraceptive not abortifacient. The reality is that in almost cases, women who have been sexually assaulted do receive emergency contraception, but only after protocols to prevent the violation of the conscience of the medical provider or institution and to prevent adding a victim of abortion to a victim of rape.
The Church’s resistance to unjust civil laws will necessarily vary according to the circumstances. For much of the history of the Church in our country, while we have had to deal with issues of anti-Catholic discrimination, we have not had to face the issue of forced compliance with immoral laws. But that is obviously changing. Catholic leaders will unfortunately need to gain a lot of experience in this type of resistance unless Catholic citizens began to step up to plate politically and prevent those who claim to represent them to put their Church in this difficult position.