Catholic Bioethics Center examines Connecticut Plan B legislation, HLI calls for reversal of bishops’ decision

[rpp]

The Church teaches that contraception, sterilization and abortion are NEVER “allowable for health reasons”. All three are always immoral.
(As explained, killing/immobilizing sperm or suppressing ovulation after a rape [or even in anticipation of it by a non-sexually active woman] is not really contraception.)

Huh?

Tubal Ligations or hysterectomies for health reasons are immoral?

I don’t think this is true.

Jim

Tubal ligations are elective procedures whose sole purpose is sterilization. Sterilization is always immoral.

The PeterG never mentioned hysterectomies. It is wrong to put words
into his mouth. While a hysterectomy does result in sterilization, it is not an elective procedure and is done to treat a specific medical problem. I will agree that PeterG’s statement on it’s face appears to be a bit too broad, however, do not claim to say what he has nt said.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Tubal ligations are elective procedures whose sole purpose is sterilization. Sterilization is always immoral.

The PeterG never mentioned hysterectomies. It is wrong to put words
into his mouth. While a hysterectomy does result in sterilization, it is not an elective procedure and is done to treat a specific medical problem. I will agree that PeterG’s statement on it’s face appears to be a bit too broad, however, do not claim to say what he has nt said.

Tubal ligations are not always elective procedures, just as hysterectomies are not always elective.

I have first hand experience where a tubal ligation was necessary for the health of the mother.

Jim

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Tubal ligations are not always elective procedures, just as hysterectomies are not always elective.

I have first hand experience where a tubal ligation was necessary for the health of the mother.

Jim

For what purpose other than sterilization?

 

[rpp]

Tubal ligations are not always elective procedures, just as hysterectomies are not always elective.

I have first hand experience where a tubal ligation was necessary for the health of the mother.

Jim

If your experience was along lines of a doctor saying “If you get pregnant again, you may die.” that is not a justifiable reason. If there is a cancer or some other medical condition involving the fallopian tube, that is permissible., However, since women have two ovaries and two fallopian tubes, it is likely that the medical condition only affect one. Medical sterilization for the purpose of sterilizing, is never permitted. Even when sterilization is for “health reasons”.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

For what purpose other than sterilization?

Medical complications where a pregnancy will never make it past a couple days, and hemorrhaging due to multiple miscarriages.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

If your experience was along lines of a doctor saying “If you get pregnant again, you may die.”.

A woman doesn’t have to risk her life to get pregnant, where she will only miscarry.

Sorry, but both priest who we consulted and the doctor concluded that at tubal ligation was necessary. It was done while she was giving birth via c-section, to our premature son.

My wife’s cervix was completely destroyed and she could never carry beyond a couple days. Multiple miscarriages are not healthy for a woman.

Jim

 

[rpp]

A woman doesn’t have to risk her life to get pregnant, where she will only miscarry.

Sorry, but both priest who we consulted and the doctor concluded that at tubal ligation was necessary. It was done while she was giving birth via c-section, to our premature son.

My wife’s cervix was completely destroyed and she could never carry beyond a couple days. Multiple miscarriages are not healthy for a woman.

Jim

That is indeed a very serious problem. I am sorry for you and your wife. It is sad that you went through this. I hope your son is fine.

Hers was one of those unusual cases where it appears that a tubal ligation is appropriate. But such cases are unusual.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

That is indeed a very serious problem. I am sorry for you and your wife. It is sad that you went through this. I hope your son is fine.

Hers was one of those unusual cases where it appears that a tubal ligation is appropriate. But such cases are unusual.

Thanks!

My son is 27 years of age now. He was born when my wife was just 27 weeks along and weighed just under 3lbs. He nearly died, and in 1981, was the sickest premie to make it through Boston Brigham and Women’s Neo-Natal intensive care unit. It was through a miracle from God, that he survived. Although he has cerebral palsy, which effects his walking, he was able to carry on a normal life, even getting married and has a wonderful home. Can even give us grandchildren some day.

Jim

 

[rpp]

Hers was one of those unusual cases where it appears that a tubal ligation is appropriate. But such cases are unusual.

Here is link from the Vatican website.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Here is link from the Vatican website.

We were following this document, in addition to humane vite, despite our doctor telling us that my wife would not be able to carry a child beyond 3 months. She had a severely damaged cervix from the birth of our first child.

However, when my wife got pregnant, the doctor didn’t think she would not miscarry. She didn’t and at three months, my wife had to undergo surgery, in a procedure called a purse string sutcher. This prevented a miscarriage. Things were going well, in fact so well, we asked the doctor, at 26 weeks, could we do this again for another child? He said sure. Next day, my wife went into labor and they we able to delay her, 1 week. At this point, the uterus was so damaged, that future pregnancies were impossible. Also, having normal periods would even be dangerous and removing the uterus at this time, was not an option, saving the baby was. Also, because a hysterectomy causes hormonal changes, it was advised to wait until after the pregnancy, so that my wife’s hormones would be back in balance. So, the only medical option was to have a tubal ligation, which they did at the time of our sons delivery. One year later, she had the hysterectomy.

Not everything the Church rules on, is medically sound.

The Church is always pro-life and so are my wife and myself. However, on this issue, God had other plans for us. We never had any doubt about the decision we made.

Jim

 

[rpp]

We were following this document, in addition to humane vite, despite our doctor telling us that my wife would not be able to carry a child beyond 3 months. She had a severely damaged cervix from the birth of our first child.

However, when my wife got pregnant, the doctor didn’t think she would not miscarry. She didn’t and at three months, my wife had to undergo surgery, in a procedure called a purse string sutcher. This prevented a miscarriage. Things were going well, in fact so well, we asked the doctor, at 26 weeks, could we do this again for another child? He said sure. Next day, my wife went into labor and they we able to delay her, 1 week. At this point, the uterus was so damaged, that future pregnancies were impossible. Also, having normal periods would even be dangerous and removing the uterus at this time, was not an option, saving the baby was. Also, because a hysterectomy causes hormonal changes, it was advised to wait until after the pregnancy, so that my wife’s hormones would be back in balance. So, the only medical option was to have a tubal ligation, which they did at the time of our sons delivery. One year later, she had the hysterectomy.

Not everything the Church rules on, is medically sound.

The Church is always pro-life and so are my wife and myself. However, on this issue, God had other plans for us. We never had any doubt about the decision we made.

Jim

I am relieved that your wife has been able to recover and saddened that this happened to begin with. While the Church does try to address specific questions on important issues, not every variation can be covered.

I am sorry if I made you think you had to justify your actions. Please forgive me, that was not my intent.

 

[Tietjen]

First, I am a Catholic and I do NOT go around knocking Bishops. Having said that, I just read the following article in the NCR:

ncregister.com/site/article/6268

My problem is with the “editors” who wrote the opinion piece. It would appear that they are blaming the laity for the Bishops’ caving in on this issue.

Now, I might be able to believe that there should have been more of an outcry by the laity in Connecticut; however, since when do the Clergy (in this case the Bishops) need the laity in order to uphold Church dogma?! With this reasoning one might assume that if a vote were taken within the Church and a large majority of the laity were found to be pro-contraception the Bishops could be expected to somehow state that contraception can be practiced!

Sorry, I am not buying the spin that the NCR seems to be putting on this story. Bishops need to stand up for truth EVEN if they turn around and find only a few of the laity behind them. When last I checked, truth was not dependant upon how many people showed up to protest a bad piece of legislation.

Regardless, I am very sure that these Bishops will be reversing themselves within a short time.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Medical complications where a pregnancy will never make it past a couple days, and hemorrhaging due to multiple miscarriages.

Jim

When the tube is just tied it does not stop the hemorrhaging. The uterus is still going to do its monthly job of shedding its unused lining.

 

[Petergee]

Jim, I’m sorry for you and your wife’s problems, but the priests who advised you were incorrect. As the CDF document cited makes clear, tubal ligation is never a moral option.

You will find that in every case, the course of action which the Church teaches is morally sound, is also medically sound. This does not mean that your doctor will necessarily agree that the moral course advised by the Church is medically the best course of action. Doctors, and unfortunately even some priests and occasionally even some bishops, can make mistakes re questions of morality. The Magisterium of the Church does not.

And in reply to the question asked earlier, if my daughter was raped I would do everything in my power to prevent her being administered “Plan B”. Taking a massive dose of synthetic hormone which could well kill my grandchild would only make a very bad situation much worse.

 

[steppenwolf1218]

Plan B in the context of rape is not contraception, it self defense against the attacker. Catholic teaching has consistently held that a woman may defend herself against an attacker and possible pregnancy.

She may not abort a conceived child, of course.

Yes, there is much controversy over the mechanisms of Plan B. And, the statement is correct-- the Church has not *definitively *ruled on this subject.

No, the Church ruled on this subject quite some time ago. Plan B is a contraceptive and can be an abortive. I suggest you read what Ponifical Academy for Life had to say on the subject. All I’ve seen on the blogs of the bishops in Conneticut so far has been political double talk. If the martyrs of the early Church had taken the same stance then that these “Men of God” (and I used that term sarcastically) did we would not have the Christian faith in existence today.

 

[steppenwolf1218]

Where do you think the package insert information comes from? Who do you think conducts the clinical studies on medications?

As a clinician, I will continue to go by the evidence especially since I understand the process. There is a reason most health care professionals practice EBM. There is no direct evidence that EC or OCs prevent implantation which even NFP only physicians recognize. I stated “this is true. The evidence on Plan B supports that it DOES NOT alter the lining of the uterus but acts by suppressing ovulation. It is not an absolute fact that Plan B prevents or has ever prevented implantation, but IMHO the indirect evidence supports this as potentital effect”, which was a reply to “Yes, there is much controversy over the mechanisms of Plan B”. Not sure what the problem is.

From one of the articles you posted:
4. How does Plan B work?

Plan B works like a birth control pill to prevent pregnancy mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary. It is possible that Plan B may also work by preventing fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg) or by preventing attachment (implantation) to the uterus (womb), which usually occurs beginning 7 days after release of an egg from the ovary. Plan B will not do anything to a fertilized egg already attached to the uterus. The pregnancy will continue.

That statement there is enough to ban it from use by Catholics.

 

[steppenwolf1218]

abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3660613

GOD HELP US.

The bottom line here is that the bishops were selected by God to bear witness as all Catholics/Christians should do. Clery of their rank are to be held to even a higher standard than those they shepherd. Then Conneticut bishops have unilaterally failed miserably in their duties and obligations to the flock and to God. Personally, I have posted a message to Bishop Lori of Bridgeport, Conn. condemning his actions and asking him to voluntarily step down if he can not amend his error. I seriously doubt that message will be posted. lol.

The worst ramifications of their actions is that if the legislature of Conn. is allowed to get away with dictating Church morals to the Catholic Church then precedent has been set that will make Church objection difficult if not impossible in other states. This also sets the stage, be it intentional or unintentional, for state interference in other areas where Church morals and the law contradict each other.

I personally am not limiting my actions to boards like this. As I stated, I have already posted to one bishop’s blog. I plan to bother and pester any source in the Church I can to step in and reverse this decision for the Conn. bishops if they will not do so on their own. I know one person with no connections can make the difference but if there are many who feel the same and voice their objections then perhaps that will speed things up . In any event, I urge any and all who feel strongly that this was a misjudgement (rather mild term if I may say so) to likewise voice their disgust over the decision. We’ve had enough scandals, enough black eyes, enough ridicule. We’ve turned the other cheek far more than is necessarry. It’s time the Church stood up and defined the stuff it is we are made of.
Take care
Dennis

 

[Lady_D_I]

Where do you think the package insert information comes from? Who do you think conducts the clinical studies on medications?

As a clinician, I will continue to go by the evidence especially since I understand the process. There is a reason most health care professionals practice EBM. There is no direct evidence that EC or OCs prevent implantation which even NFP only physicians recognize. I stated "this is true. The evidence

 

[rpp]

 

[Petergee]

Lady D I;2834072:

That is not necessarily true. It depends on your perspective. The Church states that human life starts at conception. One groups says conception starts when the fertilized egg is implanted. Other claim that conception starts when the fertilized egg divides the first time. Still others say that conception occurs at the instant of fertilization.

Because such a situation had never come up before, I do not believe the Church has made a determination on when conception takes place. My gut tells me the Church will say the instant of fertilization, but I may be wrong.

The fact that a new human life starts at the moment that a human ovum cell unites with a human sperm cell is a basic biological fact, which does not depend on anyone’s perspective or religious belief. Not only has the Church constantly endorsed this fact since it was first scientifically proven beyond all reasonable doubt about 200 years ago, but this fact was stated in all secular biological textbooks up until the 1970s.

Then about 1970 it was shown that part of the effect of the oral contraceptive “Pill” is to prevent an embryo (not a “fertilised egg”, by that time we have an embryo with dozens of cells already starting to differentiate and comprising a human body with a defined front, back left, right, top and bottom) implanting onto his/her mother’s womb wall, instead of merely suppressing ovulation as had been previously claimed. The “Pill” proponents since then have attempted, with some success (although not among embryologists, the scientists who actually study embryos) to redefine “conception” as beginning at implantation, not at fertilisation. Utterly illogical. What is an embryo in the period between fertilisation and implantation, if not a new and unique conceived human being? Even the otherwise horrible pro-abortionist and pro-infanticide “Professor” Peter Singer, unlike other pro-abortionists, is honest enough to admit the fact that a new unique human being is created when an ovum unites with a sperm.