Florida Bishops Oppose Personhood Amendment

[thereseozi]

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/sep/09092913.html

September 29, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Florida pro-life activists suffered a major setback last week in their efforts to garner support for a Personhood Amendment, which would enshrine the right to life of every human being into their state constitution.

In their fight against the proposed amendment, the state’s pro-abortion lobby is receiving indirect support from some unexpected quarters: the chanceries of all nine bishops who direct the Florida Catholic Conference.

The Conference, which serves as the official public policy voice of the Florida bishops, released an email alert Friday afternoon, alerting supporters that, “although the bishops of Florida clearly share the desire for our state laws to recognize all life from its very beginning to natural end, after careful consideration and deliberation with legal counsel, the bishops do not support this current amendment effort.”

…

 

[Ocean52680]

I’m very concerned about this as well. I posted a thread about this issue in the Politics 2009 section.

This was the write-up in the Sayfie Review:

Catholic Conference won’t help pro-life initiative
sayfiereview.com/article-…09092514215900
by Joe Follick

In an interesting twist, the Florida Catholic Conference said today in a statement that it will not support a controversial pro-life initiative.

The “Personhood Florida” effort already faced long odds, needing to get more than 670,000 signatures collected by February to put a strict measure on the 2010 ballot that would constitutionally ban all abortions and perhaps some birth control.

In a statement, the FCC said, “Although, the bishops of Florida clearly share the desire for our state laws to recognize all life from its very beginning to natural end, after careful consideration and deliberation with legal counsel, the bishops do not support this current amendment effort.

“In addition, the bishops have resolved that there be no collection of petition signatures in any Catholic parish or other diocesan entity.”

Below is the full statement by the FCC:

The Catholic Bishops of Florida believe in the full legal recognition of the right to life of every unborn child and the defense of human life in all its stages, from conception to natural death. For many years, we have worked to promote a human life amendment to the U.S. Constitution. At the same time, we believe that our laws and our state constitution must be changed prudently, giving full consideration to unintended consequences that may result from well intended actions.

While we sincerely respect the goal to amend the Florida Constitution so as to acknowledge full human rights for every human being, after careful consideration we do not support the currently proposed amendment. It is our opinion, and that of the legal experts with whom we have consulted, that passage of this amendment would not achieve the goal of overturning Roe v. Wade.

If such an amendment were to pass, a feat more difficult in our state due to the requirement to achieve support by 60% of voters, we are convinced that a federal district court would strike it down based on Roe.

This decision would undoubtedly be affirmed by an appellate court, and the case would either not be granted further review by today’s U.S. Supreme Court, or worse, lead to a reaffirmation of Roe. The unintended effect would very likely jeopardize current protections in state law and cause a loss of momentum in the ultimate goal of establishing full legal protection of the unborn from the moment of conception.

We remain of the view that it will be more prudent to pursue incremental measures that add to existing protections in law and help change hearts and minds. Thus, we continue our ongoing efforts with parental notice, clinic regulation, informed consent, partial birth abortion ban, requiring ultrasound before an abortion and funding for Pregnancy Support Services. Finally, it is our earnest hope that all people in the state who respect the great gift of human life will respect each other’s efforts, and not let differing views over strategy overshadow our common heartfelt support for building a culture of life.

My thoughts:

I respectfully disagree with the FCC’s decision. Let’s first lay the substance of the FCC letter on the table and look at the impact of the press release. Two points:

1. I believe the FCC should have avoided publicly critiquing the Florida Personhood Amendment. Sadly, the FCC’s public statement undermines a largely grassroots effort to conform state law to the reproductive teachings of the Catholic Church. It’s hard enough to get more than 600,000 signatures without having the FCC “rain on your parade”. The media in Florida will likely promote this decision with delight and create scandal upon the Church.
2. I believe the following statement was way over the top, “In addition, the bishops have resolved that there be no collection of petition signatures in any Catholic parish or other diocesan entity.”

I have personally seen petition drives for many other issues outside my parish church. Apparently, our bishops are gung-ho for government run health care but when it comes to a Constitutional Amendment that defines life at conception…they run away.

As to the substance of the FCC letter, I would like to make two additional points:

1. The following statements sound more like legal scaremongering than sound legal advice. **"If such an amendment were to pass, a feat more difficult in our state due to the requirement to achieve support by 60% of voters, we are convinced that a federal district court would strike it down based on Roe.

This decision would undoubtedly be affirmed by an appellate court, and the case would either not be granted further review by today’s U.S. Supreme Court, or worse, lead to a reaffirmation of Roe. The unintended effect would very likely jeopardize current protections in state law and cause a loss of momentum in the ultimate goal of establishing full legal protection of the unborn from the moment of conception."**

Current restrictions on abortion in Florida will continue to be protected under the Casey decision. I reject the idea that future litigation will undermine current law. Second, I wish the FCC would apply prudent judgment and the law of unintended consequences to their social justice efforts.

1. I believe the the bishops of Florida are dangerously creeping toward an abortion reduction policy. From the letter:

**“We remain of the view that it will be more prudent to pursue incremental measures that add to existing protections in law and help change hearts and minds. Thus, we continue our ongoing efforts with parental notice, clinic regulation, informed consent, partial birth abortion ban, requiring ultrasound before an abortion and funding for Pregnancy Support Services.”
**
This is an exceptionally weak statement by the bishops of Florida. It’s very Obama-esque. With all due respect, we can not wait for a change in the hearts and minds of our people (Yes, I rejected this argument when Bush 43 used it in a debate). Too many Catholics are unchaste, use contraception, and have become apologists for abortion.

Consecutive Sunday after consecutive Sunday, church homilies harp continuously about social justice. Yet, hardly a peep is mentioned about life, faith, morals, and chastity. Any Amendment that eliminates abortion and curbs contraception should be enthusiastically supported by our bishops. Quite frankly, I am embarrassed to be a Florida Catholic.

God have mercy on our Church.

 

[DOShea]

I am 100% behind the Bishops.

The Bishops were very clear why they did not support this initiative. They took the time to consult legal opinion (top-notch legal opinion I might add) and came to the inevitable conclusion they bill will be overturned in days, if it takes that long. No matter how well intentioned the effort is, if they produce a change that will not withstand legal challenge it only makes it more difficult in the long run. How many, I wonder, will take part in this effort and lose hope after watching it get trashed the first time it is challenged?

The amendment introduces a mandate to recognize conception as the beginning of human life. As such, there are real questions about the effect this will have on contraception and things like the “morning after” pill. That is the legal challenge that is expected and will knock this amendment down in two seconds flat. A ruling like that CAN provide the basis of challenges to the Casey decision, and that is what the Bishops are concerned about. It’s opening a can of worms.

Trying to force a slipshod, all-or-nothing type changes to a constitution are only going to help cement the idea in people’s minds that existing laws cannot be overturned. Better to do it in ways that are meaningful and will withstand legal challenges.

Keeping petitioners away from churches - what are the Bishops supposed to do, oppose the amendment on one hand and invite the faithful to sign it? Geeze, talk about unintended consequences.

It might also interest you to know that the highest documented success rates in the US at deterring abortions are PSS/PCCs. Funding them does reduce abortion, no question about it.

I am bothered that you cast your personal opinion about in such a way that you effectively call the Bishops a bunch of dunces who have no idea what they are doing. They are not. They are trying to make effective change, and like it or not the reality is you are not going to put this fire out with one large bucket of water. Opposition is just too prevalent and too well funded.

 

[Ocean52680]

1. The amendment will never meet the 60% needed for passage. Chicken little syndrome over a potential court decision that will never occur is pointless.
2. Yes, the faithful should be allowed to sign petitions on church property. At least then, the bishops would be showing passive support for the measure. As it stands, the bishops are deliberately squashing a pro-life amendment. They know the Personhood Amendment needs Catholic signatures in order to make the ballot deadline. Like I said, the bishops rained on their parade.
3. According to LifeSiteNews,** “Dr Mike McCarron of the FCC made it clear that the differences between the bishops and the amendment organizers were matters of prudential judgment, not principle, and that the bishops did not intend to impose these prudential judgment in a binding way on their Catholic faithful. Hence, pro-life Catholics are still free to support or oppose the amendment.”**

Question: How can Catholics be free to oppose a pro-life amendment?

1. Publicly opposing an amendment that meets Catholic principles and defines human life from the moment of conception does nothing to change the hearts and minds of the citizens of Florida. Worst, I think it brings scandal upon the Church.
2. I never questioned the success rates of pregnancy support services that are private and based on Catholic morals. However, I am concerned our Bishops are settling into an abortion reduction policy. I agree the fire won’t be put out with a large bucket of water but we should at least passively support any amendment that eliminates abortion.
3. Yes, I am questioning the bishops and the FCC’s judgment. To quote a President I’m not really fond of: “they acted stupidly”. Again, effective change should start with homilies that focus on life, faith, morals, and chastity.

 

[DOShea]

Well, why stop at abortion? Why not introduce legislation that also bans all contraception, pornography, and outlaws the public blaspheming of the Lord’s name? Those all meet Catholic principles too, so why hold back? You know and I both can envision something like that would be challenged on 1st Amendment principles and it would be found unconstitutional, so everyone just wasted their time and money. Was the cause worthy? Sure it was. Did it really do anything besides make people think they are fighting a worthy cause? No.

There are things you can do, and things you cannot do. You don’t have to be a legal scholar to look around at our courts and know there are people in the US Courts that are openly hostile to religion and any of its ideals. They are social activists with long histories and are not unbiased when it comes to moral issues. While signing on to something that sounds or feels good because it seems to follow Catholic principle might seem noble, it is hardly noble if it results in making the situation worse. No one KNOWS what challenges will happen or their outcome, all anyone can do is follow the history of those opposed to these amendments and respond accordingly. And there is ample history upon which to base judgments.

It’s a good bill, I wish it could become law and stand, but the political reality of it is that it doesn’t have a snowball’s chance. It directly opposes an already settled Supreme Court ruling that came out the same day as Roe v Wade, known as Doe v. Bolton. The Doe case gives the power to a doctor to decide, based on medical reasons, what kind of treatment is appropriate to treat pregnancy, be it birth control pills or abortions. This is why abortions can happen all the way up to 9 months without penalty. If this proposed law is challenged as a violation of the rights granted by Doe v Bolton, and Doe is affirmed, THAT will invalidate the Casey decision and Florida will end up with no law restricting any abortions. Right now, there is no case out there giving anyone standing to challenge Casey, but this proposed amendment will generate scores of litigants with standing to challenge it. That’s not worth making a noble attempt.

 

[Father_of_9]

Yes, all those issues could be subjects for other amendments. But abortion is the direct killing of an innocent life, so it’s a more immediate and grave danger than the others. Yes, I understand the legal and financial ramifications of pursuing the proposed amendment. But once again some of our bishops have caused confusion by appearing to value money and civility over the basic principle of defending life. Yes, the world and all of its issues seem to get more and more complicated. But are we like the frog in a slowly heating pot of water who doesn’t notice the increasing heat until it’s too late? It’s appears so.

 

[Ocean52680]

Well, why stop at abortion? Why not introduce legislation that also bans all contraception, pornography, and outlaws the public blaspheming of the Lord’s name? Those all meet Catholic principles too, so why hold back? You know and I both can envision something like that would be challenged on 1st Amendment principles and it would be found unconstitutional, so everyone just wasted their time and money. Was the cause worthy? Sure it was. Did it really do anything besides make people think they are fighting a worthy cause? No.

There are things you can do, and things you cannot do. You don’t have to be a legal scholar to look around at our courts and know there are people in the US Courts that are openly hostile to religion and any of its ideals. They are social activists with long histories and are not unbiased when it comes to moral issues. While signing on to something that sounds or feels good because it seems to follow Catholic principle might seem noble, it is hardly noble if it results in making the situation worse. No one KNOWS what challenges will happen or their outcome, all anyone can do is follow the history of those opposed to these amendments and respond accordingly. And there is ample history upon which to base judgments.

It’s a good bill, I wish it could become law and stand, but the political reality of it is that it doesn’t have a snowball’s chance. It directly opposes an already settled Supreme Court ruling that came out the same day as Roe v Wade, known as Doe v. Bolton. The Doe case gives the power to a doctor to decide, based on medical reasons, what kind of treatment is appropriate to treat pregnancy, be it birth control pills or abortions. This is why abortions can happen all the way up to 9 months without penalty. If this proposed law is challenged as a violation of the rights granted by Doe v Bolton, and Doe is affirmed, THAT will invalidate the Casey decision and Florida will end up with no law restricting any abortions. Right now, there is no case out there giving anyone standing to challenge Casey, but this proposed amendment will generate scores of litigants with standing to challenge it. That’s not worth making a noble attempt.

Why do you keep calling the Personhood Amendment a bill? It is not a piece of legislation. It is a proposed amendment to the Florida Constitution that will need 60% of the vote to pass. By only the grace of God will the amendment get 60% of the vote. Again, chicken little syndrome over a potential court decision that will never occur is pointless. So, I see no acceptable reason for the bishops to withhold support for the amendment.

 

[JimG]

Why do you keep calling the Personhood Amendment a bill? It is not a piece of legislation. It is a proposed amendment to the Florida Constitution that will need 60% of the vote to pass. By only the grace of God will the amendment get 60% of the vote. Again, chicken little syndrome over a potential court decision that will never occur is pointless. So, I see no acceptable reason for the bishops to withhold support for the amendment.

Ironically, if it has no chance of passage, then you are right. The bishops should support it for the purpose of making a clear statement about the protection of human beings.

But if passes–and THEN gets overturned by the courts–it would have the effect of more firmly entrenching the abortion agenda.