Would this be cooperation in abortion?

[Secret_Square]

I will try to keep this question as simple as possible. It is about a situation that I don’t currently face, but with the possible changes in healthcare and all I worry that I might have to eventually.

My job involves reviewing state agency regulations before they take effect. The purpose of the review is to make sure that the regulation is within the bounds of the agency’s legal authority, that it is logically clear and understandable as possible, and that relevant public comment is received and noted.

We do NOT decide whether a regulation is good or bad, or whether it is right or wrong, but only whether it fulfills the legal requirements. In some rare circumstances where a regulation is clearly not in conformity with the law, we can prevent or delay a regulation from taking effect; but that is decided by people higher up than me, and our authority to take such an action is limited.

I am one of several people who carries out this review process. We each are assigned different state agencies, and one of mine is the agency that handles Medicaid.

The current Medicaid rules in Illinois state that abortion is covered only in rape, incest, and life of the mother cases. Those rules have been in effect for about 15 or 20 years and have not changed since then.

Now, my question is: if a change in the Medicaid rules were to be proposed that expanded abortion coverage (perhaps as a result of the Obamacare plan should it – God forbid – pass), and I performed my part of the legally required review of these rules – making sure it was legal, collecting public comment, etc. – would that be cooperating in the evil effects of these rules? Remember, I don’t decide whether or not the rule takes effect, and I can’t decide on the merits of the rule; that’s decided by people higher up than me. Still, would I be guilty of some kind of cooperation, and if so, would it be serious enough to obligate me to quit my job? If the answer is yes, then maybe I’d better start looking for another job before I even get into that situation.

 

[Rence]

Now, my question is: if a change in the Medicaid rules were to be proposed that expanded abortion coverage (perhaps as a result of the Obamacare plan should it – God forbid – pass), and I performed my part of the legally required review of these rules – making sure it was legal, collecting public comment, etc. – would that be cooperating in the evil effects of these rules? Remember, I don’t decide whether or not the rule takes effect, and I can’t decide on the merits of the rule; that’s decided by people higher up than me. Still, would I be guilty of some kind of cooperation, and if so, would it be serious enough to obligate me to quit my job? If the answer is yes, then maybe I’d better start looking for another job before I even get into that situation.

My first bit of advice is to ask your priest to be sure.

But I can’t see how that makes you an accessory. You are making sure each procedure is legal and collecting public comment, you don’t have any say in anything else. You don’t even have authority to make decisions. Nor do you have any technical involvement. It seems like you are researching the rules and making sure they are followed. Remember, nurses and doctors work in hospitals that do abortions. They are not “accessories” if they do not have involvement in those procedures. If you’re going to avoid employment that has absolutely nothing to do with abortions, you’re going to limit your employment options. But if it in any way makes you uncomfortable to do your job, and it’s an option for you to look, then by all means, look. You have to live with you

 

[flyingfish]

I don’t think so, it’s the people who made that law that are cooperating in abortion, you’re only someone who says what the law they made is.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Yes, it is cooperation with evil.
It is not formal cooperation, which is always immoral,
but material cooperation, which is sometimes moral.

To determine if an act of material cooperation is moral, you must weigh all the good and bad effects of the act. If the good outweighs the bad, and your act is not intrinsically evil, and you have good intention, then the act is moral.

In this case, based on your description given above, your cooperation is remote material cooperation. You are not assisting anyone in obtaining an abortion directly. Your act are only remotely related to this sin. Remote material cooperation is generally moral.

 

[puzzleannie]

I Remember, I don’t decide whether or not the rule takes effect, and I can’t decide on the merits of the rule; that’s decided by people higher up than me. Still, would I be guilty of some kind of cooperation, and if so, would it be serious enough to obligate me to quit my job? If the answer is yes, then maybe I’d better start looking for another job before I even get into that situation.

no. you do not make law you are not a legislator, you do not judge the law as you are not the state supreme court, and you do not enforce the law, you are concerned only with its language as it applies to the parameters of your agency. So no it does not look even remote cooperation, as nothing you do or do not do will have any affect on who eventually has an abortion, nor will anything you do or do not do have any affect on availability or funding for abortion.

that is personal opinion only, based on my own research of church teaching and classical principles of applying moral teaching, and on your own description of your job. Given the very honest differences of opinion here, I really think you need personal spiritual direction from your pastor to make a decision, but I would wait until the situation actually arises.

 

[Newbie2]

I think it’s be a real stretch to think this is cooperation with abortion, and to think about quitting your job if such a situation would/might occur, if it would put your family’s welfare in jeopardy might not be a morally acceptable action.

I guess this is one of those situations where your conscious should be your guide after prayerful reflection.

 

[kage_ar]

I’d suggest you contact some of the good, holy Priests involved at Ave Maria for advice.

 

[bbentrup]

…The purpose of the review is to make sure that the regulation is within the bounds of the agency’s legal authority, that it is logically clear and understandable as possible, and that relevant public comment is received and noted…

We do NOT decide whether a regulation is good or bad, or whether it is right or wrong, but only whether it fulfills the legal requirements. In some rare circumstances where a regulation is clearly not in conformity with the law, we can prevent or delay a regulation from taking effect; but that is decided by people higher up than me, and our authority to take such an action is limited.

I think that your role, done correctly, actually helps to eliminate abortion rather than further it. Look at your three purposes. First, you simply note to your supervisors that expanded abortion coverage, that is state-sanctioned murder of the unborn, is indeed within the bounds of agency’s legal authority. That is the reality of the situation, but I do not recommend using those exact words. Second, you make a policy clear and understandable - as long as you are not widening any language or making anything more permissive than it already is, you are doing a service to everyone. You are helping everyone on all sides have a clear understanding of what it is that they are doing and what the state is sanctioning. By advancing clarity, you are not advancing evil. Hopefully, with your gifts of policy writing, people will be more likely to understand what is going on and will renounce abortion. The act has been obfuscated way too much before now. Lastly, your job is to note public opinion - great. You are simply passing along facts (that people think in such and such a way) to help this and future generations understand the problem as it exists.

You are dealing with facts and not agendas, assuming you have accurately portrayed your position. Since you are working for the truth, you are in a relatively unique position to help provide support for future policy limiting or eradicating abortion. God bless your efforts!

Though it never hurts to consult with a priest, as others have recommended, this has the feel of being a relatively clear-cut moral case. Pray for strength and wisdom. God bless!!!

 

[RB2]

My first bit of advice is to ask your priest to be sure.

**
Friends dont let friends ‘ask a random priest’.**

I am totally against the use of the ‘ask a random priest’ way of solving most or even heavy moral and political questions.
The current crop of priests we have, many whom are gay or gay challenged, many of whom are not properly formed and remain uncorrected by their Bishop(this exists in all diosceses) have views that tend away from the center of church teachings. I dont know how many people I have known with just such questions to their favorite priest who have been told a rather wrong or liberal answer. After such an encounter with their priest it is almost impossible to get them corrected and on the right path. Sad, unfortunate, but very true.

Unfortunately, the type of person most frequently dependent on the ‘ask a random priest’ strategy are most unlikely to research their question, most unlikely to do any reading on the subject, and are most vulnerable to false, incorrect or sophist lines of reasoning. Further these kind of people are least able to discern liberal or less than orthodox priests in any manner whatsoever. They are the completely clueless and frequently mistake their local liberal pastor/priest as a completely orthodox one.

Best to post it to an apologist on this forum, or some other internet resource or publication and then point your friend in the right direction.
**
Friends dont let friends ‘ask a random priest’.**

 

[Secret_Square]

OK, I know this is a REALLY old thread, but I’m reviving it because it has become significantly more relevant.

The Illinois House last week passed a bill (HB 40) that would provide state-funded medical assistance coverage (technically not “Medicaid,” for reasons I’ll get to in a moment) for elective abortions. It would also include abortion as a covered service in state employee medical insurance (which I have). It was pushed really, really hard by a hardcore pro-abortion lobbying group (Personal PAC) which claims that our current governor, Bruce Rauner, was for “Medicaid” abortions before he was against them:

usnews.com/news/best-states/illinois/articles/2017-04-25/lawmaker-seeks-abortion-bill-vote-as-women-march-on-capitol

The bill is likely to also pass the Senate, but the governor has said he will veto it, and the 62-55 vote in the House is not enough to override a veto. So we’re probably not going to see this bill become law anytime before the next statewide election in 2018. After that, all bets are off (I’ll get to that shortly as well).

The reasons these would not be “Medicaid” abortions is that the federal government would not provide any federal matching funds for these procedures; they would have to be paid for 100% with state funds. The projected cost would be at least $1.8 million a year according to the state’s own economic analysts; a pro-life House member claimed it could be as high as $60 million.

Already at least one announced Democratic candidate for governor (Chicago millionaire J.B. Pritzker) says he will enact this law if he’s elected. Since the Democratic Party is becoming more hard-core pro-abortion by the day, I fully expect that if Rauner (who’s not a pro-lifer by any means, he’s just less pro-abortion than the Dems) should lose the next election, this WILL become law.

And that means HFS will have to issue rules to hash out who is eligible, what procedures are covered, and what providers would have to do in order to qualify for payment. And… yours truly would have to be involved in that process.

What really disgusts me more than anything else is that for several years now, HFS and other human service agencies have been cutting BACK all kinds of other services on the grounds that the state is broke and we can’t afford them. People who need child care assistance? Out of luck. Developmentally disabled adults like my own daughter? Sorry, don’t have the money. College students needing financial aid? Nope, not in the budget. But money for an abortion? Sure, no problem! Hand out boatloads of state money to an industry that has almost NO regulation and no licensing requirements, and that operates almost entirely by subterfuge and deception… what could possibly go wrong?

So not only am I steamed and concerned about potentially having to participate in that rules process, I’m seriously thinking that maybe it’s time to find another job and get the heck out of this, literally, godforsaken state and go somewhere else where people like me are more welcome. The heck with the pension and benefits, they probably won’t be around by the time I’m old enough to earn them… The trouble is I can’t think where to go or who would want a 50-something bureaucrat like me as an employee. Anyway, that’s where we stand now. (end of rant).

 

[steve93]

If we spent the same proportion of taxes on our own nation vs the military we could do a lot of thing.
If I become president, the first thing I would do is drop any “allies” with atrocity records or who have worse criminal codes that our own. First on the list is the Saudis.
Second, ban abortions and make fornication a crime.
Next, we would return to the moon.
Then, make it illegal to raise the cost of college and return it to 1960 levels.

 

[Rosebud77]

OK, I know this is a REALLY old thread, but I’m reviving it because it has become significantly more relevant.

The Illinois House last week passed a bill (HB 40) that would provide state-funded medical assistance coverage (technically not “Medicaid,” for reasons I’ll get to in a moment) for elective abortions. It would also include abortion as a covered service in state employee medical insurance (which I have). It was pushed really, really hard by a hardcore pro-abortion lobbying group (Personal PAC) which claims that our current governor, Bruce Rauner, was for “Medicaid” abortions before he was against them:

usnews.com/news/best-states/illinois/articles/2017-04-25/lawmaker-seeks-abortion-bill-vote-as-women-march-on-capitol

The bill is likely to also pass the Senate, but the governor has said he will veto it, and the 62-55 vote in the House is not enough to override a veto. So we’re probably not going to see this bill become law anytime before the next statewide election in 2018. After that, all bets are off (I’ll get to that shortly as well).

The reasons these would not be “Medicaid” abortions is that the federal government would not provide any federal matching funds for these procedures; they would have to be paid for 100% with state funds. The projected cost would be at least $1.8 million a year according to the state’s own economic analysts; a pro-life House member claimed it could be as high as $60 million.

Already at least one announced Democratic candidate for governor (Chicago millionaire J.B. Pritzker) says he will enact this law if he’s elected. Since the Democratic Party is becoming more hard-core pro-abortion by the day, I fully expect that if Rauner (who’s not a pro-lifer by any means, he’s just less pro-abortion than the Dems) should lose the next election, this WILL become law.

And that means HFS will have to issue rules to hash out who is eligible, what procedures are covered, and what providers would have to do in order to qualify for payment. And… yours truly would have to be involved in that process.

What really disgusts me more than anything else is that for several years now, HFS and other human service agencies have been cutting BACK all kinds of other services on the grounds that the state is broke and we can’t afford them. People who need child care assistance? Out of luck. Developmentally disabled adults like my own daughter? Sorry, don’t have the money. College students needing financial aid? Nope, not in the budget. But money for an abortion? Sure, no problem! Hand out boatloads of state money to an industry that has almost NO regulation and no licensing requirements, and that operates almost entirely by subterfuge and deception… what could possibly go wrong?

So not only am I steamed and concerned about potentially having to participate in that rules process, I’m seriously thinking that maybe it’s time to find another job and get the heck out of this, literally, godforsaken state and go somewhere else where people like me are more welcome. The heck with the pension and benefits, they probably won’t be around by the time I’m old enough to earn them… The trouble is I can’t think where to go or who would want a 50-something bureaucrat like me as an employee. Anyway, that’s where we stand now. (end of rant).

Commiserations and WELL DONE. I think you are right to quit frankly.

 

[on_the_hill]

The trouble is I can’t think where to go or who would want a 50-something bureaucrat like me as an employee. Anyway, that’s where we stand now. (end of rant).

Come out east! We’ll find a spot for ya somewhere.

Someone with years of technical experience in regulatory and statutory review would probably find something pretty easily. Find an association or advocacy group or lobbying firm that needs someone with your credentials.

 

[mVitus]

Before my parish newsletter had a mention of this and gave a place to voice opposition to it to one’s representative. Do you know if the same is happening for our senators now?

 

[Secret_Square]

The Senate passed the bill this week. Ordinarily the next step would be to send it to the governor for action but that action has been delayed indefinitely for political reasons that are too complicated to explain. Bottom line is it probably won’t become law any time soon. If you want to express your opposition I would suggest you write or call Gov. Rauner’s office since the Senate already acted.

 

[RB2]

The Senate passed the bill this week. Ordinarily the next step would be to send it to the governor for action but that action has been delayed indefinitely for political reasons that are too complicated to explain. Bottom line is it probably won’t become law any time soon. If you want to express your opposition I would suggest you write or call Gov. Rauner’s office since the Senate already acted.

Well you started this thread asking for advice.
What kind of clerical advice have you received and from whom(profession: priest, bishops office, apologist, etc)
(The Church is in bad shape: be careful whom you get advice from, many are merely Democrats and Democrat thinking(secular humanists) in Christian clothes teaching bad morality choices)

Although distateful, I see your job and its potential involvement with this issue as bureaucratic and perhaps fleeting or temporary. Much like a judge who has to deal with the law. But that doesnt stop authentically Catholic Supreme Court justices from making distasteful decisions concerning abortion law and its procurement, even though if they were to review Roe vs. Wade they would overturn it.

Certainly Scalia and Thomas didn’t quit their jobs over some of the laws and decisions they had to make that was favorable for abortion(access, procurement, other issues) within the legal framework, even through they personally would like it to be illegal.

 

[Secret_Square]

I haven’t received any clerical advice yet – primarily because the only time I see a priest in person is when I go to confession and I either forget to ask about this issue or don’t have time to discuss it at that point. Perhaps I should make an appointment or submit the question in writing or by e-mail so he has time to give a well thought out answer.

 

[RB2]

Although distateful, I see your job and its potential involvement with this issue as bureaucratic and perhaps fleeting or temporary. Much like a judge who has to deal with the law. But that doesnt stop authentically Catholic Supreme Court justices from making distasteful decisions concerning abortion law and its procurement, even though if they were to review Roe vs. Wade they would overturn it.

Certainly Scalia and Thomas didn’t quit their jobs over some of the laws and decisions they had to make that was favorable for abortion(access, procurement, other issues) within the legal framework, even though they personally would like it to be illegal.