HT - Canon 212
LifeNews (not to be confused with LifeSiteNews) announced a letter that it co-signed along with several other pro-life organizations. In a nutshell, these groups pledged to support no pro-life legislation unless said legislation held harmless women who underwent abortions. The letter itself is on the site of National Right to Life, another signatory, but it can be accessed through the LifeNews site. Below I will detail why I believe this letter to be a complete exercise of foolishness.
First, let me establish that I am not just speaking off the cuff. I have been involved in the pro-life movement for over 30 years. For 25+ of those years, I've been in front of abortuaries most Saturday mornings, praying and offering information regarding life-affirming assistance to abortion-bound women. I have been blessed to be part of a number of these women turning around and giving birth to their children. Most of the time it has been both tedious and heart-breaking, as most women we've encountered go through with the abortions. Along with that, there were occasions that I've been cursed, spit upon, and even assaulted. My knowledge about these matters did not come cheaply.
The letter states that the woman "is a victim of a callous industry created to take lives". I might point out that the abortionist does not go in search of these women; rather they walk into his/her office. Does she go willingly? It is true that many don't. I have seen plenty of cases where women are almost literally dragged in by boyfriends, parents, pimps, etc. However, I've also seen cases where the woman defiantly marches into the mill, trailed by a boyfriend pleading for the life of his child through his tears.
Many women are ignorant of what an abortion entails. On the other hand, many know but just don't care. Not all abortion-bound women can be painted with the same broad brush; they are different from each other just as would be members of any other demographic group. With those differences comes differences in levels of culpability; the authors and the signers of this letter ignore that fact.
Most egregious of this letter, though, is the denial of the primacy of place due to the most vulnerable victims, the ones who have the most to lose - the unborn children. Indeed, the letter dwells incessantly on considerations regarding the mother, while paying scant attention to the plight of the children.
The authors and signers of this brash tome state that they will never support anti-abortion legislation that criminalizes the woman who procures an abortion. They say this without any qualifications, which seems to indicate that no matter how much protection for the child a piece of legislation might offer, if the mother is penalized, these pro-life organizations won't support it. I find this to be utterly despicable. Once again, the innocent child, who has first claims on our solicitude for his/her well-being, is being relegated to the bottom of the totem pole. The pro-aborts do that! Should we emulate that?
I can only think of one reason for this lunacy. Pro-aborts everywhere are literally up in arms over the very real prospect of Roe's overdue negation. Can there be a hint of groveling in this letter towards the pro-aborts, to placate them by implying that the babies are not as important as women? Are some of us that desperate for the evil-doers to like us and approve of us? We need to shake off that tendency. For that reason, I state right now that I denounce this letter and call upon the signers to recant their signatures.
Count on the USCCB to adopt the same ooey-gooey position in 3...2...1...
ReplyDeleteHello, Janet, I can't tell you what a significant divide this is creating in the pro-life movement. Here in Idaho, our state legislature was debating a much stronger bill a few years ago that would, for all practical purposes, ban abortions in the Gem State. But the bill contained stipulations that criminalized both abortionists and those mothers who sought to kill their unborn children. Numerous influential Catholics and Catholic groups fought against the more restrictive bill and prevailed against it for that very reason: criminalizing the "victimized" mothers. Recently, in the last few months, our Governor Brad "Chicken" Little signed a "heartbeat" bill similar to that of Texas, but not nearly as strong as the original bill from a few years ago. When Little signed it, he did so with no conviction, warning us that he thought it would never hold up in court. On a separate topic: I was in Baltimore last weekend and attended Mass at St. Alphonsus. I wonder how long Archbishop Lori will allow the FSSP to continue there. It is one very bright spot in an otherwise third world urban area. And I say this having been born and raised in Baltimore County. The city simply looked awful, not at all what I remember from my youth. It was so disgusting that my wife and I hurried back out of there to Laurel, where we were staying with family. God bless you for your pro-life work and for all you do for our Holy Faith.
ReplyDelete>>> In a nutshell, these groups pledged to support no pro-life legislation unless said legislation held harmless women who underwent abortions.
ReplyDeleteThat is not an accurate reading of the letter. Your reaction is overwrought.
The letter is more subtle. They are particularly arguing against *criminalization*:
"We state unequivocally that we do not support any measure seeking to criminalize or punish women and we stand firmly opposed to include such penalties in legislation."
"But turning women who have abortions into criminals is not the way."
Your wording of "holding harmless" is not their wording, nor is it the same as not criminally punishing someone.
They do say:
"But in seizing that opportunity, we must ensure that the laws we advance to protect unborn children do not harm their mothers."
But you are still conflating quotes in an overreaction.
One of the serious arguments from the pro-abort side against illegalizing abortion is that aborting mothers would get put in prison. If Roe is overturned, you can expect the abortion industry to issue scare tactics to convince lawmakers to *legalize* abortion in the States in order to avoid that contrived consequence.
This letter is a wise, pre-emptive counter attack in full keeping with the jurisprudence history in America. Only a handful of women were ever prosecuted for abortion and usually because they refused to identify the abortionist. When Trump came under fire for initially suggesting that women should be punished, some pro-life organizations put out some history on abortion prosecutions. You could search for that and learn a little about how the Law and Courts handled it in the past.
Or you could use your blog to cause confusion and division during a critical time when legislation is being drafted.
Your reaction is not helpful.
"Turning women who have abortions into criminals is not the way"? I'm sorry, but when one commits a crime they are, by definition, criminal. As I said (maybe your reading comprehension could use some improvement) degrees of culpability will vary, but it is simply false and perhaps dishonest to pretend that no woman is culpable in the act of child-slaughter.
DeleteThe very last sentence in that letter is, and I quote, "We urge you to reject any measure
that seeks to criminalize women who have abortions." There's no qualification on that whatsoever regarding the strengths of any such measure towards protecting the unborn child.
I intend to put out a follow-up post detailing the harms that could be caused if the beliefs embodied in that letter were implemented.
>>>when one commits a crime they are, by definition, criminal.
DeleteExactly! (although I would qualify that one must be proven guilty).
If the (civil) law doesn't specify an act as a crime, committing the act is not criminal.
Even Catholic theology states that "where there is no law, there is no sin" to explain the difference in moral culpability in different periods of history. Obviously that applies to positive law, and not to Natural Law.
Culpability is not the same as a criminal act. This is exactly where you go off the rails.
>>>a follow-up post detailing the harms that could be caused
Make sure that you also detail the harms that would be caused if a pro-abort reads and prints out your post and uses it to convince fence-sitting legislators that how you--a 30+ yr pro-lifer--feel about the prosecution of the woman is how the entire pro-life movement believes despite the NRTL letter to the contrary. They'll say: "We need to legalize abortion now! They say they don't want to criminalize women, but they don't mean it! They will install that later with their incremental policy that they've been using."
And thus the imprudent cause more harm by rash action and speech.
Let's get down to brass tacks. It was the legalization and use of contraceptives that led to abortion being legalized as the "final solution." Why not protest that pro-life laws that don't also criminalize contraceptives? And why stop there?
Lying is wrong, but it is rarely criminal. Even promoting abortion is a horrendous falsehood, and is a root cause. Why not insist that the pro-life movement endorse a constitutional amendment to override the First Amendment and make lying a Federal crime? Anything less than that and I'm going to question your sincerity.
>>>when one commits a crime they are, by definition, criminal.
DeleteExactly! (although I would qualify that one must be proven guilty).
If the (civil) law doesn't specify an act as a crime, committing the act is not criminal.
Even Catholic theology states that "where there is no law, there is no sin" to explain the difference in moral culpability in different periods of history. Obviously that applies to positive law, and not to Natural Law.
Culpability is not the same as a criminal act. This is exactly where you go off the rails.
>>>a follow-up post detailing the harms that could be caused
Make sure that you also detail the harms that would be caused if a pro-abort reads and prints out your post and uses it to convince fence-sitting legislators that how you--a 30+ yr pro-lifer--feel about the prosecution of the woman is how the entire pro-life movement believes despite the NRTL letter to the contrary. They'll say: "We need to legalize abortion now! They say they don't want to criminalize women, but they don't mean it! They will install that later with their incremental policy that they've been using."
And thus the imprudent cause more harm by rash action and speech.
Let's get down to brass tacks. It was the legalization and use of contraceptives that led to abortion being legalized as the "final solution." Why not protest that pro-life laws that don't also criminalize contraceptives? And why stop there?
Lying is wrong, but it is rarely criminal. Even promoting abortion is a horrendous falsehood, and is a root cause. Why not insist that the pro-life movement endorse a constitutional amendment to override the First Amendment and make lying a Federal crime? Anything less than that and I'm going to question your sincerity.
Spot on reply, Janet. I look forward to your follow-up post.
DeleteUtubo, your strawman arguments are getting to be quite laughable. By the way, it wasn't too long ago when contraception was illegal. I might point out that it was the earlier contraception-related case Griswold v Connecticut that established the erroneous concept of right to privacy that was a bedrock of the Roe v Wade decision. I'm sure you're going to look for any flimsy excuse to question my sincerity.
DeleteQuick question - are you one of the authors of that silly letter? You certainly seem to be taking my objections quite personally.
What an absolute breath of fresh air!! I have been waiting for YEARS to hear someone in the prolife movement say this. THANK YOU!! I agree 110%
ReplyDeleteIt would extend not only justice but also charity to abortion-bound mothers to hold them legally liable. The law has an illuminating as well as a punitive role to play; it teaches, among other things. If laws against abortion included penalties for the complicit mother--taking into account, as detailed above, the widely varying degrees of culpability that may exist--then naive women would be warned that what they are considering is not as consequence-free as they are being led to believe. Callous women would be impelled to consider something beyond what they tragically perceive as their own immediate self-interest. Weak women would be handed a shield to help protect not only their unborn children but also themselves from their abusers and manipulators, because the women pushed to abort would have a stronger reason for standing up to the pressure (speaking at the psychological, not moral, level, of course). And all women would be treated with human dignity equal to that of men, by being acknowledged as responsible moral actors in their own right, as the feminists, so-called, have been ostensibly demanding for all too many decades now.
ReplyDeleteWhat about those women for whom an abortion is already a fait accompli? Do Lifenews and other supposedly pro-life groups which share its stance honestly believe that, just because no legal penalty is imposed, the post-abortive mother gets off scot-free? No! Read through the heart-rending testimonies of those women brave enough to publish them, and you will see that the sequelae they devise for themselves are far worse than any which society could insist upon. Here we are talking about post-abortive women trying to come to grips with what they have done. The situation is far worse for those entrenched in denial. Just look at the destruction, the irrationality, the seething rage at the one, true, living, infinitely good and loving God being unleashed all around us. The rending of the bodies of the unborn serves as an image of the mutilation of soul undergone by those who bring this horror about. As James Burtchaell says in his book "Rachel Weeping," "those who kill, die. And they die when they kill--not later."
The mainstream pro-life movement, however, cannot be expected to appreciate, much less respect, realities extending beyond the self-serving myopia of its own fundraising talking points . At its American inception it founded itself upon the false premise that "abortion is not a religious issue," signing its own death warrant along with that of innumerable unborn babies. In truth, abortion is not only a religious issue. It has political, social, personal etc. dimensions as well. But in the final analysis, such considerations verge on the tangential. At issue is whether not each biological human being is made in the image and likeness of God--a theological rather than an empirical assertion, ineluctably. Those threatening to--God forbid!--"burn" the Eucharist know this well enough. Why are we who profess to believe in the Real Presence too craven to proclaim it?
I agree, Janet. The law is a teacher. And how can one hold the mother culpable without making her answer to the law? Utubeo's comments make no sense to me and her quotes support your post. In the act of contrition we say, I detest all my sins "because I dread the loss of heaven and the pains of hell" which are the consequences of mortal sin -- in other words you go to jail in a very hot place for unrepented mortal sins. Legal consequences for the mom would depend on her level of complicity. Is she a minor being forced by her parents? Is she being threatened by a boyfriend? Just like killing someone already born has various degrees of guilt, so does the act of abortion. But if mothers didn't go for abortions, there would be no abortionists. It's better to do the right thing out of love. But if you do it out of fear, you are still doing the right thing. The babies deserve to be treated as if they are members of the human family in the whole sense. Otherwise we are treating them just like the terrible Dred Scott decision treated blacks as not persons in the whole sense. Justice for Babies in Womb!
ReplyDeleteTo both you and Janet, well said!
Delete