Denver, Colo., Oct 20, 2020 / 07:01 pm (CNA).- As Colorado voters consider a ballot measure to ban abortion after 22 weeks of pregnancy, pro-life Democrats have been vocal in support, stressing its mainstream appeal and the need to give care to vulnerable human beings who can survive outside of the womb.
“When people realize abortion is allowed up to birth for any reason in Colorado most are shocked. People travel from all over the U.S. and even the world to Colorado to get late-term abortions,” Kristin Vail, vice president of Democrats for Life of Colorado, told CNA Oct. 19. “I don’t think people want our state to be known for that.”
“Every human has value and deserves to live free from violence. Late-term abortions are especially horrific because at 22 weeks fetuses can feel pain and can survive outside the womb with medical support,” Vail said. “Proposition 115 will save lives from abortion.”
Proposition 115 asks voters whether to ban abortion in the state after 22 weeks of pregnancy, except in cases where a mother’s life is threatened.
A 9 News / Colorado Politics survey of 1,021 registered likely voters found 42% of respondents said they are certain to vote yes on Proposition 115, 45% said no, while 13% are uncertain.
63% of Republicans said they would vote in favor of the ban, as did 28% of Democrats and 35% of unaffiliated voters. The survey was conducted by SurveyUSA in early October. It claims a credibility interval of plus or minus 3.9%.
For Vail, it’s an issue of justice. “Abortion is just oppression and violence redistributed to someone more vulnerable,” she told CNA.
“Pre-born children are the most vulnerable and voiceless in our society and they are being killed by the thousands every day. Quality healthcare should be provided for everyone, including both mother and child. When the main objective of a procedure is to end a human life, our healthcare system has failed,” Vail said.
Dr. Tom Perille, a retired physician and president of the Democrats for Life of Colorado, also backs the ballot measure.
“Prop. 115 should pass because it appeals to the moral sensibilities of Coloradans and reflects a popular consensus when abortion restrictions are appropriate,” he told CNA. “If a baby born prematurely at 22 weeks enjoys all the rights and privileges of other Colorado citizens and is protected by state/federal law, a fetus in utero at that exact same gestational age should not be able to be legally and cruelly killed. National and state polling suggests that a majority of people believe that abortion should be restricted after fetal viability.”
“Colorado has a long history of embracing abortion rights,” Perille continued. “However, Coloradans also understand science. Most Coloradans recognize that a 22-week fetus is a fully formed, if immature, human being. They are repulsed by those who refer to this vital human being as ‘pregnancy tissue.’ Coloradans are willing to accept reasonable restrictions on abortion after fetal viability.”
Perille stressed bipartisan support for the measure, saying nearly 19,000 Democrats signed the petition to place it on the state ballot. He suggested that efforts to raise public awareness about abortion after 22 weeks and Proposition 115 could push Democratic support for the measure above 33%.
During his time collecting signatures for the petition, Perille said a number of signers identified as pro-choice but thought abortions past 22 weeks were “simply too extreme.”
“I recall one woman, in particular, who said she was pro-choice, but quickly added that she was born prematurely at 28 weeks gestation. She knew what it was like to be born premature,” he said. “She was emphatic that at 22 weeks ‘It’s a baby’.”
“Democrats have historically championed the rights of the less privileged in society, those that are dehumanized, voiceless and marginalized. The viable fetus fits this description to a T. Democrats have lost their way on this issue, but at their core, they still believe in fighting for the little guy,” said Perille.
If the ballot measure passes, doctors would face a three-year license suspension for performing or attempting to perform an abortion of an unborn child beyond 22 weeks of gestation. Women would not be charged for seeking or obtaining an illegal abortion.
In 1984 Colorado voters passed a constitutional amendment banning public funding of abortions except to prevent the death of the mother. In 1998 they passed an initiative requiring parental consent and a waiting period for minors who seek abortions.
“We have had to endure a tidal wave of misinformation from our opposition on social media and TV fueled by millions of dollars from the abortion industry – who stand to lose the most if Prop 115 passes,” said Perille, who made a medical case against late-term abortion.
“If a woman encounters a pregnancy related health issue after 22 weeks, fetal viability, she may need to have her baby urgently or emergently delivered, but there is no reason or rationale to kill the baby,” said Perille. “In fact, a late abortion for an urgent or emergent pregnancy related health issue would be considered medical malpractice. It takes 30 minutes to deliver the baby and 2-4 days to perform a late abortion procedure.”
Prenatal screening for genetic and other fetal abnormalities takes place “well before 22 weeks,” he said. While it is a “very rare situation” where fetal diagnosis is not discovered until 22 weeks into pregnancy, Perille said pre-natal hospice offers “ a compassionate, life-affirming alternative to late abortion” with better outcomes for the woman’s mental health and bereavement.
Kristen Day, president of the Democrats for Life of America, told CNA the group’s Colorado chapter has distributed 15,000 brochures to Democratic voters to make the case for Proposition 115. The chapter organized a rally and phone calls.
Day said opposition to late-term abortion is very much a majority position.
“Even Democrats oppose late-term abortion. 82% of Democrats and 77% of independents and 94% of Republicans oppose third trimester abortions,” she said. “It’s a very mainstream position.”
“It makes a lot of sense, especially from a Democrat perspective. We believe in healthcare for all, and making sure that everybody has the opportunity to receive live-giving care,” Day continued. “When we’re talking about a baby who is 22 weeks and could survive outside of the womb if given appropriate health care, it makes very little sense that we would end that life.”
“We care about the babies but we also care about the mothers as well. Let’s choose both. Protect both,” she said.
Given Colorado’s role as a strongly Democratic state and its role in passing the first law to legalize abortion in 1967, Day said passage of a late-term abortion ban would be “huge.”
“A lot of people will vote for Prop 115 and also vote for Joe Biden,” she said.
Other abortion-related measures have not succeeded. The 2008 and 2010 Colorado ballots included two slightly different personhood initiatives, which tried to define a person under state law to include every human being from the moment of fertilization or “from the beginning of biological development,” respectively. The 2008 proposal won under 27% approval from voters, while the 2010 proposal received under 30% of votes.
Colorado Right to Life opposes Proposition 115 on the grounds it only regulates abortion and implicitly permits most abortions. The group is a former affiliate of National Right to Life, but broke from the national organization in 2007 over philosophical differences and the Colorado group’s criticism of a partial-birth abortion Supreme Court decision.
Backers of Proposition 115 told CNA that the overwhelming majority of pro-life voters are with them.
Some 24 U.S. states limit abortion based on gestational age.
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, a Democrat elected to office with strong support from legal abortion advocates, has argued that the ballot measure would be overruled by Supreme Court precedents like Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
“It’s hard to see this ban being upheld,” he told Colorado Public Radio. He argued it would be an undue burden on a woman to carry a child conceived in rape or incest.
Dr. Kristina Tocce, vice president and medical director of abortion provider Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, was also critical of the measure.
“Decisions around pregnancy must be made by a patient, their family, and in consultation with physicians, without political influence, because an all or nothing model of health care is not acceptable and especially not with the complexities of pregnancy,” she said.
Tocce said it is misleading to argue that fetuses are viable at 22 weeks into pregnancy. “There’s not a viability switch, that automatically gets flipped at 22 weeks or any gestational age for that matter because each pregnancy is unique and medical circumstances differ from patient to patient,” she told Colorado Public Radio, which reported 38% of babies born at 22 weeks survive after given intensive care.
The Catholic bishops of Colorado, the Catholic Medical Association, and a group of more than 130 medical professionals and scientists in Colorado have backed Proposition 115.
“Rest assured that your ‘Yes’ to Proposition 115 will have innumerable consequences for the lives of many children who, within their mother’s womb, count on you for life,” Archbishop Samuel Aquila and Bishop Jorge Rodriguez said in a Sept. 27 letter to Hispanics in the Archdiocese of Denver.
[…]
How can one respect a heretic?
Perhaps the same way that Christ respected the Pharisees and priests of his day when He called the whited sepulchers, children of father of lies, congregation of the devil…. (and they weren’t even attempting to justify the that sin of which this whole issue is about)
Re: “the same way that Christ respected the Pharisees . . . ”
It seems to me that perhaps one would need the discernment of Christ to feel secure in making a call like that w/r/t our contemporaries. I think Abp. Chaput makes a good point – – address the ideas, leave the personal vitriol aside (hey, one could even offer the lack of vitriol as a sacrifice).
if it walks like a duck, it probably isn’t a cow.
You might have missed the point of Abp. Chaput’s remarks.
With all due respect to the archbishop, he has demonstrated that he is a culture warrior in his own right in hi attempt to justify and defend Fr. Martin’s obvious undermining of Catholic teachings on homosexuality – where he does not overtly defy it.
I have yet to see any examples of the vitriol which Chaput and Bishop McElroy refer (the latter is himself guilty of the very claim he makes about others). No quotes have been offered.
Both Church Militant – not always my favorite – and Lepanto Institute use language which once was quite the norm for ecclesial leaders when calling out renegades like Fr. Martin, who serves better as an apologist for homosexuality in general and a shill for its normalization in the Church.
Today, the Church lacks shepherds with spine. It is disappointing to see Archbishop Chaput join the Amen chorus in the left corner condemning those who are doing his job. The appropriate behavior for Fr. Martin’s bishop is to silence him, but all he has dene is to order him to not reveal his own sexuality. This act, of course, has outed Fr. Martin completely, when before there was only uncertainty.
If by your self-serving reference to our human difficulties in attaining the discernment of Christ you mean we should eschew tough language, I’m afraid you are contradicted not only by several saints but also by loads of scripture.
Our bishops today are faint of heart and weak-minded. Study the Church Fathers and their saintly contemporaries who blistered both straying clergy and laity alike with the truth, and would turn their wrath upon those like you for your failure to stand for that truth.
The caterwauling we are hearing (and it is a revelation about Chaput) is the reaction of timid bishops to seeing what saintliness in action against those who would pour drops of poison into the waters of the Church.
Quote: “Father Martin is a man of intellect and skill”
One wonders really when he says things like the teaching of the Church not being received hence not binding.
Does that display intellect and skill? Or the devil’s own craftiness.
I love the way faithful Catholics will not avoid the reality of life, and will not back down from a religious fight, no matter the title of the person they are addressing. For myself, I like to maintain the intellectual purity of the argument, so that people arguing with me cannot say, “But you said…” I prefer merely presenting relevant Church documents having the greatest theological authority as my “argument.” That way, the argument is not “mine”, but belongs to the Church’s tradition and the Church’s own authority.
With all due respect, pretending that the enemy’s motives are pure is always the best thing to do. Pretending that Fr. Martin (or Pope Francis) isn’t trying to move the church away from it’s mission might make one feel good about oneself, but doesn’t help.
“The perceived ambiguities in some of Fr. Martin’s views on sexuality have created much of the apprehension and criticism surrounding his book”. There are errors, dangerous errors to the faith that contribute to the loss of souls. Not simply ambiguities in Fr Martin’s book. What is far more deadly to the salvation of all souls is not the “vitriol”. It’s the amelioration of heresy and unwillingness of our prelates to voice the truth.
Exactly. I have great respect for Archbishop Chaput, but I disagree with the position, as stated in the article, he might be taking on the Fr. Martin debacle.
The Church and its ministers must be faithful to the Gospel. We take that solemn oath at ordination. Fr. Martin’s positions and the deceptiveness of his arguments must be called to correction and possible punitive action should he not be properly responsive…that is the duty of the shepherds. The faithful see no evidence of that happening. On the contrary they see his advancement! Failure to address the false teaching clearly leaves the faithful feeling powerless as misdirection and error is not corrected. Psychologically speaking, why would we not expect some amount of vitriol?
Fr. Martin needs correction. Failure on the part of the shepherds to not address the errors is to the detriment of the Church and the Gospel.
Difficult this.
Given his obvious intelligence, what are the options? He really and truly does not support Catholic teaching in his heart, he begrudgingly does so but also works to mute it as much as possible, or his take on the Catholic moral code is so different I find it unrecognizable. None of these options lend themselves to mad respect.
Not to mention Martin’s embrace of spin tactics worthy of political parties versus churchmen.
Especially for those who believe homosexuality, while not a malicious orientation or sin, interesects with matters of grave sin …
Fr. Martin stubbornly providing confusing moral guidance. That is nothing to respect.
Look, people. This ain’t hard. Jesus calls us to love our enemies. It’s that simple directive that makes us different than pagans. Pagans would jump on a heretic and beat him to death. Christians don’t do that sort of thing. Chaput has it right. Everyone deserves his due, and God demands that we respect what is good in each man, even if we disagree with him. Now, we can have some self discipline, and be real Christians, and be respectful of someone like Father James Martin even when he is in the wrong. He has written some books previous to this that have brought people to Christ. Now, he is making huge mistakes now and he is saying some very stupid things. But he can be respectfully taken apart rhetorically, and put in his place, and it can be done in a nice civilized manner. The thing he wants most right now is for putative Christians to descend on him like a pack of dogs, so that he can whine and play the victim. The more respect and civility we show him, the easier it becomes to deal with him. He basically is destroying himself at this point, and the only thing that can save him is stupid moves that enable him to become a gay martyr. He has started panicking, and saying stupid thing after stupid thing. It seems that self destruction is built into him. Every move he has made in this controversy has made things worse for his cause. Don’t help him out by being unnecessarily unkind to the man. Even he can be redeemed, and who knows, in a year or two, he may see the error of his ways and turn around
Samton909, how do you know Martin is being disrespect. No quotes are offered – I suppose they must be so egregious they can’t reproduce them?
I don’t believe that without evidence.
Let’s not conflate disrespect with confrontation, with pushback. There’s nothing mealy-mouthed about this pushback, nor should there be.
To treat the responses he has legitimately brought upon himself as disrespect is a trick as old as the hills. It changes the subject. Please note the ecclesial claim of vitriol and disrespect comes on the heels of a host of cancellations of public appearances by Fr. Martin at Catholic venues.
Wow…LOL a lot of supposition as to motives, intention, etc.
I agree with you and grieve that one like Fr. Martin might be on the road to self-destruction professionally and personally with regard to reputation and, more importantly, salvation. I deeply hope for his repentant return and that of any other misleading teachers.
Basic human respect is a given to all human persons including enemies. At the same time, one cannot respect what is disrespectful. Fr. Martin has earned a certain disrespect due to his failure to teach authentically. No condemnation here, but a clear call to change-conversion.
We are still called upon by the Gospel to correct our brothers and sisters when they are in error. There is a formula for that in the New Testament. I am a purist about definitions, and I have my own definitions. For instance, “love” is to will and, when prudent, to work for the good of the other. “Good” is whatever God says is good. If I see something written by a person, I know that others will read it. If the other person’s writing contains something I think is in error, I must point that out so that others with not be led astray. However, I am subject to possible error, so as I wrote elsewhere, I prefer to use only authoritative Church statements as my argument. Hopefully people who read both the errant writing and my [hopefully] correct argument will recognize the validity of the Church’s teaching, and dissociate that from anyone’s opinion. When we wish to be wise, we should seek God’s will, since His will is perfect wisdom. I still respect the fact that faithful Catholics will support the Church’s consistent teaching, no matter who is presenting possibly contrary opinions.
There’s a YouTube video, referred to on The Catholic Thing. Fr. Martin is given an award by a lgbt activist group. In the Q&A, he is asked about the health risks in homoerotic sex. He literally takes the Obama pass: it’s above my pay grade, I don’t really know about that. I lived in New York in the 80s and 90s, by the end, everyone knew about the risks, they knew what was going on, including the Gay Mens Health Collective. Fr. Martin by his professed ignorance, puts gay men at risk. He also said that he does not preach Catholic sexual morality from the pulpit, only on an individual basis. Does his excellency Archbishop Chaput know these things? Are they not lies and refutation of Catholic moral teachings?
James Martin want respect but he does not show it to those who have been in the trench’s of the gay life style and have come out alive only by the grace of God. Just ask Joseph Sciambra.
Archbishop Chaput—I have been an admirer of yours, but I must say, you disappoint me greatly in this matter. There are some things that should inspire strong reactions and strong, plain talk, and Fr. Martin’s views fit the bill. It is unlikely that he even cares what people say.