Participants in a demonstration against Proposition 1 outside the California capitol in Sacramento, Oct. 6, 2022. / Photo courtesy of California’s No on Prop. 1 Campaign
Denver Newsroom, Oct 6, 2022 / 17:02 pm (CNA).
Unlimited abortion would become a fundamental right, as would abortion on viable unborn children, if voters pass the proposed California ballot measure Proposition 1, a broad coalition has warned.
“The proposed amendment to the state constitution has no language on limits and no recognition of the viability of the infant and late-term pregnancies,” Bishop Jaime Soto of Sacramento said at an Oct. 6 press conference outside the capitol in Sacramento.
He said Proposition 1 seeks to make abortion a “fundamental right” in California while “removing any common-sense limits on late-term abortions.”
The California Together, No On Proposition 1 press conference drew speakers from various political and religious backgrounds, including Catholics, Evangelicals, Muslims, and backers and foes of legal abortion.
Bishop Soto said Prop. 1 is “an unneeded, radical and expensive proposition.” He invoked Pope Francis’ rejection of a “throwaway culture,” saying “the leaders of a ‘throwaway society’ are trying to impose an expensive ideology on California.”
The proposed amendment, titled “Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom,” was placed on the November ballot by the state legislature, with support from abortion provider Planned Parenthood. Amendment backers anticipated the U.S. Supreme Court’s June decision overturning the pro-abortion rights Roe v. Wade decision.
The text of Proposition 1 reads, in part: “The state shall not deny or interfere with an individual’s reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives.”
Critics emphasized the proposed amendment’s lack of limits on legal abortion.
“We are here to say that Prop. 1 is extreme, expensive and unnecessary.” Catherine Hadro, media director of California Together, No on Proposition 1 said Wednesday. “We all know that Prop 1. means late-term abortion in California up until the moment of birth, even if both mother and baby are healthy. And we all agree that that is too extreme. That is why we are coming together to stop Prop. 1.”
According to Hadro, only 13% of Californians support unrestricted legal abortion. The proposition’s creators left out viability language “on purpose,” she said. She encouraged voters to read the ballot measure and take note that viability language is missing.
“Proposition 1 means post-viability, late-term abortion without limit paid for by your taxpayer dollars,” she said.
When the California legislature debated the proposal, lawmakers asked whether it would allow abortion past viability, when an unborn child can survive outside the womb. A promised answer never came.
Dr. Pratima Gupta, a San Diego obstetrician-gynecologist involved in drafting the law, told the Northern California radio station KQED that drafters deliberately excluded the word “viability.” He said every pregnancy is “individual” and a “continuum.” The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a generally pro-abortion rights organization, removed the term “viability” from its guidance on abortion in May.
Speakers at Thursday’s press conference included Democrats for Life communications director Jess Meeth, Democrat attorney Christopher Bakes, International Faith Based Coalition president Tak Allen, and Tarbiya Institute representative Mashal Ayobi. They were joined by California Family Council communications coordinator Sophia Lorey and Traditional Values for Next Generations founder Sarah Kim.
“Together with our partners here around this podium we see the illogic, the imprudence and the danger of Proposition 1,” said Bishop Soto. “We have been companions for women who find themselves alone and unsupported. This mission will continue. Say ‘no’ to Prop. 1 and let us offer better alternatives to women and children.”
Ann Stone, Republicans for Choice founder and national chairman, said Prop. 1 is “a sloppy over-reach by the pro-choice side.”
“It doesn’t codify Roe. It goes beyond. Badly beyond,” she said.
One speaker delivered remarks on behalf of Kristin Turner, executive director of Pro-life San Francisco and a self-identified progressive vegan atheist. Turner said the proposal is “an extreme violation of human rights” and contradicts what Californians know about the humanity of the unborn child.
“The majority of us can see that at seven, eight, nine months old, that is clearly a baby,” she said. Turner advocated that California direct money to better causes, like reducing maternal mortality, which especially affects Black women.
Dr. Vansen Wong, an obstetrician-gynecologist, is among the critics of the measure. He performed hundreds of abortions, before he rejected the procedure as morally wrong.
Wong warned of the medical problems that abortion can cause after 21 weeks. Women who have late-term abortions face a greater risk of pre-term delivery in future pregnancies and are at greater risk of delivering babies with no hope of survival. Women who have late-term abortions face greater mental health risks including anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation.
Bishop Soto said that October is “a time to renew our commitment to pray, advocate and do works of mercy promoting the dignity of human life.”
“For almost 50 years the Catholic community has been an alternative voice of reason protecting the dignity of human life in the womb,” he said.
“We are here to present a different vision and offer the hopes of a better California,” said the bishop. “The gospel of Jesus gives life and hope to all. Like the first disciples of Jesus, we are fortunate to have been chosen, to be messengers of a life-changing, life-giving gospel in a time of great change and turmoil in California.”
Foes of the measure must work to sway voters. Though an August poll from Rasmussen Reports indicated that only 13% of California voters support abortion through the third trimester, an August survey from the Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies said that 71% of the state’s voters would vote in favor of Prop. 1.
[…]
Sounds weird to say the least.
Probably diabolical in nature.
I wonder what awful thing this priest did to upset the students? The lack of detail makes it seem like it was pretty horrible. I hope the students really are safe.
More likely the students were doing something to the relic. I know Fr. Carlos. This is a witch hunt.
This CNA article is a perfect example of sensationalist journalism and is unworthy of CWR. The piece reports scandal, an “incident” but provides absolutely no detail. Add to that, an unsubstantiated name was dropped followed by the temerity of stating that “This is a developing story.”
The author would have done better to let it develop some more. This piece reminds of a sewing circle of breathless, gossiping busybodies.
Joseph Meynier: my sentiments exactly. I’ve thought for a long time that CNS is not a reliable source of news and ought to be considered with a very critical eye.
Sorry, I meant to say CNA.
Thank you. This is the first time I can remember being disappointed in something CWR published, but someone was a definitely a bit too eager.
I’m a bit puzzled by the responses here. It’s a straight-up news report. There is no sensationalism, no editorializing, no claims made. Just facts. This did happen and it is, as the CNA note states, a developing story.
What was printed was all the information that the diocese made available. It would have been so easy (and fair-minded) for them to have specified that the incident was not of a sexual nature. But they didn’t and now the priest’s reputation is harmed and Joliet Catholics are deprived of the chance to honor the relic.
Agreed. Lack of essential detail. Therefore,not newsworthy
I hope that when the details of the case are known, you will update this article, so we can know the exact nature of the allegations against the unnamed priest, and the identity of the individual.
The accusations are false against fr martins…thevtruthvwill come out…he is being attacked by Satan for his work exposing satan….beware of jumping to false conclusions….
I attended the display when it came through our parish. Nothing weird happened here. I really enjoyed it.
I would suggest, if it turns out that this priest did nothing illegal or immoral according to Church teaching and if his reputation was damaged by the action taken by the diocese of Joliet and its bishop, that he ought to then sue the latter for damages.
Relic priest responds to ‘incident’ allegation
THE PILLAR
November 25, 2024 . 2:51 PM 5 min read
Apparently, this priest is alleged to have handled the long hair of a girl attending the relic presentation in order to illustrate a point. Probably unwise but hardly an illegal “assault” as alleged nor a violation of morality. As a comparison, I’m sure we can all recall photos of Pope Francis in all sorts of fatherly embraces of young children yet no one lodges a single complaint about it.
Those were my thoughts too, Deacon Edward.
A recent update by the Pillar has more details as indicated earlier. As the saying goes someone seems to have made a mountain out of a molehill. In this case, a priest making note of his bald head and a girls hair to some students to engage them in a discussion. If the Pillar latest account holds true as of this writing, which I hope it is, then the person making a report to the police should be admonished and should publically issue an apology to the priest. Also think if the Pillar up date is true then I think the Father making a report to the police has his own issues leading to this situation. Think CWR should also do an update when final facts are known.
Grabbintg anyone’s hair for any reason, without their consent is certainly immoral.
And I would lock up Francis and throw away the key for hundreds of things he has done.
No idea how you can define this as immoral?
As usual, this is turning out to be a witch hunt brought on by a hyper-conscious parent and the regular group of ninnies that try to make every good priest a villain. Fr. Martins did nothing wrong. See the latest:
https://www.ncregister.com/cna/illinois-diocese-halts-st-jude-relic-tour-amid-incident-involving-priest-students
Waiting for the pastor of the church and the bishop of Joliet to restore Father Martins’ reputation.
Unfortunately, Daniel Payne left out significant details in his article about the allegations against Fr. Martins. In front of over 200 people, as
Fr. Martins joked about his baldness he touched a teen’s hair. The girl’s father complained of assault. This ridiculous act against Fr. Martins may be an example of how Satan attacks the highly faithful. Fr. Martins is a well-known exorcist. Remember how Fr. Pio was also attacked with false charges. In this case, numerous witnesses shared that nothing inappropriate happened.
After reading the additional information in the Pillar, I think this is all diabolical. Fr. Martins is an accomplished exorcist. The evil one hates him.
How devastating this must be for him. Yet, he’ll come through it.
And I agree the Bishop over reacted as did the parent.