Denver Newsroom, Oct 27, 2020 / 04:21 pm (CNA).- Voters in Louisiana will decide Nov. 3 on a constitutional amendment, authored by a pro-life Democrat, which would prevent Louisiana’s courts finding a “right to abortion,” or to public abortion funding, in the state’s constitution.
Under Amendment 1, also known as the “Love Life Amendment,” the Louisiana constitution would be updated to state that “nothing in this constitution shall be construed to secure or protect a right to abortion or require the funding of abortion.”
State Senator Katrina Jackson, a pro-life Democrat, authored the amendment when she was a state representative, along with dozens of co-sponsors from both parties.
The purpose of the amendment, Jackson wrote in an op-ed last week, is to ensure that the state’s courts cannot circumvent the state’s existing pro-life laws by finding a right to abortion in the state’s constitution.
This situation has already occured in 13 other states, most recently in Kansas, despite the fact, Jackson notes, that “the word abortion can’t be found in the Kansas Constitution.”
“It’s important to understand that Amendment 1 is not a ban on abortion. It simply keeps abortion policy in the hands of our legislators rather than state judges,” Jackson wrote.
Louisiana already has a “trigger law” that would ban abortion in the state— with some exceptions to save the life of the mother— should the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade.
“Our body of pro-life laws ensure that women are empowered with the truth about their pregnancy prior to an abortion, that minors seeking an abortion have parental consent, and that babies born alive following a botched abortion receive immediate medical care. Our law also makes sure that not a dollar of your state tax dollars fund abortion. Yet these laws and others are at risk unless we pass Amendment 1,” Jackson said.
Kristen Day, Executive Director of Democrats For Life of America, noted that over a dozen states have introduced proposals to write explicitly a “right to abortion” into their state constitutions.
In May 2019, Vermont’s legislature advanced Proposal 5, which would write a right to abortion into the state’s constitution. Before this can happen, it must be passed once again by the 2021-2022 legislature, and be approved by voters in the November 2022 election.
If the measure passes, Vermont would become the first state to list abortion as a constitutional right.
Louisiana’s proposal would do the opposite, and would prevent the state’s courts from finding a right to abortion or abortion funding in the future, Day said.
“Louisiana’s a very pro-life state— nobody wants public funding of abortion, so if the legislature flipped and somebody wanted to try to fund abortion with state money, it would be clear that that is not constitutional,” she told CNA.
“Large majorities of people oppose public funding of abortion. And so to have those protections in there is important,” she said.
“We’re very hopeful that it will pass, and send a strong message to the rest of the country.”
Sophie Trist, a recent college graduate and activist with Democrats for Life, wrote in an Oct. 22 op-ed in The Advocate, a Baton Rouge daily, that Amendment 1 is consistent with Democratic principles, and that it will protect the will of Louisianans, at least 63% of whom identify as pro-life.
“A so-called right gained at the expense of another living human being is no right at all. I’m voting yes because killing another human being, no matter their circumstances, is never social justice,” she wrote.
Trist, who is blind, wrote that an abortion supporter once told her that she should favor abortion because it prevents disabled people, like her, from being born into suffering. “Sadly, I’m all too aware of how society often views those of us who are less developed, physically weaker, or less able-bodied, as less human,” she wrote.
“I had always respected a pro-life ethic before, but this encounter made me even more passionately pro-life because I know that every human life, including mine and those of unborn children in the womb, is worth living and worth protecting. The fact of the matter is that I love my life and am grateful to have been born,” she wrote.
Jackson also authored a bipartisan Louisiana law requiring that abortion clinics be held to the same standards as surgical centers, which the Supreme Court threw out in June.
Four justices ruled in June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo that Louisiana’s requirement that abortion doctors have admitting privileges at a local hospital would have made it “impossible” for abortion clinics to comply, without offering a significant health benefit for women. Justice Stephen Breyer authored the opinion, and Chief Justice John Roberts concurred to tip the court’s balance 5-4 against Louisiana’s law.
The Unsafe Abortion Protection Act, as Jackson’s law was known, received widespread support from both parties in the state legislature and was signed into law by then-governor Bobby Jindal (R) in 2014.
In Kansas, an effort during February to place a referendum on the Kansas ballot clarifying that abortion is not a constitutional right fell four votes short of the support needed in the House of Representatives.
The push for the referendum was instigated in 2019 after the Kansas Supreme Court blocked a 2015 law banning dilation-and-evacuation abortions, which are the most common procedure for second-trimester abortions and use suction devices and other equipment to dismember the fetus and remove it from the mother’s womb.
As part of the ruling, the Kansas Supreme Court determined for the first time that provisions of the state constitution dating back to 1859 extends to a “natural right of personal autonomy” regarding abortion.
The federal Hyde Amendment bars federal funds for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment. Presidential candidate Joe Biden has said that he no longer supports the Hyde Amendment and would repeal it if he is elected.
At least 16 states currently use their own funds to pay for additional abortions outside of those conditions.
[…]
$246,000,000 in one diocese alone — all because some bishops “didn’t want to create a scandal.” They succeeded admirably. Do they wonder why many think twice before placing further trust in them?
And the abuse of the laity by the clergy goes on. It’s just that not all abuse is sexual. Let’s remember one oft-stated truth – all abuse is abuse of power. The abuse of power is happening most recently in the Archdiocese of Detroit. Pope Leo is watching that abuse happen and does nothing.
On the matter of financial payments to laypersons who have been abused by clergy, the abuse is compounded. How? Because the money paid out to victims comes directly and indirectly (insurance) FROM THE LAITY. Remember, the clergy produce no revenue of their own. What money the Church has that goes towards penalties assessed for clerical abuse COMES FROM THE LAITY. The laity are paying for their own remuneration.
“AND THEY WERE LIKE SHEEP WITHOUT A SHEPHERD.”
We are told that insurance will cover the bulk of these settlements. Unfortunately, this is often not true, because the Diocese acted in bad faith in dealing with abusers. Often, the abuse was covered up and abusers were protected. This gives the insurance companies an out on paying for settlements. And of course, the parishes get “assessed” some sort of “fee” to pay for the settlements.
$246 million is a lot of money. That money could have been used for Catholic Education, help for the poor,etc. What are we supposed to think? We, the laity, have no voice in this. We are expected to just “pay, pray and obey.” Many of us are disgusted and will no longer obey.
The pain of the abused speaks to a profound theological crisis. The monetary settlements, while a form of earthly justice, are ultimately an inadequate response to the spiritual harm inflicted. The abuse by a priest, a man ordained to represent Christ to the faithful, is not merely a personal transgression; it is a desecration of the sacred office and a wound upon the Body of Christ itself. The very foundation of the priestly vocation is to stand in persona Christi capitis, acting in the person of Christ the head. When this sacred trust is betrayed, the resulting agony is not only psychological but also deeply theological, shaking the very faith of the victim.
A genuine repentance points to a crucial aspect of Christian ethics. True repentance, as the Church Fathers have taught, requires metanoia—a fundamental change of heart and mind that leads to a turning away from sin. It is a process that must be followed by a forsaking of the sinful action itself and the establishment of safeguards to prevent its recurrence. The question of whether the Church has truly embraced this metanoia in its response to clerical sexual abuse is a matter of both internal integrity and external witness. The Church is called to be a sign of holiness to the world. When its actions, or lack thereof, appear to tolerate such deviance, it not only fails to live up to this calling but also undermines its credibility and its mission to evangelize. The integrity of the Church’s witness depends on its unwavering commitment to justice and the absolute intolerance of abuse.