Washington D.C., May 17, 2019 / 11:12 am (CNA).- The House of Representatives passed the controversial Equality Act on Friday, amid heated opposition from those who argue it would pose serious threats to critical constitutional freedoms.
“This b… […]
Buenos Aires, Argentina, May 17, 2019 / 10:55 am (CNA).- Pro-life advocates in Argentina have called for the acquittal of Dr. Leandro Rodríguez Lastra, whose trial started May 13 in Rio Negro Province in Argentina for refusing to perform an abortion.
Rodríguez is the head of the department gynecology at the Pedro Moguillansky Hospital in Cipoletti. In May 2017, he treated a 19 year old woman who was suffering severe pain due to ingesting misoprostol, a drug administered by an abortion group.
The doctor confirmed that the woman was almost 23 weeks pregnant and the baby weighed more than 1 lb. 2 oz., so in conjunction with the medical team and the hospital board, he decided not to terminate the pregnancy.
Rodríguez stabilized the patient and when the baby reached 35 weeks gestation, labor was induced. Days later, the baby was adopted and will soon be two years old.
However, Rodríguez and Dr. Yamila Custillo, who also refused to perform an abortion, were cited by Río Negro legislator Marta Milesi, an advocate for the protocol of non-punishable abortion, which the province had adopted in the case of rape, which the woman alleged.
Custilla was dropped from the complaint in May 2018. But the case against Rodríguez continued since the professional had allegedly stopped an abortion in progress.
Organizations including CitizenGo Argentina. Lawyers for Life, Doctors for Life, the March for Life. Medical Students for Life and Independent Federal Women delivered on May 14 more than 50,000 digital signatures calling for the acquittal of the doctor to Judge Álvaro Meynet and Governor Alberto Wereltineck.
“It is obvious that the accusation made by provincial representative Marta Milesi, who is an abortion activist, seeks to intimidate doctors into doing abortions, even when these pregnancies are advanced,” the letter they delivered states.
“Dr. Rodríguez Lastra fulfilled his duty and the Hippocratic Oath as a doctor, committed to the defense and care of life. We hope that justice will be done,” they concluded.
On Twitter, the hashtags #SalvarVidasNoEsDelito (Saving lives is not a crime) and #JusticiaParaRodriguezLastra (Justice for Rodriguez Lastra) were trending.
“We repudiate this persecution of a doctor who did his job: he saved both lives. Because of an illegitimate complaint, today there’s an absurd trial. The only thing they want is to intimidate and impose their ideology,” wrote Twitter user Ana Marmona.
Health professionals from Costa Rica also expressed their support with photo messages.
Dr. Fernando Secin of Doctors for Life said “We are very concerned about the persecution that we doctors are receiving.” “We’re seeing a justice system acting in concert with politics, instead of going after all those people like the La Revuelta (The Revolt) group that is illegally distributing medications and illegally practicing medicine.”
Since the trial began, different groups have come to the Río Negro Court with banners expressing their opposition to the trial of Rodríguez.
This article was originally published by CNA’s Spanish-language partner, ACI Prensa. It has been translated and adapted by CNA.
Frankfort, Ky., May 17, 2019 / 10:15 am (CNA).- Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin (R) is urging his fellow governors to “be bold” on the issue of life.
The first-term governor made the call during an interview Thursday on EWTN Pro-Life Weekly, as states across the country continue to debate abortion related legislation.
In recent weeks, Gov. Roy Cooper (D-N.C.), Gov. Tony Evers (D-Wisc.), and Gov. Steve Bullock (D-Mont.) all rejected their states’ versions of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. Shortly after, Bullock launched a bid for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. In contrast, Gov. Brian Kemp (R-Ga.) and Gov. Kay Ivey (R-Ala.) signed major pro-life legislation.
Speaking to Pro-Life Weekly host Catherine Hadro, Bevin said that arguments against Born-Alive laws are “weak,” and that such measures are far from redundant.
“It would seemingly be the same argument you might say for ‘why have airbags in a car if we already have a seatbelt,’” Bevin argued.
“Not to protect a human life, and to ask a doctor to take responsibility for protecting that human life, and to hold them accountable if they do not—especially given that they have taken an oath to do so, and in fact are licensed to do so—would be irresponsible.”
Urging his fellow governors to stand in defense of unborn life, Bevin said, “Don’t be politically opportunistic, don’t be beholden to outside interests that are going to help you politically, but be bold and do the right thing.”
Alabama’s Governor signed the Human Life Protection Act into law.
Georgia’s Governor signed the Heartbeat Bill into law.
We speak with another pro-life governor on @EWTNProLife, @GovMattBevin, who says – while there is pressure – being pro-life is the right thing to do. pic.twitter.com/0BCxEIm8Mc
— Catherine Hadro (@CatSzeltner) May 16, 2019
While discussing his work to pass pro-life legislation in Kentucky, Bevin called the Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision a “travesty,” and said he believes the issue of abortion will ultimately be returned to the states.
“In the meantime, states like ours have passed very intentional laws related to things like informed consent and ultrasounds performed in advance,” Bevin said.
Bevin also pointed to a recent bill he signed into law prohibiting abortions based on the race, gender, or a disability diagnosis of an unborn child. He said that the “non-eugenics bill” might reach the Supreme Court and “may very well be involved in the ultimate decision making as it relates to Roe v Wade.”
“We passed a bill here in this past session in Kentucky that says you can’t kill a child based on its race, based on its gender, or based on some perceived disability. We used language very similar to what we find in the Americans with Disabilities Act and other federal statutes that are already on on the books.”
After the anti-eugenics bill passed into law earlier this year, the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky promptly announced they would sue over the legislation, but the governor said he is undeterred.
We will see the state of Kentucky in court (again) after they attempt to ban abortion (again) #HB5 #stopthebans #kyga19 https://t.co/dJGMYRBCpc
— ACLU of Kentucky (@ACLUofKY) March 13, 2019
Bring it!
Kentucky will always fight for life…
Always!#WeAreProLife #WeAreKY https://t.co/mFfqhGhAWe
— Matt Bevin (@MattBevin) March 13, 2019
Critics of the discrimination abortion ban, Bevin said, “think that they’re defending folks when in fact they’re standing in the way of human life.”
“I’m grateful for the fact that ours is a strongly pro-life state, and that people are standing in the gap on the side of the vulnerable and those who cannot speak for themselves.”
The governor said he was bullish about the state’s prospects defending the law in court. “The gild is coming off the lily on the other side of this issue,” he said.
“We are standing firm and we will continue to do so regardless of the money, and the reasons, and just the evil, frankly, that is opposing us on the other side of the equation,” he said.
Bevin acknowledged that “there is pressure of course, politically” on governors who sign pro-life legislation, “but here’s the thing, to do the right thing is the right thing.”
“Sometimes of course, in politics and in other areas, it’s easier for some to do the easy wrong than to do the difficult right,” Bevin continued. “But I think we have a moral obligation, and for many it’s maybe a religious obligation, but I think for those for whom it’s not religious based, it’s moral to save a human life.”
Kate Scanlon is a producer of EWTN Pro-Life Weekly
Vatican City, May 17, 2019 / 03:38 am (CNA).- The Vatican announced Friday that the next World Meeting of Families will focus on the vocation of married life as a path to holiness with a particular emphasis on Amoris Laetitia.
The 2021 World Meeting o… […]
Cincinnati, Ohio, May 17, 2019 / 12:32 am (CNA).- An Ohio bill seeking to limit insurance coverage of non-lifesaving abortions erroneously states that a procedure exists in which a doctor can reimplant an ectopic pregnancy in a woman’s uterus. No such procedure yet exists that has been proven safe and effective, two pro-life OB-GYNs told CNA.
“It astounds me that people would be writing law like this who don’t know the basics,” Dr. Lorna Cvetkovich, an OB-GYN with the pro-life medical practice Tepeyac Center, told CNA.
An ectopic pregnancy occurs when an embryo implants somewhere other than the uterus – usually in a fallopian tube. Ectopic pregnancies cannot survive outside of the uterus and pose a serious threat to the mother’s life, Cvetkovich said.
The legislation in question in Ohio is HB182, a bill that was introduced in April by state Rep. John Becker (R), and was co-sponsored by 19 other state legislators.
The bill seeks to limit insurance coverage for “nontherapuetic abortions” – elective abortions that are not performed when a doctor determines that the mother’s life is at risk.
The legislation states that it would still allow insurance companies to cover certain exempted procedures, including: “A procedure for an ectopic pregnancy, that is intended to reimplant the fertilized ovum into the pregnant woman’s uterus.”
“I don’t know of any way that we can technologically, surgically put that embryo through the trauma (of reimplantation),” Cvetkovich said.
The doctor said the procedure has reportedly been tried three times, but it has not worked, and there is no approved, standard medical procedure for reimplantation that has undergone the appropriate steps to ensure it is safe and effective.
Journals reporting on two such cases are posted on John Becker’s Facebook page. One case occurred in 1915, before ultrasounds were invented, and another in 1980.
Cvetkovich said of the 1915 case that not enough documentation of the procedure exists to confirm its scientific validity, and that the 1980 case was found to have used falsified research.
The reason reimplantations have yet been impossible for doctors, Cvetkovich said, is that once an embryo implants into either the uterine or the tubal lining, it begins creating microscopic blood vessel connections with the mother.
“It’s like a microscopic heart-lung machine, and you can’t just disrupt that and redo it,” she said.
In rare cases, ectopic pregnancies have reimplanted themselves in the liver or bowel, causing an abdominal pregnancy, but there has not been a successful surgical reimplantation in a uterus, Cvetkovich noted.
Dr. Donna Harrison is an OB-GYN with the American Association of Pro-Life OB-GYNs (AAPLOG).
Harrison told CNA that AAPLOG would support an ectopic transfer procedure if it “were scientifically validated through the usual channels of animal studies to prove safety and efficacy, and then human trials to prove safety and efficacy. If such a procedure followed that protocol, and if such a procedure were then validated to be safe and effective in a human being, AAPLOG would support that,” she said.
“We would love to be able to save the baby if we could,” she said.
But to date, an ectopic pregnancy transfer procedure does not yet exist that has gone through the required safety and efficacy procedures to Harrison’s knowledge, she said.
However, she added, Dr. Stephen Sammut at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio is currently investigating such a transfer in animal models.
“So there is research being conducted in animal models right now, but it is very preliminary right now and there are no conclusions of that research yet,” she said. “And as far as I know that is the only research being conducted so far in the animal model.”
Because ectopic pregnancies can pose a serious threat to the life of a mother, pro-life doctors can morally perform a procedure in which they remove the fallopian tube or other organ where an ectopic pregnancy has implanted, Cvetkovich said.
This allows doctors to remove a malfunctioning organ of the mother in order to save her life, which has the secondary but unintended effect of terminating the pregnancy, she added.
“It’s what we call the principle of double effect,” she said. “You can go in to do the procedure that will save the mother’s life. Your intent is not to destroy that pregnancy, your intent is to keep her healthy. In the process of doing that, you accept but do not want that there’s a fetal demise. So that’s how we would handle this rare, rare situation where you would have…a viable fetus with a heartbeat in the tube.”
This kind of procedure is permitted by the Catholic Church, she said, which states that abortion is never permissible, though a procedure to save a woman’s life that has the unintended effect of an unborn baby’s death is morally permissible.
“Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child,” the U.S. Catholic bishops state in the fifth edition of their Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services.
This kind of procedure would also be exempted under the Ohio bill, which states that insurance companies could still cover: “A procedure, in an emergency situation, that is medically necessary to save the pregnant woman’s life.”
Cvetkovich added that it was concerning that the Ohio legislators apparently did not consult with medical experts or research before writing the bill.
Legislation that contains erroneous scientific statements makes the pro-life movement “look bad, it makes us look silly, it makes us look stupid,” she said.
“I wish these guys would do some consultation before they wrote this,” she added.
On the other hand, Harrison said the bill could spur further research into developing a scientifically valid transfer procedure.
“I think the bill could encourage the appropriate research needed to develop such a procedure,” she said.
Paris, France, May 16, 2019 / 08:00 pm (CNA).- One month after a fire destroyed the roof and spire of the famous Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, the Archbishop of Paris released an update on reconstruction efforts and the donations received thus far.
Of the € 1 billion euros ($1.12 billion) publicly pledged in the emotional aftermath of the fire, only € 13.5 million has been collected so far, Archbishop Michel Aupetit of Paris said in a statement published on Wednesday, May 15.
But the reasons for this are “simple, the discussions are just starting to prepare conventions of private law. They will also serve as a framework for expressing the will of these major donors,” Aupetit said.
Some of the major donors who have pledged the most money include French billionaire Francois-Henri Pinault, who pledged 100 million euros, and Bernard Arnault, who pledged 200 million euros, according to an NPR report. The owners of L’Oréal cosmetic company along with the Bettencourt Schueller Foundation pledged 200 million euros.
Of the already-collected € 13.5 million, € 9.5 million was raised from 43,000 French and foreign individuals, including $7,000 of donations from United States donors. The remaining € 4 million came from four donors, according to the archbishop’s report.
Aupetit said that exact amount needed for the restoration is still being evaluated, but “the needs appear considerable.”
“Any given euro will be a euro that will serve to reshape the heart of the cathedral. It will be used to finance an ambitious but necessary” restoration program, he said.
The roof of Notre Dame caught fire before 7 p.m. local time on April 15, 2019. While the blaze brought down the Cathedral’s spire and destroyed the roof, the Eucharist and most of the relics and artwork inside were spared, including a relic from the crown of thorns. The main structure of the Cathedral was also spared from serious damage, including its famous rose windows, bells and bell towers.
France’s President Emmanuel Macron has said that he would like the restoration to be completed within 5 years, but experts estimate that it could take much longer.
Franck Riester, the Minister of Culture in France, said Wednesday that the damaged parts of the cathedral must be removed and the structure secured before real restoration efforts can begin, according to Fox News. He added that he knows of another collection that has raised $952.2 million so far for the restoration efforts, and that it is too early to tell the exact amount that will be needed to rebuild the roof.
Aupetit said in his statement that he will celebrate Mass in the cathedral again “as soon as possible,” though he said for safety reasons it would likely be a private Mass.
In a letter to Macron this week, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada, who is visiting Paris this week, offered donations of Canadian softwood lumber and steel for the rebuilding efforts. Trudeau was scheduled to tour the damaged cathedral during his visit this week, The Canadian Press reported.
Washington D.C., May 16, 2019 / 05:45 pm (CNA).- Earlier this week, the state of Alabama passed legislation to make abortion a felony. The measure is the nation’s strongest prohibition on abortion. It directly contradicts Roe v. Wade and is inten… […]
Washington D.C., May 16, 2019 / 05:45 pm (CNA).- Earlier this week, the state of Alabama passed legislation to make abortion a felony. The measure is the nation’s strongest prohibition on abortion. It directly contradicts Roe v. Wade and is inten… […]
Dublin, Ireland, May 16, 2019 / 05:14 pm (CNA).- A survey in the Archdiocese of Dublin suggests that parents and educators are interested in changing the model of sacramental preparation for children.
“Ireland is unique in its dependence on scho… […]
Jefferson City, Mo., May 16, 2019 / 04:15 pm (CNA).- The Missouri Senate has passed a bill that would immeaditly ban most abortions after eight weeks of pregnancy. Legislators responsible for the measure have said that, unlike recent measures in other states, the bill is specifically designed to pass scrutiny under legal appeal.
After passing a senate vote on May 16, the measure now moves to the state House of Representatives.
House Bill 126 includes a ban on all abortions past eight weeks of pregnancy except in cases of a medical emergency. Doctors who perform abortions after that point could face a 15 year jail sentence, but women who recieve abortions would not be punished.
“I think we’ve crafted a bill that will win in the courts,” state Senator Andrew Koenig, one of the bill’s sponsors, told CNA after the senate vote on Friday.
According to Koenig, the bill’s provisions are justified by a 98.5% chance of an unborn child surviving to term after eight weeks, compared to a 24% chance of a natural miscarriage at five weeks and under.
“We believe that the state of Missouri has an interest in protecting that viable pregnancy [after eight weeks],” the sentaor said.
State Representative Nick Schroer, the bill’s sponsor in the House, told CNA in February that he worked with fellow lawyers to craft the bill so that it would stand up to judicial scrutiny.
“We looked at a bunch of case law and worked with attorneys on this,” Schroer said.
Schroer said that should a district court rule against the bill’s eight-week ban coming into force, the law would still include a further ban at 14 weeks. Schroer said roughly two-thirds of abortions in Missouri take place before 10 weeks.
The bill invokes the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution and argues that most abortions performed at 14 weeks gestation invovle in utero dismemberment, which the bill terms “cruel and unusual punishment.”
While the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals has not previously struck down a 14 week ban, Koenig noted, even if it were to do so the bills contains additional bans at 18 and 20 weeks, when doctors are required to certify that the unborn child can feel pain.
“We call it the ‘heartbeat bill,’ but it actually operates a lot differently than any other heartbeat bill that’s passed,” Koenig explained.
Several states, including most recently Georgia, have passed so-called “heartbeat bills” which would prohibit abortion after the detection of a fetal heartbeat as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. Kentucky, Mississippi, Ohio and Georgia currently have “heartbeat” laws waiting to come into force, while courts have struck down similar restrictions in North Dakota and Iowa.
The Missouri bill’s sponsors say they knew that to avoid falling to similar legal challenges, they had to draft a bill not already covered by court precedent.
“We need to give the courts something that doesn’t have precedent behind it, but accomplishes the same goals,” Koenig said.
“Ultimately I think other states can take our language and start really limiting abortion, because I think our law will, for the most part, get upheld.”
The Missouri vote came hours after Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed into law a near-total ban on almost in that state. Unlike the Missouri bill, the Alabama law is intended to generate a court battle and challenge the 1073 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade.
“[Our law] is not a piece of legislation that is designed for a challenge,” Missouri House Speaker Elijah Haahr told the Associated Press.
“This is the type of legislation that is designed to withstand a challenge and to actually save lives in our state.”
The Missouri bill also provides for a 70% tax credit for donations Missourians make to pregnancy resource centers on or after January 1, 2021 to foster a “culture of life” in the state, Koenig said.
If passed, the law would also prohibit “selective” abortions following a medical diagnosis or disability such as Down syndrome, or on the basis of the race or sex of a baby.
“For me as a Catholic, for me being pro-life, this is common sense to me,” Schroer said.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that since peaking at more than 20,000 per year in the 1980s, in 2017 the annual number of abortions in Missouri had dropped to fewer than 7,000.
The bill would also require any abortion providers operating in the state to have at least $3 million in insurance to cover women in case of botched abortion procedures.
“I think that’s actually a huge provision we added in the Senate,” Koenig said. “I think ultimately we’ll be able to eliminate abortion in Missouri because of this bill, but I think also because Planned Parenthood would just say it’s not worth doing business in the state of Missouri.”
Missouri has only one abortion provider in the state, a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Louis.
A Planned Parenthood clinic in Columbia, MO has been blocked from performing abortions since October 2018, after the facility failed to adhere to state rules and license expired. No abortions have been performed there since.
© Catholic World Report