US

No Picture
News Briefs

Wyoming legislator seeks to repeal death penalty

January 7, 2020 CNA Daily News 0

Cheyenne, Wyo., Jan 7, 2020 / 10:01 pm (CNA).- A Wyoming lawmaker intends to introduce a bill to repeal capital punishment in the state when the legislative session begins next month.

Rep. Jared Olsen, R-Cheyenne, said the death penalty does not align with conservative principles.

“I oppose the death penalty because I believe in limited government over life and liberty matters concerning our citizens, fiscal responsibility in how we spend our justice dollars, and because executing our own citizens is immoral and a violation of God’s natural law,” he told CNA.

“If we’re taking a person’s life because we believe that it was unjust for that person to take another’s life, then that seems paradoxical. We ought to be consistent with our morals and our principles. Life is either precious or it’s not.”

In 2019, Olsen sponsored Senate Bill 145, which was defeated 18-12. He announced last week the decision to sponsor a similar bill again this year.

The Republican party holds 50 of the 60 seats in Wyoming’s House of Representatives, and 27 of the 30 Senate seats.

Wyoming has not executed anyone since 1992.

Olsen is working with Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty. Introduced to Wyoming in 2017, CCATDP states that small government and the death penalty are not compatible.

“Conservatives have a hard time trusting the government to fix pot holes, to deliver the mail, to decide which businesses to support. Conservatives would rather the government stay out of the business of picking winners and losers in corporations,” Olsen said, according to Oil City News.

“They want the government outside of all these areas in their lives. So why then would we concede that the government should be such an integral part of our justice system? It makes absolutely no sense.”

Kylie Taylor, Coordinator of CCATDP in Wyoming, expressed concern that because the justice system has the potential for error, capital punishment puts innocent people at risk of being executed.

“Since 1973 at least one-hundred and sixty-five inmates have been exonerated. That comes to about one in ten inmates on Death Row that are exonerated and that is huge,” she said, according to Oil City News.

“We know that the system isn’t perfect and that one mistake with a life is one too many,” Taylor further added.

Deacon Mike Leman, the Diocese of Cheyenne’s legislative liaison, told CNA that “For us as a diocese, it’s been about connecting life issues. One of the things I’ve done recently is researching comments from popes in the past and you realize they’ve been for a number of years calling for repeal on the death penalty.”

“It’s important to highlight and connect the life issues because until we do that it’s really hard to highlight for people our responsibility toward any other marginalized population if we turn right around and say, in certain circumstances, life really isn’t an inalienable right.”

He said the Church has emphasized a need for public safety and the responsibility of the government to defend its citizens from dangerous people. However, through the advancement in technology, this does not require the death penalty.

“Pope John Paul II said back in ’99 that through the development of our prison systems and our technology and all of these things, society can protect its citizens.”

He also drew attention to the importance of recognizing the system’s potential for failure and told a story about a man he met who was exonerated from death row.

“I’ve actually met a person who was on death row for 12 years. His father died while he was in prison, his mother, because he was on his last appeal, bought a plot for his grave, and then they found out that the process was completely wrong,” he said.

“When you actually meet someone who has been in that position, it makes you think a little bit more deeply about it.”

The Church has consistently taught that the state has the authority to use the death penalty, in cases of “absolute necessity,” though with the qualification that the Church considered such situations to be extremely rare.

Both Pope Francis and his immediate predecessors have condemned the practice of capital punishment in the West.

St. John Paul II called on Christians to be “unconditionally pro-life” and said that “the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil.” He also spoke of his desire for a consensus to end the death penalty, which he called “cruel and unnecessary.”

And Benedict XVI exhorted world leaders to make “every effort to eliminate the death penalty” and told Catholics that ending capital punishment was an essential part of “conforming penal law both to the human dignity of prisoners and the effective maintenance of public order.”

In August 2018, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a new draft of the catechism’s paragraph regarding capital punishment.

Quoting Pope Francis’ words in a speech of Oct. 11, 2017, the new paragraph states, in part, that “the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that ‘the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person,’ and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.”

Reasons for changing the teaching, the paragraph says, include: the increasing effectiveness of detention systems, growing understanding of the unchanging dignity of the person, and leaving open the possibility of conversion.

Fr. Thomas Petri, O.P., a moral theologian at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, D.C., told CNA at the time that he thinks this change “further absolutizes the pastoral conclusion made by John Paul II.”

“Nothing in the new wording of paragraph 2267 suggests the death penalty is intrinsically evil. Indeed, nothing could suggest that because it would contradict the firm teaching of the Church,” Fr. Petri continued.

[…]

No Picture
News Briefs

Massachusetts bill would let minors obtain abortion without parental consent

January 4, 2020 CNA Daily News 3

Boston, Mass., Jan 4, 2020 / 04:20 pm (CNA).- In the latest move from Massachusetts state legislators to block abortion restrictions and expand access to the procedure, state Sen. Harriet Chandler has introduced a bill that would remove the longstanding requirement for teens to obtain parental consent before getting an abortion.

Currently, Massachusetts state law requires that minors obtain the consent of a parent or guardian before getting an abortion, a rule that can only be bypassed if the minor is granted permission for the abortion by a state judge.

The bill, entitled “An Act to remove obstacles and expand abortion access,” would also grant physicians the right to perform an abortion on a patient who is past 24 weeks of pregnancy if it “is necessary to protect the patient’s life or physical or mental health, or in cases of lethal fetal anomalies, or where the fetus is incompatible with sustained life outside the uterus.”

The bill also seeks to establish a state right to an abortion, which would stand even if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned. Roe v. Wade is the 1973 Supreme Court decision mandating legal abortion nationwide.

“The Commonwealth shall not interfere with a person’s personal decision and ability to prevent, commence, terminate, or continue their own pregnancy consistent with this chapter. The Commonwealth shall not restrict the use of medically appropriate methods of abortion or the manner in which medically appropriate abortion is provided,” the bill states.

Those in favor of abortion have ramped up efforts to protect and expand the procedure in light of Brett Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court in 2018, U.S. President Donald Trump’s second appointment to the court.

Sen. Chandler, 82, told NPR that she believes the bill in part anticipates what could happen if Roe v. Wade were overturned.

“I think if people realize what a post-Roe world would be, that would make it even more reasonable to do this bill,” she said.

Pro-life advocates told NPR that laws requiring parental consent in the case of minors seeking abortions is meant as a protective measure for the minor as well as her unborn child.

“In our laws, we need to do as much as we can – especially given the kind of epidemic abuse that we’re facing – to interrupt that cycle,” David Franks, chairman of the board of the group Massachusetts Citizens for Life, told NPR.

Michael New, a visiting professor of political science and social research at The Catholic University of America, said in testimony against the new bill that the parental consent restriction has helped to save an estimated 10,000 – 44,000 lives since the enactment of the current law.

“…every peer-reviewed study I have seen, 16 in total, finds that state-level parental involvement laws reduce the in-state abortion rate for minors,” he said in his testimony.

“I think most people are uncomfortable with minor girls obtaining abortions without their parent’s knowledge,” he added to NPR.

Twenty-five other states have similar laws to current Massachusetts law, regarding parental consent for minors seeking an abortion. Some such laws have faced added scrutiny in recent years.

In August of last year, a federal appeals court upheld an injunction against part of an Indiana law that allowed judges to notify parents if their daughter is seeking to have an abortion without their consent. In 2017, a federal judge struck down an Alabama law requiring more scrutiny for minors seeking to procure abortions through judges. The law would have allowed for hearings on the maturity level of the minor in question, and for her parents or guardians to partake in the proceedings if they found out about them.

The Massachusetts bill also comes roughly 6 months after the state’s passage of the “NASTY Women” abortion act, which repealed an 1845 ban on “procuring a miscarriage.” The full title of the act is the “Negating Archaic Statutes Targeting Young Women Act,” a reference to a comment made by then-candidate Donald Trump about Hillary Clinton during a presidential candidates debate on Oct. 19, 2016.

A Massachusetts state law prohibiting protests and prayer vigils within a 35-foot “buffer zone” of an abortion facility was unanimously struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2014.

[…]