Scottish Midwives lose fight for conscientious objection to abortion

The UK Supreme Court has rejected the opportunity to uphold the right of conscientious objection for senior midwives who refuse to supervise abortions performed on a labour ward. Today's decision issued in the Supreme Court has been condemned by those who backed the Glasgow midwives' fight for their right to work in the NHS without being involved in abortions.

 Photograph shows Mary Doogan and Connie Wood with John Smeaton and Paul Tully of SPUC

The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) which paid the midwives’ legal expenses throughout the case has said that senior midwives who refuse to kill babies could be forced to leave the profession.

Mary Doogan and Connie Wood, the midwives in the case, commented on the judgment:

“We are both saddened and extremely disappointed with today's verdict from the Supreme Court and can only imagine the subsequent detrimental consequences that will result from today's decision on staff of conscience throughout the UK. 

“Despite it having been recognised that the number of abortions on the labour ward at our hospital is in fact a tiny percentage of the workload, which in turn could allow the accommodation of conscientious objection with minimal effort, this judgment, with its constraints and narrow interpretation, has resulted in the provision of a conscience clause which now in practice is meaningless for senior midwives on a labour ward. 

Paul Tully, general secretary of SPUC said:

“The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children acknowledges the great debt that the whole pro-life community owes to Mary Doogan and Connie Wood for fighting this battle over the past seven years. They have fought not only for their own careers, but for all current and future members of the profession who uphold the right to life of everyone, from the time of conception, without discrimination. We are bitterly disappointed for them.

“Today's decision sadly makes it likely that senior midwives who refuse to kill babies will be forced to leave the profession. Junior midwives might still be able to work in labour wards where abortions are performed but they will be restricted to 'staff midwife' status at best.  They could easily be placed in an impossible situation by pro-abortion superiors, and would be unable to receive promotion to a more senior role without fear of being required to violate their consciences.  This will affect anyone who objects to abortion, of any religion or none.  It will create a second-class status in midwifery for those who only deliver babies and don't kill them.

“Furthermore, the court has used the opportunity of this case to decide that the conscience clause in the Abortion Act does not apply to General Practitioners and that hospital doctors asked to prescribe abortion drugs will not be covered by the conscience clause.  We anticipate that this will lead to renewed efforts by health officials to force doctors who have a conscientious objection to abortion either to compromise their respect for human life or to leave the profession.  SPUC will support and encourage doctors to resist any such bullying approach.

“The pro-abortion lobby has long argued that conscientious objectors should be required to refer women seeking legal abortion to other practitioners.  Bodies such as the Department of Health have qualified this by saying that this only applies when the statutory grounds for a legal abortion apply, but the Supreme Court has said that any medical professional who refuses to provide an abortion should arrange for a referral to someone else who will do so. This seems to go far beyond the scope of the Abortion Act, and furthermore is not even an issue there was any need for the Court to decide in this case.

“The Court has nevertheless said that midwives and doctors with conscientious objections are obliged to refer abortion patients to colleagues who don't object to abortion.  This goes further than the General Medical Council, for instance, whose current guidance Personal Belief and Medical Practice says that doctors should refer patients to another doctor, but does not require them to check their colleague's pro-abortion credentials.”

Release of detailed guidelines on legal abortion in Ireland: Irish Times report

The Irish Times reports today July 3^rd 2014 that detailed abortion guidelines have been circulated to a number of health professionals. It appears from a search of their websites however that no formal announcement has yet been made, either by the HSE or the Department of Health and Children, to the effect that the guidelines have been published.

Detailed guidance on the circumstances in which a woman may legally have an abortion – when there is a real and substantial threat to her life – have been circulated to some health professionals.

The guidelines, on implementing the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, were drawn up by the Department of Health and are for all clinicians who may be involved in managing pregnant women.

The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act came into force on January 1st, setting out for the first time the circumstances in which a woman may legally access an abortion.

However, there were mounting concerns among health professionals as to how the legislation could be used in practice without clear guidelines. An implementation committee was appointed last year by the department to draw up guidelines on how the legislation would work in practice.

The new guidelines outline procedures to be adhered to by clinicians, including GPs, midwives, psychiatrists and obstetricians when there is a real threat to a pregnant woman’s life that can only be averted by a termination of pregnancy. The threat can be physical, a physical emergency or by suicide.

The guidelines go into great detail on when a woman is pregnant and suicidal. They say when there is suicidal intent, a termination is legal where three doctors have examined the woman and “have jointly certified in good faith that:

a) “there is a real and substantial risk of loss of the woman’s life

b) this risk is one that can only be averted by a termination of pregnancy, and

c) the medical practitioners have, in good faith, had regard to the need to preserve unborn human life where practicable”.

One of the doctors must be an obstetrician-gynaecologist and two must be psychiatrists.

When a woman completes her first assessment with a psychiatrist and he or she is of the opinion that she is suicidal and requires a termination to avert suicide, he or she “will certify on the prescribed form and seek a second psychiatric assessment for the patient”.

Assessment

“If a woman has completed her first assessment with a psychiatrist and [is] found to satisfy the requirements of the Act, but the second psychiatrist disagrees or does not give an opinion, then the second psychiatrist must inform the woman in writing that she has a right to apply for a formal review of her case.”

If both psychiatrists agree she needs a termination she will then be referred to an appropriate obstetrician/ gynaecologist for the procedure.

The guidelines say that “where practicable” the woman’s GP should be consulted. “However, this consultation can only take place if the woman consents to it,” they say.

The guidelines say decisions should be made expeditiously and relayed to the patient. If the psychiatrists do not believe the woman needs a termination to save her life they will set out other options.

Clinicians will not have to assist in or carry out terminations if they object on conscientious grounds. However: “Conscientious objection is not applicable in emergencies where the woman’s life is at immediate risk.”

Midwife lodges legal challenge against a Swedish County Council for denial of her right to freedom of conscience and religion on abortion.

-->

Ruth Nordstrom of Scandinavian Human Rights Lawyers, reports that a lawsuit has been filed against the Swedish Government on the right to freedom of conscience and religion for a midwife who has been refused employment because of her conscientious objection to abortion.

Jönköping County Council's decisions constitute an interference with the exercise of Mrs Ellinor Grimmarks right to freedom of conscience and religion under the European Convention on Human Rights, says Ruth Nordstrom, Legal Counsel and President of Scandinavian Human Rights Lawyers. – The County Council has supported the withdrawals of offered job positions as a midwife at three different hospitals, and set up an obligation to perform abortions as a condition for employment as a midwife. This is a requirement that puts persons of a certain religion or other beliefs in a discriminatory position. The filed lawsuit argues in favour of midwife Ellinor Grimmark and claims that the District Court determines that the County Council acted wrongly by refusing Mrs Grimmark the promised jobs and claims compensation for damages by 80 000 SEK and compensation for discrimination by 60 000 SEK.

Emeritus Professor of Labour Law at Lund University, Mr. Reinhold Fahlbeck, Senior Legal Counsel at Scandinavian Human Rights Lawyers, points out that “if this case is brought to the European Court of Human Rights, Sweden will lose. There is a proper consensus among the Council of Europe Member States to allow freedom of conscience for health care workers regarding abortion and euthanasia and the scope for national deviations is very small in this case.

Roger Kiska, Senior Legal Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom Europe, says "in a civil society, in this day and age, it is shocking that we are denying one of the most fundamental of human rights, the right to conscience. A society has truly lost its way when it excludes someone from the healthcare profession merely because they want to bring human life into the world rather than destroying it. We are confident that the Swedish courts will rule in Mrs. Grimmark's favour, in favour of decency, and in favour of human rights."

Contact

For more information, please contact:

Legal Counsel Ruth Nordstrom

President, Scandinavian Human Rights Lawyers.

ruth.nordstrom@shrl.eu

New Assault on Conscientious Objection to Abortion

International Planned Parenthood (IPPF) has claimed that a milestone decision on conscientious objection and abortion, has been delivered by the Council of Europe (COE) Committee on Social Rights, against Italy. The decision upholds the claim made by IPPF that, regulations relating to health personnel’s conscientious objection violate the right to health protection.

According to an IPPF statement the Committee’s decision supports their view that conscientious objection cannot stand in the way of women receiving the reproductive healthcare services guaranteed by Italian law. The Italian State  they say is obliged to make sure women get access to abortion services – as and when required.

The COE Parliamentary Assembley voted down a report and resolution in 2010 known as the Mc’Cafferty report that attacked Conscientious objection and thereby affirmed that:

 “no person and no hospital or institution shall be coerced, held liable or discriminated against in any manner because of a refusal to perform, accommodate, assist or submit to an abortion [...]”.

This new initiative by IPPF and the decision of the Committee, in addition to placing pressure on Italy to change its laws, appears to be their response to the Council of Europe Parliamentary decision on the Mc Cafferty report which had halted their plans for forcing medical personnel to carry out and participate in, the killing of unborn babies regardless of their strongly held convictions.

We are investigating the legal implications of the Committee’s decision and will report further on this in due course.

Reilly signs order to commence legalized killing of the unborn from January 1st

-->

According to the Irish Independent health Minister Dr James Reilly has signed the order to bring the controversial abortion law into operation from January 1 2014 a day that go down in infamy.

The Protection of Life During Pregnancy act was passed by the Oireachtas consisting of both houses of the Irish Parliament last July and signed into law by President Michael D Higgins. But it required a commencement order from Dr Reilly to take effect.

It is understood that the commencement of the law was due to the need to publish regulations. The independent however reports that the delay occurred in order to establish a review panel to deal with applications for termination of pregnancy.

This could be more accurately described as termination of unborn babies lives

In what is clearly an assault on their right to conscientious objection 25 hospitals in the State have been listed to carry out abortions irrespective of whether medical personnel are willing to do so or not.

ALERT: Conscientious Objection under grave attack in the European Parliament

European Dignity Watch report that the European Parliament is expected to vote in the near future in plenary session,  on a highly controversial Draft Reporton Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR) which was adopted by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality on September 18^th. 

Despite the fact that the EU has no competence under its treaties to deal with the issue of abortion the report by Edite Estrela — a member of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats group in the European Parliament — argues strongly in favour of legalizing abortion in all European Member States with no consideration for the fundamental rights to life and conscience recognized by the EU, it also seeks to sexualize children through the introduction of so called comprehensive sexuality education.

Zita Gurmai MEP for the Hungarian Socialist Party issued a statement, following the committee vote, praising the report’s “clear stance in favour of legalizing abortion in all member states” and that in her opinion the recommendations that abortion should be made legal, safe, and accessible to all, is an encouraging position. “We Socialists have always believed that women, everywhere in Europe, should have the same opportunity and access to fully carry out their choice — a choice, which should not be determined by geographical location or by social status.”

This is not the first attempt to limit freedom of conscience in Europe.

The Council of Europe in 2010 rejected a radical attempt to limit freedom of conscience of medical practitioners, nurses, and hospital staff in a resolution introduced by Christine McCafferty, and known as the Mc Cafferty Report.

Please contact your MEP as a matter of urgency and appeal to him/her to oppose this anti life agenda.

Contact information for Irish MEP’s

Contact information for UK MEP’s  (click on your region to access names and contact details)

Reflections on Ireland's abortion legislation

The Irish Government in passing legislation to introduce abortion in Ireland have not only trampled on the conscientious objection of the members of both coalition partners but have also placed medical personnel in Ireland’s hospitals in an impossible situation.   The Government action in passing this legislation poses a fundamental question about how civil society can respond to the imposition of an unjust law. Central to this question is the very nature of conscientious objection itself and whether it is simply a right or does it also imply a duty to oppose the injustice.

The philosopher Henry David Thoreau wrote:

Unjust laws exist; shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil.

Clearly there is potential conflict between freedom of conscience and the duty to obey unjust national laws.  On the one hand it is not possible or desirable for citizens to exercise complete freedom over which laws they chose to obey, for obvious reasons, but  on the other hand, just laws, rooted in natural law should never place a citizen in a situation where his/her own conscience is in conflict with the law.

This legislation is about terminating the lives of unborn babies and it prioritises the so called 'right' to an abortion above the right of doctors and nurses to act in accordance with their consciences, but in the end the fundamental point regarding abortion and human rights is that an action that deliberately ends the life of an innocent human being cannot be anyone's right since it constitutes the most serious breach of human rights possible.

Pope John Paul II warned against a ‘new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden than its predecessors, which attempts to pit even human rights against the family and against man’. 

Bear in mind that Pope John Paul II had personal experience of the evils of Nazism and Communism, and he was speaking at the dawn of the new millennium, yet he saw what he termed, this new ideology, as being more treacherous and underhand than either of those regimes. The onward march of this ideology is directed at National Governments through international institutions like the United Nations (UN), the European Union (EU) and the Council of Europe.

Opposition is stifled by, anti democratic decision-making and by subtle attempts to control freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and conscientious objection. It is partly achieved by designation of certain groups as victim classes and prioritizing their rights above the rights of the rest. It is also achieved by gaining control of the language and presenting issues that most people reject, by sanitizing that language used to describe it. This agenda masquerades as the right to health, women’s rights, children’s rights and other rights. Some groups really do need safeguards but their special status is being usurped by Governments and powerful NGO's in order to further radical agendas. Traditionally accepted natural law Human Rights are being replaced by bogus rights, which are being placed in a position of supremacy over real human rights.

Now that this legislation has been signed by President Higgins all that remains for the Bill to be implemented is the finalisation of the regulations and the signature of the Health Minister James Reilly.  This has the effect of placing medical personnel in a similar situation to that experienced by the Glasgow midwives who refused to oversee abortion procedures when the hospital reorganised abortion services, transferring late abortion patients to the labour ward rather than the gynaecology ward and whose case, which they won on appeal, has now been referred to a higher court.

Conscience, a last bulwark against totalitarianism: Article by Rev Fr Vincent Twomey emeritus professor of moral theology at Maynooth

A very timely article by the prominent moral theologian Rev. Fr. Vincent Twomey, appeared in the Irish Times on Wednesday July 24^th under the banner ‘Conscience, a last bulwark against totalitarianism'. The article deals with both, the implications of the recent insistence by Taoiseach Enda Kenny on a whipped vote in respect of his Government's abortion legislation despite the conscientious objection of many of his own party members, and the role of Catholic Seminaries in the promulgation of flawed moral theology.

Fr. Twomey writes;

The passing of the abortion Bill in the Dáil, it was said, marked the end of the old cosy church-State relations. But is this true? One of the main reasons, it seems, why many senior priests and bishops were personally silent on the Bill is the fact that many clerics and their families have long histories of being supporters of Fine Gael. Another reason for the lukewarm support of the bishops’ position was theological in nature.

The kind of fundamental moral theology taught in seminaries in recent decades is one that, contrary to church teaching, denies there are any moral actions, even abortion, that are intrinsically wrong. The moral evaluation of an action depends rather on motive and circumstance. Such a theology also distinguishes between the moral and legal/political spheres, allowing Catholic politicians to put politics above their “private” moral convictions. This theology, though widespread, is radically at variance with church teaching.

Moral quagmire

The apparent “neutral” stance on the Bill taken by the leadership of the Association of Catholic Priests (ACP) illustrates the moral quagmire caused by this kind of fundamental moral theology. The ACP leadership refused to take a formal position. One member, Fr PJ Madden, stated his personal belief that “there is no need for legislation on abortion”. Two other leadership members, Fr Tony Flannery and Fr Brendan Hoban, when asked, would not state their positions. But the ACP website did publish an article by Margaret Lee in which she wrote: “I believe that a woman is entitled to choose termination when the foetus has no chance of surviving outside the womb.” In other words, abortion is in principle allowed in certain circumstances.

This kind of moral theology undermines conscience, reducing morality to a “personal belief”, a private conviction. Conscience is regarded as a subjective conviction, rather than something objective, namely our capacity to recognise what we ought to do, especially when we are not inclined to do so.

Jerry Buttimer TD, chairman of the Oireachtas committee on the Bill, played a central role in getting the Bill passed. As a seminarian at Maynooth, he was exposed to the kind of fundamental moral theology that denies moral absolutes, such as direct abortion, and places politics superior to (supposedly private) moral convictions.

Whatever the rationalisations used, the net effect of all this was the attempt by the Taoiseach, Minister for Health and chief whip to put pressure on anti-abortion colleagues to vote for legislation they knew to be wrong. Legislators, in a word, were forced to act against their conscience. That itself is gravely immoral.

Attempted suppression

The neutering of the legislature by the executive has been a feature of Irish democracy for many years, but the attempted suppression of parliamentary dissent on a matter of fundamental moral significance marks a new low.

One senior party figure offered it as his view “that Enda Kenny showed personal courage and political skill”. I see a lot of evidence of political manipulation but . . . of personal courage?

The Taoiseach had nothing to lose. His Government had not only a huge majority, supported by Labour (the real motivating force behind the Bill), but there was no concerted opposition from any other political party. Fine Gael TDs knew that the price for following their conscience would be expulsion from their party.

The imposition of the whip in such a debate on life and death crushes the small voice of conscience more effectively than any torture chamber. The fact that five TDs defied the whip is what gives cause for hope that our present greatly enfeebled legislature might, one day, mature into a real democratic parliament.

It is well to remember that, in the aftermath of totalitarianism, the German people in 1949 wrote the primacy of the conscience of elected representatives into their constitution. Those representatives are expressly instructed that they are not bound by orders or instructions; they are answerable only to their conscience. Conscience is the last bulwark against totalitarianism.

It is not without significance that the Government parties want to get rid of the Upper House, the only chamber they cannot completely control. This week Senators were given an opportunity to demonstrate to the nation their limited but indispensible role in Irish democracy – provided they are true to their conscience.

Minister Creighton exercises conscientious objection despite Enda Kenny's threats

Fine Gael Minister for European Affairs Lucinda Creighton, following unsuccessful attempts to have the Government “Protection of Life in Pregnancy Bill amended, finally voted yesterday against her own Government Party. In so doing Minister Creighton was automatically expelled from the Fine Gael parliamentary party and had to relinquish her European Affairs Ministry.

Speaking during the two-day debate on the 165 amendments tabled in relation to the bill Minister Creighton, prior to voting against the measure, told the Dail “the consequences of the legislation are not reversible”. She said the consequences will “change the culture of our country and change how we deal with vulnerable women”. Creighton also appealed to Health Minister James Reilly, asking him to “please listen to the evidence which had been put forward by medical experts during the recent Oireachtas hearings and she asked “please let’s not enshrine flawed logic, flawed legislation on our statue books”. 

At the end of her speech she asked Minister Reilly to accept her amendment calling for a clinical care pathway for vulnerable women who are feeling suicidal.

She continued: “Why are we insisting that abortion, which has no medical grounding, is going to be enshrined in our statue book as the only treatment for women who find themselves in that desperate place?”. I am lost for words because I cannot understand why this proposal is being insisted upon by you and your Government.

Creighton said that while she supports the overall intention of the legislation, which is supposed to be about protecting and saving the lives of women and babies, she said she “cannot support a clause that is essentially built on sand”, referring to section 9 of the bill, which covers suicide.

She alleged this legislation ignores a very recent court case where a woman sought that her deportation order would be quashed on the grounds that if she were to be deported she would take her own life.

When the High Court dealt with the case, Mr Justice Hanna said in his judgement:

“To permit the threat of suicide to act as a stop on the execution of administrative decisions, such as deportation, would be to open a Pandora’s box of potential abuse with the possible effects of paralysing administrative activity in any given area of government.”

Creighton said that to not allow the deportation in this case, but to allow abortion due to the threat of suicide “is entirely inconsistent”.

Ms Creighton had previously expressed the opinion recently that failure to vindicate the life of the unborn could invalidate the legislation “I think the legislation could be struck down for not including a way to vindicate the life of the unborn.” She added her personal conviction that any legislation arising from the Bill should contain amendments guaranteeing constitutional protections for both mother and unborn child.

Call from Europe for Taoiseach to respect conscientious objection of Fine Gael Party members

Taoiseach Enda Kenny and his Fine Gael Party have been challenged by their European partners to respect freedom of conscience, according to a letter from The President of the European Peoples Party (EPP) in the Council of Europe Mr. Luca Volontè

See text of letter here:

                                      

                                                                                                Milano, 9 luglio 2013

Dear Taoiseach,

I am concerned that Fine Gael is not allowing a free vote on the above Bill. Though familiar with the arguments that the Bill will be restrictive, etc., my concern about the manner in which the conscience rights of Fine Gael parliamentarians have been infringed is valid regardless of the merits or otherwise of the legislation.

The values of the EPP are well known, and are based on fundamental, interdependent and universally applicable values, including freedom and responsibility. These values reflect our respect for fundamental human rights. Laws must evolve on the basis of universal respect for man's fundamental and undeniable rights, as defined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man, the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as confirmed in the Lisbon Treaty of 2009. Each of these human rights charters gives prominence to the right of freedom of conscience and thought.

Article 115 of the EPP Party Platform Document adopted by Fine Gael at the EPP Statutory Congress, Bucharest, Romania, 17-18 October 2012, under the heading Freedom and Responsibility, explicitly states: "We consider that it is necessary to respect the right of conscientious objection." The right of conscientious objection is particularly engaged in matters - such as abortion - concerning the fundamental value of all human life (see Article 228 of the EPP Party Platform Document).

Our values should guide the political order (Article 133) and political parties must function in conformity with the rules of internal democracy (Article 229). This surely includes respect for the conscientious integrity of party members.

Respect for freedom of conscience would be meaningless if it applied only to the consciences of those with whom we agree. It is truly tested and demonstrated when respect is shown to the consciences of those with whom we disagree. The judgment of a number of your Fine Gael colleagues that they cannot in good conscience vote in favour of the proposed legislation is one that ought to be respected.

You may not agree with their assessment of the Bill, and its likely consequences. You stated, however, in your speech in Dail Eireann on July l, that if you thought for one moment that this Bill would lead to the creation of a liberal abortion regime in Ireland you would not ask the House to endorse it. And yet Fine Gael parliamentarians are being forced, upon pain of expulsion from their party, to support the Bill despite their sincere belief that the Bill may well usher abortion into Ireland.

To impose such severe penalties on colleagues for voting in accordance with their consciences on such a fundamental matter is alien to the basic values of the EPP.

I hope and trust that you will reconsider, and that Fine Gael will live up to the values that we all profess to share.

Yours sincerely, Luca Volontè

Honorary President EPP Group at PACE Former Chair of EPP Group at PACE Council of Europe

No right to conscientious objection for senior midwives: Scottish Court ruling

According to a news release from the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) judgment was handed down today (29 February 2012) in the case of two senior midwives from Glasgow who have a conscientious objection to abortion. The midwives have been told that they must accept the decision of their hospital management that they must oversee other midwives performing abortions on the labour ward.

Lady Smith, sitting in the Court of Session in Edinburgh, ruled that the senior midwives’ role is not covered by the conscience clause in the Abortion Act. 

Commenting on the judgment, Paul Tully, general secretary of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) said: “We are very disappointed by the judgment. SPUC has supported the midwives in bringing their case, and will now be considering their further legal options with them."

The senior midwives argued that their legal right included not directing or assisting other midwives performing abortions.

*Both the midwives have served for over 20 years at the Southern General Hospital, caring for many thousands of mothers and babies. The case arose when the hospital demanded that all senior midwives must take responsibility for overseeing mid-term and late term abortions. Since 2008 the hospital has insisted that these abortions, mostly for suspected disability in the foetus, must be conducted on the labour ward, rather than the gynaecology ward where most early abortions are performed.

*The midwives in the case, Miss Mary Doogan and Mrs Connie Wood, argued that they had never been required to supervise abortion procedures in the past, and that the hospital was asking them to be morally, medically and legally responsible for abortions. They argued that this conflicted with their profound objection to abortions and with the right to opt-out that is protected in the 1967 Abortion Act.

*The case was subject of a protracted grievance procedure before coming to court in January.

*The late abortion procedure, called “Medical Termination of Pregnancy” or MTOP, entails the mother being given drugs to induce labour, and then having to go through labour and deliver the baby.  In more advanced pregnancies the baby is killed first by an ultrasound-guided lethal injection while still in the womb.

*The hospital’s labour ward delivers 6000 babies every year, but is also required to provide about 1-3 MTOPs each week – a number which has increased since a special unit for diagnosing disability in the womb was transferred to the Southern General Hospital in January 2010.

*The conscience clause was included in the Abortion Act to assure MPs that no-one would be forced to participate in abortions.

US Bishops react in alarm to Obama administration contraception mandate

Many Bishops throughout the US have reacted in alarm to the Obama administration contraception mandate that will require religious employers to cover contraception sterilization and the provision of some abortifacient drugs, in new health care plans in the US according to a Catholic News Agency report (CNA/EWTN News)

Bishop Fabian W. Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska, in a letter he ordered to be read at every Sunday Mass in his diocese on Jan. 29th, said that Catholics may have to suffer for the integrity of their institutions

“We cannot and will not comply with this unjust decree. Like the martyrs of old, we must be prepared to accept suffering which could include heavy fines and imprisonment,” 

Bishop Bruskewitz wrote

“Our American religious liberty is in grave jeopardy,” he warned, describing the impact of new rules that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has instituted as part of federal health care reform.

Those rules, confirmed as final on Jan. 20, will require most religious employers to cover contraception and sterilization, including some abortion-causing drugs, in new health care plans. Sebelius has given religious groups an extra year to comply, but rejected calls for a broader exemption clause.

“This means that all of our Catholic schools, hospitals, social service agencies, and the like will be forced to participate in evil,” Bishop Bruskewitz explained.

The bishop recalled that the Church “has pleaded with President Obama to rescind this edict, but all pleas have been met with scorn and have fallen on deaf ears.”

He described Secretary Sebelius as a “bitter fallen-away Catholic,” and called her one-year deadline extension for non-exempt religious employers “an act of mockery” – because, he noted, “during that year, they must 'refer' people to the insurance that covers wicked deeds.”

A proposed U.S. Senate bill, the “Respect for Rights of Conscience Act,” would amend the health care law to let employers opt out of covering some services. Bishop Bruskewitz urged Catholics to call their elected representatives in support of the bill, and to protest the “outrage” of the contraception mandate.

Meanwhile, he said, the faithful should “pray and do penance that this matter may be resolved.”

The bishop of Lincoln was one of a large number of U.S. Church leaders voicing alarm over the weekend, in letters distributed to parishes and read at Mass regarding the Health and Human Services order.

In the Diocese of Phoenix, Catholics heard a message from Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, who declared that people of faith would not be “made second-class citizens” and “stripped of their God-given rights.”

In Marquette, Michigan, Bishop Alexander K. Sample said that if the rule takes effect, “we Catholics will be compelled to either violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees and suffer the penalties for doing so.”

New Orleans Archbishop Gregory M. Aymond stressed the need for action in his letter to the faithful over the weekend, as he decried the “unprecedented attack on religious liberty” by which the state was “violating our rights to make choices based on our morals and Church teaching.”

Archbishop Aymond is in Rome for meetings with Vatican officials as well as Pope Benedict XVI, who issued his own warning to the U.S. Church just before Health and Human Services finalized the mandate.

In remarks to bishops of the Mid-Atlantic states on Jan. 19, the Pope said all U.S. Catholics must “realize the grave threats to the Church’s public moral witness presented by a radical secularism which finds increasing expression in the political and cultural spheres.”

The personal responsibility of Catholics in public life to offer public witness to their faith

 Vatican Information Services (VIS) report that Pope Benedict XVI on Thursday last received a group of prelates from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (Regions 4 and 6), at the end of their "ad limina" visit.
The entire text of Pope Benedict's address to the Bishop's published by the VIS is well worth reading and needless to say the issues he deals with are relevant everywhere today not only in the United States can be accessed on the following link. 
 I would like to highlight some of the points he raised  as set out below

[...] "At the heart of every culture, whether perceived or not, is a consensus about the nature of reality and the moral good, and thus about the conditions for human flourishing. In America, that consensus, as enshrined in your nation's founding documents, was grounded in a worldview shaped not only by faith but a commitment to certain ethical principles deriving from nature and nature's God. Today that consensus has eroded significantly in the face of powerful new cultural currents which are not only directly opposed to core moral teachings of the Judeo-Christian tradition, but increasingly hostile to Christianity as such.
[...] The legitimate separation of Church and State cannot be taken to mean that the Church must be silent on certain issues, nor that the State may choose not to engage, or be engaged by, the voices of committed believers in determining the values which will shape the future of the nation
[...] Many of you have pointed out that concerted efforts have been made to deny the right of conscientious objection on the part of Catholic individuals and institutions with regard to cooperation in intrinsically evil practices. Others have spoken to me of a worrying tendency to reduce religious freedom to mere freedom of worship without guarantees of respect for freedom of conscience.
"Here once more we see the need for an engaged, articulate and well-formed Catholic laity endowed with a strong critical sense vis-a-vis the dominant culture and with the courage to counter a reductive secularism which would de-legitimise the Church's participation in public debate about the issues which are determining the future of American society. [...] In this regard, I would mention with appreciation your efforts to maintain contacts with Catholics involved in political life and to help them understand their personal responsibility to offer public witness to their faith, especially with regard to the great moral issues of our time: respect for God's gift of life, the protection of human dignity and the promotion of authentic human rights".

Victory for New Jersey Nurses in conscientious objection to abortion case

Catholic Culture .org report that (T)welve nurses who say that they were told by the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey that they had to participate in abortions have successfully negotiated a settlement with their employer. See article

“It is a victory because the hospital finally agreed to obey the law and not force our clients to do any work on abortion cases in violation of their beliefs,” said the nurses’ attorney, Matt Bowman of the Alliance Defense Fund. “The hospital agreed not to penalize our clients in any way because they choose to not help abortions, according to their legal rights. The hospital is required to fully staff all abortion cases so that our clients would never be needed for those cases, and the hospital cannot use pro-abortion staff to replace our clients or reduce their hours.”

“The [US district] judge warned the hospital that our clients could return to his court if they were assigned to work abortion cases or if the hospital claims that routine abortions are emergencies,” Bowman added. “We hope that other hospitals will realize that they should agree to obey conscience laws that protect pro-life medical personnel.”

See also National Right to Life Report

The implications of equality legislation in cases of conscientious objection

A very interesting case was reported last Friday Aug. 12th by the Telegraph, in which two Catholic nurses successfully opposed hospital authorities in a London Hospital on the issue of conscientious objection to abortion, under equality legislation.

This landmark case is believed to be the first in which the Equality Act has been used successfully to defend a “pro-life” position as a philosophical belief and could have implications for other Christian medical staff. 

See also John Smeaton's Blog post on the issue

The nurses were moved from their normal nursing duties to work once a week at an abortion clinic and were required to administer two abortifacient drugs - Mifepristone and Misoprostol - to pregnant women to induce so called “medical” as against “surgical” abortions.

When the nurses discovered that they were participating in abortions they objected but were told by managers that they must continue with the work. It is alleged that one hospital manager said: “What would happen if we allowed all the Christian nurses to refuse?”

The Thomas More Legal Centre which represented the nurses, argued that the NHS had wrongly denied the nurses their right as conscientious objectors not to take part in abortions, which is set out in the 1967 Abortion Act but also invoked the Equality Act 2010. In a move that is believed to be a legal first, The Centre claimed that the nurses’ belief in the sanctity of life from conception onwards was “a philosophical belief” protected under the Equality Act. Therefore any attempt to pressure them into working in the clinic would be illegal.

After receiving a letter from the centre, the hospital initially told the nurses that they would be excused from administering the abortion-inducing drugs but would have to remain working at the clinic.

The nurses’ lawyer, Neil Addison of the Thomas More centre, wrote again to the hospital stating that the nurses would still be “morally complicit in abortion” if they continued to work in the clinic as nurses in any capacity. The hospital eventually conceded and the nurses were allocated to other duties.

Picture shows Neil Addison of the Thomas More Legal Centre

Abortion "resolves nothing," Pope Benedict XVI the Pontifical Academy for Life Feb. 26.

Pope Benedict XVI on Saturday last gave what can be described as his most comprehensive defence of unborn life and the issues surrounding it when spoke to the members of the Pontifical Academy for Life who had participated in their 17th general assembly.

Pope Benedict in his wide ranging address dealt with the moral conscience and its implications in the many areas relating to protection of life. Pope Benedict referenced  among other issues post abortion syndrome, the importance of the conscientious objection of doctors and other medical personnel to abortion, the responsibility of fathers, the importance of ethical research and the wonderful mercy of God.  

 

The following is an unofficial translation of  Pope Benedict's address 

Sisters, Esteemed Cardinals,  Brothers in the Episcopate and the Priesthood, Dear Brothers and Sisters I receive you with joy on the occasion of the annual assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life. I greet, in particular, the president, Bishop Ignacio Carrasco de Paula, and I thank him for his courteous words. I address my cordial welcome to each one of you.

In the activities of these days you addressed topics of current importance, which question contemporary society profoundly and challenge it to find answers that are appropriate for the good of the human person. Post-abortion syndrome -- the serious psychological difficulties often felt by women who have taken recourse to voluntary abortion -- reveals the irrepressible voice of the moral conscience, and the grave wound it suffers each time that human action betrays the person’s innate vocation to good, and of which he gives witness.

It would be useful also in this reflection to focus attention on the conscience, at times blurred, of the fathers of the children, who often abandon pregnant w om en. The moral conscience -- teaches the Catechism of the Catholic Church -- "is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right" (No. 1778).

It is, in fact, the duty of the moral conscience to discern good from evil in the different situations of existence, in order that, on the basis of this judgment, the human being can orient himself towards the good. Many would like to deny the existence of the moral conscience in man, reducing its voice to the result of external conditioning or to a purely emotive phenomenon, and it is important to affirm that the moral quality of human action is not an extrinsic value or even optional and it is not even a prerogative of Christians or believers, but common to every human being. In the moral conscience, God speaks to each one and invites him to defend human life at all times. In this personal bond with the Creator lies the profound dignity of the moral conscience and the reason for its inviolability.

Fulfilled in the conscience of every man -- intelligence, emotive nature, will -- is his vocation to the good, so that the choice of good or evil in the concrete situations of existence ends by marking the human person profoundly in each expression of his being. The whole man, in fact, is wounded when his behavior is contrary to the dictate of his own conscience.

However, even when man rejects the true and the good that the Creator proposes to him, God does not abandon him, but through the voice of conscience, continues to seek and speak to him, so that he will acknowledge his error and open himself to Divine Mercy capable of healing any wound.

Doctors, in particular, cannot fail to consider important the grave duty to defend against the deception of the conscience of many women who think they will find in abortion the solution to family, economic, social difficulties or to the problems of health of their children. Especially in this last situation, the woman is convinced, often by the doctors themselves, that abortion represents not only a licit moral choice, but that in addition it is a necessary "therapeutic" act to avoid the suffering of the child and of its family and an "unjust" burden to society.

In a cultural background characterized by the eclipse of the meaning of life, in which the common perception of the moral gravity of abortion and of other forms of attempts against human life has been attenuated, exacted from doctors is a special fortitude to continue affirming that abortion does not resolve anything, but that it kills the child, destroys the woman and blinds the conscience of the child's father, often ruining family life.

This duty, however, does not only affect the medical profession or health professionals. It is necessary that the whole of society defend the right to life of the conceived and the true good of the woman, who never, under any circumstance, will be fulfilled in the choice of abortion. In the same way it is necessary -- as has been indicated in your works -- to provide the necessary help to women who sadly have already taken recourse to abortion, and who now experience all its moral and existential tragedy. There are many initiatives, at the diocesan level or through individual volunteer entities, which offer psychological and spiritual support for a complete human recovery. The solidarity of the Christian community cannot give up this type of co-responsibility.

I would like to recall, in this connection, the invitation addressed by the Venerable John Paul II to women who have taken recourse to abortion. "The Church is aware of the many factors which may have influenced your decision, and she does not doubt that in many cases it was a painful and even shattering decision. The wound in your heart may not yet have healed. Certainly what happened was and remains terribly wrong. But do not give in to discouragement and do not lose hope. Try rather to understand what happened and face it honestly. If you have not already done so, give yourselves over with humility and trust to repentance. The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. To the same Father and his mercy you can with sure hope entrust your child. With the friendly and expert help and advice of other people, and as a result of your own painful experience, you can be among the most eloquent defenders of everyone's right to life" ("Evangelium Vitae," No. 99).

The moral conscience of researchers and of the whole of society is profoundly involved also in the second topic of your works: the use of umbilical cord banks for clinical and research purposes. Medical-scientific research is a value and, hence, a commitment, not only for researchers but for the whole civil community. The result is the duty to promote ethically valid research on the part of institutions, and the value of the solidarity of individuals in the participation of research directed to promote the common good.

This value, and the necessity of this solidarity, are very well evidenced in the case of the use of stem cells from the umbilical cord. They are important clinical applications and promising research at the scientific level, but for their realization many depend on the generosity, on the donation of blood of the cord at the moment of birth, on the part of the women who have just given birth. Hence, I invite all of you to be promoters of a true and conscious human and Christian solidarity. In this connection, many medical researchers rightly regard with perplexity the growing number of private storage banks of the blood of the cord for exclusive autologous use. Such an option -- as the works of your Assembly demonstrate -- in addition to lacking a real scientific superiority in relation to the donation of the cord, weakens the genuine spirit of solidarity which must constantly animate the search of that common good to which, in the last analysis, science and medical research tend.

Dear brothers and sisters, once again I express my gratitude to the president and to all the members of the Pontifical Academy for Life for the scientific and ethical courage with which you carry out your commitment to the service of the good of the human person. My hope is that you will maintain always alive the spirit of authentic service which makes hearts and minds sensitive to recognize the needs of the men who are our contemporaries. To each one of you and to your loved ones, I impart my heartfelt apostolic blessing.