|
The Bishop's Voice
Feb. 9, 2007 Legislative Issues
Bishop Michael Sheridan, S.T.D.
Feb 13, 2007 3:15 PM
The Colorado State Senate has been busy. Last week we saw the presentation of two pieces of legislation that the bishops of Colorado judged as needing comment from us as a state conference.
The first piece of legislation is Senate Bill 07-060. The statement of the
Colorado bishops is as follows:
"Many Catholics around Colorado have asked us for more clarity about the church’s view of state Senate Bill 07-060. If passed, SB 07-060 will govern the distribution of information on emergency contraception to rape victims.
"Under normal conditions, Catholic teaching views contraception as a distortion of the purpose of human sexuality, and therefore seriously wrong. In the case of rape, however, emergency contraception is morally acceptable for women as an act of self-defense. Catholic hospitals already provide emergency contraception to rape victims in a morally sound way as part of their medical care, and have done so for years.
[Number 36 of the Fourth Edition of the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (2001) states: ‘If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she (the rape victim) may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.’]
"The problem with ‘emergency contraception’ comes in two forms.
"First, contraception means literally ‘against conception.’ Human life begins at conception. This is a biological fact. Preventing the conception of a new life is very different from killing one once life begins. Procedures that destroy a human embryo after conception but before implantation in the uterus are not ‘emergency contraception.’ They amount to a very early-stage abortion, an act which Catholics and Catholic institutions regard as gravely wrong and therefore cannot support. Second, religiously affiliated medical institutions should not be coerced into violating their principles by being forced to provide services that clash fundamentally with their beliefs.
"As it currently stands, SB 07-060 is not ‘good’ legislation. We applaud the act’s conscience clause for individual medical professionals — but we also strongly urge state legislators to consider including a similar conscience clause for institutions as a matter of justice.
"Unlike similar proposed legislation in the past, SB 07-060 gives some flexibility to institutions in meeting the requirements of the law, thereby allowing Catholic medical facilities to cooperate without violating their Catholic character. Therefore, while we do not regard this legislation as ideal, we do believe that Catholics can accept and work with it in good conscience."
It had been reported in some of the media that the bishops of Colorado had taken a "neutral" position or had no comment on this piece of legislation. This obviously is not an accurate assessment, as can be determined from the statement of the Colorado Catholic Conference just cited.
The second piece of legislation is Senate Bill 07-080, which seeks to mandate the vaccination of young girls against the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) — a virus that causes cervical cancer. The statement of the Colorado Catholic Conference is as follows:
"The Colorado Catholic Conference recognizes that cervical cancer is a disease that will affect many women. Certain strains of the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) can cause cervical cancer; with a vaccination some strains of the virus can be prevented and thus some instances of cervical cancer.
"The Colorado Catholic Conference considers the HPV vaccination to be a morally acceptable method of protecting against forms of this disease, but asks that the State General Assembly leave the decision to vaccinate their children up to the parents, and not make such vaccinations mandatory."
In addition to our disagreeing with the mandatory nature of the vaccine, it should be noted that HPV is a sexually transmitted virus. Any suggestion that this vaccination is an implicit condoning of illicit sexual relations is contrary to sound advice and Catholic teaching. Moreover, young girls and their parents should understand that the HPV vaccine does not protect one from any other sexually transmitted diseases. Let no one be lulled into a false sense of security when it comes to this medical treatment.
The Catholic Church is very clear in her teaching. The prevention of conception in the case of rape and the prevention of HPV in women are both honorable causes; but nevertheless, we must seek these ends with careful consideration of the means that we use to achieve them.
Printable Version
| 
