The following comes from a Jan.8 story in Crisis magazine.
Shortly before the new year, a number of religious organizations were given protection from the HHS abortion and contraception mandate. While social conservatives and defenders of the First Amendment cheered, numerous prominent media organizations manipulated basic scientific facts to deny that the mandate—required by federal law—forces people to fund abortion-inducing drugs.
Media Matters did this at least twice, on January 1 and January 2, with the The New York Times and NBC News doing likewise. While Pew Research did not deny that the mandate requires abortion funding, its weaselly assessment of the debate surrounding the mandate was almost as bad. To wit, Pew stated that many with religious beliefs “oppose abortion and believe that using emergency contraception like the morning-after pill is akin to abortion” (emphasis added).
Like Pew, Politico tried to have its cake and eat it, too (emphasis added):
While the FDA calls those products [i.e., intrauterine devices (IUD) and “morning-after pills” like Plan B and ella] contraception, many organizations say that they could prevent the implantation of a fertilized embryo, which they consider akin to abortion.
These excerpts are symptomatic of the media’s aggressive push to frame the HHS mandate as a contraception issue. But the coverage of potentially abortifacient drugs like Plan B and ella, as well as indisputably abortifacient intrauterine devices (IUD), makes this an abortion issue as well.
As pointed out at JustFactsDaily.com last February:
[R]egardless of whether Plan B, Next Choice, or ella cause abortion, the Obama administration is forcing insurers, and thus, their customers to pay for devices that destroy embryos before they implant, which many doctors, scientists, and citizens consider to be abortion.
And this says nothing about IUDs, of which HHS’s own Office of Women’s Health says, “It [sic] fertilization does occur, the IUD keeps the fertilized egg from implanting in the lining of the uterus.”
So how do Media Matters, the Times, and others justify their claim about the mandate’s abortion requirements? They say life begins at implantation, not fertilization, and thus drugs and devices like Plan B, ella, and IUDs do not cause abortions.
This is a Clintonian strategy: it all depends on what the definition of “conception” is. Also “pregnancy,” “contraception,” and “abortion.”
First, “conception”: in 1965, the American Congress (then the “College”) of Obstetricians and Gynecologists changed its definition of this term to denote implantation of a human blastocyst in the uterine wall, rather than the union of spermatazoon and ovum to form a unique single-celled human organism. Under this new definition of “conception,” any drug or device that destroys the new human being after fertilization but before attachment to the mother’s uterus is a contraceptive rather than an abortifacient.
But doctors are not above being wrong. And with a moment’s scrutiny, even the average citizen can tell that this definition is absurd.
First and foremost, one can find ample scientific evidence that human life begins at fertilization. Likewise, embryology textbooks declare fertilization, not implantation, the beginning of a human’s existence.
One can also simply apply common sense: are we human beings because of what we do (implant in our mothers’ uteruses), or because of what we are (living organisms with human DNA)? The latter definition resonates on a fundamental level—indeed, advocacy groups from abolitionists to suffragettes have used it to push for rights and privileges based on common, inherent humanity, not on actions or behavior. Even homosexual activists use this tactic to great effect….
Editor’s note: This article first appeared simultaneously at LifeSiteNews.com and American Thinker on January 6 and is reprinted here with permission of the authors.
To read the entire story, click here.
If one is to be allowed to speak the truth in love, one must oppose any wicked means designed to target and destroy unborn innocent life in the womb. “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” Protecting life. Erring on the side of defending life at every possible stage. This is the mission of the Christian. Was Jesus not Jesus while in the womb of the Virgin Mary? We are admonished by the Savior Himself to “Put down the sword. For those who live by the sword will die by the sword.” Let us love one another for love is of God.
I’m still reeling that our new pope would say that we Catholics are spending too much time fussing about abortion. Since abortion is murder, does that mean we should back away from fussing about murder in general or just murder of the most innocent of human beings? I’m starting to wonder about the doctrine of the infallibility of the pope in spiritual matters. Is working to stop abortions failure to be working on matters of spiritual importance? I wonder if people left the dead bodies of murdered babies in the streets to be observed by passersby and stepped over if people would finally understand that abortion is murder, and murder is a sin? This isn’t a matter to be sanitized or glossed over, regardless of what our intriguing new pope might imply on the subject. I’m staying opposed and will go to my grave still very strongly opposed to murder.
The Pope said that things like the teaching on abortion need to be kept in context not divorced from the Gospel. Pope Francis is also very opposed to murder including abortion. From Evangelii Gaudium:
213. Among the vulnerable for whom the Church wishes to care with particular love and concern are unborn children, the most defenseless and innocent among us. Nowadays efforts are made to deny them their human dignity and to do with them whatever one pleases, taking their lives and passing laws preventing anyone from standing in the way of this. Frequently, as a way of ridiculing the Church’s effort to defend their lives, attempts are made to present her position as ideological, obscurantist and conservative. Yet this defense of unborn life is closely linked to the defense of each and every other human right. It involves the conviction that a human being is always sacred and inviolable, in any situation and at every stage of development.
Rest at easey, you are right, and the Pope is only infallible when he speaks “ex-Cathedra”. He is NOT infallible when he speaks off the cuff!
May God have mercy on an amoral Amerika!
Viva Cristo Rey!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Hey, get your facts straight! The Pope didn’t say “that we Catholics are spending too much time fussing about abortion”. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ and as a faithful Catholic you must not just take “sound bites” from a longer exhortation like the secular media does (is this where you get your misinformation?). This is a pastoral Pope who knows that all of humankind are lost souls without Christ. He’s working to bring the “wounded” to Christ in order to save souls. Those who know & accept Christ in their lives, would not choose such a heinous
act such as abortion, nor would they support such an evil law. The Pope has not changed the Commandment “Thou shall not Kill”……stop “obsessing” woman!
Oh, thank you for acknowledging that I am a woman, SandraD, though I think in your usage you meant it as an insult added with the intention of inflicting injury on someone with whom one would have assumed you were engaging in an intellectual discussion. If you grant that I am a woman, it is just one step more to grant that I am a human being, and just a step more to acknowledge that babies are human beings. If you aren’t afraid of facts, it must also be acknowledged that our new pope has said a few startling things, and his displeasure with our “overemphasis” on such matters as abortion and homosexuality has been quoted in more places than the major media sources while we Catholics work to understand what in the world he means. Insulting me didn’t work, as I don’t give much credence to those who address me as “Hey,” and then go forth to command me to get my facts straight. The challenge that I am to “stop ‘obsessing’ woman” would have been more effective if it had been properly punctuated, but since I am not obsessing and not impressed by your personal insults directed at me rather than factual, intelligent exchanges of thought, your comments are hereby being officially ignored. Next time, a more intelligent, better presented, less personally insulting comment might garner more respect for you as a Catholic thinker and writer. And your comments might actually be more interesting to those of us seeking intelligent thought on this forum.