Ask the Obama Administration to Reduce Abortions and Reject FOCA
One of the people involved with the Open Letter to Obama (who wishes to remain anonymous) has suggested a new campaign, to start today, January 28, 2009, and to end on February 15, 2009. It is to get everyone to copy and paste the following letter on their blogs (as they did with the Open Letter), but also to get people to fax a copy of it to the Obama Administration at the White House. Please join in!
In the comments section, I will post how one can fax this letter to the President.
————————————————————————————-
The Honorable Barack H. Obama
President of the United States
President Obama:
As one who supports a consistent pro-life ethic, I wish to commend your efforts to reach out to those who do not agree with you on issues such as abortion. While I oppose Roe v. Wade and believe that it is wrong for the law not to protect the lives of the unborn, I have not failed to notice your calls for dialogue on this issue, and for both sides to attempt to reach common ground on ways to eliminate the circumstances that lead women to make this often-tragic choice.
However, some of your campaign promises, and your actions since taking office, are matters of grave concern to those of us who sincerely wish to work with you to reduce the abortion rate in the United States. In particular, your stated support of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), your repeal of the Mexico City Policy, your promise to fund ethically questionable research on human embryos, and your failure to support legislation to aid pregnant women who choose not to abort may inhibit your ability to work effectively with the pro-life movement. I regret that this is the case, because pro-life Americans are eager to work with you. For this reason, I ask you to take the following actions:
- Announce your support of the Pregnant Women Support Act (S.270), which was recently re-introduced by Senator Bob Casey Jr. (D-PA) and will soon be introduced in the House by Representative Lincoln Davis (D-TN). The PWSA seeks common-sense solutions to the abortion issue by, among other things, promoting adoption, helping pregnant teen mothers finish high school and college, providing shelter to pregnant women in abusive situations, establishing a national awareness campaign to inform women of options and resources available should they face an unplanned pregnancy, ensuring the availability of pre- and post-natal care by eliminating pregnancy as a pre-existing condition, and fully funding already-existing nutrition and health care programs for women and their children.
- End your support of the Freedom of Choice Act, which will go beyond merely codifying Roe and alienate pro-life Americans by, among other things, requiring taxpayer funding of abortion and mandating that hospitals perform abortions, even when, as in the case of Catholic hospitals, to do so would be a violation of the sacred principles upon which they are founded. Ultimately, FOCA will increase, not decrease, the number of abortions in the United States.
- Encourage Congress to fund research using adult, cord-blood, and amniotic stem cells, which carry none of the ethical problems involved with the destruction of human embryos and which, according to the world’s foremost researchers, offer the same versatility and the same hope for great medical progress as embryonic stem cells.
Mr. President, I believe that, despite our disagreements, there is much that can be accomplished by a respectful and productive dialogue between your Administration and the pro-life constituency. Particularly in the case of the Pregnant Women Support Act, we hope that you will be a firm advocate for measures that have been proven to reduce the abortion rate in states where they have been enacted; we also hope that, in case case of FOCA and embryonic stem cell research funding, you will take the time to educate yourself as to the appropriateness of such measures. In summary, sir, I ask that you consider your general promise to the American people, your promise to reject partisan “politics as usual” and focus on pragmatic, compassionate solutions to the problems that vex our age. In the case of the abortion debate, this would indeed be a change we need.
Comments are closed.
How Can you Send This Letter as a Fax?
1. Go to http://faxzero.com/
2. Fill out the information in the “Sender” and “Receiver” information
fields.
- Sender Name: your name
- Sender Fax #: your fax number (if applicable)
- Sender Email: your email
- Receiver Name: President Barack H. Obama
- Receiver Company: The White House
- Receiver Fax #: 202-456-2461
3. Copy and paste the letter into the “text” box
4. You will be prompted for a confirmation code in the “Fax
Information” box
5. Click on “Send Free Fax Now” on the bottom left
6. You will be sent an email form FaxZero.com with a link. You need to
click on this link in order to send the fax.
Henry-
Once again, I appreciate your efforts in this regard, and I will be more than happy to participate. I do have one suggestion. I would change “often-tragic” to “tragic,” as all abortions are a tragedy. Just a thought.
Thank you for the efforts. There one additional element that should be considered, Prevention First Act (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s21/show). This act was introduced on 1/19/09 by Sen. Reid. PFA will require hospitals receiving federal funding to dispense the abortifacient morning after pill if request, even against the moral position of the staff and institution. It also expands Medicare to include family planning services. This is a separate initiative from the one sponsored by Rep. Pelosi that was recently pulled back.
Steve-
You do realize this is a Catholic blog, right?
Whoops! My bad, Steve. You’re opposing those measures, right? If so, I apologize.
I do – this PFA needs to be stopped since it is further on the path than FOCA.
My bad – I was not clear making to big of an assumption in a Catholic blog that all would see the problem.
I don’t want to be a nay-sayer, but I see many problems. First, it is awfully long. Second, I think no matter how many copies different people fax, it basically counts as one letter. It’s a little condescending in parts (“you will take the time to educate yourself as to the appropriateness of such measures”).
Steve says: [The Prevention First Act] “was introduced on 1/19/09 by Sen. Reid. PFA will require hospitals receiving federal funding to dispense the abortifacient morning after pill if request, even against the moral position of the staff and institution.”
It is by no means clear that Plan B is an abortifacient, and furthermore, there are protocols (for example, the Peoria protocol) that some Catholic hospitals are following in which they believe Plan B can be used without bringing into play its alleged abortifacient properties.
Also, if you are going to fight pregnancy-prevention programs that use Plan B, you must also oppose those that use oral contraceptives, because the people who believe Plan B is an abortifacient also believe the pill is an abortifacient.
If you want to find common ground with the Obama administration in lowering the incidence of abortion, but you refuse to have anything to do with pregnancy prevention by contraception, it seems to me the potential common ground has just shrunk dramatically. The United States is not a Catholic country, and to expect every piece of legislation to conform to every Catholic principle pretty much rules out compromise.
And, by the way, if you expect the American people to support the idea of a rape victim in the emergency room not getting (or even being told about) emergency contraception because, by chance, a Catholic doctor is on duty, good luck.
My free fax has failed after 5 attempts.
Feddie, David:
I did not write the letter, and I am sure, if people want to, they could edit it before sending it to the President. I certainly would have said things differently, but I also do want to encourage other efforts, and work with them (and, while I might not have said “educate yourself,” in so many words, isn’t that ultimately what is also being asked?).
Jason
Try again — mine did go through.
It is by no means clear that Plan B is an abortifacient, and furthermore, there are protocols (for example, the Peoria protocol) that some Catholic hospitals are following in which they believe Plan B can be used without bringing into play its alleged abortifacient properties.
Depends on what you mean by abortifacient? The mechanism by which Plan B works is clear. Plan B works by either preventing ovulation, or preventing implantation.
And the letter doesn’t address contraceptive, how did you get on the topic?
And the letter doesn’t address contraceptive, how did you get on the topic?
Jeremy,
Steve, above, seemed to be recommending the letter should address the Prevention First Act, which deals with Plan B and contraception and other family planning issues to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Depends on what you mean by abortifacient? The mechanism by which Plan B works is clear. Plan B works by either preventing ovulation, or preventing implantation.
Plan B works by preventing ovulation. If that fails, it prevents fertilization by making it difficult for the sperm to reach the egg. If that fails, it may prevent implantation. To the best of my knowledge, there is no actual proof that it prevents implantation. It would seem to me that in order to rule it out as a licit drug, some good evidence must be produced to demonstrate not only that it can prevent implantation, but that it does so a significant amount of the time. If the odds of preventing implantation are one in a million, or one in ten thousand, then the prevention of implantation could be seen as a side effect.
As I have pointed out before, a number of popular drugs advertised on television (Advair, Abilify) can cause death. If Plan B must be ruled out because of a rare and unintended effect, then many popular drugs must be considered suicide pills. If the standard is so high for embryos that not only must one never kill an embryo directly, but one must never risk the life of an embryo, that is putting a higher value on the life of an embryo than of a “walking around person.”
Sorry can’t resist the rewording …
Plan B works by preventing ovulation. If that fails, it prevents fertilization by making it difficult for the sperm to reach the egg. If that fails, it may prevent implantation.
Restated:
Plan B may prevent ovulation. If that fails it may make it difficult for the sperm to reach the egg(?). If that fails it may prevent implantation.
Not to quibble, but my understanding is that it does prevent implantation, and that is not an unintended side-effect.
As I have pointed out before, a number of popular drugs advertised on television (Advair, Abilify) can cause death.
Since they weren’t taking the drug to die, that would be a side-effect …
And the grand one
but one must never risk the life of an embryo
Where do you get this from? Life is a risk. People take risks every time they enter the kitchen to cook. People are allowed to take reasonable risks all the time. What is wrong is negligence.
It’s a bit late for Vox Nova to suddenly pretend to have a pro-life conscience after gleefully supporting and endorsing the most pro-abortion candidate in US history. Anything that Vox Nova does now will not undo the damage done by the Obama victory which required millions of Catholics to turn away from their pro-life conscience for this new Messiah.
I find it interesting that Vox wants to start its own campaign which says nothing about being Catholic, when the bishops of the Catholic Church in the US are in the midst of a national post card campaign.
Perhaps Vox is seeking to diminish the importance of the Catholic voice as led by our bishops.
Peter,
Do you have problems with reading comprehension? This is not a campaign initiated by Vox Nova, and it is an ecumenical one (which allows for non-Catholics to work with Catholics to address the President). Ecumenical effort (Ut Unum Sint) is indeed promoted by the Church, and lay efforts to engage the political sphere within an ecumenical spirit is not just encouraged by the Church, but one of the things Church documents suggest.
Moreover, this is the second effort to get people to engage Obama. The first took place soon after President Obama’s election, and gained support from a diverse number of sources. It’s not as if this is a new desire from VN. We have always been concerned about abortion, and policies dealing with abortion. And whomever was President, we would be working to promote better initiatives.
Jeremy,
Your rewording is inaccurate. It is a verified, medical fact that the pill prevents ovulation. Prevention of implantation has not been proven (and would be very difficult to prove), and I believe there is even controversy as to whether or not the alleged prevention of sperm from reaching the egg actually occurs.
If it is determined that taking Plan B has no effect at all on implantation, then there would be no moral reason for a rape victim not to take it. It is not a sin to try to prevent your rapist’s baby from being conceived. If there is a small risk of implantation being prevented, it seems to me that could be considered an unintended side effect. The drug would be taken with the intention of preventing ovulation, with a known risk of preventing implantation. Exactly how small the risk would have to be before prevention of implantation could be considered a side effect I couldn’t say. But Advair, which is taken to prevent asthma attacks, can sometimes actually cause a fatal asthma attack. Taking a small risk of death to save your life is permissible. It seems to me that taking a small risk of killing a very early embryo with the intention of preventing that embryo from coming into existence in the first place would be a permissible risk.
In any case, as I said, there are protocols that Catholic hospitals are developing to administer Plan B without the risk of killing an already-conceived embryo. I don’t know enough to explain them, but if you Google “Peoria protocol” and also (I think) “Connecticut protocol” you can check them out. My point in mentioning this is that the use of Plan B is not always considered morally wrong by Catholic medical ethicists.
Your rewording is inaccurate.
Now you are quibbling. Everything I have read up on Plan B says that the primary method is to prevent ovulation, with the backup methods of impeding fertilization and implantation. You are the first person to suggest that stopping ovulation is absolute.
Not that I’m quibbling mind you:) Just want to be accurate.
If there is a small risk of implantation being prevented, it seems to me that could be considered an unintended side effect.
If it makes you feel better to think this way, so be it, but it is self-delusion (I’m not addressing the morality). The intended consequence is to prevent a pregnancy, if it succeeds, it will not be through a side-effect.
Since Congress adjourned sine die last December, there is no FOCA.