Tag Archives: Reproductive health

USA : On family planning, does the Catholic Church represent Catholics?

By Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice

John Garvey’s op-ed, “HHS’s birth-control rules intrude on Catholic values,” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hhss-birth-control-rules-intrude-on-catholic-values/2011/09/27/gIQAOj8s9K_story.html) makes some assertions that do not hold up to scrutiny. In fact, millions of Catholics-theologians and laypeople alike-have lauded the inclusion of women’s preventive healthcare coverage as respectful of Catholic values.

The Catholic University of America (CUA) president asserted that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will “require” CUA to offer its students family planning services, claimed that certain reproductive health services are sinful and that the HHS was violating religious liberty.

There is nothing in the HHS rules that requires anybody to provide services. They require employers to offer coverage, which employees (or students) can then decide to utilize or not. Read more…

Tags:

Sophie in ‘t Veld receives International Humanist Award

(13 August 2011) Sophie in ‘t Veld receives the International Humanist Award in the Norwegian capital Oslo. The prize is awarded by the International Humanist and Ethical Union, an organisation dedicated to spreading humanist ideas.  Previous recipients of the International Humanist Award include Nobelprize winners Amartya Sen (India) and Russian dissident and nuclear scientist Andrei Sakharov, and Alexander Dubcek, the Slovak politician leader of Czechoslovakia (1968–1969), famous for his attempt to reform the communist regime during the Prague Spring. Sophie in ‘t Veld is very honoured with being awarded the prestigious prize. “This is a beautiful surprise. Humanism offers the right answers for many problems in society.”
“More and more, society is being organized as a permanent trade off of collective interests and privileges, rather than a community of individual citizens and their individual rights, protected by state institutions. But in a society built on collective, rather than individual interests, there is greater potential for conflict between groups. Therefore the focus should be first and foremost on promoting a secular democracy, based on individual citizens’ rights for all, including for women, for gay and lesbian people, for religious and for non-religious people…As the experience of European integration shows, the humanist idea of individual freedoms, as well as secular state institutions that treat all citizens equally, is a precondition for peace and stability.”

“It is urgent and imperative that humanists and secularists get organised and make themselves heard in the European political debate. Conservative religious groups are well organised, and not reticent to make their voice heard and to actively seek political power and influence. It is time we became less timid as humanists. It is time for more assertive, more “militant” humanism. It is crucial not only for our own European citizens, but for the effectiveness of Europe’s soft power in the world. ”

Sophie In ‘t Veld said being awarded the prize “gives me the energy to work even harder and bring human rights to the attention of an even wider audience.” Read Sophie in ‘t Veld’s speech on ‘The Role of the EU in conflict prevention” here.

Earlier this year in the UK, Sophie in ‘t Veld was proclaimed ‘Secularist of the year 2011′ by the National Secular Society.

Tags: , , , ,

Religious voices support access to abortion

By Sara Hutchinson - 06/30/11 01:15 PM ET (original)

Some of the legislation that has come out of Congress recently seems more like a decree from on high than the result of the democratic process. Capitol Hill should be a reflection of the needs and values of all Americans — not just those with the loudest voices or the strongest lobby. Often, religious voices are used to impose or support the most conservative policies, despite the diversity that exists among people of faith.

Our Catholic tradition places a premium on what the Declaration on Religious Freedom calls “the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious freedom.” Though we come from different backgrounds, all of us share the belief that women should have the right to make their own choice about abortion, in particular, and reproductive health choices in general. All of these choices are under fire in Congress. In fact, the U.S. bishops have been the greatest obstacle to women exercising these choices – even though Catholics disagree fundamentally with positions that the bishops have taken on these matters.

One of our common principles is the commitment to social justice and equal rights. For Catholics, the preferential option for the poor calls us to protect the least among us. The “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” (S. 906/H.R. 3) would permanently bar any federal money from being spent on abortion, thereby singling out those women who depend upon Medicaid, Medicare, or the Indian Health service, or are in the military or receive healthcare from other federal healthcare programs. Further, it would likely lead many private insurance plans to eliminate abortion services, leading to a situation where only those who can pay out of pocket can exercise choice.

When women — and men — make family planning decisions, they don’t go to their legislator to ask what he or she thinks about an addition to the family. Family planning is a highly personal decision, one that women are fully equipped to make. People of faith take their moral agency seriously —indeed, Catholics are enjoined to follow the dictates of the conscience above all. Unfortunately, recently proposed legislation has tried to place a healthcare worker’s right to refuse to provide certain services above the patient’s right to access the services she needs. The proposed expansion of conscience clause protections under the “Protect Life Act” (S. 877/H.R. 358) fails to strike the proper balance between providers’ and patients’ moral beliefs, endangering women’s lives in the process. While reproductive health decisions are highly personal, public policy is there not to restrict the decisions for many according to the whims of a few, but to provide the most complete set of choices for all.

One of the many ironies about today’s highly charged reproductive rights debate is that the word “life” has been wrongly associated with policies that do anything but support life. Two bills in particular, H.R. 3/S. 906 and H.R. 358/S. 877, do nothing but endanger women’s safety and limit their possibilities. Many religions share a profound reverence for the life in the people around us, including the woman who gets her contraception and checkups from a Title X-funded clinic, as well as the woman who chooses to have an abortion.

Women have a right to make reproductive health choices based on their own conscience, free from constraints imposed by those seeking to legislate one religious viewpoint or another. Those of us who spoke at the briefing speak for the majority of those from our respective faiths, whose members believe that women should have access to safe, legal abortion and comprehensive reproductive healthcare services. We will have traveled different roads to get to Capitol Hill; we debated and challenged one another to develop our platform; most of all, we listened —in short, we have behaved like responsible persons of faith within a democratic society. By contrast, The “Protect Life Act” and the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” are catering to the interests of the very few at the expense of the vulnerable many.

Sara Hutchinson is Director of Domestic Programs at Catholics for Choice.

Tags: ,

AIDS Summit at the UN: Not Enough Talk About Sex

by Evelyne Leopold, The Huffington Post, 13 June 2011

World leaders gathered at the United Nations to mark the 30th anniversary of the HIV/AIDS epidemic and put out a 102-paragraph declaration. Adrienne Germain, the president of the International Women’s Health Coalition (IWHC), has been working on women’s issues all her adult life and was active in the 1994 Cairo conference on women, also known as the CPD (International Conference on Population and Development). In an interview with the Huffington Post, Germain and Alexandra Garita, an international policy program officer at IWHC, discuss the declaration and the controversies that arise whenever sex is on the agenda. The declaration, produced every five years, gives U.N. agencies a mandate for their programs and advises governments where best to spend monies.

Q: What about access to family planning, to birth control?

AG: We lost reproductive rights and reproductive health language from the 1994 Cairo document and from early drafts here. Reproductive rights, for example, also includes the right to freely and responsibly decide on the number and spacing of one’s children. If you lose that and you have no reference to family planning services in the document, then you basically have no reference to contraception for women. You also don’t have protection for women living with HIV who are sterilized without their consent and who are forced to have abortion. It is not a rare occurrence in southern Africa (including South Africa).

Q: Who opposed rights for adolescents or women?

AG: Some people have referred to this as a perfect storm created by a combination of the Holy See and Egypt (less so Iran). Read more…

2011-06-13-adrienne.jpg
Adrienne Germain

Tags: , , ,