This is according to a report by #WeCount, a research project by the Society of Family Planning, a group that supports legal abortion.

The study is notable because it is the first full-year census of US abortion providers following the June 2022 US Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization. This sheds light on how they view trends in their industry.

The survey only considered data from licensed clinics within the health care system, researchers said and does not account for what may be illegal procedures, such as abortion pills ordered from overseas.

Read More

Neither has an answer. There is only silence.

I re-entered Catholicism with some trepidation, overpowered by a longing I could not name.

Intellectually, I understood that what had exiled me in the 1980s had not changed. Popes come and go but misogyny remains entrenched.

I came back anyway, drawn by light through stained glass, by beautiful and inspiring music, by pews filled with goodhearted people who reflected our city neighbourhoods, not just in ethnicity and colour but in shades of gender, sexuality, physical abilities and gifts.

In the decades of my absence it seemed the church had gotten much right.

But not the whole gender equity thing.

On that the hierarchy remains frozen. Intransigent. Unyielding. Unhearing.

I entered in the autumn months, among displays of departed loved ones commemorated through the month of the dead. And I returned amid conversation which harkened some movement on the issue of women's equal dignity and participation.

A deacon proposed reviving the dialogue around female deacons.

I attended a preliminary meeting but soon became uncomfortable with both the inadequacy and inequity.

Why such incremental change? Why not full and immediate recognition of women's equality? Why do we continue to placate, to cater to embedded misogyny within a church to which we look for inspiration, enlightenment?

From that initial meeting sprang a coalition of women who asked these questions aloud.

At the time it felt liberating, exhilarating. A flurry of activities and meetings unfolded; plans were proposed and refined. Then COVID-19 hit and we retreated to our screens.

Over time and distance further shifts occurred.

A merger of parishes distinct in outlooks and practices, a new pastor charismatic and unyielding in his opposition to our goals.

Our group statements and announcements were censored, no longer welcome in the parish bulletin. We were encouraged not to be "disruptive" to parish unity.

And over time our voices muted, demands softened to polite entreaties. The focus became education, not action.

We sponsored presentations on the historical role of women in the church. This was more palatable, more easily digested by those uncomfortable with change.

With the overturning of Roe v. Wade, pro-life announcements crept into our liturgies, enjoying full access to the bulletin.

Despite the overwhelming opposition to the Supreme Court ruling by Catholics and non-Catholics alike, despite its tragic and highly publicised impact on women's lives, no one raised objections.

In the name of conciliation and non-offense, the women's group softened its rhetoric.

Once again we discuss the possibility of female deacons. Someday. Somewhere down the historical road. Read more

• Geraldine Gorman is a clinical professor at the College of Nursing, University of Illinois Chicago. She also practices as a hospice nurse with Unity Hospice. She lives on the North Side of Chicago and is the mother of three, grandmother of two.

Both are usually held in conjunction with the national March for Life in Washington DC.

"After a consultation process that involved dialogue with other dioceses, ministry leaders, and the partners who assist the archdiocese in hosting the annual rally and Mass...[we have] decided not to move forward with hosting the larger multi-diocese rally."

Five months ago, the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade, the 1973 landmark case that legalised abortion nationwide. The annual March for Life, which is now in its 50th year, began in opposition to Roe.

"During this consultation process, we heard from many dioceses who shared that they are turning their efforts to their state's March for Life now that Roe v Wade has been overturned," the Archdiocese of Washington said in a statement.

The archdiocese says the Youth Rally and Mass for Life had been held for over 25 years.

Its youth ministry website says the Youth Rally aims to "encourage the youth participating in the national March for Life in their witness as disciples of Christ and promoters of the Gospel of Life."

The Youth Rally is the archdiocese's largest annual event.

The archdiocese says last year, the Holy See granted a plenary indulgence for any Masses that were held in the archdiocese during the March for Life.

"As difficult a decision as it was to cancel, we encourage groups travelling to Washington, DC, to participate in the National March for Life at the National Mall and to attend the Vigil Mass at The Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception," it says.

"Wilton Cardinal Gregory, archbishop of The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, would like to express his deepest gratitude for the support and participation of archdiocesan youth and young people who travelled to Washington, DC, over these past 25 years," the statement says.

Youth from the Archdiocese of Washington have been invited for a Mass of Celebration and Thanksgiving at the Cathedral of St Matthew the Apostle on 20 January 2023.

Source

• Catholic News Agency

Thus, Catholic teaching about conflict condemns direct attacks on civilians or even the disproportionate killing of civilians as collateral damage in an attack on a military target.

In other words, you cannot blow up a 10-story apartment building to kill a terrorist.

The same is true of politics. You may have very good goals, but you also must look at the political muscle employed in attaining those goals and ask if the end justifies the means.

You need to ask, for example, what is the collateral damage caused by the tactics you use in gaining your objective.

The bishops waged a long war against Roe v. Wade and won this past June in the form of Justice Samuel Alito's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

It would be difficult to find any bishop who thinks that this war was not justified. Some bishops, however, do question some of the tactics employed in this war — for example, denying Communion to pro-choice Democrats.

As the bishops gather in Baltimore next week for their fall meeting, will they acknowledge the collateral damage caused by their tactics?

I am not talking about the negative impact of the decision as perceived by those who are pro-choice. Pro-choice advocates argue that the lives and health of women are being put at risk by the decision.

Bishops and pro-life advocates deny these charges.

But even those who see no problems with the Dobbs decision need to ask about the collateral damage caused by the strategy used by the bishops and their pro-life allies.

The pro-life strategy was simple: Support presidential and senatorial candidates who would put justices on the U.S. Supreme Court in order to overturn Roe.

In current American politics, that meant supporting Republican candidates.

Thus, by making abortion their "preeminent priority," the bishops made Donald Trump and the Republican Party their allies.

Killed Roe; but what else?

The Republicans, as promised, successfully killed Roe, but what else did they kill?

The Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe also gutted the Voting Rights Act that protected the rights of Black and other minority voters. They also invalidated environmental and other business regulations. This term it appears they look ready to cast aside affirmative action programs.

All of this is collateral damage from the bishops' decision to support stacking the court with conservative justices who would overturn Roe.

Republican legislators, meanwhile, have opposed almost every proposal that would have implemented Catholic social teaching.

They have opposed laws and regulations to deal with global warming. They ignore the warnings of scientists and Secretary-General António Guterres who warns, "We are on a highway to climate hell with our foot on the accelerator." The devastation that will be caused by global warming by the end of this century will be apocalyptic.

The earth and humanity are collateral damage from the decision of bishops to ally themselves with the Republican Party to defeat Roe.

Republicans also called for closing the border to refugees and immigrants.

Salvadoran and Haitian families fleeing the threat of gangs, Venezuelans escaping a Communist dictatorship and believers running from religious persecution: All are to be turned away by this country where almost all our ancestors were immigrants.

If the Holy Family crossed our border, we would send them back to Bethlehem and King Herod.

Migrants and refugees are collateral damage to the bishops' decision to back Republicans to overturn Roe.

Republicans have also voted against programs aimed at helping the poor: the expansion of Medicaid, the child tax credit, increases in the minimum wage and nutritional and housing programs. Republicans prefer massive tax cuts that mostly benefit the rich.

The poor are collateral damage to the bishops' decision to back Republicans to overturn Roe.

Former President Donald Trump, who appointed the justices who made the Dobbs decision possible, has also made American politics more polarized and even violent.

His refusal to accept the 2020 election results is a threat to democracy. He has turned the Republican Party, the party of fiscal conservatives, into the party that does not accept election results unless they win.

Democracy is collateral damage to the bishops' decision to support Republicans who would overturn Roe.

There is even a chance that the anti-abortion cause itself may be collateral damage to the alliance with Republicans.

Most voters in the midterm elections opposed Dobbs.

They voted against the bishops on every ballot measure dealing with abortion. Many candidates who opposed abortion without exceptions were also defeated.

The bishops will argue they did not endorse this collateral damage and, therefore should not be blamed for it.

But if you arm an ally who says he will use the arms to kill civilians, then you have to accept blame for their deaths.

The Republicans were never shy in proclaiming what they would do if they gained power.

To the extent that the bishops and pro-lifers helped the Republicans gain power, they must accept responsibility for what the Republicans did with that power.

In wars, generals always ignore or play down collateral damage as part of the cost of winning.

The bishops will do the same when they meet in Baltimore next week. They may even believe that this collateral damage was an acceptable cost of overturning Roe.

But as they celebrate their victory in Dobbs, they cannot ignore their responsibility for the collateral damage that came from their alliance with the Republican Party.

They must also consider how to make up for this damage.

• Thomas Reese SJ is a senior analyst at Religion News Service, and a former columnist at National Catholic Reporter, and a former editor-in-chief of the weekly Catholic magazine America. First published in RNS. Republished with permission.

Society of Family Planning's #WeCount initiative reported on Friday that there were 5,270 fewer abortions in July and 5,400 fewer in August after the court's June 24 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organisation, which overturned Roe and freed individual states to decide abortion policy.

As the New York Times pointed out in an article on the #WeCount study, abortions declined almost to zero in states with bans, but they increased in many states where abortion remained legal.

In August, fewer than 10 abortions were performed in each of the following states: Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Wisconsin.

Read More

In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe V Wade, more than 650 employees at Alphabet Inc signed the petition which demands that Google remove "results for fake abortion providers" and what the union considers "misleading information" about reproductive health care services.

The petition also demands that Google stop collecting users' data on abortion-related searches, saying that users' data would be "used against them" in states that have banned or restricted abortions.

Read More

Panel members who spoke at a July 14 Georgetown University forum are among them.

"The Dobbs decision did not feel like any kind of victory, because I find myself concerned about its direct consequences in putting up barriers for reproductive health care for women, especially in Republican-controlled states and across the country," said one.

"I find myself discouraged looking back at the road we took to get to this point, at all of the choices that the Catholic movement has made along the way as ending abortion as a priority for political engagement.

"We were happy to see the overturning of Roe v Wade, but Dobbs made it worse," said another.

"The response has just been extreme, with people trying to almost double down on our promotion of abortion in California."

Twenty pieces of legislation were introduced in the past month, she says. "So, we definitely have some mixed emotions."

"I really thought that Roe was bad from a legal point of view and a moral point of view," said a third panel member. But some of the triumphalism "coming from the right" over it being struck down "was reprehensible".

Panel member Bishop Daniel Flores said "the Roe v Wade controversy has eclipsed and drowned out other voices and issues that the church is concerned about".

These include "mothers who are expecting children, (the) mother who has children".

If it's a consistent ethic of life that is needed, "there are all sorts of policies we need to be pushing for," a fifth panelist said.

"There is a lot of movement and there are a lot of people who need convincing, but there is a narrative that the right will never do this. (But) the right, just like a pro-life movement, is a very diverse group of people who have different kinds of views.

"There is a lot of realignment happening among conservatives that I hope also happens on the left."

Two panel members said they'd had a dilation and curettage (D&C) procedure during a pregnancy.

Acknowledging a D&C isn't abortion, the woman said it made her realise "putting restrictions on when and whether that kind of health care is available to women," could create barriers for a woman "whose life is in danger".

Another noted laws banning abortion make exceptions to save the mother's life.

"The rub is when you allow a doctor's or a hospital's judgment to be second-guessed. By definition you do if you say ‘only in the case of an emergency,'" she says.

"What do you have to prove to show this is a legitimate emergency? Who has to be consulted and how much time do you have to get that done?"

She says another of the unintended consequences is unsafe misinformation allowing people to believe there aren't exceptions for miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy. These might be more harmful than the law.

Source

• Crux

This is not some fanciful doctrinal pronouncement from a bunch of desiccated old men wearing weird clothes in the Vatican. It's a clinical statement from medical professionals describing a biological reality.

The point here is that it's impossible to arbitrarily determine any moment after fertilisation when a foetus suddenly and magically morphs from being a lump of tissue to becoming "human," since it's already a genetically unique and complete living being. Any such theoretical point (12 weeks? 20 weeks? The point at which the baby can survive outside the womb? The moment of actual live birth?) can be chosen only for reasons of convenience, pragmatism or sentiment - or perhaps all three.

If we accept the biological fact that life starts at the moment of conception, then it follows inexorably that abortion at any point during the development of the foetus involves extinguishing a human life. Whether you choose to call that murder is another matter. Society chooses not to, generally preferring to regard murder as a crime that can be committed only on a living, breathing, sentient human. (I say "generally" because the Crimes Act provides for a jail term of up to 14 years for someone "who causes the death of any child that has not become a human being in such a manner that he or she would have been guilty of murder if the child had become a human being". I'm not a lawyer, but I think this offence is used in cases where a pregnant woman is violently assaulted, resulting in the loss of her unborn baby.)

The idea that abortion is murder is usually dismissed as unrealistic and absolutist, even fanatical, yet it's one that can reasonably and logically be held. Society rejects it, however, because a consensus view has evolved that there are circumstances in which abortion is justified, necessary and humane. Placing time limits on it, as most abortion laws do, is essentially a pragmatic compromise aimed at making acceptable what might otherwise be unthinkable. Thus society is prepared to approve thousands of foetuses being aborted at, say, 12 weeks - although even then a baby is fully formed, with all its organs, muscles and limbs in place - but recoils in disgust at the idea of a baby being removed from the womb alive and left to die, cold and gasping for breath, in a hospital back room. (Couldn't happen? Oh, but it did.)

At whatever point the abortion takes place, the timing is still arbitrary. There is no magic line marking a point beyond which snuffing out a human life (often by violent means, including dismemberment) suddenly becomes unacceptable. But what has happened in New Zealand, as in other "progressive" democracies, is that as society has become more inured to the idea of abortion, limitations on when the procedure can be carried out have been stretched to the point where they eventually disappeared altogether. Under the Abortion Legislation Act 2020, there's nothing to prevent babies being aborted even when they are capable of surviving outside the womb. All that's required is for two doctors to agree that the late-term abortion is "clinically appropriate".

At this point, abortion really is tantamount to murder, albeit carried out with the sanction of the state; in other words with our concurrence. But we're not told how often this happens in God's Own Country, because since the passing of the Act there's no longer any provision for the collation and publication of information about abortions. It's legal now, you see, so the public is deemed to have no more interest in knowing about abortions - how many are performed, the reasons for them and the gestational age of the baby - than it has in knowing about tooth extractions, facelifts or hernia repairs.

This probably suits most people perfectly well, since what they don't know won't trouble them. Society has been conditioned by decades of feminist indoctrination into believing abortion is a human right and a women's health issue. What it actually entails - that is to say, the moral implications as well as the physical detail - is something people prefer not to dwell on. Easier just to ignore the whole thing.

The morality (or otherwise) of abortion has suddenly been brought back into sharp relief by the furore over the US Supreme Court's reversal of the Wade v Roe judgment. Much of the reaction - for example, the grotesquely hysterical scenes at American protest rallies and the ostentatious displays of hand-wringing by the likes of Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi (both nominally Catholic, incidentally) was predictable. What was less so was the desperate attempt by abortion rights activists in New Zealand, assisted by their allies in the media, to make political capital out of the decision despite it being of no direct relevance here.

Even in America, the primary consequence of the majority ruling is simply that decisions on abortion laws will be handed back to the states, which is where they belonged in the first place. This has been wilfully misrepresented as a deliberate assault on American womanhood when in fact it's an acknowledgement that decisions on issues like abortion should be made by elected legislatures in state capitals, not by a judicial elite in Washington DC. (Last time I checked, American women were allowed to vote, so are free to exert influence on their politicians via the ballot box.)

Meanwhile, in New Zealand, we were subjected to the unedifying spectacle of politicians from across the spectrum scrambling to clamber aboard the abortion rights bandwagon, each trying to outdo the others with their pronouncements of woe and despair. Even David Seymour, who has arguably the least to gain and the most to lose by pandering to leftist feminists, couldn't resist joining the chorus of denunciation. It wasn't the first time Seymour had allowed his obvious antipathy toward the anti-abortion lobby to get the better of his political judgment. So much for ACT's greatest political virtue, which is that it isn't like the other parties. On this issue Seymour hunted with the pack.

Less surprising was Christopher Luxon's eagerness to convince the media that a National government would leave the abortion laws alone. This was a no-win situation for Luxon; people who hate National didn't believe him anyway, while people who might be inclined to support the party probably thought less of him for his moral equivocation, given that he has previously declared himself to be pro-life. He should have taken a less defensive stance. As it is, voters are entitled to wonder whether Luxon (a) has any bedrock values or (b) has been intimidated by the media into watering down his personal principles in order to appear more woke.

Instructing his MP Simon O'Connor to take down a tweet welcoming the Roe v Wade decision didn't help. Abortion has traditionally been treated as a personal conscience issue for MPs, so O'Connor's exercise of his right to free speech need not have been seen as a threat to the party. By censoring him, Luxon achieved the unusual feat of simultaneously appearing timid and a control freak.

As for the New Zealand media - well, needless to say they covered the issue with their customary detachment and unstinting commitment to neutrality and balance. The tone of the TV coverage was a blend of despair, denunciation, alarmism and moral panic, and overall only marginally less hysterical than the footage of a woman shown on her knees sobbing inconsolably in the streets of Washington. The dominant narrative, shared across all mainstream media but with no obvious basis in fact, was that women's abortion rights were threatened in New Zealand too, although exactly how or by whom wasn't explained.

I was able to predict with almost 100 percent accuracy the pro-choice activists who would be wheeled out to tell us what an appalling setback for women the court's decision was. Both channels had 87-year-old Dame Margaret Sparrow (Newshub honouring her with the adjective "legendary") and the voluble American Terry Bellamak - media favourites both - plus an unfamiliar (to me) American academic from the University of Otago who baldly pronounced, with no basis, that Luxon shouldn't be believed when he said National would leave the abortion law intact. In an item that took up much of the first segment of Sunday night's 6 pm news, Newshub could find no room for a single pro-life voice. (TVNZ, to its credit, did.)

At the heart of the protests over Roe v Wade is the notion that abortion is a human right - a very recent idea that has somehow taken precedence over the right to life, which is at the core of most moral values systems. This can only be explained as a triumph of ideology over humanity.

When I did a rough calculation in 2018 (the last statistics were published in 2019), the number of babies aborted in New Zealand since the law was first liberalised in 1977 was creeping up towards the half-million mark. In the US, more than 40 million babies were aborted between 1973 and 2019 - more than the population of Canada or Poland. Pro-abortion lobbyists celebrate this as a triumph for women's rights, but it seems a tragically perverse way to assert women's autonomy.

• Karl du Fresne has been in journalism for more than 50 years. He is now a freelance journalist and blogger living in the Wairarapa region of New Zealand.
• First published by Karl du Fresne. Republished with permission.

The Court struck down a 50 year old decision (called Roe v. Wade). That decision legalised abortion on a federal basis. The upshot is individual states can now ban the procedure.

Since the Supreme Court decision, one of New Zealand's the two main government websites has recorded a 443 percent increase in visits from the United States.

Immigration New Zealand (INZ) said it recorded 45,235 US visits to 'New Zealand Now' in the last week.This contrasts significantly to the 8319 visits recorded from April 19 to 25.

The NZ immigration website views combined with those for INZ reached 77,000 last week - almost four times the number in April.

'New Zealand Now' is a government website managed by INZ.

"It focuses on providing information for people interested in moving to New Zealand to work or invest", INZ says.

Analysis through Google shows the search term Immigration New Zealand peaked in America on 25 June. At that time, Americans were digesting the news that the new ruling made access to abortions virtually impossible in at least 18 states.

Radio New Zealand says the recent spike in interest in NZ immigration websites isn't without precedent. It is still below the tracking numbers of 'move to New Zealand' registered when Donald Trump was elected president.

That spike in interest was followed by a jump in US investors and migrants.

Immigration NZ notes the recent increase in website numbers, plus repeat visitors, do not reflect visa applications that have been made. Nor do they reflect people actually moving here.

The Trump and Brexit votes, both in 2016, were however followed by increases in work and residence visa applications.

After the 2016 presidential vote, Britain and the United States accounted for more visits to the Immigration website than the next 13 countries combined - including China and India.

A recruitment agency says it is has been flooded with inquiries from US doctors wanting to come here following the abortion ruling. Many GPs and obstetricians are among those making inquiries.

Source

• RNZ

One advocate is Jody Rabhan, chief policy officer for the National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW).

She and other members of her organisation are "absolutely devastated, shocked and angry," she says.

"This is not the end. There are things that we can do."

Many Muslim, Christian and liberal-leaning religious groups have long advocated for abortion rights. They're preparing new efforts to preserve the current shape of abortion policy as much as possible.

Catholics for Choice head Jamie Manson says her group is pressuring lawmakers to pass the Women's Health Protection Act. Passed by the House and awaiting action in a less-receptive Senate, the bill would codify the provisions of Roe v Wade into federal law.

Manson's group is also pushing President Joe Biden — a fellow Catholic abortion-rights supporter — to declare a public health emergency in the wake of Friday's ruling.

In addition they will continue "emboldening Catholics who already are pro-choice to say ‘Not in the name of my faith,'" and to rally around the idea that the decision is a "violation of a Catholic principle of religious freedom."

Democratic Senators Elizabeth Warren and Tina Smith also urged Biden to declare a public health emergency in a New York Times editorial. This would unlock "critical resources and authority that States and the Federal Government can use to meet the surge in demand for reproductive health services".

NCJW has similar plans. They and their allies will push the Senate to pass the Women's Health Protection Act and work to ensure Federal and Supreme Court judges "have very strong reproductive health rights and justice backgrounds".

Rabhan said NCJW will fight abortion restrictions at the State level, helping those with more liberal abortion laws serve as "sanctuary states" and fundraising to help women pay for abortions.

"Judaism permits and sometimes requires abortion if the life and the health of the mother is at risk," Rabhan says.

The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice is also calling on supporters to donate to abortion aid funds and contact their lawmakers.

Last month a synagogue sued Florida Governor Ron DeSantis over the state's 15-week abortion ban.

They argued it directly conflicts with a Jewish belief that abortion "is required if necessary to protect the health, mental or physical well-being of the woman.

"Jewish law is very clear: Human life begins at birth, and up until the time of birth, a woman has autonomy to make the decision for herself," Rabbi Barry Silver says.

"This law criminalises Judaism and a bunch of other religions," he said.

He noted that DeSantis signed the bill into law at an evangelical Christian church, where speakers discussed prayer and religious themes.

"They just did it right in a church and said, ‘Oh, God's going to protect us,' and ‘God is watching over us,'" he said. "It's grotesquely un-American and unconstitutional."

"You will see lots of lawsuits like this."

Source

• Religion News Service

"Being for life always, for example, means being concerned if the mortality rates of women due to motherhood increase," wrote Andrea Tornielli in his Vatican News editorial last Saturday.

Anti-abortion activists can't pick and choose pro-life issues, he added.

His comments followed Friday's Supreme Court's ruling to end the constitutional right to abortion.

Tornielli cited statistics from the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention showing an overall rise in the maternal mortality rate, which is nearly three times higher for black women.

"Being for life always means asking how to help women welcome new life," he wrote.

He cited an unsourced statistic that 75 percent of women who have abortions live in poverty or are low-wage earners.

He also cited statistics from the Harvard Review of Psychiatry. These show the US has much lower rates of paid parental leave compared with other rich nations.

"Being for life also means defending it against the threat of firearms, which unfortunately have become a leading cause of death of children and adolescents in the US" he wrote.

The Catholic church teaches abortion is murder because life begins at the moment of conception and ends with natural death.

Pope Francis says it's like "hiring a hit man" to eliminate a problematic person.

At the same time, he has tried to steer members of the Catholic Church in the United States away from seeing abortion as the single, overarching life issue in the country's so-called culture wars.

The death penalty, gun control, support for families and immigration are also life issues, he has said.

The Vatican's Academy for Life has praised the Roe v Wade ruling. It challenges the world to reflect on life issues and calls for social changes to help women keep their children.

US President Joe Biden, a lifelong Catholic, has condemned the ruling, calling it a "sad day" for America and labelling the court's conservatives as "extreme".

Source

• Reuters

The question of abortion may be decided politically, but the real test is if morality is taught.

The Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson changes our politics. For nearly 50 years, Roe v. Wade allowed abortion across the land.

Now it doesn't.

For nearly 150 years before that, U.S. states made their own determinations about abortion.

Now they do again.

Because the court has ordered that "the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives," a pastiche of state laws will kick in, some more restrictive than others.

Ever since the May leak by Politico of the draft decision in Dobbs v. Jackson, pro-abortion groups pressed their positions, for example, suggesting overturning Roe would put in vitro fertilization at risk, even arguing that pregnancy is bad for your health.

Both are key to pro-abortion strategy.

Since September 2021, a bill called the "Women's Health Protection Act of 2022" has been sitting in the Senate.

The proposed legislation allows all abortions before fetal viability and those "after fetal viability where it is necessary, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care professional, for the preservation of the life or health of the person who is pregnant."

Strongly supported by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the law passed the House of Representatives by a narrow (218-211) margin.

Three Representatives did not vote.

When it went to the Senate, the vote to proceed failed 49-51. Senator Manchin of West Virginia crossed the aisle to vote with the Republicans.

The Catholic Church has always allowed the "life of the mother" exception under the concept of double effect, for example, termination of an ectopic pregnancy or removal of the uterus to treat cancer of the womb.

But the "life or health of the person who is pregnant" presents possibilities for wide interpretation.

On the one hand, the sentence protects the practitioner who determines whether the baby is dead or dying in the womb. On the other hand, it seems to allow for abortions up until the moment of birth where the mother claims a traumatic psychological condition. Or maybe she's not ill, just worried about her health.

So, what now?

The Catholic Communion rail controversy can only increase.

A few bishops have banned Speaker Pelosi from the sacrament in their dioceses. A few others steadfastly remain silent, about her and, perhaps more importantly, about President Biden.

US President, Joe Biden has said he is not sure when human life begins.

Before you send him a biology book, consider that he is perhaps thinking about the Catholic concept of ensoulment — not conception, implantation, quickening or viability.

The Church prefers to recognize the sanctity of all human life, and there is no argument that every stage is human.

The controversy will not end soon, but if the bishops address "invincible ignorance," there may be fewer Catholic politicians supporting laws allowing abortion.

Maybe the bishops can redouble their efforts to teach Gospel values.

Maybe they can teach that "respect life" includes Catholic social teaching, which in turn requires just wages and proper working conditions.

Maybe they can expand Church efforts to assist the poor.

Politics is not the point. The point is to make abortion unnecessary.

• Phyllis Zagano is senior research associate-in-residence and adjunct professor of religion at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York. Her most recent book is "Women: Icons of Christ."

While the decision - that there is no longer a federal constitutional right to an abortion - is in tune with the Catholic view, the Catholic president lamented the ruling soon after in his address to the nation.

Biden slammed the conservative-majority Court. He then declared his desire that Democrats in Congress codify protections for abortion into federal law.

Calling the Court's determination "a tragic error, "and "a sad day for the country," the President - who says he is personally pro-life and a devout Catholic - has promised to ensure abortion pills can be widely received and posted in the mail.

The Court ended what "was a correct decision," Biden said and he promised the Supreme Court's decision will not be the final word.

"Let me be very clear and unambiguous: the only way we can secure a woman's right to choose—the balance that existed—is for Congress to restore the protections of Roe v Wade as federal law," he said.

"We need to restore the protections of Roe as law of the land. We need to elect officials who will do that," he said urging Americans to vote for more pro-abortion leaders.

Pro-lifers who use Twitter were quick to rebuke him for his speech.

Pro-life commentator Allie Beth Stuckey slammed Biden, tweeting, "The court took away a right that was already recognised. Yeah, slavery was once seen as a right, too. Then it wasn't".

Newsweek opinion editor Josh Hammer tweeted some historical context, saying "as a friendly reminder that in a bygone (and saner) era ... Biden supported a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe v Wade."

Media Research Center President Brent Bozell slammed Biden's call for calm in the wake of the controversial decision. "Where were Biden's calls for peace when someone attempted to assassinate Justice Kavanaugh?"

A similar comment about Kavanaugh was tweeted by a conservative radio host.

Former Trump lawyer Jenna Ellis wrote, "Biden accidentally acknowledges (attempting insult) that Donald Trump is responsible for overturning Roe v Wade. We know. We love it."

"Excited to hear ‘devout Catholic' Biden condemn today's Supreme Court decision that any devout Catholic would agree with," a Washington Times columnist remarked. He also pointed out the irony in Biden's position.

"I think it is hilarious that President Joe Biden and the Democrats think abortion is going to help them in November," conservative author Carmine Sabia tweeted.

Source

• Fox News
• Reuters
• CNN

More than 2% of 3.7 million babies born in the US in 2019 were conceived through in vitro fertilisation, the latest federal data show. Many embryos created through IVF aren't viable, fertility specialists said, and those that aren't ultimately transferred into a uterus may be discarded.

Some fertility and legal experts said the loss or discarding of embryos could be criminalised by statutes that ban abortion from the moment of fertilisation, or that grant personhood rights to embryos.

"There could be unintended consequences on IVF from these laws aimed at restricting abortions," said Alan Penzias, a reproductive endocrinologist at Boston IVF, a Massachusetts fertility company, and an associate professor at Harvard Medical School. Read more

"The FBI is investigating a series of attacks and threats targeting pregnancy resource centres and faith-based organisations across the country," the FBI told The Washington Times. "The FBI takes all threats seriously, and we continue to work closely with our law enforcement partners and will remain vigilant to protect our communities."

The FBI National Press Office statement followed a full-court press from House and Senate Republicans, pro-life leaders and religious groups urging the Biden administration to take action on violent incidents carried out by shadowy activists and extremist groups such as Jane's Revenge.

Read More

"Overturn Roe? Hell, no!" the woman shouted, interrupting the priest's homily. "Abortion without apology!"

Two other women visible in the video joined her in the chants. They held green cloth bandanna-like banners, often used by activists with the pro-abortion group Rise Up 4 Abortion Rights.

Ushers escorted the three women out of the church. As they were led out, a man inside the church chanted, "Abortion kills babies! Abortion kills babies!"

The episode took place at the St Veronica Parish in Eastpointe, Michigan, located about a 20-minute drive north of Detroit.

Read More

The assurance is laughable.

As Melinda Henneberger pointed out in the Sacramento Bee, Cordileone's claim is "a silly thing to say, since no one who would believe him needs to hear it, and no one who wouldn't will be at all persuaded by it."

The fact that Cordileone misunderstands the politics, however, is the least of his and the Catholic Church's problem.

The larger difficulty is that his understanding of the religious values at stake is lousy, too!

He has misrepresented several cardinal points of church teaching and then erroneously applied that teaching.

The Catholic Church's opposition to abortion, dating back to the Didache in the first or second century, and repeatedly pronounced in the past 60 years in the face of efforts to legalize the procedure, is well known.

As our Holy Father Pope Francis wrote in his 2015 encyclical, "Laudato Si', on Care for Our Common Home," in a passage quoted by Cordileone:

When we fail to acknowledge as part of reality the worth of a poor person, a human embryo, a person with disabilities — to offer just a few examples — it becomes difficult to hear the cry of nature itself; everything is connected. Once the human being declares independence from reality and behaves with absolute dominion, the very foundations of our life begin to crumble, for "instead of carrying out his role as a cooperator with God in the work of creation, man sets himself up in place of God and thus ends up provoking a rebellion on the part of nature."

You see the problem.

Cordileone does not, by his action, evidence the pope's conclusion that "everything is connected." He isolates abortion from all other sins and isolates, too, Pelosi's involvement in this issue.

Canon 1398 states: "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication."

• Pelosi has not procured an abortion.
• She has given birth to five children, in fact.
• Instead, she has voted to keep a procedure the church views as immoral, and many Americans view as unjust, legal.
• I think Pelosi is wrong in this regard, but there are several prudential judgments that need to be made:
• How to legislate on the issue?
• Who should legislate on this issue, the federal government or the states?
• Whether to pursue a legal strategy through the courts or through the legislature?
• Is this the kind of issue about which a prohibition is likely to be effective?

Cordileone cannot pretend those prudential judgments do not exist or that the Catholic Church has definitive teaching on any one of them, let alone all of them together.

Does voting to keep abortion legal constitute illicit cooperation with evil?

Our Catholic tradition has a rich theology of cooperation to address the complexities of living in a world in which one's own choices are circumscribed by, and involved with, the choices of other people.

That theology was developed by St. Alphonsus Liguori in the 18th century, drawing on the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas and others, long before the challenges posed by a modern, pluralistic society came about. Cordileone examines none of the careful distinctions that theology demands.

Why single out Pelosi?

After all, she is but one member, albeit the most powerful member, of one branch in the federal government.

An effort to enshrine the right to an abortion in the California constitution has begun, but that vote will happen in the state legislature, not the one over which Pelosi presides.

Are judges who sanction permissive abortion laws to be sanctioned too?

Assigning responsibility to Pelosi and not to those who have played, and are likely to play, a far more consequential role in determining what abortion laws will look like is not a religious judgment, is it?

Does the grace of office supersede the need for deft political analysis to make such a determination?

Did Aquinas have anything to say about the separation of powers? Did Augustine examine federalism? Continue reading

• Michael Sean Winters covers the nexus of religion and politics for NCR.

The reaction was immediate and frenzied. The overwhelmingly left-liberal (i.e. pro-abortion) media, not just in America but throughout the English-speaking world, erupted with fury at the prospect that a long-entrenched feminist article of faith - namely, that a woman's right to abort a baby takes precedence over the unborn child's right to survive - might be overturned. As Kerry Wakefield (a woman, in case you're wondering) pungently put it in The Spectator Australia: "The feminist offence machine ratcheted up to full, wild-eyed stridency, with Democrat congresswoman Elizabeth Warren doing everything short of howling at the moon."

The revisiting of Roe v Wade is a rare setback for a political class that has become accustomed to calling the shots. The tone of their outrage was perfectly captured by the whiny headline on a video published on the Guardian's website: "It feels like such a betrayal". Another Guardian headline pronounced that the Alito draft, if adopted, would be a "global catastrophe for women". Such restraint ...

Well, better suck it up, folks. The anti-abortion lobby knows all too well what it's like to be on the losing side. Now the boot appears to be on the other foot and the champions of abortion rights are not taking it at all well.

But here's the thing. In the weeks since the leak, I've listened to hours of discussion, analysis and speculation on the BBC and America's left-leaning National Public Radio. Not once did I hear a pro-life voice. (Correction: the BBC's Stephen Sackur included a question about the Alito draft at the very tail end of an interview with Victoria Sparz, a pro-life Congresswoman, but left no time for her to expand on her answer.)

Not surprisingly, Roe v Wade has aroused less interest in the New Zealand media. Why should it, when the New Zealand abortion rights lobby has achieved its aim of making abortion as simple, at least in legal terms, as a tooth extraction (and treats it as if it's no more morally complicated)?

But there has been a certain amount of venting in solidarity with the American sisterhood. On TV Three's dependably woke The Project, I saw an over-excited Kate Rodger shrieking with incoherent rage while her fellow panellists nodded and murmured in agreement. No surprises there.

Media coverage of the Alito draft, in other words, has been overwhelmingly and egregiously one-sided - a perfect illustration of where the media sit in the culture wars. Even people who believe in a woman's right to have an abortion would struggle to argue that the controversy has been reported in a fair and balanced way.

As with climate change, a stifling and oppressive media groupthink prevails. And what's particularly striking about the tone of media commentary is the obvious assumption that everyone shares the media elite's anger, as if no half-intelligent or reasonable person could possibly be opposed to unrestricted abortion rights.

These are the new bigots - people who are not only intolerant of dissenting views but so convinced of their own rightness that they don't even acknowledge the existence of counter-arguments.

None of this should come as a surprise to anyone. One thing that did surprise me, however, was to learn that the supposedly neutral and "fiercely independent" Wellington-based online news site Scoop declined to publish two news releases on Roe v Wade from the anti-abortion group Right to Life - this after running a pro-choice column by Scoop's leftist in-house commentator Gordon Campbell and two statements from abortion rights groups attacking the Alito draft.

I've admired Scoop in the past, naively believing it was willing to publish all shades of news and opinion, but its credibility now is shot - a shame, because if it had the guts and integrity to live up to its own hype, it could serve as a valuable platform for groups unable to gain traction in the mainstream media.

As for Alito's draft decision, some pertinent facts appear to have been overlooked amid the backlash. The first and most important is that if the Supreme Court goes ahead and overturns Roe v Wade, abortion rights will become a matter for each state to decide. In other words, decisions on abortion law will be handed back to the elected representatives of the people - which, in a properly functioning democracy, is surely where they belonged in the first place. The 1973 decision overrode states' rights to determine their own laws and now they may get them back. But far from applauding this judicial nod to people power, the pro-abortion camp is aghast. Leftist ideologues tend to be distrustful of democracy because they can never be sure that people will vote the correct way.

To put it another way, a reversal of Roe v Wade would be only a partial unspooling of the law. It's not as if the court is likely to rule that abortion will become illegal everywhere and in any circumstances (although some abortion rights activists, desperate to stir up opposition even if it means telling porkies, are suggesting that's exactly what will happen).

On that note, it's amusing - in an ironic way - to hear activists wailing that a bunch of mostly male judges in Washington DC have made what they condemn as an "ideological" decision. Isn't that pretty much what happened in 1973 when the court (which was then entirely male) ruled in favour of women's right to terminate a pregnancy? The only thing different is that the dominant ideology on the court bench has been reversed. The current is now running in the other direction and the feminists, having had things their way for 50 years, don't like it.

As my friend and former colleague Bob Edlin observed, "the ruling effectively demonstrates that one bunch of judges can determine something one day, based on what they argue the US constitution allows or disallows. Another bunch of judges with different ideological leanings can rule to the contrary several years [or in this case decades] later."

As Bob points out, the US constitution hasn't changed; only the composition of the court has. This highlights a fundamental flaw in a system that places enormous power in the hands of judges appointed on the basis of their political and ideological leanings in the expectation that they will interpret the constitution accordingly.

The court is expected to release its final decision next month or in July. In the meantime we can expect to be bombarded with canards such as "abortion is a health issue". (Not for the unborn baby it's not. And in any case, since when were pregnancy and childbirth classified as illnesses?)

Placards waved by Roe v Wade demonstrators also assert that "abortion is a human right". Since when? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed by the UN General Assembly in 1948, which was the distillation of centuries of thinking and writing about the subject, makes no mention of abortion. It does, however, unequivocally assert the right to life. The fiction that abortion is a human right is an invention of late 20th century feminism, but the slogan has an undeniably catchy appeal to people incapable of thinking above bumper-sticker level.

• Karl du Fresne has been in journalism for more than 50 years. He is now a freelance journalist and blogger living in the Wairarapa region of New Zealand.
• First published by Karl du Fresne. Republished with permission.

The group is advocating for demonstrations in front of Supreme Court justices' homes.

Their account was restored with no notice or explanation, a Ruth Sent Us spokesperson says.

The group has been organising demonstrations following indications that the Supreme Court is poised to overturn 50 years of federal abortion protections established by Roe v. Wade.

On Saturday, the group posted from a "back up" TikTok account that it had been permanently banned for violating "community guidelines."

"Individuals are notified of our decisions and can appeal them if they believe no violation has occurred," the guidelines say.

"We will temporarily or permanently ban accounts and/or users that are involved in severe or repeated on-platform violations; we may also consider actions on other platforms and offline behaviour in these decisions."

Prohibited activities include incitement to violence, bullying or sharing personal information such as home addresses.

Ruth Sent Us says many comments and individual posts taken down from TikTok have since been restored apart from one featuring bloody pants.

A video of demonstrators pouring red paint on the crotches of their white pants still appears on the Ruth Sent Us TikTok page, but now comes with a content warning.

Ruth Sent Us, named for former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was criticised for "doxxing" (ie releasing private information) after the group posted a map marking the location of the six justices appointed by Republican presidents.

But Ruth Sent Us insists that it never doxxed anyone because the map used geolocation data for the pins, which identified the Virginia and Maryland homes of the six justices.

The "Extremist Justices" map was created by Vigil for Democracy, which is among a constellation of activist groups urging various protests and boycotts in response to the Supreme Court's possible overturn of Roe.

Ruth Sent Us is also urging disruptions of Catholic masses.

After many Washington DC-area churches released statements of concern, Ruth Sent Us responded on Twitter:

"Stuff your rosaries and your weaponised prayer. We will remain outraged after this weekend, so keep praying. We'll be burning the Eucharist to show our disgust for the abuse Catholic churches have condoned for centuries."

Ruth Sent Us demonstrations frequently feature women in red cloaks and white bonnets - identical to those worn by women in "The Handmaid's Tale". Set in a dystopian future in which abortion is illegal, women are treated as sex slaves and forced to marry and bear children against their will.

In the weeks since the draft decision was leaked, numerous protests have begun pushing for abortion rights.

Ruth Sent Us has released a weekly schedule for demonstrating outside the justices' homes.

Sourcr

• FoxNews

Visiting Right to Life's media release page on Scoop reveals the independent journalism champion has published just one media release in 2021 and 2022.

Right to Life estimates in this year alone they have sent Scoop twenty news releases.

Scoop's "Submit News" criteria say that not every story can be published and they "reserve the right to refuse any material for publication, and also to remove material at any time without notification.

However, Scoop's guidelines claim it is rare for them to exercise their right to refuse publication and they do not do it very often, and as a financial supporter of Scoop, Right to Life understands that ScoopPro member submissions are given priority consideration.

Right to Life is puzzled by Scoop's approach to them because Scoop proudly claims it will achieve access to public interest news and foster media literacy by "enhancing the ability of a diverse range of citizens to interpret, understand and use this information to inform robust debate, democratic choices and meaningful participation in society and the economy."

The pro-life group recognises the important contribution that Scoop can make to an informed debate.

It is however questioning how all New Zealanders can participate in the democratic process and how society can have an informed debate when Scoop is apparently censoring information it does not agree with.

In its latest media release Right to Life challenges Scoop's coverage of the US Supreme Court leak of Justice Samuel Alito's decision on Roe v Wade.

"The community can't have an informed debate on the leaked opinion if the information is censored," says Right to Life.

If Scoop is repeatedly censoring information to suit a particular worldview, it is contradicting its own statement about its aims of independent journalism.

A look at Scoop's coverage of the Roe v. Wade leak shows a distinctly partial leaning in favour of the pro-abortion lobby.

On 4 May Scoop published a media release from Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand (ALRANZ). The pro-choice advocacy group used the opportunity to firmly condemn the Supreme Court opinion.

Scoop's Political Editor, Gordon Campbell, was next to express a view.

On 5 May, his opinion piece condemned the five Justices who signed the draft opinion.

On the 8th and 11th May Right to Life sent media releases to Scoop supporting the draft opinion of the Supreme Court and explaining the legal implications of the opinion.

Both media releases have gone unpublished.

Then on 13 May Scoop published a media release from Auckland Feminist Action. Their press release also condemned the majority of Justices' draft opinion.

Right to Life says it is disappointed that recently Scoop has frustrated an informed public debate.

It is particularly disappointed that Scoop has chosen to stifle Right to Life's contribution to the public debate on the issue of the leaked opinion of the United States Supreme Court and possible overthrow of Roe v Wade.

In response to its silencing, Right to Life says it is considering laying a formal complaint with Scoop for breach of Media Council principles.

The pro-life organisation is also having a second look at its contract with Scoop.

"Scoop's policy on the publication of press releases and associated material is simple. If it's a press release issued in New Zealand, is legible, legal, sane, not hateful and not defamatory we will most probably publish it."

Scoop Media Limited is part of the Scoop Media Cartel.

Source

• Supplied - Right to Life
• Scoop
• Image: Scoop