Your web-browser is very outdated, and as such, this website may not display properly. Please consider upgrading to a modern, faster and more secure browser. Click here to do so.
Okay so I'm a catholic and I'm prolife. But about your post about the "antis",I am truly sorry for that. I've prayed outside of a clinic before with my youth group but we do it after hours when no one is there and I've done it on the days when the clinic is open but when we stand outside of the clinics we stand in silence and pray. We don't yell or scream or judge people or attack them. I just wanted to let you know that not all of the "antis" do that.
Look, I appreciate you taking the time to send me this message and what you were trying to say or do by doing so, and I hope you don’t take this the wrong way.
But I don’t really care if not all antis do what I encounter every weekend. Because enough of them do. And enough of them stay silent about it. And even if you are just standing outside the clinic praying - you do not need to be there.
You do not need to be anywhere around the clinic. You do not need to be at the clinic during operating hours ever. You do not need to be standing outside the clinic praying while people seek a medical procedure that has nothing to do with you. God is omnipresent, right? So he’ll probably hear your prayers from not an abortion clinic parking lot. And so your goals will still be met without having to unnerve people trying to access medical care if you don’t pray outside of an abortion clinic. God is great like that, right?
So if that’s the case, you have no business being there unless you hope in some way that your prayers or your presence will unnerve someone so much that they will not go into the clinic or will somehow be dissuaded from their decision - not for any reason that is actually relevant to their situation or that makes any changes to it, but simply because they were fearful, nervous, anxious, or simply wanted to freaking privacy (which all medical procedures and patients are entitled to).
So you know, it may not seem “that bad” to just go to an abortion clinic and pray or whatever, but I don’t care. You still don’t need to be there. It’s still pointless. It still doesn’t do anything to improve maternal health outcomes so that pregnant people who desperately want their pregnancies can carry them to term safely and deliver healthy babies. It still doesn’t do anything to end the poverty which leads pregnant people to seek abortions in the first place. It still doesn’t do anything to create universal childcare for pregnant people who can’t take care of multiple children.
The only thing it does do is continue to violate the privacy of my patients and make them uncomfortable as they walk into an already emotional (for many) and difficult situation.
So again, I appreciate you apologizing for the more awful members of your movement, I really do, just don’t really care if what you describe doing instead is not “that bad”. None of it should be happening, because people should be able to access clinics without having to walk through crowds of people who can possibly identify them, etc. etc. etc.
Yet by the first half of the 20th century, change seemed to be in the air. In 1930, Pius XII issued the encyclical (papal letter) Casti Connubii (“on chaste wedlock”), which acknowledged that couples could seek pleasure in their sexual relations, so long as the act was still linked to procreation. Then, in 1966, Paul VI’s birth control commission presented its preliminary report to the pope. It held big news: The body had overwhelmingly voted to recommend lifting the prohibition on contraceptives. (The former Archbishop of Brussels, Cardinal Leo Suenens, went so far as to say the church needed to confront reality and avoid another “Galileo case.”)
Catholics rejoiced, and many began using the pill at once. But their hopes were dashed when, in July 1968, Paul VI released an encyclical titled Humanae Vitae (“on human life”), reaffirming the contraceptive ban. It turned out that three dissenting bishops on the commission had privately gone to plead with the pope: If the position on contraceptives was changed, they said, the teaching authority of the church would be questioned—the faithful could no longer trust the hierarchy.
Ironically, it was the prohibition on contraception that would help erode the church’s power with European and American Catholics. Laypeople overwhelmingly disregarded it, and bishops throughout Europe undermined it with statements reassuring couples to “follow their consciences.” American bishops were more circumspect, but a survey of Catholic priests in the early ’70s showed that about 60 percent of them believed the prohibition was wrong. Father Andrew Greeley, a noted sociologist, traces the decline in church membership and even vocations to the priesthood in the mid-1970s to Catholics’ disillusionment with the church’s integrity on birth control."
If you are looking through google for information on the wonderful invention known as Plan B, Emergency contraception or the Morning After Pill-
avoid Morningafterpill.org, which comes up on page 1 of ‘morning after pill’ searches
It is a actually a Anti-Abortion, Anti-Contraception site meant to shame women into thinking they are ending human life by using any method of emergency birth control. It is run by Catholics and gives an EXCESSIVE amount of misinformation about Plan B, going as far as to inform women they are Killing their child and this is simply not true.
Need a reputable site for Emergency Contraception info?
My Favorites currently are:
- Emergency Contraception - Princeton University Site
- Planned Parenthood - The Morning After Pill
- Emergency Contraception - Women’s Health
Please feel free to add your favorites!
Troll (via agentsama)
Buddy, if you think gay dudes getting their good times on is offensive that’s your problem.
And I for one am done with ‘constructive dialogue’. Y’all are trying to control my body, I ain’t too interested in talking it out with you.
THIS, Cydne. They even emailed Tumblr because they think it should be considered “hateful, illegal, or abusive.”
Since when has a constructive dialogue between an anti-choice Catholic and a pro-choicer on Tumblr ever been productive? Or even existed?
Here’s what I find offensive: Anti-choicers who think they have any say my sex life, my reproductive choices, and my future. Anti-choicers who think it’s okay - no, laudable, to lie to and manipulate people. Anti-choicers who take away crucial resources as punishment for not living up to a stranger’s moral code. Please get them off the pro-choice tags or I’ll have to report them for being hateful and abusive.
[Few things make me angrier than religious dominance concerning my body. How many times must I say it USCCB? Your religious freedom is not infringed by the existence of women, birth control, marriage equality, lgbt people, or abortion! No, really, I promise. But every time you pull a move like this you infringe on my right to a secular government and the right to be free from religion. Sit down and shut up, maybe listen to Catholics For Choice and take some notes. And once again, these posts become painfully relevant.] (Source)
Women’s health and rights organization are asking supporters of contraceptive coverage to send a message to the White House. Planned Parentood’s action is here.
This week, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) threw itself a pity party in Baltimore. According to the bishops, their “religious liberty” is threatened unless they are able to ensure that every single person in the United States (well, actually the world) is made to follow Catholic canon law to the letter. According to the New York Times, the bishops are “recasting their opposition” to same-sex marriage, birth control, and other fundamental aspects of public health and human rights, because they view both government and culture as infringing on the church’s rights.
“We see in our culture a drive to neuter religion,” Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan of New York, president of the bishops conference, said in a news conference Monday at the bishops’ annual meeting in Baltimore. He added that “well-financed, well-oiled sectors” were trying “to push religion back into the sacristy.”
But the sacristy is where the vast majority of Catholics appear to believe the bishops should be focusing their efforts. The Times notes that in light of the ongoing evidence of massive cover-ups by the Vatican and the USCCB of the priest pedophilia scandal, the bishops’ “pronouncements on politics and morality have been met with indifference even by many of their own flock.”
The bishops issue guidelines for Catholic voters every election season, a document known as “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” which is distributed in many parishes. But the bishops were informed at their meeting on Monday that a recent study commissioned by Fordham University in New York found that only 16 percent of Catholics had heard of the document, and only 3 percent had read it.
Nonetheless, the Bishops believe their own right to practice their religion is threatened by your right to practice yours or to act as a moral agent in your own life. Their freedom of religion is threatened unless they can ensure that all LGBT persons are denied the right to marry or adopt children. It is threatened unless all women are denied the rights to decide whether and when to have children. It is threatened unless a Catholic hospital can let a woman die from complications of pregnancy rather than provide her with or even refer her on an emergency basis for a life-saving abortion. It is threatened unless a two-celled fertilized egg has more rights than the living, breathing woman in whose body it floats.
They are not “free” until you are not free.
And they certainly are not “free” unless women are denied access to affordable birth control.
An integral part of the Affordable Care Act is the new benefit requiring health plans to cover preventive health care, including cancer screenings, immunizations, and birth control, with no co-pays. Inclusion of these benefits came about through dogged efforts by female legislators, including an amendment authored by Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), known as the Women’s Health Amendment. The Department of Health and Human Services, tasked with implementing health reform through regulations and oversight, took the advice of an expert panel of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and recommended birth control be covered as a women’s preventive service because it is basic health care, and because it improves health outcomes for women and their families. Research shows that improved access to birth control is directly linked to declines in maternal and infant mortality among other health benefits. The IOM recommendations are supported by a vast amount of research and affirmed by the World Health Organization, the International College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Public Health Association among many other medical and public health bodies.
Regulations promulgated by HHS this summer mandate coverage in all employee-based health plans of contraceptive methods without a co-pay. The current provision includes what many already consider to be a sweeping refusal clause, exempting certain religious organizations for which religious values are their primary purpose; that primarily employ persons who share the religious tenets of the organization; that primarily serve persons who share the religious tenets of the organization; and that are nonprofit organizations. The regulations would still require institutions such as Catholic hospitals—for which one assumes the primary purpose is evidence-based health care—and universities (primary purpose, education?) to offer insurance that covers contraception without a co-pay. Nothing (repeat: NOTHING) in this new benefit requires an organization to dispense birth control, or an individual to take it. This is simply a matter of ensuring women have access to affordable preventive care by providing it with no co-pays. For an excellent and thorough review of this issue, read the testimony of Catholics for Choice President Jon O’Brien.
Still, this has so riled the USCCB that Archbishop Timothy Dolan took his lobbying straight to President Obama, with whom he met privately at the White House last week. In what I take to be a somewhat ominous comment, Dolan stated at a news conference that he “found the president of the United States to be very open to the sensitivities of the Catholic community.”
Page 1 of 3