Mirror of Justice

Monday, March 16, 2009

The Clone Wars continued

Last week I speculated that the desire to permit cloning was behind the push to lift the ban on embryonic stem cell research. This morning the New York Times endorsed cloning without ever using the word:

President Obama seems open to the possibility of moving beyond the surplus embryos. His announcement placed few boundaries on stem cell research beyond requiring it to be scientifically worthy, responsibly conducted and compliant with the law.

He gave the National Institutes of Health free rein to devise guidelines governing what kinds of research can be supported and what ethical strictures will be placed on it.

Let us hope that the N.I.H. broadens the range of stem cells that can be studied.

Scientists believe that one way to obtain the matched cells needed to study diseases is to use a cell from an adult afflicted with that disease to create a genetically matched embryo and extract its stem cells. This approach — known as somatic cell nuclear transfer — is difficult, and no one has yet done it.

Another approach — known as induced pluripotent stem cells — has shown that adult skin cells can be converted back to a state resembling embryonic stem cells without ever creating or destroying an embryo. Some experts think that approach may be the most promising, for moral and practical reasons.

Even so, work on genetically matched embryonic stem cells would still be important. They may be the best way to study the earliest stages of a disease, or prove superior for other purposes. They will almost certainly be needed as a standard to judge the value of the induced pluripotent cells.

When the N.I.H. sets the rules for federally financed research, the main criterion should be whether a proposal has high scientific merit.

Ryan Anderson comments here.

Sunday, March 15, 2009

The Religious Violence of "Defending Marriage"

By Michael Perry

Sightings 3/12/09

The Religious Violence of "Defending Marriage"

Jon Pahl

[Jon Pahl is Professor of the History of Christianity in North America at The Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia. He recently edited and published An American Teacher: Coming of Age and Coming Out, the Memoirs of Loretta Coller (Infinity Publishing, 2009).]

A recent article in The Atlantic and recently released Lutheran documents give good reasons to revisit the status of gays and lesbians across American society. Unfortunately, few commentators to date have addressed the most troubling development of the past few years: the growth of DOMA Laws, or "Defense of Marriage Acts." These laws are forms of religious violence.

The Federal Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, stipulates that for the purpose of federal laws and operations, "the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife." According to domawatch.org – a website sponsored by supporters of these laws – thirty-seven states now have some form of DOMA Laws on the books. The rationales for such defensive laws are often couched in neutral, "secular", or "naturalist" language. But the move to establish such laws came from religious groups, notably conservative Protestants, Catholics, and Mormons. And the logic and appeal of these laws also originates in religion, and functions as a form of violence. Six theses can clarify the contours of the religious violence embedded in these laws.

1) DOMA Laws violate sacred texts. Many of the arguments against gay and lesbian civil unions or marriage appeal to biblical texts from Genesis, Leviticus, Romans, or I Corinthians. But such arguments impose upon the texts a twentieth century understanding of sexual identity alien to the Jewish or Hellenistic cultures in which these texts arose.

2) DOMA Laws elevate heterosexual marriage to idolatrous status. In some communities of faith, defending "marriage" has become all but an item of confessional status (it is absent from any historic Christian Confessions). This arrogates to a majority – heterosexuals – special privileges (economic, social, and spiritual) not available to sexual minorities.

3) DOMA Laws scapegoat gays and lesbians. As Rene Girard argues, scapegoating is a chief manifestation of religious violence. It is difficult to see what real threat is posed to heterosexual intimacy, much less to civil society, by the desire of homosexuals for similar rights. It is easy to see how DOMA laws organize consent over and against a relatively voiceless and powerless group.

4) DOMA Laws sacrifice homosexual rights, and damage civil society, in the interest of religious purity. One measure of the justice in any society is how well it cares for vulnerable members. Sexual difference marks individuals as both vulnerable and "dangerous." And as Mary Douglass showed, any "danger" against which a law must defend is invariably constructed around some purity interest. DOMA Laws require gays and lesbians to sacrifice rights others take for granted, and render them subject to legalized forms of exclusion and discrimination. They damage the deep trust that is the most important social practice in civil society.

5) DOMA Laws confuse legislation with religion, and violate the First Amendment, as Ann Pellegrini and Janet Jakobsen have argued. It is entirely permissible (although ethically subject to scrutiny) for private communities to shape the boundaries of association in whatever ways members agree upon. It is a violation of the First Amendment's protection of free association to inhibit by law some forms of association that pose no harm to the common good, and a violation of the freedom from an established religion when religiously-inspired exclusions are written into law.

6) DOMA Laws perpetuate an association of sex with power, and thereby do damage to any sacramental sensibility that might remain in association with even heterosexual marriage. As Hendrik Hartog and other historians have shown, marriages have shifted in the modern era from patriarchal patterns of coverture to social contracts in which couples seek mutual fulfillment. Such contracts might be compatible with a sacramental sensibility, since they entail pledges of sexual fidelity and commitments to share social resources and responsibilities, along with (one might argue) other gifts of God. DOMA Laws associate sexual fidelity with legislated forms of coercive power, and inhibit the deep trust and mutuality intrinsic to modern (and sacramental) marriage. They establish hierarchies of relationships, and associate heterosexual unions (and sexual practices) with dominance.

DOMA Laws have been passed with the support and lobbying of religious groups. Such laws point, unfortunately, to a deep tendency of religions to consolidate power through exclusion, as Miroslav Volf has so cogently shown; these laws have no rationale for their existence apart from that exclusion. People who wish to "defend" [against] corrosive influences on marriage – and I count myself as one – might actually find allies among gays and lesbians who desire public recognition for their pledges of fidelity and their commitments to share resources and responsibilities with one another. A true defense of marriage would not involve mean-spirited exclusions, but would embrace practical policies that strengthen deep trust and support families facing economic challenges.

References:

Paul Elie’s article in The Atlantic,"God, Grace, and Sex," is online as "The Velvet Reformation" at http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200903/archbishop-canterbury/2.

The Social Statement "Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust" and the ECLA’s recommendations on ministry practices are online at http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/Social-Issues/Social-Statements-in-Process/JTF-Human-Sexuality.aspx.

----------
Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

Friday, March 13, 2009

Call for Papers: Religious Legal Theory

By Rob Vischer

“Religious Legal Theory: The State of the Field”

Conference Announcement and Call for Papers

Seton Hall University School of Law

Newark, New Jersey

Thursday-Friday, November 12-13, 2009

Seton Hall Law School will host a conference on Religious Legal Theory beginning Thursday morning, November 12 and ending Friday afternoon, November 13, 2009. Religious legal theory—the study of religiously-informed legal theory and its contributions—has become an area of law in which scholars of law and other disciplines have recently shown great interest.

In his address at the 2008 annual meeting of the Association of American Law Schools, AALS President John Garvey emphasized the importance of religious perspectives on law. Major university presses have published volumes on the intersection of faith, legal theory and theology (“Faith and Law: How Religious Traditions from Calvinism to Islam View American Law” (Cochran, ed. NYU Press 2007); “The Teachings of Modern Christianity on Law, Politics and Human Nature” (Witte and Alexander, eds. Columbia University Press 2006); “Christian Perspectives on Legal Thought” (McConnell, Cochran & Carmella, eds. Yale University Press 2001)). Established legal scholars have published work in law reviews offering explicitly religious perspectives. The Journal of Law and Religion publishes symposia on topics such as “Emerging Applications of Jewish Law in American Legal Scholarship,” and The Journal of Catholic Social Thought offers symposia on a variety of topics, both global and domestic. Numerous blogs and other non-traditional publishing venues are devoted to serious reflection on religious conceptions of law and public good.

We invite interested scholars to submit abstracts of proposed papers. Scheduled speakers include Samuel Levine (Professor of Law, Pepperdine University School of Law), David Skeel (S. Samuel Arsht Professor of Corporate Law, University of Pennsylvania School of Law), Amy Uelmen (Director, Institute on Religion, Law and Lawyer’s Work, Fordham Law School), and Robert Vischer (Associate Professor, University of St. Thomas School of Law).

The symposium will assess the “state of the field” of religious legal theory, consolidating the advances and charting new directions for religious perspectives on law and public policy. We welcome contributions from persons of various religious perspectives and particularly hope to foster ecumenical dialogue across the Christian, Jewish, Muslim as well as Eastern religious traditions. In particular, we hope to gather law professors, theologians, political scientists, sociologists, and scholars in other disciplines whose papers would discuss the following areas or related themes:

1) Overview of current religious legal theory: themes, publication venues, influence.

2) Challenges to religious legal theory: responses to and dialogue with pragmatism, positivism, critical legal studies, and other schools of thought within the academy.

3) Contributions and implications of religious legal theory: examples of religious concepts that foster renewed understandings of law and of the relationship between doctrinal reform in religion and law.

4) Directions for religious legal theory: influencing the academy, policymakers, the bench and bar.

Presentations of papers will be 20 minutes long to allow time for discussion.

Abstracts for proposed papers, and inquiries, should be sent to Professor David Opderbeck ([email protected]) no later than May 15. Abstracts should be no longer than 500 words. Presenters will be notified by June 30. For presenters, group rates at a local hotel will be available, conference meals will be provided, and limited funding may be available for transportation.

The conference is being planned by Professor Opderbeck, Professor Angela Carmella and Professor John Coverdale of Seton Hall University School of Law.

Those interested in the topic but not presenting papers are encouraged to attend the conference. Registration fees will be set at a time closer to the conference date.

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Cardinal Mahony to Lecture at Univ. Detroit Mercy

By John M. Breen

Friend of MOJ and Univ. Detroit Mercy law professor Andy Moore asked that I post the following announcement of what looks to be a very interesting and timely event>

University of Detroit Mercy School of Law

11th McElroy Lecture on Law and Religion

"Immigration, the Rule of Law and the Common Good"

featuring his Eminence

Cardinal Roger Mahony

Archbishop of Los Angeles

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

5:30-6:30 PM

Sts. Peter & Paul Jesuit Church

629 East Jefferson Ave.

Detroit, Michigan

A bit of good news: Obama on charter schools

By Rob Vischer

As an Obama supporter, I will readily admit that some of the policies and proclamations emerging from the White House over the past couple of weeks have not been confidence-building. One bright spot, though, is the President's announced intention to expand the number of charter schools. To me, the most fascinating question in this area is whether we will provide the space needed for charter schools to carve out distinct moral identities, not just to embrace innovative pedagogical techniques. Alert: self-promotion coming . . . I wrote an essay sketching some preliminary answers to that question for a symposium at the University of Maryland Law School a couple of years ago. Here's an excerpt

As a matter of logic, the exit option made available by [charter schools] makes it less reasonable for a student to view herself as a political outsider simply because a particular school embraces a moral claim with which she disagrees. By way of obvious example, the existence of the Harvey Milk School hardly justifies a conclusion that gay and lesbian youth are “insiders,” while those who disagree with the school’s premise are “not full members of the political community.” What is not clear is whether the exit option changes the endorsement dynamic on religious matters. . . .

You can read the entire paper here.

Newman again

By Elizabeth Schiltz

As I've suggested before, I think Newman most accurately capture the "messiness" of the Church that Michael discusses in his post, in this quote from Apologia pro Vita Sua. It's a "large reformatory", a "training school", a "moral factory" -- none of which are tidy images of unity. But, as Michael points out, the do represent miracles of unity, despite the messy, hard work that is going on inside of them, thanks to "beauty and the Majesty of a Superhuman Power."

Catholic Christendom is no simple exhibition of religious absolutism but presents a continuous picture of Authority and Private Judgment alternately advancing and retreating as the ebb and flow of the tide; -- it is a vast assemblage of human beings with wilful intellects and wild passions, brought together into one by the beauty and the Majesty of a Superhuman Power, -- into what may be called a large reformatory or training-school, not as if into a hospital or into a prison, not in order to be sent to bed, not to be buried alive, but (if I may change my metaphor) brought together as if into some moral factory, for the melting, refining, and molding, by an incessant, noisy process, of the raw material of human nature, so excellent, so dangerous, so capable of divine purpose.

Reflections on the Catholic Legal Theory Project at 5: Revisited

By Michael Scaperlanda

A month and a half ago, in response to posts by Steve S., I posted my thoughts on progressive/dissenting/heterodox Catholics blogging at MOJ. Our recent discussion on the Group of 26 and their support for Governor Sebelius has caused me to reflect further on the diverse nature of the Catholic experience and how it plays out publicly, including on the blog. And, since no one has argued with me – at least publicly - about my post on progressive/dissenting/heterodox Catholics, I thought I’d take this opportunity to argue with myself, or at least discuss a tension in my thinking.

There is a part of me – a big part of me - that wants tidiness, especially on those matters with significant cultural and legal consequences. I wish all Catholics were swimming in the same direction on these issues. Pelosi, Sebelius, Biden, Kennedy, Daschle, and the host of other pro-choice Catholic politicians are causing scandal within and outside the Church with respect to an issue that has, as Fr. Frank Sullivan, S.J. told the Conference of Catholic Legal Scholars last summer, been infallibly taught by the magisterium. Part of me wishes that the bishops would say what seems obvious to me – that these individuals, by obstinate opinion and action, have separated themselves from communion with the faithful. In other words, they have excommunicated themselves. But…

When I step back and put our present moment in historical context, and when I think about how such public “judgments” by the bishops would be taken in our current cultural climate, the waters get muddied, and the proper response less clear cut.

On the night before he was crucified, Jesus prayed: “Holy Father, keep them in your name … so that they may be one just as we are” (John 17:11), “I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me” (John 17:20-21), and “that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in them” (John 17:26).

I hope that this unity –this oneness – manifests itself as a oneness of heart, mind, and spirit in all things. But, Lord knows that in this fallen world that is a tough order. Self-centeredness, feeble mindedness, lack of courage, sickness, misunderstanding, ineffective means of communication, competing interests, and all sorts of other problems, surface to disrupt unity. This is certainly true in every marriage that I know, and throughout history we see it in the Church.

From the beginning, bishops, other leaders, and the rank and file have disagreed and fought among themselves (read Acts or almost any Pauline letter). And, for almost 1700 years bishops have fought with Catholic political leaders over political and theological matters both great and small. Why should our age be any different?

Given this history, it is remarkable – dare I say a miracle – that the Catholic Church has not only survived these 2000 years but is today the single largest religious body in the world. As in a marriage where the commitment (as old fashioned as it may sound) is for a lifetime, a lifetime lived within the Catholic Church means struggling for unity mostly by showing up every day asking the Holy Spirit for a loving heart, discerning mind, the grace to surrender our lives and dreams to God, the humility to ask forgiveness, and the mercy to forgive others.

When the bonds of unity are shattered whether in a marriage or in the Church, great sadness arises. And, it seems to me that the Pope and the bishops go to extraordinary lengths to try to preserve union by not publicly recognizing the breach until the very last moment when compelled by exigent circumstances. For example, I think Archbishop Lefebvre was at odds with the Pope and other bishops for well over 20 years before he was excommunicated and then the excommunication came only because Lefebvre insisted on ordaining bishops to succeed him without permission from Rome. I’m just thankful that it is not my job to determine when that moment has arrived.

Our 2000 year history is one of a remarkable unity achieved and maintained with and despite the messiness of this earthly life. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by this. A moment’s reflection on the apostle Peter, our first Pope, prepares us for the messiness of living the oneness Jesus prayed for while still living within the brokenness of our own lives on earth – Four verses after Peter is entrusted with the keys to the kingdom of heaven, Jesus says to him “Get out of my sight, you satan;” After Jesus is arrested Peter denies knowing him; and Peter has to be rebuked by Paul in Acts.

Except for two major continuing disruptions to unity (one occurring a 1000 years ago and the other 500 years ago), Christ’s prayer has pretty much been answered despite the many weaknesses of Church leaders, theologians, and lay persons. In my view, this can only be the work of the Holy Spirit. Although I prefer tidiness in our unity, history teaches me that I need to learn to accept a large degree of messiness in our oneness on this blog and in the Church and trust the workings of the Holy Spirit in all things.

May we all be graced with the ability to speak truth as we understand it through lives lived in love.

UPDATE: Catholic mom quotes this post adding her own insightful comments here after linking to and quoting a recent speech by Archbishop Chaput.

"Perserving Marriage in Substance, Not Just Name"

By Michael Scaperlanda

In yesterday's NRO, Ryan Anderson writes that "[t]he Prop 8 debate is not a clash between civil liberties and religion." In his essay, he addresses the arguments made by a certain Pepperdine law professor who is known to all who read MOJ. Anderson begins:

Should the state treat marriages the same way it treats baptisms and bar mitzvahs — as purely religious practices properly left to religious institutions? That’s what some are now arguing. If the state didn’t create marriage, they reason, then religion must have; and the state shouldn’t endorse sectarian religious beliefs. But their argument is profoundly flawed.

For the full essay, click here.

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Further consideration of the Statement of the 26

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

Mirror of Justice contributors and readers will recall some recent exchanges on this site concerning the statement of 26 Catholic leaders, theologians, and scholars (hereinafter “the 26”). After taking some considerable time reflect on the words of their statement, I have reached a conclusion that the statement misrepresents Governor Sebelius’s record and should not be relied upon by the Catholic faithful in forming their views concerning the Governor’s fidelity to her faith. While I may not fall into the enviable ranks of being a leader, scholar, or theologian, I am a Catholic who works diligently at discerning what the Church asks of me and all who claim to be her faithful members.

In that context, I make the same claim as the 26 that I am, or strive to be, a faithful Catholic, but unlike the 26 I cannot offer support to the governor’s nomination to be Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. I have no reason at this time to doubt the assertion of the 26 that the governor is “a woman of deep faith” [but as the 26 note, she does have issues with the Church’s leadership] who participates in “a proud family history of public service.” I am skeptical about the claim posed by the 26 that the governor is responsible for “significantly reducing the abortion rate in Kansas.” In expressing my skepticism, I am not using the governor’s faith or my faith to attack anyone, and this is not to say that by critiquing the governor’s stance on abortion-related public policy issues I am being “partisan” or “divisive.” As a Catholic I understand what the Church teaches regarding the role of Catholics, in general, and Catholic public officials, in particular, when addressing the legal status of abortion. As both Pope John Paul II noted in his encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae (N. 73) and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith explained in its 2002 Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding The Participation of Catholics in Political Life (N. 4), “an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality.” It might be argued by some that the governor has followed this instruction, but in order to assess this claim it is essential to take further stock of what action she has pursued regarding proposed legislation that addresses abortion. I shall come back to this point in a moment.

But here it is important to acknowledge what the 26 cite as important accomplishments on other fronts and to respond objectively and fairly to these other assertions. The first is that the governor “signed” a bill which funds “support services for pregnant women and alternatives to abortion.” The initial legislation establishing this program was enacted in 2000 prior to Kathleen Sebelius becoming governor. In 2004, she did take negative action on this program by exercising her line item veto on May 24, 2004 to eliminate in its entirety the state’s funding for the Pregnancy Maintenance Initiative (PMI) as this proposal was then called. It is true that on April 15, 2005 she signed HB 2301, the Stan Clark Pregnancy Maintenance Act, which was named in honor of the recently killed state legislator who had tried unsuccessfully to override the governor’s 2004 veto of the PMI; however the amount of the funding was less than before. But, on the same day, April 15, 2005, she also vetoed HB 2503 which attempted to establish medical standards in abortion clinics. In her veto, she stated,

“Once again in 2005, the Legislature has chosen pure politics over good policy, has rejected uniform standards for all procedures, and has instead chosen to regulate only one procedure—abortion. As the number of outpatient surgeries grow rapidly in Kansas and throughout the country, it is wise to update our regulatory oversight to ensure the best possible treatment for all patients. Unfortunately, HB 2503 falls far short of meeting this basic standard of care. I have stated repeatedly that I will sign this law when it includes all surgical procedures and all surgical centers to ensure the safety of all Kansans. For these reasons, I veto HB 2503. I strongly urge the Legislature, upon its return, to endorse the appropriate clinic standards that the Board of Healing Arts is currently putting into place. We should encourage physicians and other health care professionals to work through the Board of Healing Arts for the speedy development of standards that apply to all surgical clinics and protect the health of every patient. There is no justifiable reason to do less.”

But, in fact, there was a justifiable reason for this in that lax or few standards were being followed in some abortion clinics unlike other medical facilities that did not perform abortions. The last word to date concerning the PMI program is that Governor Sebelius has eliminated the Stan Clark PMI program from the 2010 budget (see pages 94 and 280 of the January 12, 2009 FYI budget, HERE.

While it is correct as the 26 state that the governor signed, without comment, Alexa’s Law, which recognizes the murder or injury of an unborn child as a crime, we must recognize that Kathleen Sebelius has expressed particular personal views on the status of nascent human life in the womb. Here is what Representative Kathleen Sebelius said in 1989 on this subject:

As St. Ignatius reminds us, it is proper to put the best interpretation on what the other person does or says until contrary evidence is provided. So, keeping in mind his wisdom, I could assume that as Governor, Kathleen Sebelius might have regard for the protection of nascent human life; however, as a state representative, it is clear that when she specifically addressed the issue, her view was to the contrary. If she has indeed changed the position she held when she served as a state representative, I would heartily welcome the abandonment of her previous view.

The 26 have stated clearly that the governor “has had disagreements over public policy with leaders in her Church. Yet their disagreement has never been over the morality of abortion, but over what prudential policy is best in dealing with abortion in Kansas.” But is this in fact the case when we look at her gubernatorial veto of several pieces of legislation designed to protect fetal life or to regulate abortion providers?

Here it is best to let her record speak for itself. I have already addressed her 2005 veto of legislation geared to regulating the standards of abortion clinics. On May 19, 2006, she vetoed other legislation, SB 528, which was designed to regulate late term abortions of viable fetuses, to collect statistical information about these procedures, and to have physicians elaborate on their findings about late term abortions that were conducted under the “mental health” exception. The bill was also designed to ascertain if disabled women were being targeted for abortion because some abortion proponents view them as being unsuitable parents. The bill was also designed to ensure that physicians performing abortions had to comply with the steps of caring for a child who survived the abortion, i.e., a “born alive infant”. In her veto message, the governor asserted that her “Catholic faith teaches me that life is sacred. Personally, I believe abortion is wrong.” In her view, SB 528 would “do nothing to reduce abortion in Kansas. Instead, it will force women to provide intimate, sensitive health information to the government. Privacy is a fundamental concern to all Kansans.” Indeed, privacy is important, but protecting human life is far more important.

In the Omnibus Budget Bill signed into law on May 21, 2007, the governor line item vetoed the funding for the Kansas Department of Health appropriation for the reporting of performed abortions. In her view, this vetoed provision would violate the “medical privacy” of patients. As she said, “All Kansans also want our laws upheld, including laws protecting the privacy of our personal medical records.” Again, privacy is important, but protecting human life is far more important.

On April 21, 2008, the governor vetoed SB 389, the Comprehensive Abortion Reform Act, which would have strengthened restrictions on, but not eliminated, late term abortions; the bill was also designed to prevent “coerced abortions” especially involving mothers who are minors. The legislation would have further required officials to collect information regarding the medical justifications given for late term abortions; moreover, it had a provision for enabling families to bring civil suits against abortion providers planning late term abortions against a member of that family if the late term abortion violated Kansas law. But in her veto, she said,

“Kansans are proud of the progress we’ve made lowering the abortion rate and lifting our economy. It’s time for legislators to recognize that progress and focus on the things that continue to move us forward. I am concerned about a number of provisions in SB 389. The United States Supreme Court decisions make clear that any law regulating abortion must contain exceptions for pregnancies which endanger the woman’s life or health. [Araujo: And the bill allows for this] However, SB 389 allows a variety of individuals to seek a court order preventing a woman from obtaining an abortion, even where it may be necessary to save her life. I am concerned that the bill is likely unconstitutional or even worse, endangers the lives of women. The bill contains unprecedented expansions of legal proceedings which would likely encourage extensive litigation and also unnecessarily jeopardizes the privacy of Kansas women’s confidential medical records. As Governor, nothing is more important to me than the safety, health and privacy rights of our citizens. I am vetoing SB 389 because it endangers the health of women and is likely to be found in violation the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Kansas.”

In her message, she did not comment on the effect her veto would have on the health and safety of the unborn.

I find that the governor’s record on doing what the faithful Catholic should do regarding “limiting the harm done by” abortion laws and at “lessening [their] negative consequences” to be insufficient given the present evidence contained in her several substantive or budgetary vetoes over the past several years. Therefore I find it impossible to share the sentiments of the 26 regarding her fidelity to what the Church asks of her as a public official.

While the question of marriage has not been a part of the discussion regarding the governor’s nomination to be Secretary of Health and Human Services, it is relevant to point out that while she has so far expressed her resistance to same-sex marriage, she also opposed the April 2005 Constitutional amendment enacted in Kansas defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. While she did not actively campaign on the measure, she nevertheless expressed the view that existing state law was sufficient to preserve marriage rights. As she said, “I don’t think we need a constitutional amendment, and particularly a constitutional amendment that goes far beyond the bounds of that law.” Of course it would be prudent for her to take account of other states which also have statutory laws but no constitutional provisions defining marriage; some of them are facing or have faced legal challenges to statutory laws that were not reflected in constitutional provisions.

It is time to bring this post to a conclusion—and the conclusion here is that the 26 have failed to convince me that Governor Sebelius’s public service record on abortion questions demonstrates that she, as a public official, is faithful to what the Church asks of her on this critical issue.

RJA sj

Something to see at home and in peace

By rstith

I always try to avoid opening and viewing videos people send me. They are usually a complete waste of time. "Just give me the reasoning in writing and skip the expressive sentiment", is what i feel. But this is an exception. Despite my many years of heart-hardening confrontation with unutterable violence, I was moved enough to cry out softly, involuntarily. Only 62-seconds-long, "Everyone Against Abortion, Please Raise Your Hand" can be seen at www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql_7jnp--UE