Life After Roe? The Answer is No

Frances Kissling, president of Catholics For a Free Choice, has published an excessively long article in the Winter issue of CFFC's periodical, inappropriately titled Conscience. The article, entitled "Is There Life After Roe? How to Think About the Fetus" goes into elaborate detail about the pro-choice movement and its beliefs, or lack thereof.

In the opening paragraph, Ms. Kissling writes:

In the thirty years since Roe v. Wade ushered in a new paradigm in the legal understanding of the right to choose abortion, there has been little about the issue that has not been said -- and said time and time again. Supporters of choice have argued that it is important to recognize women as autonomous persons with the moral capacity and moral right to decide whether a pregnancy will be aborted or brought to term. We have enhanced our core argument with references to broader values such as religious freedom, opposition to government intervention in our personal lives and the right to medical privacy. The most powerful of prochoice messages has been the multi-faceted question, "Who Decides?" which highlights both women's rights and keeping government out of the bedroom without ever mentioning either. Inherent in our focus on women's rights has been our belief that fetal life does not attain, at any point in pregnancy, a value that is equivalent to that of born persons, most specifically women, infants or children who are most often cited in discussions of abortion. Our belief about what value fetal life may possess is not yet well articulated and prochoice supporters are not of one mind on this question. Neither it should be noted are the world's religions, ethicists or theologians of one mind on this matter.

I suppose I'll begin with the argument that women are autonomous persons with the moral capacity to decide whether or not a pregnancy will be aborted, an argument that is apparently enhanced by values such as religious freedom, opposition to government intervention in people's personal lives and the right to medical privacy. The argument, simply stated, is absurd. The fact that women are autonomous persons, the fact that people have the right to religious freedom, the fact that the government shouldn't be deeply involved in people's personal lives and the fact that people deserve privacy does not, cannot, and never will justify murder. Everyone is an autonomous person; that doesn't give everyone the right to decide who they will or will not kill, or when to kill them. Everyone deserves religious freedom, but this is not primarily a religious issue. The government shouldn't be involved in every little aspect of people's personal lives, but the government has the right and indeed the responsibility to protect the common good, and especially the responsibility to prevent the murder of more than forty-five million people. People have a right to medical privacy, but not if they're using medicine to kill people.

The real issue, which pro-abortion lobbyists will not address, is that the "fetus," as they call an unborn baby, is a human life. There is no scientific basis for the point of view that an unborn baby is not a human life. Thus, this is not just a matter of religious freedom or medical privacy, it's a matter of life and death for millions upon millions of human beings.

Ms. Kissling goes on to say that the value of "fetal life" has not been well-articulated by the pro-abortion movement, nor are the world's religions of one mind on the matter. I submit that the reason the value of "fetal life" has not been articulated by the pro-abortion movement is precisely because "fetal life" doesn't have value in their eyes. The above paragraph written by Ms. Kissling would certainly lead one, rather easily, to that conclusion. As for the world's religions, she's right -- unfortunately, there is no consensus among the world's religions. But it is important to note that there is widespread support for the pro-life movement in all of the world's religions, and that there are many Christian denominations and other religions that are pro-life. Some pro-life Protestant churches include the African Methodist Episcopal Church, the Assemblies of God, the Church of God in Christ, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons), the Church of the Nazarene, the Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod), the Southern Baptist Convention and hundreds of others. As for the Catholic Church, Kissling's spiritual home, it is unequivocally clear in teaching that human life begins at conception and that abortion is absolutely wrong in all circumstances.

Because the Church's teaching is unequivocal, and because Kissling continues to so publicly and forcefully violate it, it's time for us to demand that the American Bishops take some kind of ecclesiastical action against Kissling and Catholics For a Free Choice. The USCCB has made statements about Catholics For a Free Choice on two separate occasions, and Archbishop Chaput has answered questions about CFFC, but none of the Bishops will take ecclesiastical action against Kissling. This led her to challenge the Bishops to excommunicate her in 1999, claiming that the lack of ecclesiastical action against her made her a Catholic in good standing. This scandal cannot continue. The Bishops will not do anything about anyone, but they must do something about her. And they must do it now. For more information on Kissling, read this article.

As I mentioned in a previous entry on Fides, Spes, Caritas, I have started a petition to be sent to the Pope, Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal McCarrick asking them to take some (non-specific) ecclesiastical action against Ms. Kissling. The petition does not ask the Holy Father or the two Cardinals to excommunicate her, but simply to take some ecclesiastical action against her. There is a wide range of possibilities available to them, including excommunication, interdict, or simply enforcing Canon 915. I'm urging everyone who is scandalized by Ms. Kissling's public and forceful attacks against the Church and the unborn to sign the petition, which will be presented to the Holy Father and the two Cardinals on January 1, 2005. Perhaps if they see that there are Catholics who want to see action taken to prevent the scandal that Ms. Kissling is causing, they will take some kind of ecclesiastical action against her.