Pope urges pharmacists to reject abortion pill
Mon Oct 29, 2007

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) – Pharmacists must be allowed to refuse to supply drugs that cause abortion or euthanasia, Pope Benedict said on Monday, calling on health professionals to be “conscientious objectors” against such practices.

The Pope told a convention of Roman Catholic pharmacists that part of their job was to help protect human life from conception until natural death — the Church teaching that rules out any deliberate termination of pregnancy or euthanasia.

“It is not possible to anaesthetize the conscience, for example, when it comes to molecules whose aim is to stop an embryo implanting or to cut short someone’s life,” the Pope said.

I must tell you what your writing on this topic has done for me! It has been a soothing balm to my soul! In the weeks that have passed since this infamous decision was handed down in Connecticut, I have sought clarity on Plan B. I must be well-informed in my position as a counselor at a women’s clinic. I am thankful that all of us who work in the clinic are united on this issue. I can tell all of your readers that this diabolical set of pills (there are two in the pack), is a scourge upon women and that the youngest and most vulnerable women are preyed upon by older males (statutory rape) who purchase this drug and literally force their ‘dates’ to take it! All of the predictions of the valiant pro-life authorities who gave testimony before the FDA approved this drug for OTC use have come true. I can verify this by what I see day to day, and I am only one counselor in one clinic! Many, many Catholic women are included in this group of victims.

The ‘exceptions for rape and incest’, while put forth by well-meaning people, have always been the foot in the door for PP and the abortion lobby. I know human beings who are technically the ‘products of rape and incest.’ There can never be a reason to use any contraceptives or to sanction an abortion. We must take the hard line on this and stand up for these women.
Bishop Fulton Sheen predicted the in final age of the Antichrist (which he defined as anti-cross), we would see Theology as Politics. That is surely what is happening here. Buying these drugs is sleeping with the enemy in more ways than one! I pray our great Pope B16 issues a current binding statement (which to my satisfaction has been done already), so that no group of bishops can muddy the waters any further!

Again, I thank you, Father from the bottom of my heart! I do not have your knowledge or abilities, but I knew the truth! God bless you!
Sincerely,

C

Excluding contraption being intrinsically evil, which I know that it is, I believe that there is too much practical doubt to ever have a practically certain moral conscience in administering Plan B in the way to which our Fathers have decided.

I am currently arguing the point that we should not act not because there is not absolute certainty but because we cannot dispel the theoretical doubt that would even enable us to form anything close to practical moral certainty to act by administering the drug without the ovulation test.

It does not matter that not to give an ovulation test before administering Plan B is not intrinsically evil, since we do not know for sure the effects of Plan B, as our Fathers claim. The fact that we do not know for sure the effects of Plan B are precisely what forbid us from not administering it without an ovulation test. A clear explanation of why this is true would be of great benefit to explaining to our Fathers why they cannot employ one of the criterions of the Principle of Double Effect in this way, as I suspect they are, because it is not permissible to do so because we are dealing with a necessary attainment of an end: fife and allowing the possible Baptism for eternal salvation of those to whom it could be denied if the test was not administered.

Also, our Fathers seem to employing the Principle of Double Effect, or maybe the moral system of Probabilism, when they state that they have made a prudential judgment to keep the hospitals open “for the good of the catholic hospital and those they serve???. How can these things even be considered to be more important than doing all we can to save life or not being complicit with destroying it?

Thank you Father,

Tim+

Why do you think “flushing” is not contraception in this circumstance, when (if I understand you correctly) a condom or diaphram is? Aren’t both the stopping of sperm, only at a different location?

And if flushing is OK, how about a theoretical drug that does not prevent ovulation but does incapacitate sperm by thickening cervical mucus–”freezing” rather than “flushing,” if you will?

Perhaps more fundamentally, if a woman can tell the rapist “I will not give you my body, or my reproductive organs,” why cannot she tell his sperm “I will not give you my ovum”?

I had to leave my profession for 8 years and work in home health because I could not, in good conscience, dispense possible abortifacients. And I sought much advice at the time in 1997 and I had 5 priests and an ex-priest all tell me I could indeed dispense these drugs. Finally at a conference and with Fr. Pablo Straub as confessor…he prayed and told me Our Lord would be pleased if I did not do this anymore. I had known it in my heart.

When those in position of authority say ‘birth control is a matter of conscience’ and other such things, their personal opinions carry weight along with responsibility. When those in such positions do not adhere to the teachings of the Church’s magisterium, evil triumphs. We have seen countless examples in the past decades.

This was a grave error on the part of the CT. bishops.
Ave Maria!