Emergency
Contraception and Death Penalty
by Christopher Dodson,
Executive Director, North Dakota Catholic Conference
February 2004
The biennial schedule of the North Dakota legislature has
its advantages and disadvantages. One advantage is that
North Dakotans can spend the non-session year watching
legislative trends in other states. Presumably, we can both
prepare for similar proposals and learn from other
states’ mistakes.
The happenings in neighboring states should attract
particular attention. Legislators often introduce bills
that were previously enacted in Minnesota, South Dakota, or
Montana. Sometimes, legislators will respond to events in
those states. In addition, interest groups are often
arranged regionally and when they have finished advancing
their agenda in one state, they will turn to the
neighboring state. Taking a look around, there are a few
trends that should draw our attention.
Some legislators in South Dakota have decided to climb
aboard the anti-Catholic health care bandwagon by
introducing a bill that would require all hospitals,
including Catholic-sponsored hospitals, to provide
abortifacient “emergency contraception” to rape
victims. This type of bill is part of a well-organized
campaign against Catholic hospitals and has appeared in
several large, mostly urban, states. It has now come next
door.
To appreciate the danger of this bill, it is necessary to
understand the truth about both emergency contraception and
the care Catholic hospitals provide to victims of sexual
assault. Unfortunately, the truth is often lost in the
rhetoric accompanying such bills.
Catholic hospitals do – and, in fact, are required to
by Church policy – offer contraceptive services to
victims of sexual assault, along with caring for the
victim’s other emotional, physical, and spiritual
needs. Since she is the victim of a in this case arises
from a non-consensual assault, the woman has a right to
protect herself from the potential conception.
However, Catholic hospitals will not knowingly perform an
abortion or provide an abortifacient. Catholic hospitals
will take efforts to ensure that conception has not
occurred. Only if there is no evidence that conception has
occurred can the victim be treated with medications that
would prevent fertilization. This policy does more than
protect the integrity of the Catholic facility. It also
provides a true service to the woman who otherwise might
terminate a life that was not a result of the assault.
The science of the early stages of reproduction and
“emergency contraception” are complicated. For
our purposes, it is only necessary to note a few facts.
Medications generally labeled “emergency
contraception” can prevent conception from occurring,
which is acceptable act in the case of rape. However, they
can also prevent implantation of a fertilized ovum, which,
because they destroy human life, are never acceptable.
Proponents of such legislation obfuscate the distinction by
talking about preventing “pregnancy.” To most
people, this sounds benign. What is not said is that
pregnancy is medically defined as starting with
implantation of an already fertilized ovum. Life does not
begin at pregnancy. It begins at conception. The South
Dakota bill, for example, cleverly defines “emergency
contraception” as that which “prevents
pregnancy,” but never defines
“pregnancy.”
Any bill that mandates the provision of abortifacients
should be disturbing enough to any Catholic and pro-life
person. However, such a bill should also cause serious
concern for anyone concerned about religious liberties. The
mere fact that a religious entity provides a public service
does mean it should lose its religious identity. A Catholic
hospital cannot violate core principles of the Catholic
faith and still be Catholic. The proponents of such bills
know that and that is why these bills are truly
anti-Catholic and not just anti-life.
Turning to Minnesota, perhaps the most disturbing trend is
Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty’s proposal to enact
the death penalty. Pawlenty says that his proposal takes
the “best” from states with capital punishment
so that there will be no risk of executing innocent
persons. He also notes – as if doing so makes the
proposal more palatable – that it would be limited to
certain sex offenders.
This attempt to limit the risk of error misses the point.
If the death penalty is wrong, it is wrong even if the
process is without error. Error only compounds the tragedy.
As to whether or not it is wrong, the Church’s
teaching is clear – in the present circumstances,
especially in a developed society, the death penalty is
unacceptable.
Minnesota’s response to Pawlenty’s proposal
warrants attention. States with the death penalty are
scaling back or suspending the use of capital punishment.
Minnesota will be the first state in some time to consider
moving in the other direction.
Let us pray that these ill winds are extinguished before
they have a chance to drift into North Dakota.
