As chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Migration, Bishop John C. Wester of Salt Lake City applauded the July 28 decision by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton to halt some of the most controversial provisions of Arizona SB 1070 from going into effect the next day. Bishop Wester lamented the status quo on immigration as “unacceptable” and called for the Federal government to act immediately on immigration reform.

“It is the right decision,” Bishop Wester said. “Any law that provides legal cover to profiling affects all members of our communities, including legal residents and citizens. It is a very slippery slope. What is needed now is for Congress and the Administration to live up to their responsibilities and address this issue by passing immigration reform.”

The U.S. Catholic bishops believe that any comprehensive immigration reform bill should contain the following elements: a legalization program that gives migrant workers and their families an opportunity to earn legal permanent residency and eventual citizenship; a new worker visa program that protects the labor rights of both U.S. and foreign workers and gives participants the option to earn permanent residency; reform of the U.S. family-based immigration system to reduce waiting times for family reunification; and restoration of due process protections for immigrants, including asylum-seekers. In the longer term, policies that address the root causes of migration, such as the lack of sustainable development in sending nations, should also be part of the equation.

Following public criticisms of new federally-funded health insurance plans that would have covered elective abortions in Pennsylvania and New Mexico, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a statement that the agency will act to exclude abortion from this program. Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, chairman of the U.S. Catholic bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, welcomed the statement as averting an “alarming precedent” and called for permanent law to exclude abortion from all programs under the new Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).

“We welcome this new policy,” the Cardinal said, “while continuing to be gravely concerned that it was not issued until after some states had announced that pro-abortion health plans were approved and had begun to enroll patients.”

“This situation illustrates once again the need for Congress to enact legislation clearly stating once and for all that funds appropriated by PPACA will not pay for abortions or for insurance coverage that includes abortion,” Cardinal DiNardo said. “The issue of government involvement in the taking of innocent human life should not remain subject to the changeable discretion of executive officials or depend on the continued vigilance of pro-life advocates.”

“It is vitally important for people with serious medical conditions who have been unable to obtain coverage to receive the help offered by programs such as this – and for them to be assured that their coverage will be life-affirming, not life-threatening,” the Cardinal concluded.

The full text of his statement follows:

This week it was reported that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had approved a new high-risk health insurance program for residents of Pennsylvania that by its terms would cover abortions without meaningful limits. This federal program, established by the

new Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), will provide health services until 2014 to uninsured persons with pre-existing conditions. The Pennsylvania plan, while purporting not to fund “elective” abortions, made clear in its text that all abortions that satisfy the requirements of certain Pennsylvania statutes (i.e., all abortions that are not illegal in that state) would be covered, and reimbursed, with a combination of private premiums and federal funds drawn from the U.S. Treasury. This first announcement that $160 million in federal funds would be used to provide pro-abortion coverage raised an alarming precedent. Later the news also became public that the state of New Mexico would be covering “elective abortions” in its federal high-risk pool, which was already accepting enrollees.

Last night, however, HHS reacted to public criticisms by announcing that it will act to exclude abortion from this federally funded program, in accord with the assurances that Secretary Sebelius and President Obama have repeatedly made that PPACA will not be used to promote abortion. We welcome this new policy, while continuing to be gravely concerned that it was not issued until after some states had announced that pro-abortion health plans were approved and had begun to enroll patients. This situation illustrates once again the need for Congress to enact legislation clearly stating once and for all that funds appropriated by PPACA will not pay for abortions or for insurance coverage that includes abortion. Such legislation would mirror the Hyde amendment and similar provisions which prevent such abortion funding in all other federal health programs.

In this program as in others, the issue of government involvement in the taking of innocent human life should not remain subject to the changeable discretion of executive officials or depend on the continued vigilance of pro-life advocates. It is vitally important for people with serious medical conditions who have been unable to obtain coverage to receive the help offered by programs such as this – and for them to be assured that their coverage will be life-affirming, not life-threatening.

Bishop Gerald F. Kicanas of Tucson, Arizona, Vice-president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, testified before Congress on the ethical imperative for reform of the U.S. immigration system. He spoke July 14, before the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law.

Bishop Kicanas, whose diocese runs along the whole of the Arizona-Mexico border, said he witnesses every day “the human consequences of our broken immigration system,” adding that “[t]his is a situation which from a humanitarian and ethical stand point, needs to be addressed in a humane and comprehensive manner.”

Though often dismissed by analyses that highlight the economic, social or legal aspects, “immigration is ultimately a humanitarian issue, since it impacts the basic rights and dignity of millions of persons and their families. “As such it has moral implications,” he said. “We cannot accept the toil and taxes of immigrants without providing them the protection of law.”

Bishop Kicanas recognized the rule of law as a flashpoint in the debate. “The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops wholeheartedly agrees that the rule of law is paramount, and that those who break the law should be held accountable,” he said. “As our testimony points out, comprehensive immigration reform would honor the rule of law and help restore it by requiring 11 million undocumented to pay a fine, pay back taxes, learn English, and get in the back of the line. We believe this a proportionate penalty for the offense.”

He also said the bishops believe immigration reform will make the nation more secure, “freeing up time and resources to concentrate on those coming who intend to do us harm.” He praised both the enforcement and life-saving efforts of border patrol agents, but pointed out that decades of enforcement-only policies have not solved the border or the larger immigration problem.

Bishop Kicanas also addressed the issue of the passage of controversial Arizona SB 1070. “It is my belief that the passage of this law reflects the frustration of Arizonans and the American public with Congress for not addressing the issue of immigration reform. The message is to break the partisan paralysis and act now,” he said.

The bishop’s oral testimony was accompanied by a more in-depth written testimony in which Bishop Kicanas summarized the U.S. bishops longstanding recommendations on immigration reform:

· Enact comprehensive immigration reform legislation that provides a legalization program (path to permanent residency) for undocumented workers in our nation; reforms the employment-based immigration system so that low-skilled workers can enter and work in a safe, legal, orderly, and humane manner; and reduces waiting times in the family preference system for families to be reunited.

· Examine the “push” factors of migration such as international economic policies and enact policies which encourage sustainable economic development, especially in sending communities;

· Enact in reform legislation the Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act of 2009 and the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act (DREAM);

· Adopt immigration enforcement policies that ensures our nation’s borders are secure at the same time that the abuse and deaths of migrants are prevented and their basic human rights and dignity are protected;

· Include the necessary elements in any legislation to efficiently implement any new immigration program, including taking actions to prepare the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service to implement any new program and to properly fund such implementation.

The testimony also listed the many perceived benefits of an earned legalization program and reform aspects that the Church finds problematic.

Pope Benedict XVI will focus on religious freedom’s contribution to peace in his World Peace Day message for 2011. Read about it here.

Be sure to join the Holy Father in the commitment to religious freedom. Be sure to sign the Religious Liberty Restoration Amendment petition. If your church or parish has not circulated the petition, contact your pastor immediately. There are only a few more weeks to collect signatures!

Get all the information you need here.

Fabric of Society Depends on Basic Legal Definition of Marriage
Position Protects Roles of Fathers, Mothers
Marriage Existed Before State, Not Open To Redefinition

Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville, chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Ad Hoc Committee for the Defense of Marriage, expressed grave concern regarding recent rulings by a federal judge in Massachusetts rejecting the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

Archbishop Kurtz offered his remarks after two rulings on July 8 that held that section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. Section 3 provides that for purposes of federal statutes, regulations, and rulings, “marriage” means the legal union of one man and one woman.

“Marriage – the union of one man and one woman – is a unique, irreplaceable institution. The very fabric of our society depends upon it. Nothing compares to the exclusive and permanent union of husband and wife. The state has a duty to employ the civil law to reinforce – and, indeed, to privilege uniquely – this vital institution of civil society. The reasons to support marriage by law are countless, not least to protect the unique place of husbands and wives, the indispensible role of fathers and mothers, and the rights of children, who are often the most vulnerable among us. And yet, a judge has decided that a marriage-reinforcing law like DOMA fails to serve even a single, minimally rational government interest. On behalf of the bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee for the Defense of Marriage, I express grave concern over these dangerous and disappointing rulings which ignore even the most apparent purposes of marriage and thus offend true justice,” he said.

The court rulings were based on two separate lawsuits which had been filed in Massachusetts.One ruling states that section 3 of DOMA violates the equal protection principles of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause (see Gill v. Office of Personnel Management). The other ruling holds that section 3 of DOMA violates the Tenth Amendment and the Spending Clause (see Commonwealth of Mass. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services).

In the Gill ruling, U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro commented that, “as irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest,” section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional.

“To claim that defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman is somehow irrational, prejudiced, or even bigoted, is a great disservice not only to truth but to the good of our nation,” Archbishop Kurtz said. “Marriage exists prior to the state and is not open to redefinition by the state. The role of the state, instead, is to respect and reinforce marriage. Thursday’s decision, by contrast, uses the power of the state to attack the perennial definition of marriage, reducing it merely to the union of any two consenting adults. But only a man and a woman are capable of entering into the unique, life-giving bond of marriage, with all of its specific responsibilities. Protecting marriage as only the union of one man and one woman is not merely a legitimate, but a vital government interest.”

The USCCB Office of General Counsel noted that the two court rulings are mistaken, both on the basis of the unique meaning of marriage, and because nothing in the Constitution forbids Congress from defining “marriage” – as that term is used in federal statutes, regulations, and rulings—as the union of one man and one woman.

We will be collecting signatures for the Religious Liberty Restoration Amendment at the Stutsman County Fair in Jamestown July 7 -10. Stop by and show your support. If you can help – even for a short while – call the North Dakota Catholic Conference office at 223-2519.

Volunteers are also needed at the Red River Valley fair July 9-17 and the state fair July 23-31. Contact the ND Family Alliance if you can help at those events.

A Senate committee amendment that would authorize the performance of elective abortions at military hospitals in this country and around the world is “misguided” and should be removed from the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 3454), said the Chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities. In a June 29 letter, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston urged Senators to remove this amendment on the grounds that it breaks with longstanding federal and military policies on government promotion of abortion.

Cardinal DiNardo said it was disingenuous to suggest, as the amendment’s proponents have, that the amendment is “moderate” in requiring patients at military facilities to pay for their abortions. “Which is a more direct governmental involvement in abortion: That the government reimburses someone else for having done an abortion, or that the government performs the abortion itself and accepts payment for doing so?” the Cardinal wrote. He cited a 1989 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court saying that “the State need not commit any resources to facilitating abortions, even if it can turn a profit by doing so.”

Cardinal DiNardo also noted the longstanding nature of the current policy against providing abortions at military health facilities, which has been in place for 22 years with the exception of 1993-1995.

“During the brief period when these facilities were told to make abortions available, scarcely any military physician could be found in overseas facilities who was willing to perform abortions,” the Cardinal added.

Cardinal DiNardo also said that the current military policy is in keeping with federal policy in general, noting: “Other federal health facilities also may not be used for elective abortions, and many states have their own laws against use of public facilities for such abortions.”

Calling on the Senate not to approve the bill unless it maintains current law, as the bill approved by the House of Representatives already does, Cardinal DiNardo concluded that “this amendment presents Congress with the very straightforward question whether it is the task of our federal government to directly promote and facilitate elective abortions. During the recent health care reform debate, the President and congressional leadership assured us that they agree it is not.”

Archbishop Broglio of the Archdiocese of Military Services had written an earlier letter to the Senate against the proposed policy change. Cardinal DiNardo endorsed his letter as well, noting that it urges Congress “not to impose this tremendous burden on the consciences of Catholic and other health care personnel who joined our armed services to save and protect innocent life, not to destroy it.”

Full text of the letter can be found online at: www.usccb.org/prolife/DiNardo-Ltr-Military-Abortions-6-29-2010.pdf

The Louisiana legislature has passed and sent to Gov. Bobby Jindal for his signature SB 606, the Preservation of Religious Freedom Act. As reported by the Baton Rouge Advocate, final enactment came yesterday as the state Senate voted 30-6 to concur in House changes. The bill provides that state and local governments must show both a compelling interest and use the least restrictive means before they may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, even through a facially neutral rule or a rule of general applicability.

(From the Religion Clause blog)

WASHINGTON—The chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities voiced “grave concern” to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over its move toward approving a new drug that may induce early abortions as an “emergency contraceptive.” In a June 17 letter to Dr. Margaret Hamburg, Commissioner of the FDA, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston criticized the FDA’s move to hold an advisory committee meeting on the drug Ulipristal “without broad public input or a full record on the drug’s safety for women or their unborn children.”

The Cardinal raised concerns that Ulipristal is more similar in effect to the drug RU-486, which can cause abortions several weeks into pregnancy, than it is to other emergency contraceptives, which are believed to have no post-implantation effects.

“Millions of American women, even those willing to use a contraceptive to prevent fertilization in various circumstances, would personally never choose to have an abortion,” said Cardinal DiNardo. “They would be ill served by a misleading campaign to present Ulipristal simply as a ‘contraceptive.’ In fact, FDA approval for that purpose would likely make the drug available for ‘off-label’ use simply as an abortion drug – including its use by unscrupulous men with the intent of causing an early abortion without a woman’s knowledge or consent. Such abuses have already occurred in the case of RU-486, despite its warning labels and limited distribution.”

Cardinal DiNardo went on to cite the support of this and previous Administrations for federal laws ensuring no one is involved in an abortion without his or her knowledge or consent, as well as the Obama Administration’s rationale for supporting broad access to contraceptives as a means of reducing abortions.

“Plans for approving a known abortion-causing drug as a ‘contraceptive’ for American women is not consistent with the stated policy of the Administration on these matters,” the Cardinal wrote.

Full text of the letter follows. Dear Dr. Hamburg:

I am writing because of grave concern over the FDA’s current process for approving the drug Ulipristal (with the proposed trade name of Ella) for use as an “emergency contraceptive.” The decision to hold an advisory committee hearing on the drug today, without broad public input or a full record on the drug’s safety for women or their unborn children, does not demonstrate an understanding of the new medical and moral issues it presents.

Concerns have been raised over other drugs considered for “emergency contraception,” such as the “Plan B” regimen, because they might act not only to prevent ovulation but also to prevent implantation of the developing embryo in his or her mother’s womb. However, such drugs were thought to have no post-implantation effects. Ulipristal is a close analogue to the abortion drug RU-486, with the same biological effect – that is, it can disrupt an established pregnancy weeks after conception has taken place.[i]

This drug is contraindicated for women who are or may be pregnant. Yet its proposed use here is targeted precisely at women who may already have conceived, as it would be administered within five days after “unprotected” sex or contraceptive failure. No existing pregnancy test can exclude the possibility that a new life has been conceived in this time frame. Indeed, advocates praise this drug as an advance precisely because it seems to retain its full efficacy five days after intercourse – that is, after the opportunity to prevent fertilization has passed.

Millions of American women, even those willing to use a contraceptive to prevent fertilization in various circumstances, would personally never choose to have an abortion. They would be ill served by a misleading campaign to present Ulipristal simply as a “contraceptive.” In fact, FDA approval for that purpose would likely make the drug available for “off-label” use simply as an abortion drug – including its use by unscrupulous men with the intent of causing an early abortion without a woman’s knowledge or consent. Such abuses have already occurred in the case of RU-486, despite its warning labels and limited distribution.

For many years, Congress has acted to ensure that the federal government does not fund abortion, and does not endanger or destroy the early human embryo even in the name of important medical research. This Administration, like many before it, has voiced support for federal laws to ensure that no one is involved in abortion without his or her knowledge or consent. And the Administration’s support for broad access to contraception has been defended as serving the goal of reducing abortions. Plans for approving a known abortion-causing drug as a “contraceptive” for American women is not consistent with the stated policy of the Administration on these matters.

Please know that I appreciate any attention the FDA can give to these serious concerns, and I will follow the Administration’s further discussion and actions on this issue with great interest.

Sincerely,

Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo Chairman, Committee on Pro-Life Activities United States Conference of Catholic Bishops