John Westen

, ,

Germany, the morning-after pill, and the Catholic Church: Media and scientific manipulation

John Westen
John Westen

COLOGNE, Germany, February 7, 2013, ( - A drama has been unfolding in Germany over the last month that has seen the leading conservative prelate in the country, Cologne’s Cardinal Joachim Meisner, seem to suggest that it is permissible in Catholic hospitals to administer the morning-after pill (MAP) to rape victims. The Bishops of Germany will be discussing the matter further at their next plenary meeting later this month.


The story begins with a hard case which was trumpeted with selective facts in the media, manipulating sentiments and causing a national uproar. Headlines which exploded across the country and internationally read “Rape victim turned away by Catholic hospitals.”

After a party, a young woman found herself on a park bench wondering how she got there. The use of a date rape drug was suspected, so the 25-year-old went to an emergency clinic and was prescribed the MAP. Since rape was suspected, she was sent to hospital for a gynecological examination and in the process two Catholic hospitals refused, referring her to alternative hospitals.

But leaving the story there without further explanation, as the mainstream media did, painted a false picture resulting in public outrage.

Sophia Kuby of European Dignity Watch revealed the full story. Catholic hospitals refer her elsewhere, because the Health Ministry insisted that those hospitals offering treatment for rape must provide the abortifacient MAP. Knowing that hospitals that administer MAP must perform their own exams, Catholic hospitals would rather spare already traumatized women from having to have multiple invasive exams. Thus, referring them to hospitals which would comply with the state mandate to offer abortifacient drugs was necessary.

The national outcry against the Church, which came thanks to misleading media reports, prompted multiple press releases from Cardinal Meisner and also other bishops in the country.

A January 22 release had the Cardinal apologizing, noting that Catholics were “deeply ashamed” and that the turning away of the rape victim should never have happened. He said Catholic hospitals should indeed offer care to rape victims, including the needed gynecological exams.

He added, however, that they could not cause the abortion of an already conceived child. He said he understood that such a stance is difficult to accept in the face of such difficult circumstances but that protection of human life is an absolute.


second release from the Cardinal which seemed to give approval for Catholic hospitals to use MAPs for rape victims came after the Cardinal received misleading scientific advice. The Cardinal said he was informed that new research suggests conclusively that the method of action of MAP is not abortifacient – that it does not cause the already conceived embryo to be unable to implant in the uterus (a post-fertilization effect).

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

However, the study he was presented with, was anything but objective. It was authored by a physician advisor to a pharmaceutical company that manufactures MAPs, as the author admits at the end of the paper. A physician who reviewed the paper for noted that, the review of the research focuses mainly on those studies which found no evidence for post-fertilization effects.

Adding to the confusion, was the abortion-backing German society of obstetricians/gynecologists, which pounced on the opportunity to “affirm” the Cardinal in his statement on the EC pills not being abortifacient.

There are however numerous other studies and even MAP manufacturers that admit that the MAPs do have post-fertilization effects – in other words -- are indeed abortifacient.

The most objective view of the situation admits that there are studies giving evidence both ways. Some suggest post-fertilization effects and some don't ,depending on the hormone used and the time administered.

This view comes not from pro-life activists but from the leading researcher in the area, James Trussell, in a review released only this month. Trussel is by no means a pro-life activist. He is an avid proponent of contraception, MAP included. In his recent review of the literature, Trussell summarizes: “To make an informed choice, women must know that [emergency contraception pills]… prevent pregnancy primarily by delaying or inhibiting ovulation and inhibiting fertilization, but may at times inhibit implantation of a fertilized egg in the endometrium.”


Despite the indication that administration of MAP may be possible, in that second release the Cardinal says plainly that no abortifacient (a drug having the possibility of causing the already conceived child not to be able to implant) may be used in Catholic hospitals even for cases of rape.

To those who would argue for the use of abortifacients by suggesting embryos often fail to implant in nature without intervention, the Cardinal responds: “Termination of a human life by nature is called a natural phenomenon. Its deliberate imitation is called manslaughter.”

Should the action of the EC pills be purely contraceptive – preventing ovulation from occurring thus blocking conception – then Cardinal Meisner deems them acceptable for use in rape cases. “If a medication that hinders conception is used after a rape with the purpose of avoiding fertilization, then this is acceptable in my view,” he said.

The German bishops will be convening in a plenary session later this month, and the matter of MAPs is up for discussion. That discussion will no doubt be influenced by researchers with greater objectivity and also by consultation with Vatican guidelines on the matter.

An authoritative Vatican document on MAP was issued by the Pontifical Academy for Life (PAV) in 2000. That document condemned MAPs as akin to “chemical abortion” and “absolutely” unlawful.

The document was however questioned by theologians since it did not address the use of the MAP in cases of rape.

In 2008, LifeSiteNews interviewed the head of the PAV, and he confirmed the use of MAPs were not permissible even in cases of rape. Asked if there was an exception for rape cases in terms of Catholic hospitals being able to administer MAPs, Bishop Elio Sgreccia replied, "No. It is not able to prevent the rape. But it is able to eliminate the embryo.”

In the final analysis, no Catholic bishop would allow for MAP at Catholic hospitals if he believed it would have an abortifacient effect.

Even the chance of it causing an abortion would be enough to rule it out, because in a case where there is uncertainty in a matter of life and death, the Church teaches that one must err on the side of caution – the side of protecting life.

Share this article

Featured Image
John Jalsevac John Jalsevac Follow John

BREAKING: Planned Parenthood shooting suspect surrenders, is in custody: police

John Jalsevac John Jalsevac Follow John
By John Jalsevac

Nov. 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) - Five hours after a single male shooter reportedly opened fire at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood, chatter on police radio is indicating that the suspect has now been "detained."

"We have our suspect and he says he is alone," said police on the police radio channel. 

Colorado Springs Mayor John Suthers also confirmed via Twitter shortly after 7:00 pm EST that the suspect was in custody.

The news comes almost exactly an hour after the start of a 6:00 pm. press conference in which Lt. Catherine Buckley had confirmed that a single shooter was still at large, and had exchanged gunfire with police moments before.

According to Lt. Buckley, four, and possibly five police officers have been shot since the first 911 call was received at 11:38 am local time today. An unknown number of civilians have also been shot.

Although initial reports had suggested that the shooting began outside the Planned Parenthood, possibly outside a nearby bank, Lt. Buckley said that in fact the incident began at the Planned Parenthood itself.

She said that the suspect had also brought unknown "items" with him to the Planned Parenthood. 

Pro-life groups have started responding to the news, urging caution in jumping to conclusions about the motivations of the shooter, while also condemning the use of violence in promoting the pro-life cause. 

"Information is very sketchy about the currently active shooting situation in Colorado Springs," said Pavone. "The Planned Parenthood was the address given in the initial call to the police, but we still do not know what connection, if any, the shooting has to do with Planned Parenthood or abortion.

"As leaders in the pro-life movement, we call for calm and pray for a peaceful resolution of this situation."

Troy Newman of Operation Rescue and Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, also issued statements.

"Operation Rescue unequivocally deplores and denounces all violence at abortion clinics and has a long history of working through peaceful channels to advocate on behalf of women and their babies," said Newman. "We express deep concern for everyone involved and are praying for the safety of those at the Planned Parenthood office and for law enforcement personnel. We pray this tragic situation can be quickly resolved without further injury to anyone."

"Although we don't know the reasons for the shooting near the Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs today, the pro-life movement is praying for the safety of all involved and as a movement we have always unequivocally condemned all forms of violence at abortion clinics. We must continually as a nation stand against violence on all levels," said Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, based in Washington, D.C.


Share this article

Featured Image
Wikimedia Commons
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

, , , ,

Rubio says SCOTUS didn’t ‘settle’ marriage issue: ‘God’s rules always win’

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins

WASHINGTON, D.C., November 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- Surging GOP presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio, R-FL, says that "God's law" trumps the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision imposing same-sex “marriage” nationwide.

The senator also told Christian Broadcast Network's David Brody that the Supreme Court's redefinition of marriage is not "settled," but instead "current law."

“No law is settled,” said Rubio. “Roe v. Wade is current law, but it doesn’t mean that we don’t continue to aspire to fix it, because we think it’s wrong.”

“If you live in a society where the government creates an avenue and a way for you to peacefully change the law, then you’re called to participate in that process to try to change it,” he explained, and "the proper place for that to be defined is at the state level, where marriage has always been regulated — not by the Supreme Court and not by the federal government.”

However, when laws conflict with religious beliefs, "God's rules always win," said Rubio.

“In essence, if we are ever ordered by a government authority to personally violate and sin — violate God’s law and sin — if we’re ordered to stop preaching the Gospel, if we’re ordered to perform a same-sex marriage as someone presiding over it, we are called to ignore that,” Rubio expounded. “We cannot abide by that because government is compelling us to sin.”

“I continue to believe that marriage law should be between one man and one woman," said the senator, who earlier in the fall was backed by billionaire GOP donor and same-sex "marriage" supporter Paul Singer.

Singer, who also backs looser immigration laws and a strong U.S.-Israel alliance, has long pushed for the GOP to change its position on marriage in part due to the sexual orientation of his son.

Despite Singer's support, Rubio's marriage stance has largely been consistent. He told Brody earlier in the year that "there isn't such a right" to same-sex "marriage."

"You have to have a ridiculous reading of the U.S. Constitution to reach the conclusion that people have a right to marry someone of the same sex."

Rubio also said religious liberty should be defended against LGBT activists he says "want to stigmatize, they want to ostracize anyone who disagrees with them as haters."

"I believe, as do a significant percentage of Americans, that the institution of marriage, an institution that existed before government, that existed before laws, that institution should remain in our laws recognized as the union of one man and one woman," he said.

Rubio also hired social conservative leader Eric Teetsel as his director of faith outreach this month.

However, things have not been entirely smooth for Rubio on marriage. Social conservatives were concerned when the executive director of the LGBT-focused Log Cabin Republicans told Reuters in the spring that the Catholic senator is "not as adamantly opposed to all things LGBT as some of his statements suggest."

The LGBT activist group had meetings with Rubio's office "going back some time," though the senator himself never attended those meetings. Rubio has publicly said that he would attend the homosexual "wedding" of a gay loved one, and also that he believed "that sexual preference is something that people are born with," as opposed to being a choice.

Additionally, days after the Supreme Court redefined marriage, Rubio said that he disagreed with the decision but that "we live in a republic and must abide by the law."

"I believe that marriage, as the key to strong family life, is the most important institution in our society and should be between one man and one woman," he said. "People who disagree with the traditional definition of marriage have the right to change their state laws. That is the right of our people, not the right of the unelected judges or justices of the Supreme Court. This decision short-circuits the political process that has been underway on the state level for years.

Rubio also said at the time that "it must be a priority of the next president to nominate judges and justices committed to applying the Constitution as written and originally understood…"

“I firmly believe the question of same sex marriage is a question of the definition of an institution, not the dignity of a human being. Every American has the right to pursue happiness as they see fit. Not every American has to agree on every issue, but all of us do have to share our country. A large number of Americans will continue to believe in traditional marriage, and a large number of Americans will be pleased with the Court’s decision today. In the years ahead, it is my hope that each side will respect the dignity of the other.”

The Florida senator said in July that he opposed a constitutional marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution to leave marriage up to the states because that would involve the federal government in state marriage policies.

Featured Image
Former The View star Sherri Shepherd and then-husband Lamar Sally in 2010 s_bukley /
Steve Weatherbe

Court orders Sherri Shepherd to pay child support for surrogate son she abandoned

Steve Weatherbe
By Steve Weatherbe

November 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- Sherri Shepherd, a Hollywood celebrity who co-hosted the popular talk show The View for seven years, has lost a maternity suit launched by her ex-husband Lamar Sally, forcing her to pay him alimony and child support for their one-year surrogate son LJ. The decision follows an unseemly fight which pro-life blogger Cassy Fiano says has exposed how surrogacy results in “commodifying” the unborn.

Shepherd, a co-host of the View from 2007 to 2014, met Sally, a screenwriter, in 2010 and they married a year later. Because her eggs were not viable, they arranged a surrogate mother in Pennsylvania to bear them a baby conceived in vitro using Sally’s sperm and a donated egg.

But the marriage soured in mid-term about the time Shepherd lost her job with The View. According to one tabloid explanation, she was worried he would contribute little to parenting responsibilities.  Sally filed for separation in 2014, Shepherd filed for divorce a few days, then Sally sued for sole custody, then alimony and child support.

Earlier this year she told PEOPLE she had gone along with the surrogacy to prevent the breakup of the marriage and had not really wanted the child.

Shepherd, an avowed Christian who once denied evolution on The View and a successful comic actor on Broadway, TV, and in film since the mid-90s, didn’t want anything to do with LJ, as Lamar named the boy, who after all carried none of her genes. She refused to be at bedside for the birth, and refused to let her name be put on the birth certificate and to shoulder any responsibility for LJ’s support.

But in April the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, and now the state’s Superior Court, ruled that Shepherd’s name must go on the birth certificate and she must pay Sally alimony and child support.

“The ultimate outcome is that this baby has two parents and the parents are Lamar Sally and Sherri Shepherd,” Shepherd’s lawyer Tiffany Palmer said.

As for the father, Sally told PEOPLE, “I'm glad it's finally over. I'm glad the judges saw through all the lies that she put out there, and the negative media attention. If she won't be there for L.J. emotionally, I'll be parent enough for the both of us.”

But Shepherd said, “I am appealing the ruling that happened,” though in the meantime, Sally will “get his settlement every month. There’s nothing I can do.”

Commented Fiano in Live Action News, “What’s so sickening about this case is that this little boy, whose life was created in a test tube, was treated as nothing more than a commodity…Saying that you don’t want a baby but will engineer one to get something you want is horrific.” As for trying to get out from child support payments now that the marriage had failed, that was “despicable.”

Fiano went on to characterize the Shepherd-Sally affair as a “notable example” of commodification of children, and “by no means an anomaly.” She cited a British report than over the past five years 123 babies conceived in vitro were callously aborted when they turned out to have Down Syndrome.

“When we’re not ready for babies, we have an abortion,” she added. “But then when we decide we are ready we manufacture them in a laboratory and destroy any extras. Children exist when we want them to exist, to fill the holes in us that we want them to fill, instead of being independent lives with their own inherent value and dignity.”

Share this article


Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook