Monday, March 22, 2004

Letter from the Primate of Brazil to the Most Revd Frank Griswold

Porto Alegre
16 March 2004

The Most Revd Frank Griswold Presiding Bishop of The ECUSA
Episcopal Church Centre 815 Second Avenue
New York 10017, NY.
United States of America

My Dear Brother,

It was with surprise, sadness and concern that we received the news
about the participation - without permission from the diocesan bishop of
Ohio - of the Brazilian Bishop Robinson Cavalcanti, diocesan Bishop of
Recife of the Episcopal Anglican Church of Brazil, in a confirmation
service of 110 people in the state of Ohio, together with five retired
bishops of ECUSA, as his participation has been stated in the press "as
illustrating international support for the measures."

We want to express to your Grace our strong disapproval of this action
taken by this bishop, the Right Revd Cavalcanti, who, apart from showing
himself through this gesture to be both impolite and disrespectful, has
violated the constitution and the canons of ECUSA, by performing an
Episcopal and sacramental act in the Diocese of Ohio without the
permission from the bishop of that Diocese.

With regard to the above-referenced act and also with reference to any
others he may have participated in during his presence in the USA,
Bishop Cavalcanti was neither an official nor a sanctioned
representative of the Episcopal Anglican Church of Brazil. His
participation in all and any events while in the USA was a purely
personal initiative and not in any way as an envoy from our Brazilian
province. He did not and would never have obtained permission for such
action; furthermore, at no stage were we informed as to his intentions
with regards to such a visit. Within our Brazilian province, such an act
constitutes a blatant violation of our constitution and canons, in the
most basic context of the traditions of the Church.

As one of the Primates who attended the Primates` meeting of October
15th and 16th, 2003, I can also state that the fact of some bishops
arrogating for themselves the right to perform sacramental and Episcopal
acts, without permission from the diocesan bishop, and at the same time
proclaiming such acts to be in accordance with the mandate of the
Archbishop of Canterbury and with the Primates, is neither true nor
correct. The declaration arising from this meeting states that all
provision for Episcopal oversight of "dissident minorities" is a matter
to be resolved by the province in question and, as such, restates that
"whilst we reaffirm the teaching of successive Lambeth Conferences that
bishops must respect the autonomy and territorial integrity of dioceses
and provinces other than their own, we call on the provinces concerned
to make adequate provision for Episcopal oversight of dissenting
minorities within their own area of pastoral care in consultation with
the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the Primates."

Thus, on behalf of the Bishops' Chamber, of the clergy and of the people
of the Province of the Episcopal Anglican Church of Brazil, I would like
to offer to your Grace our most sincere apologies for such a
disrespectful and impolite act as done by one of our bishops. Similarly,
I would like to reaffirm that in no way do we agree with nor would we
sanction such a canonical violation, done in total disrespect for the
autonomy of your province and for the Diocese of Ohio. Further, I take
this opportunity to inform you that this matter will be taken up and
examined in the next meeting of the Bishops' Chamber, 22-23 March, 2004.

I also wish to reaffirm our respect for the decisions of the General
Convention in Minneapolis, thus recognising the autonomy of our brothers
and sisters of ECUSA, who, in their own cultural and ecclesiastical
context, and through regular and democratic canonical process, confirmed
the election of Bishop Gene Robinson.

Last but not least, I also wish to reaffirm our communion and
companionship with our sister Church ECUSA. We believe that the family
we belong to, the Family of the Anglican Communion around the world, has
to be an instrument of God's love for the world and that means, that in
seeking to hold together as a Communion, we have to be seeking to serve
that purpose and no other. So, it is my belief that by attempting to
work through differences within our family we may come to a better
perception of the calling of our mission.

We reaffirm that we are Partners in Mission with ECUSA. Be assured of
our prayers for your well-being, for the pastoral ministry that God has
entrusted to you, and also for all the clergy and people of ECUSA.

"We know that all things work together for good for those who love God,
who are called according to his purpose." Romans 8.28

With every good wish and blessing,

Most Revd Orlando Santos de Oliveira
Primate of the Province of the Episcopal Anglican Church of Brazil

Editor's note: The following letter was sent to ACNS by the Primate of
Brazil with a request that it be published on our news service. J M
Rosenthal

Religious Freedom

One Crucial Issue in Pledge Case: What Does 'Under God'
Mean?
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
In Supreme Court arguments scheduled for Wednesday, the
justices must decide whether the words "one nation under
God" render the pledge unconstitutional.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/22/national/22SCOT.html?th

Some Groups to Run Ads Until Election Day

Here's the place to give those capaign contributions!

Some Groups to Run Ads Until Election Day
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ats-ap_politics15mar22,0,4700566.story?coll=sns-ap-toppolitics
(The Associated Press, March 22, 2004)

Friday, March 19, 2004

Top Feminist News - 3/12/2004 - 3/19/2004

The Weekly Feminist News Digest is a service of the Feminist Majority,
made possible through the support of individuals like you. Your
contribution is vital to the continued success of our empowering work.
Donate or Join Today! https://radlib.com/ff/join.html

--------------------------------------------
Top Feminist News - 3/12/2004 - 3/19/2004
--------------------------------------------

Mar 19 2004
FDA and EPA Expected to Set Guidelines on Tuna Consumption
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) will be recommending that women of childbearing age, pregnant
women, and children not eat more than six ounces of albacore tuna per
week...
http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=8352
TAKE ACTION http://capwiz.com/fmf1/issues/alert/?alertid=5395281

Mar 17 2004
Over 40 Percent of Jordanian Women Suffer Abuse
According to a recent United Nations report, 42 percent of Jordanian women
suffer physical abuse and continue to face discrimination in economic and
political spheres...
http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=8351

Mar 16 2004
Scientists Criticize Bush on Bioethics Panel Dismissals
Some 170 prominent scientists, researchers, and scholars have signed an
open letter to President Bush criticizing his dismissal of two members of
his Council on Bioethics...
http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=8350
TAKE ACTION http://march.feminist.org

Mar 15 2004
Women's Groups Grade Bush Administration Record on Women's Issues
Leading women's groups released the third in a series of scorecards rating
the Bush Administration on key issues affecting women internationally...
http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=8348
TAKE ACTION http://www.wglobalscorecard.org/

Bishops Acting Like Babies

>Associated Press, March 18, 2004
>http://www.startribune.com/stories/670/4672089.html
>Episcopal Church Bishops Meet Amid Tension
>By Richard N. Ostling, AP Religion Writer
> The Episcopal Church's bishops begin a closed-door meeting Friday in
>Texas, where they'll try to quiet the discord that has torn at the
>denomination since the consecration of an openly gay bishop - New
>Hampshire's V. Gene Robinson.
> Robinson is attending his first meeting as part of a hierarchy in
>which 41 percent of bishops who head dioceses voted against his consecration
>and 28 of the bishops have refused to recognize him as a colleague.
> Episcopal headquarters in New York City announced Wednesday that the
>gathering in Navasota, 60 miles northwest of Houston, is not a legislative
>meeting and no major policy decisions are expected. Rather, the schedule
>features speeches and discussions on "reconciliation" within the Episcopal
>Church and the international Anglican Communion of which it's a part.
> The bishops will discuss the current flashpoint, how to handle
>conservative parishes that don't want to quit the Episcopal Church but
>cannot accept the authority of local bishops who favor gay clergy.
> The proposed remedy is to provide dissenting parishes with special
>conservative bishops from outside their dioceses. At an emergency summit
>last October, world Anglicanism's top leaders urged the American church to
>grant dissenters "adequate provision for episcopal oversight."
> The U.S. church leader, Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, and his
>Council of Advice then proposed a plan allowing outside bishops to the local
>bishop as required by church law, allowing for appeals to regional bodies in
>case of disagreements.
> Conservatives have rejected that. They don't want the local bishops
>to keep their veto power and claim liberals control the regional bodies that
>would hear appeals.
> Griswold will present a rewritten plan at Navasota. Conservative
>leaders complain that they weren't consulted, and bishops weren't given the
>text to study in advance. Griswold repeated Monday that any plan must honor
>local bishops' powers under existing church law.
> The leading conservative bishop is Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh,
>moderator of a "network" formed in January to unite Episcopal dioceses and
>parishes that insist upon the traditional Christian teaching against
>same-sex relationships.
> Duncan said some conservative bishops are boycotting the Navasota
>meeting, some will participate fully and some - like himself - will stay
>offsite and attend only sessions treating the church fracture.
> Duncan said the church must "come to its senses" and help
>conservatives because "the present course is a suicidal course, or at least
>a fratricidal course."
> Matters escalated last Sunday when five Episcopal bishops led a
>rebel confirmation service in Akron, Ohio congregations that spurned local
>Bishop J. Clark Grew II, a Robinson supporter.
> Maurice Benitez, retired bishop of the Texas Diocese and spokesman
>for the five bishops, said if the hierarchy produces an "acceptable plan"
>for visiting bishops, "these kinds of measures may no longer be necessary."
>The implication: If not, there will be further violations.
> Duncan said that if the Navasota meeting doesn't heed conservative
>appeals there will be "continuing chaos," not only Akron-type protests but
>congregations leaving the Episcopal Church.
> Griswold's Council of Advice said the five bishops broke church law,
>since Grew did not approve the confirmations, and appealed for unity against
>forces that "seek to sow the seeds of division."
> Grew said the Akron service might have been an attempt to
>"manipulate" the Navasota meeting while Griswold suggested the event was
>intended to "co-opt the bishops' agenda."







The Rev. Ann Fontaine
Lander, Wyoming
www.seashellseller.blogspot.com/

Tuesday, March 16, 2004

NAPW Commentary on Murder Arrest of Pregnant Woman Who Refused a C-Section

NAPW Commentary on Murder Arrest of Pregnant Woman Who Refused a C-Section

An arrest in Utah yesterday of 28 year old Melissa Rowland who allegedly committed murder by refusing a recommended C-section represents a shocking abuse of state authority and a dangerous disregard for medical ethics.

In this case prosecutors claim that a woman pregnant with twins rejected advice of her physicians to have a cesarean section. Prosecutors assert that the stillbirth of one of the twins was caused by her refusal to undergo this surgery. According to the law, however, pregnant women, like other Americans have the right to decide whether or not to undergo surgery. The American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists as well other leading medical groups similarly conclude that the final decision must be the woman’s.

These legal and medical –ethical principles make sense for both women and children. Doctors are not infallible and their advice is just that, advice. Recently a woman went to a hospital in Pennsylvania ready to deliver her seventh child. For reasons that remain far from clear, the hospital decided she needed a c-section and when she refused they went to court. They asked for and won an order giving the hospital custody of the fetus before during and after delivery and the right to take custody of the pregnant woman and forcer to have the cesarean surgery. She and her husband fled the hospital and delivered a perfectly health baby without surgery. Similar cases abound. In Georgia doctors got a court order claiming that without a c-section the baby had a 99% chance of dying and the woman a 50% chance of dying. The court granted the order, she fled and delivered a healthy baby vaginally. Neither women nor children are protected by a system that makes women flee from hospitals or subjects them to unnecessary surgery.

Angela Carder was not as lucky. Critically ill with a recurrence of cancer and 25 weeks pregnant, she, her family and attending physicians agreed to focus on prolonging her young life for as long as possible. The Hospital however sought a court order forcing her to have a c-section. Despite testimony that the surgery could kill her, the court concluded that the fetus had a right to life and ordered her to be cut open against her will. The surgery was performed: the fetus died within two hours and Angela died within two days with the c-section listed as a contributing factor. No one suggested arresting the doctor or hospital officials for murder, in that case arguably a double homicide.

Ayesha Madyun survived. She was forced to have a c-section based on the claim that she had been in labor too long and that her baby was at risk of dying from an infection. Her request to be allowed to wait longer before having the surgery so she could try natural delivery was portrayed to the court as an irrational religious objection to surgery. The court granted the order and after Ms. Madyun had been forcibly cut open they found that there was in fact no infection.

The ability to get a court order or threaten pregnant women with arrest has many negative consequences beyond denying pregnant women rights and performing unnecessary surgery that poses health risks to both the pregnant woman and fetus. In another Illinois case, doctors sought a court order for a forced c-section claiming the pregnant woman and her husband held irrational religious beliefs opposing all surgery. The doctors ran to the court instead of spending time with the patient. The court refused the order, the baby was delivered naturally, and it turned out that if the doctors had spent the time communicating with the patient and her family rather than judging them and rushing to court, they would have learned that it was misunderstanding not an absolute objection to surgery that made it appear that this couple was refusing a recommended (but unnecessary) c-section.

Today both the law and medicine agree that coerced medical interventions on pregnant women are an abuse of medical and state authority and that while pregnant women do not always make the right decision, in America, it is the person on whom the surgery is to be performed who gets to decide. In spite of this, Utah prosecutors apparently think that a pregnant woman who exercises her constitutional and common-law right to refuse medical advice can be arrested for murder. This is not only a clear misuse of the law, it is dangerous to children and fundamentally dehumanizing to pregnant women and their families.





Lynn M. Paltrow
Executive Director
National Advocates for Pregnant Women
www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org

Irregular confirmations in Ohio spark stern response from bishops

Irregular confirmations in Ohio spark stern response from bishops

by Jan Nunley
ENS 031504-1
Monday, March 15, 2004
[Episcopal News Service] Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, Ohio Bishop J. Clark Grew II, and Ohio Bishop-elect Mark Hollingsworth Jr. responded sternly to five retired Episcopal bishops and a diocesan bishop from Brazil who confirmed 110 individuals at a service held March 14 in an Orthodox church in Akron, Ohio, without the permission of the local diocesan bishop.
Bishop William Wantland, retired Bishop of Eau Claire, was the celebrant at the confirmation Eucharist, held at Presentation of Our Lord Orthodox Church in Akron. Bishop C. FitzSimons Allison, retired Bishop of South Carolina, preached, and Bishop Robinson Cavalcanti of Northern Brazil was a special guest whose presence was described in a press release issued by the American Anglican Council (AAC) as “illustrating international support for the measures.” Also participating in the confirmations were Bishop Maurice Benitez, retired Bishop of Texas; Bishop William Cox, retired assistant bishop of Oklahoma; and Bishop Alex Dickson, retired Bishop of West Tennessee.

The six congregations involved were Church of the Holy Spirit, Akron; St. Anne’s in the Field, Madison; St. Stephen’s, East Liverpool; St. Barnabas, Bay Village; St. Luke’s, Akron; and a non-ECUSA congregation, Hudson Anglican Fellowship, Hudson, whose rector serves on the staff of St. Luke’s.

In a statement released March 15, Griswold declared that the bishops “have arrogated to themselves the right to perform episcopal and sacramental acts without the permission of the diocesan bishop. The claim that their action was pastoral and in accordance with a mandate from the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates of the Anglican Communion is contradicted” by statements from the Primates that, he said, clearly indicated that provisions for episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities are “a matter to be resolved by the province.”

The canons of the Episcopal Church, as well as those of the councils of the undivided Christian Church--beginning with Nicaea in 325 A.D.--specify that no priest or bishop may perform sacramental acts in another diocese without prior permission of that diocese’s ecclesiastical authority.


Boundaries crossed

In January 2000, Allison and Dickson were part of a group that consecrated two American priests, John H. Rodgers and Charles H. Murphy, as bishops for what became the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA), a breakaway Anglican group operating under the auspices of the Provinces of South East Asia and Rwanda. In June 2001, they also participated in the irregular consecration of four additional bishops for the AMiA. Both actions were denounced by then-Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey as divisive.

Benitez told the Ohio congregation that he and the other bishops were present “in direct response to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the rest of the Primates of the Anglican Communion” in their call for episcopal oversight for dissenting minorities and that their participation represented “emergency measures” for the Ohio congregations.

“Our active bishops are currently seeking means for providing Adequate Episcopal Oversight, and if an acceptable plan is approved, these kinds of measures may no longer be necessary. But right now, we consider these actions an essential and imperative response to a pastoral emergency in northern Ohio,” Benitez added.

It was not clear to which group of bishops Benitez referred. But in a memo drafted for the AAC’s Bishops’ Committee on Adequate Episcopal Oversight, released by the Washington Post in January, the Rev. Geoff Chapman stated:

As an intermediate step, we will respond to the urgent pastoral need in our country by offering Adequate Episcopal Oversight to parishes or remnants of parishes who share our deeply held convictions, proceeding under the guidance of our Bishops and the Primates. Bp Griswold’s offer of “Extended Episcopal Care” is unacceptable, fundamentally flawed and disingenuous, and does not meet the needs of our parishes or the intentions of the Primates. Our AEO will maintain confidentiality in the application process, and seek transfer of parish oversight across geographic diocesan boundaries to an orthodox bishop, the right of pastoral succession, liberty of conscience in financial stewardship (the right to “redirect” funds), and negotiated property settlements affirming the retention of ownership in the local congregation.
The AAC later disavowed the memo, saying that it was an unapproved draft.


Attempt to co-opt bishops’ meeting?

“In consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury and his chancellor, our bishops have been considering a draft plan for episcopal pastoral care which they will address further when we gather for our spring meeting later this week in Texas,” Griswold said in his statement. “Why, I am moved to ask, did these bishops decide that Confirmation of these persons was pastorally necessary at this moment and act without permission of the Bishop of Ohio? Given that the House of Bishops will meet later this week, I can only surmise that their intention is to co-opt the bishops’ agenda and provoke a reaction that will appear sufficiently lacking in pastoral concern for ‘dissenting minorities’ to justify what they have done in the eyes of others. I trust that they will be disappointed in their hope and that the vast majority of bishops of this church--occupying the diverse center--will find a way forward that is clear and just in its principles, pastoral in its approach and responsive to the needs of the church in this present moment.”

Griswold quoted a letter from Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, who told him, “My hope and prayer is that this meeting will offer generous and constructive ways forward within the constitutional and canonical structures of ECUSA that will guarantee Episcopal care for all and avoid further fragmentation, and the consequent distraction from our main task of proclaiming Christ.”


‘No place in our polity’

Bishop-elect Hollingsworth released a statement March 15 declaring his disappointment that the priests and bishops involved “chose to begin their relationship with me, not with direct and honest dialogue, but by acting in this manner. I certainly don't want anyone to think that this behavior is characteristic of Christian community, especially the young people of those congregations.

“An action of this sort, designed to break down the community of faith, has no place in our polity. No one group can define for the whole Church what constitutes an ‘emergency,’” Hollingsworth continued. “The laity and the clergy of the Diocese of Ohio, meeting in convention last November, clearly articulated their support of an inclusive theology in the larger Church, and their affirmation of its actions in last summer's General Convention. It is a singular privilege to begin serving with them in this diocese at a time of such great potential for the Church.”

Bishop Grew, calling the service “unauthorized and clandestine,” said that “there is no crisis in the Diocese of Ohio, except the one created by a group that hopes to hold on to attention that is slipping away as time passes, a group that may use the threat of further extracanonical action as a way to manipulate the House of Bishops in its deliberations on the matter of alternative oversight.”

But, Grew said, “Neither the House of Bishops nor the Diocese of Ohio is likely to be swayed by sudden confrontational actions. Any response by the Diocese of Ohio in this matter will be prayerfully considered and characterized by the life of Jesus himself, who calls us all to unity of the Spirit in the bonds of peace.”


The following is the full text from Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold:

By their recent action in the Diocese of Ohio, five of our retired bishops and a bishop from the Anglican Episcopal Church of Brazil have arrogated to themselves the right to perform episcopal and sacramental acts without the permission of the diocesan bishop. The claim that their action was pastoral and in accordance with a mandate from the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates of the Anglican Communion is contradicted by the statement of the Primates last October which states quite clearly that they, “reaffirm the teaching of successive Lambeth Conferences that bishops must respect the autonomy and territorial integrity of dioceses and provinces other than their own,” and that they “call on the provinces concerned to make adequate provision for episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities within their own area of pastoral care,” and that they should do so “in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the Primates.”

Provisions for “episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities” is thus clearly a matter to be resolved by the province. That is precisely what this church is seeking to do. In consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury and his chancellor, our bishops have been considering a draft plan for episcopal pastoral care which they will address further when we gather for our spring meeting later this week in Texas.

With respect to this forthcoming meeting, the Archbishop of Canterbury said in a recent letter to me, “My hope and prayer is that this meeting will offer generous and constructive ways forward within the constitutional and canonical structures of ECUSA that will guarantee Episcopal care for all and avoid further fragmentation, and the consequent distraction from our main task of proclaiming Christ.”

What is quite clear is that whatever pastoral response is agreed to, it must, as the Archbishop points out, be consistent with the “constitutional and canonical structures of ECUSA.” Here I note that according to our Constitution:

A bishop shall confine the exercise of such office to the Diocese in which elected, unless requested to perform episcopal acts in another Diocese by the Ecclesiastical Authority thereof…[Article II,Sec.3]

Why, I am moved to ask, did these bishops decide that Confirmation of these persons was pastorally necessary at this moment and act without permission of the Bishop of Ohio? Given that the House of Bishops will meet later this week, I can only surmise that their intention is to co-opt the bishops’ agenda and provoke a reaction that will appear sufficiently lacking in pastoral concern for “dissenting minorities” to justify what they have done in the eyes of others. I trust that they will be disappointed in their hope and that the vast majority of bishops of this church--occupying the diverse center--will find a way forward that is clear and just in its principles, pastoral in its approach and responsive to the needs of the church in this present moment.

The Most Rev. Frank T. Griswold
Presiding Bishop and Primate
The Episcopal Church, USA
March 15, 2004

-- The Rev. Jan Nunley is deputy director of Episcopal News Service

Friday, March 12, 2004

News From RCRC

Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice—National Report

Welcome to the biweekly National Report, providing you with the
pro-choice pro-faith perspective on the news. Thank you for keeping the
faith for choice!

In This Issue
*Blackmun Papers Reveal That Roe Was Almost Overturned in 1992
*RCRC Testifies About Clergy Counseling
*Justice Department Backs Off
*Chicago-Area Merger Will Deny Women Full Services
*Excitement Builds for April 25 March!

*Blackmun Papers Reveal That Roe Was Almost Overturned in 1992
Abortion rights were almost overturned by one vote in 1992, according to
papers of the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun, author
of the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and a staunch supporter of
abortion rights.

Blackmun’s papers and transcripts of interviews were made public last
week, on the fifth anniversary of his death. They reveal that the
Court's 5-4 majority, led by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, appeared
ready to effectively overturn Roe in the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v.
Casey. Justice Anthony Kennedy initially voted with the anti-Roe
conservatives, giving them a majority of five, but he subsequently
changed his vote. "The switch came even as Rehnquist was circulating a
so-called majority opinion that would have left Roe a meaningless
shell," according to NPR's Morning Edition. Blackmun said that Kennedy
“was especially worried about the attention he would get as a Roman
Catholic reaffirming Roe.”

The papers include a 1973 memo in which Blackmun expressed frustration
that the release of the Roe ruling was being delayed on the eve of
President Nixon's second inauguration, the Washington Post reported.
Later, Blackmun was concerned that anti-Roe justices were attempting to
delay Casey because they thought the chances of overturning Roe would be
better if it were not an election year. Blackman, nominated as a
"conservative" by President Nixon, expressed hope that his work had
contributed to "the progress of the emancipation of women," according to
the New York Times.
*********************************************************************
*RCRC Testifies About Clergy Counseling
Compassionate, nonjudgmental counseling by clergy has helped many women
facing a problem pregnancy come to a decision they believe is moral and
responsible. Testifying at a U.S. Senate hearing convened by a
well-known anti-choice Senator, an RCRC clergy counselor explained that
women benefit from supportive counseling.

Reverend Dr. Roselyn Smith-Withers, co-convenor of the RCRC Clergy
Advisory Committee and a trained counselor, expressed deep concern about
efforts to stigmatize abortion and women who have abortions. These
attempts “simplify the complex nature of each woman's feelings” and may
“induce guilt and undermine a woman's self-respect and confidence that
God can and does speak directly to her,” she testified.

Despite numerous well-designed and scientifically rigorous studies,
Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) called the hearing to promote interest in
research on anti-choice claims about abortion. Brownback suggested that
long-term federally funded research be conducted on women who have had
an abortion, with data collection at regular intervals for up to 20
years after their abortion.
*********************************************************************
*Justice Department Backs Off
The Justice Department has dropped its demand, at least for now, that
six Planned Parenthood clinics provide medical records on women who had
abortions. DOJ had subpoenaed records in preparation for its defense of
the 2003 “partial-birth abortion ban act.” The DOJ decision was in
response to a judgment in federal court in San Francisco that the
government's demand for the records was an undue intrusion on patients'
rights.

According to The New York Times, Planned Parenthood last month agreed to
turn over to the government its redacted records on 17 cases from 2002
involving second-trimester abortions. But the group maintains that the
other records sought by the Justice Department are more extensive and
irrelevant to the lawsuit. The Justice Department is still demanding
abortion records from at least a half-dozen hospitals in New York and
Philadelphia, among other places.
*********************************************************************
*Chicago-Area Merger Will Deny Women Full Services
The Illinois State Health Facilities Planning Board on March 10 approved
the takeover of nonsectarian West Suburban Hospital in Oak Park by the
Catholic Resurrection Health system, a move vigorously opposed by the
Illinois Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. The Oak Park
facility will now be governed by Catholic health-care directives
prohibiting reproductive health services that have long been available
to West Suburban patients, including contraception, tubal ligations and
emergency contraception (EC).

Under the merger agreement, Resurrection will transfer control of three
community-based clinics to a non-profit corporation. The clinics will
provide vital family planning services previously available at the
hospital. Rape victims who go to the West Suburban emergency room will
no longer be offered emergency contraception–which is highly effective
in preventing unintended pregnancy if taken soon after unprotected
sex—if a test shows they may be ovulating.

Women who use this hospital are being denied full treatment under this
merger agreement, said Barbara Kavadias, RCRC Field Services director
and representative to the National Advisory Board of MergerWatch, the
lead organization opposing the merger. “A woman who has been raped,
beaten, and traumatized should not have to go to a community clinic or
be passed from one person to another to get standard care.”

In a letter to Chicago newspapers, Reverend Edward Searl of the Illinois
RCRC wrote: “I respect the right of individuals to live according to
their own religious beliefs. Nevertheless, I think it is wrong for a
hospital that serves a religiously and culturally diverse community to
impose those beliefs on people who may not share them.” Betty Holcomb of
the Illinois RCRC was active in presenting testimony against the merger
and organizing opposition among religious congregations.
*********************************************************************
*Excitement Builds for April 25 March!
Excitement is growing as people from all over the country make their
plans to be in Washington DC for the historic March for Women’s Lives
April 25.

RCRC affiliates have chartered trains from Boston and New York for the
March. This will be a ride to remember, with lots of pro-choice
supporters who are energized by being part of this historic event. Buy
your tickets early. For New York information, visit
http://www.nyrcrc.org. For Massachusetts, contact www.rcrcofma.org

However you travel, we hope you will be on the National Mall in time for
the RCRC Prayerfully Pro-Choice Interfaith Service, starting at 9:30
a.m.




Wednesday, March 10, 2004

In the News Today

1) Chief Justice Rehnquist Mulls Retirement
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/8144415.htm
(The Associated Press, March 9, 2004)

2) Governor supports abortion bill with technical changes
http://www.yankton.net/stories/031004/new_20040310024.shtml
(The Associated Press, March 9, 2004)

3) Abortion opponents say they have enough signatures to ban certain procedure
http://www.freep.com/news/statewire/sw94199_20040309.htm
(The Associated Press, March 9, 2004)


Tuesday, March 09, 2004

From The Feminist Majority

Mar 5 2004
Department of Education Cuts Back on Title IX Protections
On Wednesday, the Department of Education proposed regulations that would
extensively weaken Title IX, the law that prohibits gender discrimination
in federally funded education...
http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=8312

Mar 2 2004
CA: Supreme Court Rules Catholic Group Must Cover Birth Control
California's Supreme Court on Monday ruled that, in accordance with state
law, Catholic Charities must cover contraceptives as part of its employee
prescription drug coverage...
http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=8309

Mar 1 2004
Unborn Victims of Violence Act Passes in the House
The House of Representatives on Thursday passed the Unborn Victims of
Violence Act, which makes harming or killing a zygote, embryo or fetus
while attacking a pregnant woman during the commission of a federal crime,
a separate and punishable crime....
http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=8307

Today's abortion news

Debate Addresses Abortion Politics
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=358090
(The Harvard Crimson, March 9, 2004)


Justice Dept. backs off request for Planned Parenthood records
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/8139982.htm
(The Associated Press, March 9, 2004)