Our Lady of Soccorso

Body part peddlers complain that prolifers make them “look bad”

End-Of-Life Decisions and Facts

Click to view video.
Assembly Select Committee On Women's Reproductive Health,
March 11th, 2020

Click to explore.
Landmark Cases explores the human stories and constitutional dramas behind some of the most significant and frequently cited decisions in the Supreme Court's history

Click to listen to interview.
TS Radio interview
about Palliative Care
and the Legislative Process

Click to view video.
Meeting the needs of Patients - Post
Roe v. Wade

Click to view video.
CA Senate Health Committee SB 24 hearing on April 3, 2019.

Click to view full-size.
The Star of Bethlehem shines brightly on the newborn child, Jesus.

Click to view full-size.
This child doesn’t need Government mandated Pre-K schooling. Young John is the grandchild of a very fine Pro Life Family.

Click to view full-size.
Four month and six month old human fetal skeletons, displayed At the Federal Civil War Medical and Military history Museum, in Silver Spring, MD. Display can be found in new more current segment of the museum’s historical displays.

Click to view full-size.
Mary Catherine was an abandoned new-born, found in Antioch and buried by Ca. Right to Life and Birthright of concord, at Queen of Heaven Cemetery in Lafayette, Ca. along with 24 other pre-born babies.

Click to view full-size.
Come Holy Spirit, enlighten the minds and hearts of your people!
July 4th, 2018



February 13th 2012 @ 11:08 am

Camille Giglio

1. Federal regulations.
2. Catholic Church in California


Several people have now received responses from their members of Congress, following the urgings of various national pro life groups to send emails to their U.S. representatives in the house and Senate, urging support for H.R. 1179, by Cong. Jeff Fortenberry, (R-Ne) and S.1467 by Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO). These bills would amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The responses from Cong. George Miller, (D-Martinez, Ca) and from Senator Dianne Feinstein, (D-Ca) as to their reasons for opposing these bills protecting conscience rights of health care workers. has enraged the recipients.

As you are aware the Obama administration presented a mandate to Catholic Bishops, and basically, through that body to all Catholics, that birth control would be required to be included in health insurance policies provided by Catholic facility employers to all employees with no opt-out arrangement protecting the previously sacred right of conscientious refusal protecting a health care worker or others from violating their consciences.

This was looked upon by the Obama Administration as part and parcel of the required services provided through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – PPACA.

There has been such a storm of protest from Catholic, Protestant and non-religious Charitable Organizations that the Administration has since appeared to back down but, in reality is only rewording their mandate and attempting to place the burden on all health insurers which would include the Catholic Church and others who are self insurers. We the taxpayers and health insurance buyers would still be paying the bill and violating our consciences.

Here in a letter dated 2/9/2012, is what Feinstein bases her opposition on: “This bill would

  1. Allow a health insurer or healthcare provider to decline coverage or deny services contrary to the insurer or provider’s religious believes or moral convictions.
  2. Prevent Prescriptions of contraceptives or allowing minors to donate organs [which] may be against a provider’s moral convictions. (Emphasis added)
  3. Prohibit the state health insurance exchanges, from discriminating against any entity that chooses to decline coverage and services based on religious beliefs or moral convictions.

In other words, the health care exchanges could not sue the people or agencies refusing to provide a certain morally repugnant, conscience violating service.

She also claims that the PPACA already includes a Provider Conscience protection clause. This is the bone of contention between the PPACA supporters and opposers. The opposers of the conscientious freedom right as written into the PPACA state that this so-called conscience protection clause actually violates the religious freedom clauses of the Constitution.

The PPACA supporters claim that since the Catholic Church, through its hospitals and Catholic Charity work and educational facilities, esp. serve not only Catholics but people of other faiths that they should not be held to this right of refusal to provide based on a conscience conviction to not participate in mandates such as universal provision of birth control and refusal to refer for reproductive services that violate their individual consciences. (See American Journal of Law and Medicine, Vol. 37, No. 4, 2011, entitled Religious exemptions to the PPACA’s Health Insurance Mandate, by Samuel T. Grover, Boston University - School of Law.)

The original Conscience Clause bill, was written following the 1973 Roe v Wade Supreme Court Decision.

“The earliest national conscience clause law in the United States, which was enacted
immediately following the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, applied only to abortion
and sterilization. It was sponsored by Senator Frank Church of Idaho. The Church Amendment,
passed by the Senate on a vote of 92-1, exempted private hospitals receiving federal funds under
the Hill-Burton Act, Medicare and Medicaid from any requirement to provide abortions or
sterilizations when they objected on “the basis of religious beliefs or moral convictions.” Nearly
every state enacted similar legislation by the end of the decade—often with the support of
legislators who otherwise supported abortion rights. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, the
author of Roe vs. Wade, endorsed such clauses “appropriate protection” for individual physicians
and denominational hospital.” Wikipedia, Conscience Clause (medical), History.

I would also call attention to Feinstein’s statement that this Right of Conscience would prevent minors from donating organs. I couldn’t believe that she would be supportive of allowing minors, without parental knowledge or consent, to register as an organ donor. Think of depressed students who might contemplate suicide because of their belief that their lives are so wretched why not die and let someone else more worthy have my organs?

I phoned her Washington, D.C. office and spoke with an Aide.

The Aide rather coldly stated that she did support minor organ donations and that, in California, it was already a law that minors could donate their organs without parental consent or knowledge.

Well, he was not completely correct. In fact he was downright misleading. The law stipulates that this right to donate organs is “provisional until age 18.” There are, currently active, 6 federal bills and two state bills dealing with organ donations. Where there is any mention in the bill about organ donation and minors there is the stipulation that it is only provisional until the person reaches the age of 18. This includes two bills written by Jackie Speier when she was in the state legislature, 2001, SB 108 and 2003, SB 112.

Last year there was a bill, AB 1118, Health Education; Organ and Tissue Transplant, by Assembly member John Perez, (failed passage) which would have required that health Education classes for 9th and 10th graders include a section on the benefits of organ and tissue donation. This would encompass students ages 13-15 leading up to their registering for a driver’s license preparing them to think about organ donations, maybe even especially unpaired organ donations, or, where there are not two of each, but only one, like a heart.

There is a very worthwhile book by John Andrew Amour on the subject of organ donation entitled Finis Vitae–Is “Brain Death” True Death? It is reviewed by long time pro life activist Randy Engel, written for RenewAmerica. http://renewamerica.com/columnists/engel/120127.

There is also another bill in Congress on the subject of Conscience Rights. S. 2043 submitted by Florida Republican Marco Rubio on 1/30/2012, which would amend the Public Health Service Act to include a Right of Conscience Clause.

All of these bills are sitting idle in their respective houses. Only your energetic phone calls, urgings and support to the authors will put these bills into action.

Now, while this is outrage enough. Here is the letter from George Miller declaring his opposition to amending the PPACA for a right of conscience.

  1. It would undermine a fundamental principle of medical care.
  2. It would make unenforceable requirements that ensure coverage of abortion to save a woman’s life or in cases of rape or incest.
  3. A hospital would be able to use this clause to refuse treatment of a patient whose life depends on having an abortion.

What, is Planned Parenthood not doing abortions anymore?

  1. A hospital could bypass the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act ––EMTALA–– that requires hospitals to treat all patients…..in need of emergency medical services, especially women who come in for abortions.

EMTALA was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 1986. It was designed to “prevent patient dumping” (Sec. (e)(1). It declared that any patient presenting themselves to a hospital with an emergency life-threatening condition had a right to receive appropriate services on the spot, so to speak without being transferred to some other facility prior to stabilizing that patient.

One of the examples given was the treatment of any woman presenting herself as in active labor. Many anchor babies (children of illegal immigrants) have arrived in the world this way. The mother, afraid to go to a doctor for pregnancy care because of her illegal status places herself and her unborn child in medical danger while awaiting the due date. She then gets herself down to a hospital emergency room and must be cared for by law.

This is only one of the misuses of an otherwise worthwhile piece of legislation. Miller abuses the intent in this instant by claiming that pregnancy is a life threatening condition and includes abortion as a medical care service.

His claim that the Right of Conscience as being presented in HR 1179 would undercut EMTALA is patently false.

And lastly:

We have just learned a very sad thing. Some Catholic parishioners have been wondering why a letter from their Bishop on this subject of conscience rights was not delivered from the pulpits of every Catholic Church the last couple of weekends as it was rumored that it would be.

The answer, apparently, lies in the statement, recently released from one Chancery office, that distribution of contraceptives services by Catholic Organizations has been ongoing for the last 10 years in California especially through such facilities as Catholic Charities.

This fact requires careful scrutiny, apparently, of whether or not Catholic Bishops in California can oppose the Obama mandate or be considered as hypocrites.

In the year 2000, Catholic Charities of Sacramento filed suit against the state of California claiming that the state’s contraceptive coverage law [is] unconstitutional because it forces the agency to violate its religious beliefs – Catholic Charities v Superior Court.

Catholic Charities lost that battle. They were declared to be not an integral part of the Catholic Church because of its services to a broad spectrum of peoples of various faiths or no faiths. By the way, the pro aborts refer to it as “refusal clauses.”

Many Catholic Church Watchers believed that the case was, possibly, mishandled by Catholic Charities. The onus of the court decision mandating compliance fell on Catholic Hospitals to comply with court findings. No legal body took the Catholic Church’s defense any farther.

comment on this article

Notice: All comments are moderated. Your comment will appear once approved.

To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture.
Anti-Spam Image

Take away God, all respect for civil laws, all regard for even the most necessary institutions disappears; justice is scouted; the very liberty that belongs to the law of nature is trodden underfoot; and men go so far as to destroy the very structure of the family, which is the first and firmest foundation of the social structure.
- St. Pius X, Jucunda Sane, March 12, 1904