The CHAUSA & Dignitas Personae

Your Excellency:

Having a history of ignored letters from Executive Director Sister Carol Keehan and Senior Director of Ethics Father Thomas Nairn of the Catholic Health Association of the United States (CHAUSA), a somewhat cheeky article by George Neumayr certainly caught my eye:

• "The checkered Catholic hospitals Keehan represents as chief executive officer of the Catholic Health Association stand to receive gobs and gobs of cash from the federal government if Obamacare holds up past 2012. Consequently, the members of the association are more than happy to pony up huge salaries to executives skilled at manipulating the Catholic electorate for Obama.
  
  "Keehan is worth $962,467 to them in total salary and benefits, according to the Schedule J (Form 990) 2010 document sent to me by CHA....
  
  "Fr. Nairn's order, the Franciscan Friars, snatched $194,947" (American Spectator, 2/16/12).

My concerns about Section 23 of Dignitas Personae, which strikes me as absolutely pertinent to the issue of "emergency [so-called] contraception," have been ignored by the CHAUSA. As you certainly know, §23 offers a distinction between "interceptive" methods interfering with an embryo before implantation and "contragestative" methods interfering with the embryo after implantation - while reiterating that both are illicit. Unlike Directive 36 of the USCCB's Ethical & Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (ERDs), Dignitas Personae does NOT offer guidelines for "moral" use of a potential interceptive or contragestative.

Talking Points Developed by CHA Ethics Staff on Dignitas Personae was written under the watch of Father Nairn and Ronald Hamels:

• "Comments in §23 may raise some questions about Directive 36. The paragraph states that 'anyone who seeks to prevent the implantation of an embryo which may possibly have been conceived and who therefore either requests or prescribes such a pharmaceutical, generally intends abortion.' The Catholic Health Association supports this judgment. It also believes that implementation of Directive 36 of the Ethical and Religious Directives remains unchanged. Plan B, the medication of choice for emergency contraception, does not appear to have a post-fertilization effect, given the results of repeated scientific studies."

Unlike the CHAUSA, others readily acknowledge a "post-fertilization effect" (They may also accept a changed definition of conception to implantation, thus insisting - with a straight face - that there is no "abortifacient" potential.):

• "The morning-after pill can also thin the lining of the uterus. In theory, this could prevent pregnancy by keeping a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. You might have also heard that the morning-after pill causes an abortion. But that's not true. The morning-after pill is not the abortion pill. Emergency contraception is birth control, not abortion" (Planned Parenthood).


• "If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation)" (U.S. Food and Drug Administration).

About two years ago, Marie Hilliard of the National Catholic Bioethics Center referred me to her own article on this topic (See attached.). Though she acknowledges the abortifacient potential of emergency contraception, her ultimate conclusions largely mirror those of Father Nairn and Hamels. I find them morally unconvincing:

• "Most significantly, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has stated that 'scientific studies indicate that the effect of inhibiting implantation is certainly present, even if this does not mean that such interceptives...cause an abortion every time they are used, also because conception does not occur after every act of sexual intercourse.' The question is whether the pregnancy-test-only protocol is sufficient to achieve moral certitude that emergency contraception will not have an abortifacient effect in each specific victim of sexual assault."

With all respect to Hilliard, the CDF in Dignitas Personae did NOT raise that "question"; it does NOT offer guidelines for "moral" use of a potential interceptive or contragestative. In fact, Dignitas Personae specifically states that "the use of means of interception and contragestation fall within the sin of abortion and are gravely immoral. Furthermore, when there is certainty that an abortion has resulted, there are serious penalties in canon law." Though Hilliard quotes Dignitas Personae, her scholarly article misses that point:

• "we make no claim that there must be scientific certitude that emergency contraception will not have an abortifacient effect before it is administered. Rather, there must be moral certitude that administration of the emergency contraceptive is consistent with directive 36 of the ERDs."

Your Excellency, I readily acknowledge that I am NOT a medical professional (My masters are in rehabilitation and theology, and my doctorate is in counseling.). I recognize that my credentials can in no way match those at CHAUSA, Catholic Health East, or the National Catholic Bioethics Center. Yet be that said, I also seem to stand alone in lacking a financial interest in this topic. Were I not to share my concerns, I'd have much more to answer for on Judgment Day, than I already will!

Respectfully,