Nicholas Kristof is spouting Nasty Krap

(With apologies to Jim Gaffigan.)

Let's start by acknowleding what New York Times columnist Kristof gets right in his little screed, "Tussling Over Jesus": he spells Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted's name correctly, something I didn't do a few weeks ago in a post about the Archbishop of Phoenix. Hat's off to you, Mr. NK. Nicely done.

Otherwise, his column is completely in the wrong—and proudly, condesendingly, arrogantly so. It opens with a headline from the National "Catholic" Reporter, so you immediately know that truth, facts, and respect for Catholic teaching are going to be about as scarce as an on-field huddle during the recent Auburn-Oregon football game (the result of which was as painful to me as reading Kristof's column). And then:

Yet the person giving Jesus the heave-ho in this case was not a Bethlehem innkeeper. Nor was it an overzealous mayor angering conservatives by pulling down Christmas decorations. Rather, it was a prominent bishop, Thomas Olmsted, stripping St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix of its affiliation with the Roman Catholic diocese.

The hospital’s offense? It had terminated a pregnancy to save the life of the mother. The hospital says the 27-year-old woman, a mother of four children, would almost certainly have died otherwise.

Bishop Olmsted initially excommunicated a nun, Sister Margaret McBride, who had been on the hospital’s ethics committee and had approved of the decision. That seems to have been a failed attempt to bully the hospital into submission, but it refused to cave and continues to employ Sister Margaret. Now the bishop, in effect, is excommunicating the entire hospital — all because it saved a woman’s life. ...

To me, this battle illuminates two rival religious approaches, within the Catholic church and any spiritual tradition. One approach focuses upon dogma, sanctity, rules and the punishment of sinners. The other exalts compassion for the needy and mercy for sinners — and, perhaps, above all, inclusiveness.

The thought that keeps nagging at me is this: If you look at Bishop Olmsted and Sister Margaret as the protagonists in this battle, one of them truly seems to me to have emulated the life of Jesus. And it’s not the bishop, who has spent much of his adult life as a Vatican bureaucrat climbing the career ladder. It’s Sister Margaret, who like so many nuns has toiled for decades on behalf of the neediest and sickest among us.

Then along comes Bishop Olmsted to excommunicate the Christ-like figure in our story. If Jesus were around today, he might sue the bishop for defamation.

There are several key facts that you won't find in Kristof's column, the absence of which complete distorts the picture. And, of course, that is what Kristof needs, because it's obvious that he wants to shake a finger in the face of bishops such as Abp. Olmsted who are taking their directives from the supernatural Church founded by Christ, not by the secularist newspaper funding and featuring Mr. Kristof. Here are the main points:

1. Abp. Thomas Olmsted is not just a priest and bishop, but he is a priest and bishop with a master’s degree in theology and a doctorate in canon law. This is significant because the matter involving St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center requires a sound grounding in both theology and canon law. It may be that Kristof also has those degrees; I don't know. It may be that newspaper pundits sometimes know more than theologians/canon lawyers/bishops when it comes to theology, canon law, and governing. But I think that anyone not sucked into the intellectually nepotistic orbit of NCR and NYT will give the benefit of the doubt to the theologian/canon lawyer/bishop until given good reason to do otherwise.

2. Keeping with the first point, the case of the abortion at St. Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix required a grasp of some delicate but clear distinctions made in Catholic moral theology and canon law. The key distinction is that between a direct abortion and the death of an unborn child resulting indirectly from a medical procedure meant to save the life of the mother. This is such an important point I will quote at length here from the June 2010 USCCB statement, "The Distinction Between Direct Abortion and Legitimate Medical Procedures":

The difference can be seen in two different scenarios in which the unborn child is not yet old enough to survive outside the womb. In the first scenario, a pregnant woman is experiencing problems with one or more of her organs, apparently as a result of the added burden of pregnancy. The doctor recommends an abortion to protect the health of the woman. In the second scenario, a pregnant woman develops cancer in her uterus. The doctor recommends surgery to remove the cancerous uterus as the only way to prevent the spread of the cancer. Removing the uterus will also lead to the death of the unborn child, who cannot survive at this point outside the uterus.

The first scenario describes a direct abortion. The surgery directly targets the life of the unborn child. It is the surgical instrument in the hands of the doctor that causes the child's death. The surgery does not directly address the health problem of the woman, for example, by repairing the organ that is malfunctioning. The surgery is likely to improve the functioning of the organ or organs, but only in an indirect way, i.e., by lessening the overall demands placed upon the organ or organs, since the burden posed by the pregnancy will be removed. The abortion is the means by which a reduced strain upon the organ or organs is achieved. As the Church has said many times, direct abortion is never permissible because a good end cannot justify an evil means.

The second scenario describes a situation in which an urgently-needed medical procedure indirectly and unintentionally (although foreseeably) results in the death of an unborn child. In this case the surgery directly addresses the health problem of the woman, i.e., the organ that is malfunctioning (the cancerous uterus). The woman's health benefits directly from the surgery, because of the removal of the cancerous organ. The surgery does not directly target the life of the unborn child. The child will not be able to live long after the uterus is removed from the woman's body, but the death of the child is an unintended and unavoidable side effect and not the aim of the surgery.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with surgery to remove a malfunctioning organ. It is morally justified when the continued presence of the organ causes problems for the rest of the body. Surgery to terminate the life of an innocent person, however, is intrinsically wrong. There are no situations in which it can be justified. Pope Pius XII summed up Catholic teaching when he stated: "As long as a man is not guilty, his life is untouchable, and therefore any act directly tending to destroy it is illicit, whether such destruction is intended as an end in itself or only as a means to an end, whether it is a question of life in the embryonic stage or in a stage of full development or already in its final stages."

3. The above statement is further notable because it was issued by the USCCB's Committee on Doctrine in full, public support of Abp. Olmsted. (See links here to pertinent documents/stories.) Kristof would have you think that Abp. Olmsted is something of a rogue, "conservative" bishop who is outside the pale of what most Catholics think. Well, in a way, he might be half right about that, as many Catholics are not just clueless about Catholic teaching, they run like lemmings to follow nearly anyone who convinces them that doctrine and Magisterial teaching are meant to oppress the poor, rob them of sexual pleasure, and shore up the Tea Party (or whatever the bogeyman is at the time for leftists such as Kristof).

4. Kristof is disdainful of the approach within Catholicism that "focuses upon dogma, sanctity, rules and the punishment of sinners." His leg tingles when he thinks of the contrary approach that "exalts compassion for the needy and mercy for sinners — and, perhaps, above all, inclusiveness." It is, of course, a clumsy attempt at the classic divide (disingenuously) and conquer (doubtfully) routine: "Your side is mean and nasty; mine is sweet and swell; ergo, I win." Perhaps Kristof, unlike Abp. Olmsted, is unaware of the duties of a Catholic bishop. Abp. Olmsted explains:

 I am a successor to the Apostles. I need to carry on the mission that Jesus left to them. A bishop has three primary roles: to teach, to sanctify, and to govern. I place the primary emphasis on teaching, because Jesus said “Go teach all nations.” But you don’t teach without being totally rooted to Christ in prayer and being one with him through the Eucharist. So the sanctifying role has to be closely linked to the teaching role.

The shepherding or governing role is also intimately united with the others. To fulfill it, I need a strong working relationship with my priests, who carry on day-to-day life in our parishes. I see my role with my brother priests as both father and brother.

And—prepare to be shocked!—this is completely in keeping with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states: "To the apostles and their successors Christ has entrusted the office of teaching, sanctifying and governing in his name and by his power. But the laity are made to share in the priestly, prophetical, and kingly office of Christ; they have therefore, in the Church and in the world, their own assignment in the mission of the whole People of God" (par. 873; also see 1592). That quote, by the way, comes from the Second Vatican Council Decree, Apostolicam Actuositatem (par. 2); this isn't just some strange holdover from the dreaded "pre-Vatican II Church". Needless to say, Kristof has no grasp at all on the fact that dogma, sanctity, rules, and punishment are part of what it takes to develop, protect, and nurture true compassion, mercy, and love. Any parent worth their salt knows this is the case.

There is more (for example, I could go on and on about Kristof's lame and laughable appeal to the neo-Enlightment, trendy leftist Jesus who has nothing to do with the real Jesus), but I'll conclude by noting that Kristof relies on three "authorities": the National "Catholic" Reporter, the head of the hospital in question, and ... novelist Anne Rice? Huh? Really? Yep:

Anne Rice, the author and a commentator on Catholicism, sees a potential turning point. “St. Joseph’s refusal to knuckle under to the bishop is huge,” she told me, adding: “Maybe rank-and-file Catholics are finally talking back to a hierarchy that long ago deserted them.”

Oh, she's a (commence sonorous, deep tones!) "Commentator On Catholicism". I'm deeply impressed and insanely intimidated! No, actually, I'm not. I've expressed my thoughts many times—see here and here and here and here and here and here—on the sad debacle of Anne Rice's "unversion" (and her embarrassing failure to really understand or accurately represent Catholicism), and I know that anyone who is appealing to Rice in order to buttress his assault on orthodox Catholic bishops is indeed spouting nasty, Catholic-bashing krap.

Comments

[Robert Lennon]

I was really disappointed reading this in the NYT. But honest commentators on the Church (who are also outside of it) are hard to come by.

[craig]

"The other exalts compassion for the needy and mercy for sinners — and, perhaps, above all, inclusiveness."

I wonder where performing abortions fits into the above description of idealized liberal religion? BTW: remind me how often Christ spoke about inclusiveness?

[Joe]

"If you look at Bishop Olmsted and Sister Margaret as the protagonists in this battle, one of them truly seems to me to have emulated the life of Jesus. And it’s not the bishop, who has spent much of his adult life as a Vatican bureaucrat climbing the career ladder. It’s Sister Margaret, who like so many nuns has toiled for decades on behalf of the neediest and sickest among us."

So much for not judging. Also, has Kristof met either one? Does he really know anything about the Bishop's life? Does he really have any idea of what it means to emulate Jesus? Talk about an insulting summation by a guy who is so removed from the situation and wants to force the NYT ethical grid on a clergyman. He, Dowd and the others are far more sanctimonious than any religious.

[Dan Deeny]

Carl,
Excellent article. Clear explanation of Church teaching. Kristof is confused and has problems. Is he a Catholic?
But what are the specifics in the case? Why was the mother's life in danger? Why did the doctors advocate an abortion? Would the child have died in any case? What has Sister Margaret said to justify her decision? Have Catholic doctors commented on and explained this specific medical problem and linked it with Church doctrine?
Thanks.

[Jeff Grace]

Well... I have a few things to say about this, if you're interested... I think Abp. Olmsted is dead wrong on this and Kristof got it right.

[Jean]

I had the same questions as Dan Deeny. I followed the links above and found that the mother had pulmonary hypertension, which is indeed a life-threatening condition for both mother and baby. From my superficial web search, it seems that women who are at risk are urged to avoid pregnancy through contraception and to abort if that fails. Not everyone will know they are at risk until they are pregnant, however. It seems abortion in all cases is considered evidence-based best medical practice. On the other hand, I also read that the condition can be managed by close observation during the pregnancy and early induction of labor. Of course this is very risky and also expensive if by close observation one means hospitalization for several months and then high-risk caesarean. So, we come up against insurance and hospital cost decisions. Do we abort because it's cheaper than hospitalization and less risky from a litigation standpoint?

The explanation about the distinction between direct and indirect abortion is helpful, but the organs involved are the lungs and heart. Sometimes a heart-lung transplant is necessary. I can't imagine this can be done successfully on a pregnant woman and would like to hear more from Catholic physicians faithful to the Magisterium about these medical issues.

Regarding the controversy itself, the reports of the incident state that the doctors and hospital administrator had no other choice. Yet given the sorry state of journalism today, I remain skeptical about that claim, especially since it is necessary to bolster the template of the bishop as heartless male religious bureaucrat. I do not understand why the mother was not transferred to another hospital. Am I mistaken that the Bishop was not consulted until after the fact? Did the hospital not think it important to get his input? More links to get the detailed story would be much appreciated by those of us who haven't been following it.

[Thomas S]

Jeff,

Instead of piggy-backing on Insight Scoop to try to get more hits to your site, why don't you just say what you have to say and defend your claims?

[LJ]

But what are the specifics in the case? -Dan Deeny

An interesting question. It seems there are different sets of facts in circulation. Jeff Grace has come the absolute conclusion that Bishop Olmstead was totally wrong based on the "facts" of the case.

But Jeff, like many others you conflate two issues. Perhaps that is because (from your website) it is clear you have an issue with Bishops exercising their authority at all.

"The Bishop Who Would Be An Autocrat" (http://www.rjgrace.com/?p=1391) Here's (literally) the bottom line "this action by Olmsted is a prime example of clericalism gone wild…"

You also have concluded that Bishop Olmstead acted against the analysis that he received. That sounds a little like Humanae Vitae, does it not? Of course there is one significant difference. This decision by Bishop Olmstead does not fall under the narrow confines of infallibility.

Which brings us back to the conflation of issues. The first issue concerns the actual facts of the case and whether or not it falls within the definitions of Catholic moral doctrine as Carl has defended above.

The second is the issue of Bishop Olmstead's authority to do what he did. I would submit that it is independent of the merits of the case. In fact, if his authority is dependent upon whether he is right about the facts or the conclusions from those facts, it is no authority at all.

This principle was established and confirmed many centuries ago in the Catholic Church, and if you want to understand the principle just look at the words of Jesus in Matthew's Gospel chapter 23;

[2] “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat;
[3] so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.
-RSV

Call it "clericalism" if you wish, and/or a reduction of the "priesthood of believers" but authority remains even if the Bishop is in error or a hypocrite. Canon Law tells us exactly what authority the Bishop has.

By the way, someone who considers Barack Obama a prophet (http://www.rjgrace.com/?p=1440) whether in the "wooden, literalist understanding" or not, should perhaps become reconciled at some point with the authoritarian (perhaps even totalitarian) exercise of authority, particularly in the field of health care.

It has its roots in the idea of "universality" which these days carries the cache of presumptive truth without any critique. It is a derivative of egalitarianism, and we need only examine the parables of Jesus to see what he thinks of that ideology.

I prefer to see the President as an articulate teleprompter front man for an ideology that has no misgivings at all in the brutal, vicious and single-minded application of authority where it deems necessary. Recent history has taught us that, and anyone who advances that ideology needs to prepare themselves for an exercise of authority to which Catholic Bishops could never compare.

[Jeff Grace]

LJ said:

But Jeff, like many others you conflate two issues. Perhaps that is because (from your website) it is clear you have an issue with Bishops exercising their authority at all.

Not at all, LJ. I am Catholic... I do recognize the authority of bishops. I also have, like many Catholics, the ability to discern when a bishop is abusing his authority. Bishops are human, LJ... and some of them are infected with the notion that they have a license to operate as if they were the only ones who are called to exercise the responsibility that we all, as Christians, are called to: the priesthood of all believers. They can err... they can even be corrupt... and they need to be held accountable, not worshipped. This clericalism that Olmsted subscribes to is NOT held by all bishops... and to the extent that a bishop is infected with clericalism, that bishops fails his office. THAT is the deeper problem revealed in all of this because THAT attitude ends up running roughshod over the people of God, whether it be in the case of hiding sexual abuse or in the case of excommunicating by fiat.

...and you need to read that post on Obama a bit more carefully. I said that in that particular speech he was acting prophetically. I hardly think he is a prophet nor do I think he holds the answer to reforming health care access in the US...

[Jeff Grace]

Jean, I know you don't intend to appear heartless... so maybe it's just that you haven't read the analysis to know that the mother wanted her baby... I have no doubt that she would have done anything to save it. I hope you understand that...

[whatever]

As presented here, theology seems to have no place in Jeff's argument. It's basically 'I don't like it, so it's clericalism, elitism, cruelty, intransigence, etc.'

[Lauri Friesen]

Nicolas Kristof and Jeff Grace both appear to believe that the killing of the fetus is, at least, less immoral than allowing the mother to die. Jesus Christ said "Whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever would lose his life for my sake will find it." If you are a Christian, the actions and decisions of Abp. Olmsted are well in keeping with the words of Christ. That doesn't make them easy or palatable for the worldly mind or heart.

[Ed Peters]

Carl wrote: "The matter involving St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center requires a sound grounding in both theology and canon law. It may be that Kristof also has those degrees; I don't know." Hmmm. I have not heard of him, and I tend to recognize the more important names in canon law.

Carl also wrote: "It may be that newspaper pundits sometimes know more than theologians/canon lawyers/bishops when it comes to theology, canon law, and governing." That has not been my experience, to date, anyway.

[Jeff Grace]

This might be too much for you to trouble with, but I suggest you read the theological analysis provided to Olmsted. It's very odd that an "orthodox" bishop could reject the sound theology therein. You can download it here...

[craig]

Well...the NYT has, of course, turned this into an "bad authority vs. good dissent" issue, which Carl did a great job in refuting, but Jeff is doing something different than what the NYT did. Jeff is asking if the bishop made a good call or not based on this exact medical situation. I don't think Jeff is questioning the Bishop's right to make these kinds of rulings, but whether or not he was correct in doing so in this exact case. I will admit that this medical situation is more complex than I had realized. When I first heard of this story on the blogosphere back in December--I was under the impression that a woman just wanted the abortion to be a post-conception contraceptive, which explained the Bishop's reaction.

[LJ]

"Fiat" from Merriam-Webster

1: a command or act of will that creates something without or as if without further effort
2: an authoritative determination : dictate
3: an authoritative or arbitrary order : decree

Without belaboring the point Jeff, it seems to me that “fiat” as above-defined describes the action of any Bishop, and is in no way the negative that you seem to want to attribute by regular use of the word. “Determination” as in the second definition is quite applicable here, as is the word “arbitrary” in the third definition. A Bishop is the arbiter in matters moral and spiritual in his diocese.

It seems to me that your accusations against Olmstead are based solely on your disagreement with the decision. If that is the criterion by which we determine the authority of the Bishop there can be no decisions at all, for every such decision to excommunicate an individual or withdraw the name Catholic from any institution will always be met with those who vehemently disagree with the decision, such as yourself in this case.

It is also ironic that you mention the sex-abuse scandal in the context of a decision wherein you believe that the Bishop ignored the analysis of experts. It was precisely the adherence to psychological analysis and advice that led Bishops in the past to see sex abusers as “curable” and because of that misinformation they moved them around while ordering therapy and ignoring Canon Law. It is a more recent conclusion within the field of psychology that child sex abusers are “incurable.”

So in that case the Bishops are now excoriated for listening to the “experts.” This became very clear in the report by Judge Murphy in Ireland;

“The commission is satisfied that Church law demanded serious penalties for clerics who abused children. In Dublin, from the 1970s onwards, this was ignored.”

(http://catholicworldreport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=154:the-wolves-roamed-freely&catid=53:cwr2010&Itemid=70)

If, on the other hand, you wish to establish the authority of the Bishop through consensus of the faithful, you might want to take note of the cheers throughout the Catholic community when Bishop Olmstead finally acted in the case of just one of the “Catholic nudge-nudge wink-wink” medical facilities and organizations throughout the nation.

[Jeff Grace]

Thanks, Craig... that's exactly what I'm trying to do. Quite frankly I'm befuddled by Abp. Olmsted's dismissal of the moral analysis that he asked for and received. Given the facts, the care and attention that the mother and the ethics committee took in being alert to and respectful of the morality of the situation within the context of Catholic moral teaching is exemplary. Prof. Lysaught's analysis shows how keen they were in following Church teaching. For the life of me, I don't know why Olmsted rejected that analysis. This really does damage, in a very big way, to the pro-life cause and the image of the Catholic Church in general. It doesn't get much worse...

[Jeff Grace]

A question to Ed Peters, the resident canon law expert: Do you also maintain, along with Abp. Olmsted, that Catholic moral teaching leads us to conclude that we should do nothing to intervene when a pregnancy has become non-viable... the child is sure to die... and the mother will also die if nothing is done to end the pregnancy? In other words, when the choice is not either the child's life or the mother's life, we should nevertheless let them both die?

[Brad]

As usual, "inclusiveness" rears its demonic, age of aquarius head.

We know our Lord came for sinners. However, we sinners must co-operate (imperfect word here, but let's go with it for now) with our Lord's grace by acknowledging his grace and turning away from sin and living the life of the gospels (active effort on our part)...every day...denying our crappy, tired natures, picking up our crosses and carrying them according to God's LAW (OT and NT). With fear and trembling and many bruises along the way.

So those people who reject God and his dictates, with no fear, exclude themselves, reject inclusion. How does Kristof et al deal with the very words of our Lord in John 6:53? Especially in light of the fact that our Lord let many (disciples, to say nothing of outright unbelievers!) walk away from him who could not, would not, accede to that hard truth. That is hell on earth, the same as hell after earth: a denial of God's help.

"Inclusiveness" is non servium, lucifer's own words, have it your goaty way and still expect to be a sheep and be called a sheep.

Pablum!

[Jean]

Jeff said, "Jean, I know you don't intend to appear heartless... so maybe it's just that you haven't read the analysis to know that the mother wanted her baby... I have no doubt that she would have done anything to save it. I hope you understand that..."

I'm confused by your comment, Jeff. I thought I made it clear that I was indeed looking for more information and analysis, which the NYT story was lacking. My comments were regarding the medical treatment of this condition in general, the medical facts of this specific case, and the actions of the hospital staff. I made no mention of the mother or her motivations, which are missing from the NYT story. In a medical emergency, the mother's wishes could have been overridden by the experts. I've re-read my post and still do not understand the point you were making about it. Please explain, thanks.

[Jeff Grace]

Jean, I took your comments to mean you had read the analysis (click here for the PDF) provided by St. Mary's to Olmsted, which contains what you say you seek. Your questions seem to imply the mother wasn't attentive to those same concerns. Don't you think the mother had those same questions and answered them for herself? That's what seems heartless to me.

[Jeff Grace]

LJ, if you want to "affirm the authority of a bishop" who tells you to let your wife die because it's wrong... it's equivalent to a direct abortion... to remove a dying fetus who cannot be saved, then that's your choice. I'm sure what I have to say in response to your points is of no consequence to you.

[Dr John James]

As a doctor, I should like to hear whether any medications, recognised as specific for relieving pulmonary artery hypertension were used, and if so, which medications?
I'd also like to know if the technique of extra corporeal oxygenation for mum , a technique I have seen used in many paediatric settings here in Australia, was able to be accessed.
It is an extraordinary measure but very effective in situations, sometimes quite extended , where there is respiratory failure, which is seen as transient, in the long term.

[mel]

Jeff,

Here is a quote from the National Catholic Bioethics Center statement on the CHW scandal: "One of the most dismaying facts to come to light as a result of the Bishop withdrawing the Catholic status
of the hospital is the hospital’s involvement in and profit from the Mercy Health Plan which provides contraceptive drugs and devices (some of which have abortifacient properties) and also provides for
abortion under certain circumstances. Also, by its own admission, the hospital has performed other abortions in the past and will not promise to refrain from performing abortions in the future."

This report also document other irregularities of the CHW.

Isn't this particular case (the 2009 case), in light of the other offenses of the hospital, really non-material to Bp. Olmsted's action? Isn't Bp. Olmsted justified in his actions in light of all of the other offenses and lack of repentance of the hospital? Even if I gave you you're due on the 2009 case, with all of the other offenses, you still have a Catholic Hospital and its CEO fudging with Church Teaching.

I would request you link this document to your analysis of the situation, in order to bring the holistic story to the table. http://www.ncbcenter.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=171

[Jeff Grace]

Mel: The 2009 case is material, not the least of which is due to the effect this whole action has had on the mother. Injustice and abuse of power is never justified by appealing to some nefarious accusations of wrong-doing in other cases. If the Abp wants to call them to task for for those othr allegations, then let it roll... but not on the back of that mother.

Dr. James: Fair enough, but I think you might be well advised to conclude such investigation before handing out condemnations.

[Lauri Friesen]

I took a look at the moral analysis provided by the hospital. Two things struck me: 1) the confidence with which the medical professionals predicted death of both mother and child, when my own experience and knowledge of medicine is that they pretty much always get these predictions wrong; and 2) the analysis appears to have been done after the fetus was killed, making it impossible to know what the real basis was for their decision.

Furthermore, nothing in this analysis supports a conclusion that a D&C intervention is not a direct abortion. The fetus was alive. The D&C was performed. The fetus was dead. It would only have been by carefully monitoring the fetus in utero, waiting for it to die in this unhealthy maternal environment, and then ending the pregnancy (i.e. continued growth of the placenta) that would have made intervention to end the pregnancy indirect.

[mel]

Jeff,

"but I think you might be well advised to conclude such investigation before handing out condemnations"

Look in the mirror.

[jack]

I'll like to know more about the cost and availability of the alternate treatment for this condition. I heard on catholic bioethicist state that the results were positive. Years ago I sold and serviced many large group health plans and I remember a case that I belive matches this. The costs were in the area of $400,000 back in the 80's. This does not affect the correct moral response but it would bring out the tiger in a health care company or tight hospital administrator.

[Brad]

May St. Gianna pray for the abortion-excusers from her lofty perch. Surely such a holy mother's prayers will assuage the righteous rage of the Father by reminding Him of the infinite merit of Calvary. Christ, save us from ourselves. We do evil and we excuse evil.

[Jeff Grace]

Carl, I mistakenly followed your lead and started calling Olmsted "Abp"... I have it on good authority that he is "Bp"...our bad!

[Dr John James]

Hey Jeff, take it easy!
I think if you check my post, you'll see I haven't condemned anyone.

[Dan Deeny]

Dr. John James,
Since you are a doctor (MD, I presume), can you check into the details and let us know what the story is?
Thanks.