Bishop Tobin Confuses Anti-Choice for Pro-Life


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Providence Diocese Bishop Thomas Tobin has a tendency to very publicly take Catholic politicians to task for their stand on reproductive rights. Tobin’s very public fight with Congressman Patrick Kennedy was seen by many to be a bold assertion of clerical power to control the votes of Catholic legislators on issues of importance to Catholic theology. Most recently the Bishop went after James Langevin in his June 28th Without a Doubt blog, saying:

Although he continues to identify himself as a “Catholic, pro-life member of Congress,” consider his record. He voted in favor of Obamacare that allows the funding of abortion; he has championed the use of embryonic stem cells, a practice that results in the destruction of human life; he has proudly announced his support of homosexual marriage, a concept that is, ultimately, an offense to human life; he supports the HHS Mandate that requires Catholic ministries and others to provide insurance coverage for immoral practices; and recently he voted against the bill that would have banned the horrific practice of sex-selection abortion. It’s clear that Langevin has abandoned the pro-life cause. What a disappointment!

Randall Edgar, in the September 13th Providence Journal article Bishop says Langevin no longer pro-life followed up this story, with comments from Langevin, who still considers himself “pro-life.” Langevin said

…he has differences with Bishop Tobin, for whom he has “deep respect.” Among them: He believes that being pro-life requires that he work to “reduce unwanted pregnancies,” which is why he supports “making contraceptives available.” He also said he sees stem cell research as offering “hope for curing some of life’s most challenging chronic conditions and diseases.”

What is clear from the disagreement between the legislator and the bishop is that the “pro-life” position is not in any way the opposite of the “pro-choice” position. In fact, the reality is that everyone, on either side of the reproductive rights issue, is pro-life. The only real disagreement is how we express our point of view through our political actions.

Tobin and others who wear the pro-life label with pride love to tarnish those who believe in reproductive health care as being pro-death, as seen in this editorial from the April 19th Rhode Island Catholic entitled “Planned Parenthood’s War on Women” in which The American Civil Liberties Union, Humanists of Rhode Island, Rhode Island Medical Society, Brown Medical Students for Choice and Catholics for Choice were labeled “culture of death allies” to Planned Parenthood.

Tobin has every right to publicly cajole or privately persuade legislators to vote as Tobin interprets  God’s will. Legislators, Catholic or otherwise, are free to heed Tobin’s words or not. The voting public, however, many of whom are not Catholic, and many of whom follow faith traditions that understand the necessity of reproductive health care choices for women, might understandably become worried about casting votes for candidates with otherwise fine credentials that happen to be Catholic, their worry being that they are not voting for someone who will act in the best interests of our country and our citizens, but only for what is in the theological interests of the Catholic Church.

It should be remembered that we are not just talking about abortion here. We are talking about condoms, birth control pills, marriage equality, doctor patient privilege, sex education and a myriad of health care and lifestyle issues important to the lives of real people living in the real world. The harder the Providence Diocese pushes Catholic legislators to forgo a multicultural and secular perspective in favor of Catholic theology, the more likely it is that voters will find themselves unable to be sure that Catholics can be trusted to hold public office.

Catholic Senator John F Kennedy faced this head on in 1960, speaking to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association :

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute–where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act… I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish–where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source…

At the time, though prejudice against Catholics was waning, there was still enough serious suspicion that a Catholic president would be little more than a puppet of the Pope that Kennedy felt it necessary to make this speech disavowing such influence. Kennedy was faced with essentially the same problem posed to Jesus, who famously told his interlocutors to render unto Caesar (the government) what was Caesar’s, and render unto God what is God’s. In other words, separate church and state.

Tobin wants Langevin and all other Catholic officials to stop making any distinction between church and state, rendering everything unto God, Caesar be damned. What Tobin risks with his very public pressure tactics against Catholics in high office is the very ability of Catholics to attain high office. Under the conditions Tobin wants to impose on Catholic office holders, how could anyone who disagrees with Catholic theology concerning marriage equality or birth control reasonably vote for any Catholic?

Tobin has resorted to what amounts to religious extortion in the past to get his way politically, when he denied the sacrament of communion to Representative Patrick Kennedy in 2009. His strong words against Langevin might mark the beginning of a second round of religious bullying. Langevin maintains that he has “deep respect” for Tobin, and though little in Langevin’s voting record should overly worry those in favor of reproductive health care rights, can we be sure that Langevin’s deep respect won’t eventually cause him to compromise his duty as an elected official?

I ask the question rhetorically. I think there are many fine Catholic politicians holding elected office in our state, and I have little cause to doubt them. But the louder Tobin publicly demands allegiance to Catholic doctrine over duty to our country, the more a reasonable person has cause to worry about the loyalty of those in Tobin’s cross-hairs.

On Choice, Rhode Island Not Far from Mississippi


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

If abortion is legal in a state, but there’s nowhere to have an abortion performed, is it really an option? This hypothetical is quickly becoming a reality for those living in Mississippi. While the situation in Rhode Island isn’t quite that dire, some female leaders here say they are saddened and frightened for the lives of women who may not be granted the same privileges and access as others in New England.

The Mississippi Case

A federal judge on July 11 ruled to temporarily block a state law that would force the sole abortion provider in the state of Mississippi to close its doors. The TRAP law requires physicians performing abortions in the state to be OB/GYN certified and to have hospital admitting privileges.

Critics say that the TRAP law was specifically crafted with the intention to close the doors of the Jackson Women’s Health Organization, where 2 of its 3 OB/GYNs are not currently qualified to access hospital privileges. Essentially this would mean the closure of the state’s only abortion provider.

Rhode Island Out of Line with Other New England States

In 2012, a nationwide report by NARAL Pro-Choice America gave Rhode Island a D+ on its “choice-related laws.” The report highlighted the Rhode Island House as “mixed-choice,” the Rhode Island Senate as “anti-choice,” and 7 anti-choice state laws.

One of those anti-choice laws is in fact a TRAP law, which specifies where abortion services may be provided.

Susan Yolen, a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood of Southern New England, said NARAL Pro-Choice America’s grade for RI was “quite out of line with other New England states” that earned marks of A (Maine and Connecticut), A- (Vermont), and B- (New Hampshire and Massachusetts). Mississippi, on the other hand, earned an F.

Current Abortion Legislation Efforts in Rhode Island

According to Yolen, of Planned Parenthood, every year for over 15 years there’s been a multifaceted bill proposed in the Rhode Island that seeks stricter mandates for abortion providers — additional counseling for patients, printed information instead of a website, and harsher penalties for physicians who do not adhere to the laws.

In January, Rep. Karen MacBeth (D-Cumberland) introduced legislation that would require a woman to review her ultrasound before the procedure is performed. Opposed to such legislation is Rep. Edith Ajello (D-Providence) who said in an interview the physician would be required to describe the ultrasound image, including the “gestational development of the fetus, the size, and the parts,” to the woman seeking an abortion. Rep. Ajello explained, “There was nothing in the legislation that allows her to say, ‘I don’t want to hear it.’”

In Rhode Island, there are already laws enforcing informed consent, which ensures women are knowledgeable about the abortion procedure and alternatives. “When legislators talk about informed consent, they are making it even more detailed,” said Rep. Ajello. “And this is unusual, in that it would be legislators putting in law how doctors practice their profession,” Rep. Ajello commented.

Low-Income Women Most Affected by Abortion Providers Shutting Down

What affect would it have on women if abortion providers were to shut down within a state?

Rep.  Ajello imagines, “abortion will become more expensive, just because of the increased travel time.  Difficulty because of the time away from home, time away from care of other children, or time away from work — making it a lot more expensive.”

Yolen added, “Think about that person without resources, the young person, the college student, the single mom, the woman who is in a battering relationship and can’t escape from home long enough from her husband’s control to really take that kind of a trip… it always hits low-income women the hardest.”

Currently, Rhode Island law does not allow insurance plans to cover abortion care for women on Medicaid or state employees. Yolen argues, although these laws are not given the title, they are certainly “traps” for women seeking an abortion.

Comparing Rhode Island and Mississippi

Rhode Island and Mississippi share significant similarities in the abortion debate as there is an increased amount of anti-abortion legislation being proposed, there are a limited number of abortion providers currently available, and both state senates are pro-life.

The big difference between the two states is that Rhode Island’s House is mixed, whereas Mississippi’s House is overwhelmingly pro-life. Rhode Island is not facing as extreme impacts against abortion because of the split between pro-choice and pro-life house members.

The multifaceted bills that pro-life activists and legislators have proposed every year for over 15 years are not gaining enough support to be passed.

In order to be certain that Rhode Island does not turn into the next Mississippi, progressive representatives are working together to create a strong presence on the legislative floor with pressure and support from community members.

Yolen said she believed legislators in Mississippi are setting themselves up to be a state where a constitutional right doesn’t apply, “you certainly do hope that it is doesn’t materialize in other states.”