---

After last month's senseless attempt in Tucson, Ariz., to assassinate Representative Gabrielle Giffords and the death of six victims, including Federal Court Judge John Roll and nine-year-old Christine Taylor Green -- as well as the gunshot wounds sustained by 13 other by-standers attending Giffords' "Congress on your Corner" event -- there has been 'round-the-clock analysis as to the cause of this tragedy.

Some blame the inflammatory atmosphere created by radio and TV talk show hosts, political pundits and politicians who employ the type of vitriolic and incendiary language that fuels violence.

Others lament the inadequate and piecemeal approach to mental health services which permit such an obviously disturbed person as the shooter in Tucson to slip through the cracks.

Others, like Bob Herbert of The New York Times, point to "a culture that glorifies and embraces violence as entertainment, and views violence as an appropriate and effective response to the things that bother us."

Still others cite lax gun laws that make access to guns all too easy. More than 30,000 people die from gunfire every year; another 66,000 or so are wounded - which means that nearly 100,000 men, women and children are victims of gun violence annually.

For example, Marian Wright Edelman, president of the Children's Defense Fund, notes that we're losing eight children and teenagers each day to gun violence. Since the beginning of the 21st century -- and excluding the people killed in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 -- more than 50,000 Americans have been murdered.

To address these gruesome statistics, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, whose own family members were shot by a crazed gunman on the Long Island Rail Road, has introduced into the House of Representatives a ban on full-capacity magazines of ammunition (more than 10 rounds). Such, she reasons, are only needed by military personnel and law enforcement officers.

All of these factors and others underscore the fact that we are living in an insanely violent society. Hopefully, the assassination attempt on Rep. Giffords and the killing and injuries surrounding it will cause us to rethink how we can address the vicious cycle of violence that has become all too commonplace in our society.

Ironically, in the midst of all the societal hand-wringing over violence during the past month, on Jan. 22 we observed the 38th anniversary of the infamous Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion in our nation. That decision resulted in the death of 53 million infants in the womb over this span of time.

Youngest lost
The unborn have been the victims of the greatest violence of all; but rarely, if ever, is this terrible violence mentioned in the debate about violence in American society.

Susan Wills, associate director of the U.S. bishops' Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, notes: "For decades, our culture has exalted personal freedom, subjective morality and self-interest - all of which make it difficult to accept the responsibility and sacrifices of parenthood. When confronted with unplanned pregnancy, then, many women and men fail to understand the full moral gravity of abortion.

"Often, they are blinded to the truth that what they have conceived is a priceless and irreplaceable child whom God has entrusted to their care. The child is seen as a barrier to their own plans and fulfillment, and abortion is seen as the fix."

Too often, in other words, the reality which abortion involves has been sugar-coated and rationalized as a personal choice of convenience, rather than the violent destruction of an innocent human being.

How can we combat this violence in the womb? Let me suggest three specific ways we can respond.

Support services
First, we can support with our financial resources or volunteer service organizations like Community Maternity Services, sponsored by Catholic Charities in all 14 counties of our Diocese. CMS provides comprehensive health and social support, residential care, outpatient services and post-delivery care to the women who choose to bring their babies to term.

Services are also available for women who choose to place their children for adoption. Other programs like Birthright offer similar services.

Second, for those who in their confusion and fear have aborted a baby, the Project Rachel retreats presented in our Diocese offer spiritual support and counseling to help these women and their family find healing, peace, reconciliation and forgiveness.

Contact Pat Mousaw for information about this invaluable post-abortion project (222-1160 or [email protected]). St. Peter's Hospital in Albany offers a similar opportunity for those grieving about participation in a child's abortion.

Third, we can contact Gov. Andrew Cuomo and state legislators to make known our staunch opposition to the radical Reproductive Health Act (S.2524), which already has been introduced into the present session of the New York State Legislature.

This legislation is being promoted as a mere codification of Roe v. Wade in New York State law. In fact, this bill does not simply "update" the law or codify Roe, but would usher in extreme and sweeping changes to abortion policy in New York State.

Like we need a more liberalized abortion policy! The New York Times featured a column Jan. 23 by city critic Ariel Kaminer congratulating New York City as becoming "officially the abortion capital of America." Kaminer notes that a health department report released in December "proves it: about 40 percent of all pregnancies in the city end that way, an average of about 90,000 a year in recent years."

Kaminer points out further that "unlike other places, new York has not passed laws limiting access to abortion" and "in New York, unlike most states, Medicaid covers abortions. (In 2009 counselors at Planned Parenthood's four clinics across the city helped more than 6,800 patients who were eligible to sign up for that program.)"

The bill would establish a "fundamental right of privacy" within New York State law, encompassing the right "to terminate a pregnancy." This change does not simply "codify" Roe v. Wade in New York law; it significantly diverges from the Supreme Court's interpretation of Roe, which rejected the view that a woman has a "fundamental" right to abortion.

Instead, the Supreme Court said that states may regulate abortion, as long as those regulations do not place an "undue burden" on the right to an abortion. The proposed bill says that abortion is fundamental and, thus, untouchable - no regulations on abortion, ever!

The bill would ensure that abortions, possibly even "partial-birth abortions," are legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy if they are deemed necessary to protect the life or "health" of the mother. Historically, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the term "health" so broadly as to include social, economic and emotional stress factors, rendering the term meaningless.

Current state law says abortions are legal in New York through 24 weeks of pregnancy (Article 125 Penal Law), but outlawed after that unless they are necessary to save a woman's life. This bill would repeal that law and permit all third-trimester abortions.

Such legislation ignores the state's legitimate interest in protecting the life of fully-formed children in the womb and ignores the will of a majority of New Yorkers who oppose late-term abortion.

Moreover, even though federal law now prohibits one particular method of later-term abortion known as "partial-birth abortion" that federal ban is limited in its reach, meaning this legislation could even permit partial-birth abortions in New York State.

The bill could also undermine conscience protection in current law by requiring every institution licensed or funded by that state -- including religious hospitals, agencies and schools -- to support abortion, provide coverage for abortion, or to permit abortions.

While this bill contains limited conscience protection, that protection is ambiguous and inadequate and appears to be extended only to individual health providers who do not wish to "provide" abortions. The protection is not extended to hospitals or other institutions, nor to individuals who do not wish to be involved with abortion through counseling, referrals or insurance coverage.

The legislation declares that "the state shall not discriminate" against the exercise of the fundamental right to abortion in the "provision of benefits, facilities, services or information." It opens the door for state regulators such as the State Health Department or State Insurance Department to mandate support for abortion from any agency or institution licensed or funded by the state.

The bill could be used to undermine the state's maternity programs. These beneficial programs -- such as the Prenatal Care Assistance Program, which helps low-income mothers afford prenatal care and is working well to reduce infant mortality -- could be ruled "discriminatory" for favoring childbirth over abortion, if this bill were to become law.

Further, the bill would repeal the requirement in current law that says only doctors can perform abortions. While current law states that only a "duly licensed physician" may perform abortion, this bill would allow any "licensed healthcare practitioner" to perform the procedure prior to viability.

This dangerous and extreme change clearly puts women's health at risk, and mirrors a national abortion strategy to permit non-doctors to perform abortions due to the declining number of physicians willing to do so.

Not only would the bill disallow any criminal penalties for abortion, but it removes language from previous versions of the bill which allowed for medical misconduct charges against those who would perform unauthorized abortions.

The current version allows for absolutely no actions against doctors or non-doctors who perform unauthorized abortions. This does not protect women's health.

The "Reproductive Health Act" is uncompromising in its terms and extremely sweeping in scope. The bill goes against the increasingly pro-life sentiment in this country, as evidenced by the most recent Gallup poll (May 2010).

The Gallup organization found that more Americans identify themselves as pro-life rather than pro-choice. The majority of Americans believe abortion should either be more strictly limited than current law or not permitted at all.

If ever there was an unnecessary piece of state legislation, the so-called "Reproductive Health Act" is it. The right to abortion is not at risk in our state: New York was one of the first states to liberalize its abortion laws -- three years prior to its legalization by the U.S. Supreme Court. We have the highest abortion rate of any state in the country. The local yellow pages abound with ads for easily financed, easily accessible abortions.

Thus, in an effort to prevent further violence against the most vulnerable in our midst, the unborn, I urge you to act today to prevent easier access to abortion promoted by the Reproductive Health Act by letting your elected representative in the State Legislature and the Governor know of your firm opposition to this extreme and harmful legislation.

(02/03/11)[[In-content Ad]]

---