Journalism “unfair in content, tone, choice of language, prominence of play.”

On By Michael KirkeIn Culture MattersLeave a comment

In a splendid article on the Real Clear Politics website the media’s greatest sacred cow is put under the microscope for our consideration. It presents us with a wretched story of gross injustice in the name of rights, rights perceived through the tinted glasses of global group-think and it will make – or should make – those complicit in its perpetration blush with shame when the history of our age is written.

Ireland’s working journalists should read this and put their hands on their hearts and tell the truth about the part they play in this self-righteous charade. They collectively, through the country’s major media organisations, if not necessarily individually – there are honourable exceptions, – tick all the boxes in this sorry catalogue of dishonesty and wilful blindness.

Carl M. Cannon, in an article posted on Real Clear Politics just over two months ago, recalls the recent history of journalism’s flight from the truth and responsibility for even-handedness which should be the hallmark of all reporting media. The history of journalism is not wanting in other aberrations of this kind down the decades of two centuries or more. But has any aberration been as persistent as this one?

In America’s newsrooms of the 1970s and 1980s, Cannon observes, a general consensus emerged on two fraught political issues. The first, affirmative action, was understandable. Expanding the pool of what had been a white male-dominated profession was not only a laudable social goal, it was a logical business imperative for newspapers seeking to expand their reach. And it was even more than that. If you worked for any major news organization, including the sprawling newspaper chains that dominated the landscape, it was also official corporate policy.

 The second issue, in a sense, grew out of the first. That issue was abortion, or in the vernacular adopted by the media, “abortion rights.” To say that big city editors and reporters were “pro-choice” is to understate the case. Mostly, it went without saying: Roe v. Wade was the law of the land, and any reporter or editor who harboured doubts about it — and those who voiced them aloud — was considered a sexist, or perhaps a religious nut.

 Editorially, most newspapers supported abortion rights. Two studies done in the late 1980s showed an overwhelming majority of U.S. journalists personally supported legalized abortion, numbers that were almost certainly higher among elite news organizations. And after the Newspaper Guild formally endorsed “freedom of choice,” journalists began marching in pro-choice rallies.

 He speaks of a former editor whom he worked for in those years, James R. Bettinger, city editor of the San Jose Mercury News, who now remembers the nagging feeling that his paper’s coverage of demonstrations by those opposed to abortion suffered because of the monolithic views of the reporting staff.

We might wish that some of the editors serving the Irish public today were afflicted with even a little of this nagging feeling.

 Bettinger, now the longtime director of the Knight Journalism Fellowship program at Stanford University, says “I was convinced there were stories we were missing and nuances we were trampling on because we weren’t hearing [the pro-life] perspective voiced in the newsroom. For all I know, there may have been reporters and editors who felt strongly on the issue, but it wasn’t getting voiced. It felt to me like a failing.”

 Cannon then quotes, influential Los Angeles Times media critic David Shaw who tackled this issue in 1990 with a 5,000-word opus that began on Page One. It pulled no punches, Cannon says. Shaw noted that it is certainly possible for reporters and editors to put aside their personal beliefs and follow the obligation of their chosen profession to be fair and impartial. But, he said, that wasn’t happening on this issue.

 “A comprehensive Times study of major newspaper, television and newsmagazine coverage over the last 18 months, including more than 100 interviews with journalists and with activists on both sides of the abortion debate confirms that this bias often exists,” Shaw wrote. “Careful examination of stories published and broadcast reveals scores of examples, large and small, that can only be characterized as unfair to the opponents of abortion, either in content, tone, choice of language or prominence of play.”

 In the years between 1973, when Roe v. Wade was decided, and the publication of Shaw’s opus, “viability” — i.e., the amount of time a fetus had to develop before being able to survive outside the womb — had steadily been shrinking. For journalists who ridiculed conservatives’ supposed hostility to science, this should have been a huge warning flag. Cutting-edge science and traditional religion were in sync. In the press, we were mainly in sync with Democrats.

 In 2008, at a joint appearance with John McCain at Saddleback, the sprawling Southern California mega-church founded by evangelical pastor Rick Warren, Barack Obama was asked, “At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?”

 “Well,” Obama replied, “I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.”

 This answer prompted widespread ridicule of Obama among social conservatives — and of the mainstream press for accepting such a dodge. But the exchange between Warren and Obama succinctly illustrates how the sides in this debate talk past one another. Those opposed to abortion frame the question as being about the rights of the unborn. Those who defend it talk about abortion as being integral to a woman’s right to control her own body, a necessity that trumps theological teaching or scientific advancement.

 Because it had long ago chosen sides in this debate, the media collaborated with the pro-choice side to sanitize this debate to the point where the details of the procedure abortion are almost never mentioned and the word “abortion” itself extraneous. Who is so sexist they can oppose “a woman’s right to choose”? How un-American to oppose “choice.”

 The ‘pro-choice’ movement has corrupted language and made choice a weasel word. The media has colluded in this corruption and in doing so has undermined the very principles of truth and honesty on which its credibility, its right to respect and its very raison d’être rests. Pay grade? For what?

Cannon has much more to say, and it is all profoundly unsettling.

Another front opens in the battle against Kenny abortion Bill

On By Michael KirkeIn Culture MattersLeave a comment
Colm Keaveney, T.D.

Another front has now emerged in the battle against Enda Kenny’s forces which just 24 hours ago seemed unstoppable. In a dramatic twist in the battle to prevent the introduction of abortion services to Ireland, a cross-party group of dissident Fine Gael, Labour and independent TDs and senators are proposing to invoke a little-known constitutional provision to force a referendum on the Government’s proposed legislation.

This is reported in the Irish Independent today. The paper’s political editor, John Drennan reports rebel Labour member of parliament and party chairman, Colm Keavney, who lost the party whip for dissent on another issue several months ago, as saying “This is a politically neutral initiative involving pro-life, pro-choice and non-committed figures. It is about those who are concerned about the escalating democratic deficit in the country.”

Drennan says that the petitioners are confident of securing a majority of the Seanad; however, the Dail is somewhat more problematic given the divided state of the opposition. The Sunday Independent has been told, however, that while “it will be difficult, it is achievable”.

The proposal is somewhat complex. Keaveney has pointed pointed out that the article in the Irish Constitution on which the initiative would be based, Article 27, would not provide a Constitutional referendum on abortion as such. In fact, it can only be applied to a Bill that does not contain a proposal for the amendment of the Constitution.

For the provision to be successful, a majority of sitting Senators (30) and at least one-third of the members of Dáil Eireann (55) are required to sign a petition, addressed to the President within days of the Bill being passed through the Dáil. The petition will ask Michael D Higgins not to sign the Bill into law until a referendum has been held. The referendum would not be about abortion services directly, but would ask if people wanted the Bill to be enacted or not. The process has never been used and the government has plans to scrap it altogether.

In a comment piece in the paper Drennan forsees troubled water ahead for Kenny in his own party and seems to see an inevitable fading of Kenny’s support if he forces reluctant members of parliament through the “yes” lobby to vote on this legislation.  Drennan paraphrases another former Irish Taoiseach, Garret FitzGerald, speaking of a similar scenario: heavy indeed will be the hearts and even more reluctant still will be the steps of those who will be dragooned through the Yes lobby.

“They will vote “Ta” but not in spirit and they will resent Enda for it and the Taoiseach will have little to offer them in the way of worldly rewards to ease their pain. Ultimately, the most dangerous faction of all, if they stay, is the rogue white elephant of Enda’s embittered senators.” Kenny is proposing to abolish the Senate, the second house of the Irish parliament.

And, ironically, Drennan adds, whilst self preservation is Enda’s only core value, everything Enda is now doing to secure his power base only causes it to crumble a little further. The Taoiseach has carefully constructed a ‘chairman of the board’-style nodding, winking, broth of a cheery Western playboy political front. It took a while but Enda’s theatre of illusions is starting to fracture.

Shouting “stop” to a sickening charade of democracy

On By Michael KirkeIn Culture MattersLeave a comment
Two more Irish politicians have indicated their determination to oppose the abortion legislation of  Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny. There is still only a handful of members of the Irish parliament who have so far come out in opposition to Kenny’s proposed legislation which is being forced through the two houses of the parliament. In what many see as a charade of democracy, where procedures are following the letter but certainly not the spirit of the rules of the political game, the Bill will pass into law in two weeks time unless some miracle change of heart occurs among the two hundred odd members making up the two houses of the  parliament. The handful of brave members of the ruling party whose right of conscience is being denied have as much hope at present as the lone protester standing in front of the tanks in Tienanmen Square 24 years ago.
Fine Gael Senator Tom Sheahan and Independent TD Denis Naughten have today added their voices to the opposition to  the Government’s proposed legislation and have announced that they will vote against it. Sheahan will do so at the cost of losing his parliamentary party membership, losing the party whip.
Senator Tom Sheahan confirmed that he would vote against the legislation given serious issues he has with it while Deputy Denis Naughten, a member of the Oireachtas Health Committee said that he wouldn’t be voting for the legislation if the provision for abortion on the grounds of suicide remains.
In a statement today Deputy Chairperson of the Pro Life Campaign Cora Sherlock welcomed the decision of  Senator  Sheahan and Deputy Naughten.
Ms. Sherlock said: “It is heartening that more Oireachtas Members understand what is really contained in this Bill and see how truly unjust it is.  For example the Bill permits abortion through the full nine months of pregnancy and it denies the fact that abortion, rather than being a treatment for suicidal ideation, actually exposes women to greater risk of negative mental health consequences.”
She continued: “We applaud those who are willing to stand up against this legislation.  They deserve our thanks. It is completely undemocratic that to date there has been no real debate in the Dáil on what the abortion Bill actually contains. If there was I expect that many more TDs and Senators would voice their opposition to it.”
“Our Taoiseach has ignored the right of conscience on this issue.   It is a shame that TDs and Senators are being forced to chose between their livelihood and their conscience”, Ms. Sherlock concluded.
Meanwhile a government minister, Lucinda Creighton, has again spoken of her reservations about the Bill. The Irish Times reported her as saying  yesterday, “Under the legislation, there are mechanisms for the mother to vindicate her right to life, which is absolutely correct and appropriate. But there is no mechanism for the unborn child,” Ms Creighton said during a working visit to Paris. “The challenge for the legislature is to balance the constitutional protection for both.”Such a measure would “not necessarily” mean that the attorney general would come into contact with the mother, “but could perhaps review the file”. There were “a variety of legal avenues”, she said. But “there has to be some consideration given to it as we go through the committee stage of the legislation.” Asked whether the draft legislation needed amendments, she replied, “Absolutely.”Ms Creighton said she still had deep reservations about the suicide clause, which would allow a suicidal pregnant woman to seek an abortion. “My views haven’t changed. I think the suicide clause is quite dubious.”“I always felt that our whip system is outmoded and used to excess. I would like to see a different approach. It would be good for our politics if members were able to express different opinions within reason, particularly on issues of conscience . . . People have very, very personal beliefs.”

Fine Gael’s Brian Walsh – one of the government party members who has already entered the field against the legislation – has warned Kenny that up to 10 of his colleagues will do the same.

“We now appear poised to enact legislation based on absurd premise that the suicidality of one human being can be abated by the death of another. This is medico-legal nonsense and a principle that I cannot support,” Mr Walsh said.

Highlighting the undemocratic character of the entire procedure – fearful nof what the outcome might be, Kenny refused to put the issue directly to the people in a referendum – Walsh accused the Government of designing parts of the legislation – particularly the inclusion of a clause to allow a pregnant woman claiming that she is suicidal the right to an abortion – to suit the politician, rather than the mother and the child.

Is intransigence at the heart of Kenny’s faux democratic machine a sign of panic ?

On By Michael KirkeIn Culture MattersLeave a comment

This blog post from political scientist Derek Lynch suggests that there might be folly or panic – or perhaps both – behind Enda Kenny’s denial of freedom of conscience to his parliamentary party. Implicitly it also raises the question that if the street opposition to the sham democracy now being played out in the Irish parliament seemed to threaten him more than it does at present, would he go down the same road as Erdogran and Rousseff?

A decision to stamp on dissent when such a move was neither technically nor politically necessary is a dramatic statement indeed. It is an aggressive kick in the face to those of other opinions. The leadership line is that there has been lengthy debate: this is simply closing that process according to the rules. Technically, that may be true. But when such an aggressive shutdown is not really required, it takes on an entirely different character. It is like Premier Erdogan ordering the riot police to charge or President Rousseff saying “show no mercy.” Endless debate on such sensitive matters is not surprising. It is no harm either if the numbers are in the bag and the actual legislation is safe.

This assertive line suggests a Government or a Taoiseach that feels the need to be assertive. It is a sort of machismo effect. But what lies behind it? And what will be the lasting impact?

Enda Kenny shares the widespread frustration at the behavior of the Church in the child abuse scandals. He believes very firmly in the unity and longevity of this present coalition with Labour. He may also be advised, not so much by “pragmatic” conservatives as by social democrat Fine Gaelers schooled in the Garrett FitzGerald years. While Kenny built his support by persuading Fine Gael conservatives that he was moving in a different direction, he now finds his interests “pragmatically” aligned with FG social democrats and a militantly secularist Labour Party. The assumption is that his conservative base will stick around because they have nowhere else to go and value personal loyalties anyway.

Crisis

But all is not well with this assertive Enda Kenny. The surge of machismo reveals a panic at the heart of the machine. In fact, politicians in both major parties are experiencing the same phenomenon. They would like social policy to go away. For, it is very unlike economics. With economics, there is a whole constellation of variables always in flux: growth rates, exports, Asian markets, U.S. elections, Middle East wars, the price of onions, SARS … politicians cannot credibly promise to produce this or that result without qualification. But, with social policy, voters can ask – what do you believe? Do you believe that marriage is intrinsically a celebration of heterosexual love and commitment? Do you believe a foetus in the womb is a living human being? Of course, some will be able to say – it depends. But, listening to the debates, on all sides, it is clear that participants have direct answers to many of these questions. And these answers translate into policy choices that must ultimately be addressed by politicians. There is no external environment to reference.

It is this fact that has Irish politicians, especially in the center-right parties, in a state of absolute fear and pandemonium. They are challenged to show courage and personal honesty.

All pointing, might we dare to hope, to a new and meaningful alignment in Irish politics and a re-enfranchising of a sizeable swathe of the electorate who currently have no party to which the can in good conscience give their support?

Irish bishops’ united voice on Kenny’s abortion bill

On By Michael KirkeIn Culture MattersLeave a comment

The four Catholic Archbishops of Ireland: Cardinal Seán Brady, Archbishop of Armagh; Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, Archbishop of Dublin; Archbishop Dermot Clifford, Archbishop of Cashel & Emly; and Archbishop Michael Neary, Archbishop of Tuam, have issued their response to the decision of the Government to legislate for abortion.

The decision by the Irish Government to legislate for abortion, expected on Wednesday morning, should be of the utmost concern to all, the statement said. It continued:

If what is being proposed were to become law, the careful balance between the equal right to life of a mother and her unborn child in current law and medical practice in Ireland would be fundamentally changed. It would pave the way for the direct and intentional killing of unborn children. This can never be morally justified in any circumstances.

The decision of the Supreme Court in the ‘X’ case unilaterally overturned the clear pro-life intention of the people of Ireland as expressed in Article 40.3.3 of our Constitution. To legislate on the basis of such a flawed judgement would be both tragic and unnecessary.

The dignity of the human person and the common good of humanity depend on our respect for the right to life of every person from the moment of conception to natural death. The right to life is the most fundamental of all rights. It is the very basis for every other right we enjoy as persons.

The lives of untold numbers of unborn children in this State now depend on the choices that will be made by our public representatives. The unavoidable choice that now faces all our public representatives is: will I chose to defend and vindicate the equal right to life of a mother and the child in her womb in all circumstances, or will I choose to licence the direct and intentional killing of the innocent baby in the womb?

Moreover, on a decision of such fundamental moral importance every public representative is entitled to complete respect for the freedom of conscience. No one has the right to force or coerce someone to act against their conscience. Respect for this right is the very foundation of a free, civilised and democratic society.

All involved, especially public representatives, must consider the profound moral questions that arise in responding to today’s announcement by the Government. We encourage all to pray that our public representatives will be given the wisdom and courage to do what is right.

To Hell or to Connacht

On By Michael KirkeIn Culture Matters1 Comment

Day by day it seems to be getting more  and more difficult to be Catholic. Catholic, that is, in the sense that we ask the question, “Is the Pope Catholic?”, in other words a full shilling Catholic. It is probably time that the Catholic Church introduced something like a trade descriptions Act. It would clear up a great deal of confusion. If for no other reason we should encourage it do this in the interests of peace. Otherwise all we are going to have is a shouting match across the room – or even fisticuffs like they had recently in the Venezuelan parliament.

Just now it seems anyone can call themselves Catholic – ranging from the most rigourous adherent to all sorts of principles which the magisterium of the Church tells Catholics are matters of personal preference and opinion, to people for whom religion is entirely a matter of “whatever you’re having yourself and call it Catholic if you like it that way”. Between these extremes you find any number of positions, all ready to define themselves as Catholic, most of them missing the point that being Catholic is not a matter of self-definition but a matter of communion with One Word, One Body and One Bread. The trouble is that the brand identification has now become completely muddled and it would seem that we need a good judge to clear up the mess and say definitively who has a right to the registered trade mark, Catholic. OK, it is much more complex than this, but bear with the clumsy metaphor to help us be more focused.

But if we do get things in focus – and I think that the culture wars are forcing us to do so more and more – then it is not going to make things easier for straight-down-the-line Catholics. These are the Catholics who are not prepared to leave their consciences at the gate when they enter the public square populated by a majority – or a vociferous and hijacking-minority – who are looking for support for actions which offend a straight-down-the-line conscience.

They are also the Catholics who have to find a way of resolving dilemmas within their own families when a brother or sister, cousin, or whatever, with whom there are strong ties of affection, decides to follow a life-style contrary to the laws of God and the laws of Nature – which in the last analysis are the same thing. Social institutions like marriage, Christian and Catholic in their origin as we know them in the West, are now in the hands of institutions of the State and are being used to legitimise unions of men and women – not to mention other unions – totally at variance with the terms and conditions of true Christian marriage. How do Catholics for whom this institution is a sacred sacrament reconcile their commitment to this sacred thing with their love and affection for those who – as they might see it – wilfully abandons this commitment and essentially make it a sham from a religious point of view? It is not easy but some choices, although difficult, have to be faced up to. You can’t always have it both ways – and blurring the map is a foolish option for anyone on an important journey.

While this choice might be difficult and a source of great disappointment, pain and suffering, it is not a matter  – in Western society in any case – which will involve loss of human rights, freedom, or in extreme cases a matter of life and death. But “straight-down-the-line Catholics” as we are calling them, magisterium-loyal Catholics, are now increasingly facing the loss of all these things in Western democracies. These democracies are now in the near-tyrannical grip of a movement which was the object of derision when it first began to manifest itself in the public square 20 or 30 years ago. This is the so-called “political correctness movement” and it is imposing rules and regulations on societies, the like of which have not been seen since the imposition of the Penal Laws on Catholics in the British Isles in the 18th century and since the French revoked the Edict of Nantes for its Protestant population in the last decades of the 17th century.

A prime example of this is states redefinition of marriage to give respectability and social status to same-sex attraction and explicitly to the sexual self-indulgence which it generates. This is now trampling on the consciences of those for whom these actions are an offence to man’s true nature and an offence to the God who went to the trouble to provide a Church to teach the truth underlying all our human relationships, sexual or not. “Cooperate with us in facilitating these things or get out to the margins of society”, Christians are now being told. “If you do chose to go to the margins of society – which is where you belong if you don’t agree with us – be careful not to express your views on all this in public or we will have to silence you forcibly”, the powers-that-be add ominously.

Then there is the current battle in the United States where the Obama Machine has imposed obligations on Catholic institutions to fund the provision of contraceptive services. This includes abortifacient medications masquerading as contraceptives. The Catholic Church is resisting but the power of this Machine is so mighty that Catholics would not need to be holding their breath for a vindication of their rights of freedom of conscience on this one.

In Ireland the current Government is riding roughshod over the consciences of Catholics in its steamrolling action to provide legislation for abortion – a legislation which only the disingenuous are maintaining will not eventually lead to abortion on demand. Under the proposed legislation there will be no provision for conscientious objections by either hospitals or hospital staff to refuse to carry out the procedures which the law will then sanction. Furthermore, when the Bill comes to a vote, Catholic members of parliament who are serious about their consciences will be given the choice of voting for the legislation in line with party policy or leaving the parliamentary party to which they belong. Once again, it a matter of “come with us or get to the margins”. Oliver Cromwell is notorious in Ireland for having offered the Irish Catholics of his time the option of going “to hell or to Connacht” – a wild and beautiful place  but in the 17th century not exactly a place for human flourishing. The sentiment of the Irish Government today is not too different towards those who are trying to stop it in its tracks on this issue.

But this is good. Did anyone ever think it should be otherwise? Search the original documents of this Faith and will you find in them a promise that in the World its followers would ever reach a point where all would be sweetness and light? No. The promises there are for something else – something as strong as hatred. All this makes the clarification of the terms and conditions of being Christian and Catholic more urgent.  It should not be that difficult either. They are all there in the handbook, The Catechism of the Catholic Church – with multiple cross references to the original documents of this Faith, the books of Sacred Scripture, the teaching of the Fathers of the Church and the entire magisterium down through history. No excuse. Just Do It.

And Catholics should not be discouraged by any of this. Christ asked his followers to pray to their Father, “Thy kingdom Come.” But that was not for a heaven on earth. He said clearly, “the kingdom of heaven is within you.” That was then and this is still in the terms and conditions today. The battle of all time is the battle for personal conversion, not for the conversion of kingdoms and empires, democratic or otherwise. It is in this battle that victory is assured, no matter what forces lie in wait on the other side of the gates to the public square. Victory will be in the measure of the faithful adherence to the terms and conditions – which in this case are not in the small print but are writ clear and large in the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Someone said recently that the history of the Church shows that after a period of slippage – and there have been many before this – there comes a period where the truth is firmly reasserted in a clear an uncompromising way. Then comes a period in which many abandon their half-held beliefs and drift away, leaving reduced numbers behind. But then comes a period of new evangelisation when the faithful go out again into the highways and the byways and a new Pentecost dawns. Don’t take my word for it. Check up the history. It is all there.

A question echoing across centuries

On By Michael KirkeIn Culture MattersLeave a comment

A tweet from Pope Francis the other day asked: “Are our lives truly filled with the presence of God? How many things take the place of God in my life each day?”
Some time, about two hundred years ago a good and wise Englishman, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, wrote these words which to me suggest that he was not too far from the truth himself:
“Another and more fruitful, perhaps more solid, inference from the facts (he was referring to our material existence and the world around us) would be, that there is something in the human mind which makes it know that in all finite quantity, there is an infinite, in all measures of time an eternal; that the latter are the basis, the substance, of the former; and that, as we truly are only as far as God is with us, so neither can we truly possess, that is, enjoy our being or any other real good, but by living in the sense of His holy presence.” This may be open to a somewhat pantheistic interpretation but if Blessed John Henry Newman was happy to quote it then I am happy to be moved by it.

Spelling it out just like it is?

On By Michael KirkeIn Culture MattersLeave a comment

Gerald Warner’s very comprehensive review of our current and ongoing “real and present danger”.

The scale of this genocide challenges the imagination. Worldwide, abortion is now the leading cause of death, killing as many people as all other causes combined; one in five pregnancies ends in abortion. In the United States 55 million Americans have been aborted; in Britain the total is 7.9 million – the legacy of David Steel, a politician who undoubtedly “made a difference”. UK abortions are currently running at about 200,000 a year, of which 12,000 are Scots. Yet it is still not enough for Planned Parenthood, the Obama White House and all the other acolytes of the culture of death. Later this month a huge pro-abortion conference ­titled ‘Women Deliver’ will be held in ­Kuala Lumpur with the objective of promoting abortion around the world, especially in Christian and Muslim countries where infanticide still encounters resistance.

Read his full Scotsman column here.

Parting of the ways at the abortion crossroads

On By Michael KirkeIn Culture MattersLeave a comment

In an interview with The Sunday Times, published yesterday, the next Catholic primate of Ireland has said politicians who “knowingly introduce legislation aiding and abetting abortion” should not “approach [a priest] looking for communion”.

In the clearest statement so far on the church’s position Archbishop Eamon Martin, who will succeed Cardinal Seán Brady next year, said legislators who support abortion are excommunicating themselves.

“You cannot regard yourself as a person of faith and support abortion,” Martin said in the interview. “You cannot believe you are with your church and directly help someone to procure an abortion. This includes medical professionals and the legislators.

“If a legislator comes to me and says, ‘Can I be a faithful Catholic and support abortion?’ I would say no. Your communion is ruptured if you support abortion. You are excommunicating yourself. Any legislator who clearly and publicly states this should not approach looking for communion.”