The Catholic Archdiocese Lies to Stop Abortion, Part 2
In Michigan, the Catholic Church spends tax-free money to deceive parishioners
In the Catholic Church, abortion is identified as a “moral evil” and a “grave sin” that can lead to eternal damnation in hell, where whoever obtained the procedure would burn forever and ever.
So why does the Detroit Archdiocese feel compelled to lie to parishioners about an upcoming vote on keeping abortion legal? Shouldn’t the prospect of endless torture for all time be enough to persuade Catholics without lying to them?
Apparently not. Which must be why the Archdiocese has resorted to sending a false political mailer - using tax-free funds - to manipulate its congregants against an amendment to the Michigan constitution that would keep the protections previously provided under Roe v. Wade. That is, until Republicans pretending to be Supreme Court justices threw out decades of precedents to cripple abortion rights.
In Part 1 of my posts about the Archdiocese’s lies, I used a lot of words just to explain why the first sentence in the political mailer contained multiple fabrications. The mailer - in the form of a letter from the Most Rev. Allen H. Vigneron - started off by suggesting that, if the constitutional amendment is approved on Tuesday’s vote about what is called Proposal 3, then manicurists could start performing abortions at filthy beauty salons. Yah, not true.
Now let’s deal with the rest of the letter. And the absurdity of the Archbishop’s claims keeps getting worse.
Of course, as usual whenever conservatives are confronted with something they don’t like, the Archbishop claims - based on his multitude of lies - that the Michigan amendment is “the most extreme proposal concerning abortion this state and this country has ever seen.” Why? Why can’t conservatives just make an argument without this Trumpian “the worst ever” or “the best ever.” Suffice to say, the only way this proposal can be considered “extreme” would be if the Archbishop’s lies were true. Which lies never are.
After we get past the part about abortions in bowling alleys performed by pin setters, the Archbishop zips down the path of even more absurd lies.
He repeats the disgusting canard spread by Fox News and other liars that abortion rights would lead to people obtaining the procedure until just seconds before birth. In saying this, the Archbishop ignores what the amendment says but also the reality of abortions in America.
The Archbishop’s letter specifically claims that abortions could be performed “through all nine months of pregnancy.” Now let’s read some of the actual words in the amendment:
The state may regulate the provision of abortion care after fetal viability, provided that in no circumstance shall the state prohibit an abortion that, in the professional judgment of an attending health care professional, is medically indicated to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual.
So, the Archbishop says that, under Proposal 3, abortions could be provided until the very last second before birth. But it specifically says that abortions after 24 months - the point by which most fetal anomalies that are inconsistent with life can be detected - can be regulated. Now, if the Catholic Church wants to argue that priests and politicians will no longer have the right to overrule the medical judgments of doctors, who wouldn’t support that? Which, no doubt, is why the Archbishop ignored the words of the amendment and simply lied about it.
Plus, if the Archbishop really wants to play this game about the church’s position on this topic, how about we consult a Pope. In several states, pushed by the church and Republican politicians, women have been forced to deliver babies with no hope for survival, and who suffer even as extraordinary measures are provided to keep them alive for a few days or weeks. The reality is, until recently, the church was pretty rational about those circumstances.
On November 24, 1957, Pope Pius XII delivered a speech before a group of physicians who had come together upon request by the Georg-Mendel-Institut für Genetik in Germany. The speech, entitled "Legal and moral issues of reanimation" made specifically stated that death is an integral element of life, since according to Christian beliefs death is not the end, but the transition to new life. The point of it was that the use of extraordinary measures to keep a person alive when there is no hope of survival can be immoral, nothing more than man’s intervention to keep the spirit from God. So, this idea that women and babies must be kept alive at any cost, despite pain and suffering is immoral.
Let’s dig a little deeper into this “ninth month abortion” - or what the Archbishop lyingly calls a “partial birth abortion.” Start off with that term: a “partial birth abortion” has no medical meaning but is used to describe a later-term abortion. The term was made up in 1995 as a political phrase by the anti-abortion advocacy organization the National Right to Life, as part of an effort to prevent second trimester abortions.
Most abortions — 91% — are performed in the first 13 weeks of pregnancy. The rest, except for a small fraction, are in the second trimester, at or before 26 weeks. Late-term abortions - those performed at or after 21 weeks - are exceedingly rare, making up just 1.3 percent of abortions. The ninth month abortion? It is the unicorn of abortion politics. It doesn’t exist.
Now, of the late term abortions, the vast majority of those occur because of fetal anomalies that are inconsistent with life, or to save the mother’s life. An example: Alyson Draper, a 40-year-old Mormon woman from Utah, had what she called “the most wanted and planned pregnancy ever.” But she went public with her experience because she wants citizens to understand that late-term abortions are nothing like what conservatives and the Archbishop imply. Draper was pregnant with twins. In what she called “the worst moment of in my life,” Draper’s obstetrician told her that one of the twins was dead and the brain of the other had developed outside of his head. His spine was open all the way down to the lumbar level. There was no possibility of survival. Unfortunately, Utah made late-term abortions illegal, so the decision of whether to abort was not Draper’s to make.
I lay on the hospital floor, bawling hysterically, for twelve hours, waiting for an ethics committee of the health care corporation to decide my case justified what had to be done. My health was in danger due to the dead fetus. My husband and I consulted our (Church of Latter-Day Saints) Bishop, who assured me I needed to do what I had to do, that it was even within LDS guidelines to do so.
That so many anti-abortion realtors, dental technicians, and priests think they have the right to determine how much suffering - and risk of death - Draper had to endure because of their self-righteous ignorance is one of the abominations of this country, and why rules like the Michigan amendment are needed.
The Archbishop’s letter also falsely claims that the amendment would “invalidate dozens of existing laws relating to abortion.” Funny how Roe v. Wade didn’t do that. There are 70 other sections of Michigan state law that mention abortion, and literally none of them would be invalidated by the amendment except for one that specifically makes the procedure illegal.
Every other law on abortion would stand, unless or until someone heads to court to invalidate whichever one is a matter of concern. So, the Archbishop’s claim that these laws “would” be invalidated is a lie. Might have claimed “could,” but for a lot of these laws, that argument is preposterous.
An official with the Archdiocese, in defending the letter, said that they were essentially repeating the arguments of Citizens to Support MI Women and Children, an antiabortion coalition, but that is not quite true either.
For example, the Archbishop’s letter says that the proposal would result in “no parental consent or informed consent.” Start with the first part, parental consent. The Archdiocese goes past the claims of that abortion coalition where it says the Archbishop got his information. That group uses the correct “could” be affected, while simultaneously saying (except in its television ads) that the state “may have to wait and see” what happens in court challenges, if that even happens.
To justify his lies, the Archdiocese simply abandons is the notion of state interest. For example, there is a First Amendment right to free speech, but the state still has an interest stopping child pornography and terrorist threats. That’s why there are laws against both, despite the words of the Constitution.
State interest would not end with the adoption of this Michigan constitutional amendment. Michelle Richards, associate professor of law at University of Detroit Mercy, said anyone fighting for parental notification could easily prove the state has a compelling interest to ensure “that minors are consulting with their parents before undergoing a pretty serious decision.” It’s a balancing act - if a minor will die without an abortion, but simultaneously knows she will be beaten if her parents are consulted, the state interest remains clear.
On to the claim that informed consent would end. This underscores the fundamental dishonesty of the Archdiocese. The idea that doctors will suddenly start performing abortions without telling patients everything about the procedure or getting them to sign an agreement spelling out that information is absurd on its face. Not only will the law on informed consent in Michigan - Section R. 330.7003 of the Michigan Administrative Code - still stand, so will the American Medical Associations Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 2.1.1, which requires doctors to provide patients with comprehensive details about any procedure, so long as the physician concludes that the patient is able to understand that information. If not, then the doctor must turn to a guardian of the patient.
Now, what likely won’t be allowed - after it goes to court - is the political nonsense shoved down Michiganders throats with the specific intent to push them not to have an abortion. That includes shoving photographs or illustrations into women’s faces of what the fetus looks like and providing information about being a parent. Certainly, anyone who wants those details can ask for them, but it is not the doctors’ job - in any medical procedure - to take actions designed to push a patient to a particular decision. Now, there is one part of that law designed to ensure that the patient is not seeking the abortion because of coercion that certainly pertains to a state interest and would be unlikely to get struck down. The rest of it? When politics gets involved in medical care, the rules crafted by realtors, dental hygienists and priests deserve to go.
Next, the Archbishop says that the Michigan amendment would require taxpayer funded abortion. This lie is simply absurd. Nothing here requires taxpayers to pay for anyone’s healthcare, no more than legal requirements that emergency rooms must provide medical care to the uninsured has led to taxpayer-funded healthcare. The Archbishop just made this up.
So there, over two parts, I have spelled out the lies the Archbishop wrote in his letter to parishioners. But making this even more disturbing is that you and I helped finance this purely political piece of propaganda because the Catholic Church pays no taxes. That’s fine, as far as it goes. But the minute that the church gets directly involved in politics, it needs to have its tax exemption pulled.
The opening words of his letter are, “We are quickly approaching the November 8 election…” Later, in bold type, he writes, “By voting no on Proposal 3…” There is no doubt this is instructing people how to vote in a particular election, no different than any other political mailer.
The law here seems clear, but religious organizations have been getting away with direct lobbying that is largely forbidden simply because politicians don’t like taking on churches. Still, both direct and grass roots lobbying are not allowed under IRS rules, specifically the IRC 501(c)(3) limitation on substantial legislative action and Regulation 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(3)(ii).
In 1997, the Internal Revenue Service provided guidance to tax-exempt organizations, instructing them on what they were allowed to do in pushing their members to vote in a particular way. And the answer is, they can’t do that. The guidance - which is still used by the IRS and remains on its website - gives an example of what a tax-exempt organization is forbidden from doing, and it aligns almost perfectly with the actions being taken by the Catholic Church in Michigan. That hypothetical example deals with a constitutional amendment submitted to the public for approval, just like Proposal 3. The IRS then describes what the tax-exempt organization could not do under the regulations. In the hypothetical, the tax-exempt organization did not “advocate either approval or disapproval of the proposed constitutional amendment by the electorate.” As a result, any educational effort that did not specifically instruct people how to vote was allowed. The Detroit Archdiocese did the exact opposite by telling parishioners how to vote, but because of our political climate, it did so with full knowledge that it would suffer any consequences for its brazen violation.
That is where we are. Churches are sending parishioners political mailers with language coming straight from advocacy groups, loading them up with lies, and knowing that they are risking nothing. Apparently, reminding Catholic parishioners of the church’s teachings - without specifically mentioning Proposal 3 - is not enough to win their votes.
So now, the churches can send whatever lies they want, violating the letter and spirit of the regulations, and do so knowing that their parishioners will believe them. After all, ministers and priests couldn't be deceiving them, right? With religious organizations lying to tell their followers how to vote, without consequence, then faith and politics are destined to become even more intertwined than they are now. And when that happens, God help us all.
I am Catholic, and I would have voted against what Archbishop Vigneron had wanted if I still lived there. I think if the churches want to play politics, they should pay taxes.
Thank you, Kurt, for documenting these threats to our Constitution!