NEWS STORY: Vatican enters fray over late-term abortions

c. 1996 Religion News Service VATICAN CITY (RNS)-The Vatican stepped into the politically charged debate over late-term abortions Friday (April 19), saying President Clinton’s veto last week of a bill that would have barred the rare procedure was”shameful”and a”brutal act of aggression against innocent life.” Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls denied that the Roman Catholic Church […]

c. 1996 Religion News Service

VATICAN CITY (RNS)-The Vatican stepped into the politically charged debate over late-term abortions Friday (April 19), saying President Clinton’s veto last week of a bill that would have barred the rare procedure was”shameful”and a”brutal act of aggression against innocent life.” Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls denied that the Roman Catholic Church was attempting to influence the upcoming presidential election in which abortion foes, including the presumptive Republican nominee Sen. Bob Dole, are seeking to capitalize on Clinton’s decision.”I can dismiss that clearly,”Navarro-Valls said in an interview.”Any time we express a view it is always on moral grounds, not political ones.” He said the Vatican decided to enter the fray”because we wanted to express our support for the (U.S.) bishops and cardinals and also to express our support for many other people that are clearly against the veto. But the main reason is that this is an issue that has strong moral implications.” Notwithstanding the Vatican’s assertion that its strong condemnation was based solely on moral concerns, the statement issued by Navarro-Valls had political overtones. It noted that American public opinion polls show that”65 percent of self-described `pro-choice’ voters also oppose”so-called”partial-birth abortions.” Supporters of legal abortion also read political motivations into the Vatican statement.”It was my hope that the bishops might have adopted a more neutral attitude toward the election,”said Frances Kissling, president of Catholics for a Free Choice, the independent, Washington-based advocacy group.”It was my hope they would have weighed in the balance their opposition to abortion and their support for social justice issues and decided on a more neutral stance.”It is very hard to avoid the conclusion, if you look at the trajectory of the Vatican from Cairo (the 1994 U.N. population conference) to Beijing (the 1995 U.N. women’s conference) to the 1996 election, that the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church has it in for President Clinton,”she said. The Vatican strongly and visibly opposed the Clinton administration on family planning and abortion issues at both U.N. meetings.

Abortion opponents concede they are unlikely to see the bill become law because it did not pass the Senate with enough votes to override Clinton’s veto. Instead, they hope to use the issue during the campaign to”educate”the public on abortion.


Pope John Paul II is an ardent foe of abortion who has equated the practice in any form with murder.

The legislation would have barred third-trimester abortions that some doctors say are necessary in rare cases to protect the life or health of a mother suffering the effects of a dangerously difficult pregnancy.

Clinton, an advocate of abortion rights, said he vetoed the bill because it failed to make exceptions for”serious, adverse health consequences to the mother.”The measure would have allowed the procedure only if the mother’s life were in danger.

The medical technique, called”intact dilation and extraction,”involves partially extracting a fetus feet first from the womb before collapsing the skull in the birth canal by using a suction method.

On Tuesday (April 16), the eight active U.S. cardinals and the president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops said in a letter to Clinton that the veto was”beyond comprehension for those who hold human life sacred.” But religious organizations are clearly divided over giving government the right to, in effect, make medical decisions. The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, a group of 38 Christian and Jewish religious organizations, says individuals and doctors should continue to make the medical decision.

Kissling asked why the bishops’ conference had not written an equally strong letter to Senate Majority Leader Robert Dole and House Speaker Newt Gingrich demanding that they”draft a hardline, narrow health exemption”that would have made the bill palatable to Clinton.

The Vatican statement said Clinton’s decision”is a shameful veto that in effect amounts to an incredibly brutal act of aggression against innocent human life and the inalienable rights of the unborn.”


MJP END HEILBRONNER

Donate to Support Independent Journalism!

Donate Now!