{"id":215,"date":"2007-09-29T18:42:58","date_gmt":"2007-09-29T18:42:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/viamedia\/2007\/09\/yet-more-bishops.html"},"modified":"2007-09-29T18:42:58","modified_gmt":"2007-09-29T18:42:58","slug":"yet-more-bishops","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/viamedia\/2007\/09\/yet-more-bishops.html","title":{"rendered":"Yet more bishops.."},"content":{"rendered":"

One more. As most of you know, the Connecticut bishops announced this week that they were agreeing to allow Catholic hospitals to adhere to a state law requiring hospitals to give the “Plan B” pill to rape victims without an test to determine if the victim had recently ovulated.
\nThe issues are very complicated mostly because it is claimed by some that the true effects of the Plan B medication are not known – that is, it is not definitely known whether or not the pill impedes implentation of an already fertilized egg.
\nThe bishops’ statement is here. <\/a>
\nJimmy Akin has a lengthy post attempting to understand the decision here.<\/a><\/p>\n

There are disputed claims about whether Plan B will prevent the implantation of a newly-conceived child. The manufacturer’s own label for the product (see links to American Papist and Curt Jester) say that it may<\/em> have this effect. Legal disclaimers of this nature are notoriously broad–in order to prevent future lawsuits–and they frequently list potential outcomes for the use of drugs that are either not possible with the drug in question or which are very unlikely. Because of this kind of language in medical disclaimers, as well as a lack of knowledge about how Plan B actually works, there is ambiguity about whether or not it is abortifacient.
\nThat ambiguity is what generates a lot of the tension within the Connecticut bishops’ statement, and it is one of the things that I find troubling about the whole situation.
\nI’m far from being an expert on Plan B, but any time there is a possibility that something is abortifacient, I want to apply the Deerhunter Principle: If you’re out in the woods hunting, you cannot<\/em> open fire if the result is reasonably foreseen to involve the possible death of a human.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The American Papist:<\/a>
\n
\nSince there is still much confusion on this topic, it might be helpful to restate some of my reservations:<\/p>\n