Muslim Women Oppose Honor Killing

Conscientious objection to “patriarchal norms”

by Michael Cook | 1 Mar 2014



Informed consent and conscientious objection are easy to fulminate about, but tricky to discuss with consistency. Take, for instance, the delicate topic of requests for hymen restorations and virginity certificates. Worldwide, an estimated 5,000 women were victims of honour killings in 2000. If a young woman from a culture which sanctions honour killing approaches a doctor, what should he or she do?

Refusal is not a popular or even, in some jurisdictions, a legal option for doctors who are asked to refer for an abortion or to prescribe contraception. But a request which reinforces “patriarchal norms” is different.

Swedish ethicists surveyed about 1000 general practitioners and 1000 gynaecologists. They report in the Journal of Medical Ethics that a small majority would agree to the woman’s request. However, a large minority, supported by the Swedish community, insist that they would never do so. In other words, conscientious objection to patriarchal norms is socially acceptable, even if it involves refusing a woman’s fully informed request for a medical procedure:

“the political message in Sweden is that hymen operations should be considered a non-option and that the appropriate response to such requests should be information about the medical aspects of sexuality and human rights and, if necessary, referral to police or social authorities for protection. The main argument for this practice is that Swedish society should take a stand against practices expressing control of female sexuality. The official Swedish viewpoint hence expresses a zero tolerance policy against patriarchal norms and values.”

Opposition to these practices in Sweden is so vehement that doctors try to dissuade women. If this fails, it is not illegal to perform them, but they do so reluctantly and secretly.

The authors favour the pragmatic policy followed by doctors in the Netherlands. There doctors inform women of the issues involved, but do the procedure if they insist. This allows them to give women better health care.

Source: BioEdge

Related reading:  Female Students Protest in Saudi Arabia; Saudi Arabia to Set Minimum Marriage Age; The Status of Women in Ancient Egypt and Arabia

Anglicans Seek to Navigate Around God's "NO"

The Anglican Way has become the way of compromise, group process, and concession.

Women bishops in the Anglican circus

Alice C. Linsley
(Formerly the Rev. Alice C. Linsley, Episcopal priest)


In November 2012 General Synod of the Church of England did not to give approval to the proposed legislation to enable women to become bishops. Though the proposal seems to have widespread support, when it came time to vote it lacked the necessary two-third majorities in all three Houses of Synod. This after after much prayer and invocation of the Holy Spirit.

Those comfortable with compromise of the Gospel see no danger in departing from the tradition of the Church. They did not anticipate this development and were confident that the Holy Spirit was leading in the direction they wanted to go. The proposal having failed, they regrouped in December to produce a "new legislative package" to bring before the Synod in July.

This "working group" presented to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York a report in May which placed emphasis on simplicity, reciprocity, mutuality and the need to make rapid progress.

Progress. Rapid. Lord, have mercy!


What does this mean?  It means that the Church of England is not content with God's answer.  It insists on moving forward to the consecration of women bishops and once that is done, it will require all clergy to consent to that decision. The report is unequivocal on this point:

Once legislation has been passed to enable women to become bishops the
Church of England will be fully and unequivocally committed to all orders of
ministry being open equally to all, without reference to gender, and will hold
that those whom it has duly ordained and appointed to office are the true and
lawful holders of the office which they occupy and thus deserve due respect and
canonical obedience;

Anyone who ministers within the Church of England must then be prepared to
acknowledge that the Church of England has reached a clear decision on the
matter..

This will be the equivalent of an ethnic purge. Anglicans holding to the Tradition of the Church will be forced to leave, compromise their consciences and the Gospel, and/or incur "significant costs in defending themselves against legal challenges."

It will create even greater distance between Anglicans and the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics. It will mean no longer sharing the historic episcopate with those churches.

The Archbishops of Canterbury and York are fooling themselves if they think otherwise. Here is how they justify such disorder in the church: 

Since it will continue to share the historic episcopate with other Churches, including the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church and those provinces of the Anglican Communion which continue to ordain only men as priests or bishops, the Church of England will acknowledge that its own clear decision on ministry and gender is set within a broader process of discernment within the Anglican Communion and the whole Church of God;

This has become the "Anglican way" and it leads to disaster.  Dear Dr. Toon is rolling in his grave.

Related reading: Forward in Faith Response; Modernist-Traditionalist Divide in Anglicanism; Some Thoughts on Women Priests; Impressions of the New American Anglicanism; C.S. Lewis' "Priestesses in the Church?"

An African American Friend on Obamacare

I've been following this healthcare deal for a while. I didn't like how it started off. I mean "you won't know what's in it 'till you pass it", what kind of foolishness is that? That's what I call a sucker's deal. Then the unreasonable infringements on religious conscience, not only upon individuals but institutions, definitely violate 2nd Amendment guarantees but mainstream media and the American public seem oblivious to it's effects. History shows, my friend, that politics is like chess: one move precipitates another. In this case it seems the forces of overgrown government are playing against an unsuspecting, indeed unconscious, populace. And the stakes are nothing less than freedom." -- Andre Cross

Bishop Lawrence Says Enough!

Bishop Lawrence of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, in a private session of the House of Bishops on July 11, requested and received a point of personal privilege. During this time he expressed things for which he was grateful during this convention, the “intentional engagement in honesty and collegiality with fellow bishops.” He also expressed his “grievous concern” with changes to the canons through resolutions D002 and D019, which have to do with transgender identity and expression, as well as with resolution A049, which authorized a provisional rite for the Blessing of Same-Sex Unions. “These resolutions in my opinion,” said Lawrence, “are disconcerting changes to the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Episcopal Church--to which every bishop, priest and deacon is asked to conform. More importantly they mark a departure from the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this Church has received them, therein making it necessary for me to strongly differentiate myself from such actions.“ At the conclusion of this private session Lawrence told the House of Bishops that he would not be continuing in the remainder of the Convention. “I concur with the assessment of our canon theologian, the Rev. Dr. Kendall Harmon, when he described the actions of this General Convention as ‘unbiblical, unchristian, unanglican and unseemly,’” said Lawrence. Bishop Lawrence will be sending a statement to diocesan clergy, which is to be read in parishes on Sunday, July 15, 2012.

“Our deputation and I appreciate the prayers of so many in the Diocese of South Carolina,” said Lawrence. “I know that some did not think we should attend the 77th General Convention, but I believe our presence and witness was important and even respected by many on both sides of the theological divide. As St. Paul states regarding his ministry, ‘…we refuse to practice cunning or to falsify God’s word; but by the open statement of the truth we commend ourselves to the conscience of everyone in the sight of God.’“ (2 Corinthians 4:2)

Read it all here.

C of E Bishops Urged to Do the Right Thing

A Statement from Forward in Faith Jul 9, 2012

Forward in Faith is disappointed that the General Synod today resolved to adjourn the debate on final approval of the draft Measure to permit women to be ordained as bishops in order to give the House of Bishops an opportunity to rethink its recent amendments to the Measure. We call upon the House of Bishops to stand firm in the face of this unwarranted pressure and to return the draft Measure to the Synod in a form which will provide for the future of traditional Catholics and conservative Evangelicals in line with the clearly expressed mind of the Synod throughout this morning's debate.

Julea Ward Freedom of Conscience Act

The Michigan House has passed a bill named after an Eastern Michigan University (EMU) student who was kicked out of the school's counseling program because of her faith.

In 2009, Julea Ward (pictured above) was expelled from the university's counseling program because of her Christian beliefs, particularly against homosexuality. But earlier this year, the Sixth U.S. Circuit of Appeals sided with the student, ruling that "a reasonable jury would conclude that Ward's professors ejected her from the counseling program because of hostility toward her speech and faith ...." That opinion reversed an earlier district court decision in favor of the university.

Now, the "Julea Ward Freedom of Conscience Act" has been proposed and approved by the House. It prohibits religious discrimination against college students studying counseling, social work and psychology. Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) attorney Jeremy Tedesco is defending Ward in her lawsuit against EMU.

"We certainly welcome their efforts to protect the rights of their citizens," he comments. "Public universities like Eastern Michigan University shouldn't be able to require students to give up or abandon their religious beliefs as a condition of getting a degree."

Ward was ousted from the program after she was permitted to refer a homosexual client to another counselor. She was unwilling to violate her religious beliefs to affirm that sexual orientation.

"If, when you're a counselor, there's a values conflict with your goal or objective of your counseling, it could negatively impair the outcome of the relationship and of the counseling," Tedesco offers. "So the best thing for the client in that situation is to move the client on to a counselor who doesn't have the values conflict."

The bill is now headed for the state Senate for consideration.


H/T to Rick Lobs

65 Orthodox Bishops Resist Obama's Contraception Mandate

NEW YORK, NY, February 6, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – The 65 canonical bishops of the Orthodox Church have asked President Barack Obama and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to repeal the mandate that religious institutions provide birth control, sterilization, and Plan B abortion drugs in their health care coverage.

The Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America – which represents 12 Orthodox jurisdictions and three million Orthodox Christians in the United States – issued a press release last Thursday calling the HHS ruling a violation of religious conscience.

“The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion,” the statement says. “This freedom is transgressed when a religious institution is required to pay for ‘contraceptive services’ including abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization services that directly violate their religious convictions.”

“Providing such services should not be regarded as mandated medical care. We, the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops, call upon HHS Secretary Sebelius and the Obama Administration to rescind this unjust ruling and to respect the religious freedom guaranteed all Americans by the First Amendment.”

The bishops urged the faithful to take action. The statement calls upon “all the Orthodox Christian faithful to contact their elected representatives today to voice their concern in the face of this threat to the sanctity of the Church’s conscience.”

Influential leaders in the Orthodox Church expressed their appreciation that the bishops had spoken out. “The statement issued by the Orthodox bishops reflects a welcome voice in the public square that has too often been silent due to our unhappy divisions as American Orthodox Christians,” said Fr. Chad Hatfield, the president of St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary in Yonkers, New York, in a statement e-mailed to LifeSiteNews.com.

Fr. Peter-Michael Preble, an Orthodox priest and writer in Massachusetts agreed, “I don’t think we should shy about controversial topics.” Fr. Preble wrote an article in The Huffington Post asking the hierarchy of his church to publicly address the subject. “This seemed to be more of a national issue that the bishops as a whole had to say something about, and they weren’t, and I was afraid we were losing ground,” he told LifeSiteNews.com. “The Roman Catholic bishops were carrying the majority water on this issue and taking the brunt of the heat, and I just thought we had to do something.”

After reading the statement, Fr. Preble said, “I’m very pleased with the fact that [the bishops] did speak out, and I hope that this is the start of other statements that they will make about other issues, as well.”

The nation’s Orthodox Christians join a growing number of non-Catholics who had officially opposed the contraception mandate, which religious institutions will be required to observe by next August. Dr. Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said on his daily podcast last Tuesday that any law requiring people of faith to violate their conscience “is not only a Catholic issue…our religious liberty is being similarly subverted and attacked.”

Late last year 60 religious leaders, mostly Protestants as well as two Orthodox Jewish spokesmen, signed a letter to President Obama, stating, “It is emphatically not only Catholics who deeply object to the requirement that health plans they purchase must provide coverage of contraceptives that include some that are abortifacients.”


The Orthodox Church is the second largest church in the world. The North American bishops posted their press release last Thursday, the date Orthodox Christians celebrate the presentation of the Christ Child in the Temple.

Metropolitan Jonah of the Orthodox Church in America was traveling and was not immediately available for comment.


The statement reads in full:

The Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America, which is comprised of the 65 canonical Orthodox bishops in the United States, Canada and Mexico, join their voices with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and all those who adamantly protest the recent decision by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, and call upon all the Orthodox Christian faithful to contact their elected representatives today to voice their concern in the face of this threat to the sanctity of the Church’s conscience.

In this ruling by HHS, religious hospitals, educational institutions, and other organizations will be required to pay for the full cost of contraceptives (including some abortion-inducing drugs) and sterilizations for their employees, regardless of the religious convictions of the employers.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion. This freedom is transgressed when a religious institution is required to pay for “contraceptive services” including abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization services that directly violate their religious convictions. Providing such services should not be regarded as mandated medical care. We, the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops, call upon HHS Secretary Sebelius and the Obama Administration to rescind this unjust ruling and to respect the religious freedom guaranteed all Americans by the First Amendment.


Contact Information:

The Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America
 
Related reading:  Evangelicals and Jews Unite Against Obama's Birth Control Mandate

Laura Fotusky Stands on an Older Law

ALBANY, New York, July 13, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Reacting to the news that the first New York State town clerk has resigned rather than sign her name on a same-sex “marriage” license, Gov. Andrew Cuomo insisted Tuesday that “the law is the law.”

“When you enforce the laws of the state, you don’t get to pick and choose which laws,” he said, according to the NY Daily News. “You don’t get to say, ‘I like this law and I’ll enforce this law, or I don’t like this law and I won’t enforce this law’ - you can’t do that.”

“So if you can’t enforce the law, then you shouldn’t be in that position,” he added.

Laura Fotusky, a clerk in the town of Barker, announced her resignation Monday on the website of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms. “I cannot put my signature on something that is against God,” she wrote in her resignation letter. “The Bible clearly teaches that God created marriage between male and female as a divine gift that preserves families and cultures.”

“I would be compromising my moral conscience if I participated in the licensing procedure,” she added.

Read it all here
 

Conscience of Health Worker Not Protected

The Obama administration a fortnight ago rescinded most of a federal regulation designed to protect healthcare workers who refuse to provide care on moral or religious grounds. The decision effectively dismantles one of President George W. Bush’s more controversial policies – a shield for conscientious objection to medical services, like providing contraceptives or performing IVF for lesbians or single women. The new rule leaves intact long-standing “conscience” protections for doctors and nurses who do not want to perform abortions or sterilisations. Also retained are procedures for allowing health workers to file complaints if their rights are violated.


The new rule, which goes into effect this month, is likely to fuel the ever-growing debate over abortion and related issues. House Republicans have introduced a number of pieces of legislation containing provisions that would recreate many of the effects of the Bush rule.

The division of opinion on the new policy is stark. One the one hand, it is being hailed as saving patients whose lives are at risk because of the intransigent moral prejudice. "Without the rescission of this regulation, we would see tremendous discrimination against patients based on their behavior and based just on who they are," said Susan Berke Fogel of the National Health Law Program. "We would see real people suffer, and more women could die."

On the other hand, it is being condemned as an encroachment personal freedom. “Today, the Obama administration demonstrated exactly why we need to have strong conscience protection for health workers written into our laws,” said Rep. Joe Pitt, who is sponsoring the Protect Life Act, which would institute more protections into the health overhaul legislation. “Without legal protection, we can certainly expect even more bureaucratic assaults on the conscience of medical workers.” ~ Washington Post, Feb 19

German Mother in Prison for Resisting Sex Ed

A German mother is in prison as a result of resisting state measures to force objectionable “sexual education” on her children. Her husband has already served his 43-day sentence. The couple bring the number of Christian parents imprisoned for this reason to 10.

Heinrich and Irene Wiens belong to the Baptist Church. Their case has been taken up by the United States based Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) -- a Christian legal alliance defending religious liberty, sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

In June 2006, the Wiens’ objected to their children’s attendance at both a mandatory stage play and four school days of so-called “sexual education” classes. Both parents believed the programs contradicted their sincerely held religious beliefs, as they and their four children are active in the Christian Baptist Church. The Wiens’ kept their children at home during the programs and instead instructed them in their own Christian values on sexuality. The parents were subsequently sentenced by a lower court in June 2008 and both were fined a total of 2,340 Euros (approximately $3,250 U.S.), which they refused to pay on legal and moral grounds.

Hence the prison sentences.

ADF filed an emergency appeal yesterday with the European Court of Human Rights, calling for Mrs Wien’s immediate release. Legal counsel Roger Kiska, based in the Slovak Republic, says the Wiens are well within their rights under the European Convention of Human Rights and other laws.

ADF is representing four similar cases before the ECHR. “These types of cases are crucial battles in the effort to keep bad decisions concerning parental rights overseas from being adopted by American courts,” says Mr Kiska.


From here.

ACLU Presses for Abortions in Catholic Hospitals

WASHINGTON — The Department of Health and Human Services is considering a request from the American Civil Liberties Union that it compel Catholic hospitals to provide emergency abortions.

But the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty has vowed not only to provide free legal defense for any hospital the HHS takes action against, but to sue the feds to stop them.

“We have acknowledged receipt of letters from the ACLU and an organization holding the opposite view, but have taken no other action,” said Ellen Griffith, spokeswoman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. “All we can say is that the matter is before us for consideration.”

Read it all here.

Uncertain Future for UK Catholic Adoption Agencies

A Roman Catholic adoption agency has been given the chance to appeal after losing a bid to protect its pro-marriage ethos last month.

The Leeds-based charity, Catholic Care, was told by the Charity Tribunal last month that under the new Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs) it would have to consider gay couples as potential adopters, despite its belief that children need a mother and a father.

However, the adoption agency has now been granted permission to appeal to the High Court over the matter which the Tribunal said was of “public importance” and “would be appropriate for the High Court to consider on appeal”.

Mark Wiggin, chief executive of Catholic Care, said the charity had not yet decided whether to pursue the appeal.

“We have to leave open the option,” he said.

The charity is one of several Roman Catholic adoption groups forced to choose between abandoning their beliefs on marriage, dropping out of adoption work or risking falling foul of the SORs.

Read it all here.