2010 Archive
- The Difference God Makes
- How are Christians to Engage the Culture?
- In Vitro Fertilization - Why Not?
- The Long Ascent to Calvary
- Healthcare, Human Life and America
- Why I Didn’t Give Up Facebook for Lent
- Our Sex-Crazed Culture
- The Unimportance of Sex
- Recovery in the Big Easy
- Catholic Teaching on Assisted Nutrition and Hydration
- Haiti
- What’s Wrong With Us?
- Challenging Totalitarianism in 2010
| Letter from Fr. Thomas Berg on Submitting Comments for the Conscience Rights Protection Rule |
|
Dear Friends,
In previous columns, I have talked about the importance of conscience rights and why regulations proposed and then implemented by the Bush administration were so necessary. In sum, increasing threats against the conscience rights of health care providers prompted the Bush administration to implement the federal rule that would ensure compliance with existing federal statutes that protect conscience rights. The outcry from radical abortion-rights activists, who claimed that protecting conscience rights would limit some elective healthcare options (such as abortion, sterilization or contraception) prompted the Obama administration to propose a new rule that would rescind - overturn - this federal protection for healthcare workers. Since the new rule simply ensures compliance with existing statutes, overturning it is a signal act towards weakening or eliminating the actual conscience protection statues themselves. Ironically, this effort is being made under the banner of "choice." But eliminating, weakening or failing to protect conscience rights makes it more likely that healthcare workers may be compelled to either violate their consciences, or leave the healthcare field altogether. In other words, it threatens a healthcare professional's ability to choose and make medical determinations in complete freedom of conscience as is required by the profession itself. The effort also threatens the patients' freedom to choose providers who share their values; unless conscience rights are protected, patients will find it increasingly difficult to find a physician who they trust on issues that are important to them. Finally, the effort to weaken or eliminate conscience protections discourages talented professionals and students from continuing or pursuing a career in the healthcare field, further challenging an already strained healthcare system. Lest anyone doubt that eliminating conscience protections will reduce care options for patients rather than enlarge them, they only need to consider statistics from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: nearly a third of all women live in rural areas without a single ob/gyn. Driving some doctors out of practice by failing to protect their conscience rights, or discouraging others from entering the field, will only make matters much worse. Citizens are able to submit a comment to HHS about the proposed rule, and it only takes a few minutes. Please, I implore you to send a comment to HHS to register your opinion about the importance of conscience protections. You can use information from above, and your comment can be as short or as long as you wish, as long as it is relevant to the proposal to rescind the conscience protections rule. Thank you for taking the time to register your comment with HHS. It is important for all of us that no one's conscience rights are eliminated. God bless you,  Fr. Thomas Berg ________________________________________________ Information on submitting a comment is below. For additional information, please see our website at www.westchesterinstitute.net, or visit www.freedom2care.org.  --- ADDRESSES: In commenting, please refer to "Rescission Proposal." To better manage the comment process, we will not accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission. You may submit comments in one of four ways (no duplicates, please): 1. Electronically. You may submit electronic comments on this regulation to http://www.Regulations.gov or via email to proposedrescission@hhs.gov. To submit electronic comments to http://www.Regulations.gov, go to the Web site and click on the link "Comment or Submission" and enter the keywords "Rescission Proposal." [Attachments should be in Microsoft Word, WordPerfect, or Excel; however, we prefer Microsoft Word.] 2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments (one original and two copies) to the following address only: Office of Public Health and Science, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: Rescission Proposal Comments, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue, S.W., Room 716G, Washington, DC 20201. 3. By express or overnight mail. You may send written comments (one original and two copies) to the following address only: Office of Public Health and Science, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: Rescission Proposal Comments, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue, S.W., Room 716G, Washington, DC 20201. 4. By hand or courier. If you prefer, you may deliver (by hand or courier) your written comments (one original and two copies) before the close of the comment period to the following address: Room 716G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20201. (Because access to the interior of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not readily available to persons without federal government identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in the mail drop slots located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock is available for persons wishing to retain proof of filing by stamping in and retaining an extra copy of the documents being filed.) Inspection of Public Comments: All comments received before the close of the comment period are available for viewing by the public, including any personally identifiable or confidential business information that is included in a comment. We post all comments received before the close of the comment period on the following Web site as soon as possible after they have been received: http://www.Regulations.gov. Click on the link "Comment or Submission" on that Web site to view public comments. Comments received timely will also be available for public inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the Department of Health and Human Services, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20201, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m Rev. Thomas V. Berg, L.C. is Executive Director of the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person. Statement of Fr. Thomas Berg, L.C. As one who has studied extensively and written about artificial reproductive technology (ART)1, I am familiar with the multitude of moral evils associated with this pernicious industry – an industry that thrives on creating human life in a Petri dish for commercial gain, while sacrificing thousands of living human embryos and developing babies. And while it is imperfect to try to regulate the bad aspects of any particular area, an incremental approach aimed at minimizing the harm done is an essential tool for undermining the greater evils in our culture. Therefore, Catholic legislators can, in good conscience, support legislation that tries to regulate the ART industry such as the proposed legislation before the Georgia legislature, Senate Bill 169. This proposed legislation, drafted by the Catholic attorneys who co-founded the Bioethics Defense Fund, seeks to protect new human lives that are created in the imperfect context of ART. Among other things, the bill limits the number of embryos that may be created, and requires the transfer of all living human embryos to the mother’s womb, which should in turn minimize the practice of freezing human embryos – an absurd state of being for a new human life. While legislation that simply restricts bad actions – rather than seeks to eliminate them – is not the best solution, it is nonetheless something that Catholic legislators can support. John Paul II was very clear about this in Evangelium Vitae, writing that a legislator can “licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done” and “lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality.” John Paul II punctuated this statement by saying that “This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.” (Evangelium Vitae par. 73.) The Georgia Senate Bill 169 is incremental legislation that limits the tremendous harm involved in the ART industry. Supporting such a bill, as John Paul II says, is a proper thing to do to limit the evil aspects of the ART industry. Fr. Thomas Berg, L.C., Ph.D. 1Berg, Thomas, “The Moral Morass around In Vitro Fertilization,” Ethics & Medics (a Publication of the National Catholic Bioethics Center), November 2008, http://www.ncbcenter.org/em/0811-2.aspx.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Westchester Institute Announces Appointment of First Two "Institute Fellows" THORNWOOD , NY – As the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person celebrates its tenth year since its founding, the organization announced the appointment of its first “Institute Fellows.” “Institute Fellows add a new and rich dimension to our organization” said Fr. Thomas Berg. “Institute Fellows are distinguished in their professional field and cooperate closely with the Westchester Institute, bringing with them their unique talents, and helping to advance the mission of the Institute in a very collaborative way.” Berg announced the appointment of the first two Institute Fellows:
The Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human person was founded in 1998 to renew, deepen, and promote the Western tradition of moral reflection. The institute pursues its objectives in cultural, political, and academic settings. Through seminars, lecture series, and research fellowships, the Westchester Institute seeks to reinvigorate contemporary moral discourse at all levels. |
This is a message of utmost importance about protecting the conscience rights of our health care practitioners. Please read this message. 
Mrs. Michelle R. Gress . Michelle Gress is an attorney with experience on Capitol Hill, and with the President’s Council on Bioethics. She is currently the Director of Programs for the Westchester Institute. “I’m proud to memorialize Michelle’s contribution to the Institute with the title of Institute Fellow. Michelle is dedicated to the continued success of our mission, and as Institute Fellow, I know she will enhance the life of the Institute even further,” said Fr. Berg. 
Mr. Daniel F. Kane, Sr . Mr. Kane is a medical nuclear physicist, and a partner in a national diagnostic medical physics consulting firm. “Dan has distinguished himself in the health care field, and brings to the Westchester Institute his unique and intelligent perspective, as well as an enthusiastic attitude for promoting our mission,” said Fr. Berg. 