We recognize that the “Forty Days for Life” protests in front of our clinic bring us a lot of attention that can be put to good use. The picketing has resulted in many expressions of community support for Family Planning Health Services (FPHS) as well as a much higher level of visibility for the health care services we provide. On the other hand, the anti-abortion signs persistently misrepresent what FPHS actually does – confusing the public about whether FPHS provides abortion (we do not and we are prohibited by our grant contracts from even making referrals). FPHS provides contraceptive services, provides all-options information, and we are prochoice. That seems to be enough to draw the sanctimonious “prayer bullies” to our street corner . . . and soon they’ll be on yours.

These protests take place on the street corners of our nation, not just in our Central Wisconsin community, and it is important that the public and other health care providers know that they are opposed to contraception as well as abortion – that’s why they are picketing in Wausau.

Understanding that there is a need to connect the local to the state and the state to the national, FPHS is proudly supporting the newly launched “Forty 4 Forty” joint fund raising campaign of the Wisconsin Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice and Pro-Choice Wisconsin. FPHS, because we are clearly not an abortion provider, can play an important role for all primary health care providers that the picketers are anti-contraception as well as anti-abortion.

The Forty4Forty campaign begins this week. A sign to solicit pledges for Forty 4 Forty will go up on our Wausau building tomorrow morning.

Last week, when one of the protestors said to me; “If they’re intimidated, that’s their problem,” he told me all I need to know.

Lon Newman
Executive Director
Family Planning Health Services

These young people appear to be on a field trip from Newman High School in Wausau, Wi.

The Truth About 1353

Idaho Senate Bill 1353

Planned Parenthood Refusal Letter to the Senate Floor

“A defender of the church,” proclaimed the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel headline for an extensive story about the new Archbishop-designate, Jerome Listecki. The subtitle for the article was: “Archbishop designate Listecki vows collaboration, but unafraid of debate.” The subtitle was probably derived from the bishop’s description of how he planned to participate in the political process. He said: “If we don’t challenge one another’s statements, then we’re relinquishing our responsibility to the common good.”

The following month, young Catholics for Choice (yCFC – a Washington D.C. based organization) and Family Planning Health Services (FPHS – an agency with family planning clinics in eight Wisconsin counties) formed a unique sectarian-secular advertising partnership, produced informational ads for broadcast, and then embarked on a two-day Wisconsin “road-trip” to draw media attention to their campaign and to build public (including the Catholic public) awareness and knowledge about emergency contraception.

The purpose of the joint media campaign was two-fold; 1) to inform the public about how Plan B works so they would have it on hand in advance of need and, 2) to inform Catholic women of reproductive age that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops health care directives permit the use of emergency contraception to prevent pregnancies resulting from rape.

In the January 2010 issue of the Journal of the Catholic Health Association of the United States, Ron Hamel, Ph.D., makes it very clear that the ethics of access to emergency contraception for Catholics needs to be fully examined and explained. Professor Hamel’s article and the YCFC/FPHS EC campaign are an effort to fulfill that responsibility when there is significant resistance.

The campaign succeeded in getting a response from the Archbishop-designate and thus succeeded in its secondary purpose. The headline on the Christmas Eve edition of the La Crosse Diocesan newspaper is: “Bishop Rejects Young Catholics for Choice Message.” The front page column ran adjacent to the departing bishop’s message. But what he rejected so prominently: “ . . . that Catholics can disregard Church teaching on contraception, abortion, and human sexuality in general and remain Catholics in good standing,” was only weakly connected to the message that yCFC and Family Planning Health Services (FPHS) were promoting.

Bishop Listecki, like most of the Catholic protestors in front of the FPHS clinic, will allow “no room for interpretation,” once the bishop’s authority has been invoked. Many within the church see the bishop’s pattern of authoritarian rebukes, condemnations, and admonitions as futile efforts to suppress dissent and they understand they are not the views of other Catholics or even the other American bishops.  Just as importantly, the denials and condemnations are not solely inflicted on the faithful. The prayer vigil protestors’ and Bishop Listecki’s efforts to eliminate access to emergency contraception, if they succeed, would apply to women regardless of their faith.

Erik Cieslewicz and Brooke Sperry have produced a documentary about the joint campaign that will be released February 17^th, 2010.  The web-posting will occur on the same day that another Lenten prayer vigil outside an FPHS clinic (which does not provide abortion services) begins in central Wisconsin. The video shows the challenge as well as the fun of the effort to educate the public in the face of consistent efforts to suppress and to misinform. Earlier, “40 Days for Life” prayer vigils played a large part in motivating FPHS and yCFC to cooperate in the advertising effort to correct misinformation being spread by their opponents.

Enjoy the video!

Rise in teenage pregnancy rate spurs new debate on arresting it
By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer

Tuesday, January 26, 2010
The pregnancy rate among teenage girls in the United States has jumped for the first time in more than a decade, raising alarm that the long campaign to reduce motherhood among adolescents is faltering, according to a report released Tuesday.
The pregnancy rate among 15-to-19-year-olds increased 3 percent between 2005 and 2006 — the first jump since 1990, according to an analysis of the most recent data collected by the federal government and the nation’s leading reproductive-health think tank.
Teen pregnancy has long been one of the most pressing social issues and has triggered intense political debate over sex education, particularly whether the federal government should fund programs that encourage abstinence until marriage or focus on birth control.
“The decline in teen pregnancy has stopped — and in fact has turned around,” said Lawrence Finer, director of domestic research for the Guttmacher Institute, the nonprofit, nonpartisan research group in New York that conducted the analysis. “These data are certainly cause for concern.”
The abortion rate also inched up for the first time in more than a decade — rising 1 percent — intensifying concern across the ideological spectrum.
“One of the nation’s shining success stories of the past two decades is in danger of unraveling,” said Sarah Brown of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. “Clearly, the nation’s collective efforts to convince teens to postpone childbearing must be more creative and more intense, and they must begin today.”
The cause of the increase is the subject of debate. Several experts blamed the increase in teen pregnancies on sex-education programs that focus on encouraging abstinence. Others said the reversal could be due to a variety of factors, including an increase in poverty, an influx of Hispanics and complacency about AIDS, prompting lax use of birth control such as condoms.
“It could be a lot of things coming together,” said Rebecca Maynard, a professor of economics and social policy at the University of Pennsylvania. “It could be we just bottomed out, and whenever you are at the bottom, it tends to wiggle around. This may or may not be a sustained rise.”
The report comes as Congress might consider restoring federal funding to sex-education programs that focus on abstinence. The Obama administration eliminated more than $150 million in funds for such groups, but the Senate’s health-care reform legislation would reinstate $50 million.
The new findings immediately set off a debate over funding. Critics argued that the disturbing new data were just the latest in a long series of indications that the focus on abstinence programs was a dismal failure.
“Now we know that after 10 years and over $1.5 billion in abstinence-only funding, the U.S. is lurching backwards on teen sexual health,” said James Wagoner of Advocates for Youth, a Washington advocacy group.
Supporters of abstinence programs, however, said the findings provided powerful evidence of the need to continue to encourage delayed sexual activity, not only to avoid pregnancy but also to reduce the risk for AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.
“Research unmistakably indicates that delaying sexual initiation rates and reducing the total number of lifetime partners is more valuable in protecting the sexual health of young people than simply passing out condoms,” said Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association, who blamed the increase on several factors.
“Contributors include an over-sexualized culture, lack of involved and positive role models, and the dominant message that teen sex is expected and without consequences,” Huber said. The Obama administration is launching a $110 million pregnancy prevention initiative focused on programs with proven effectiveness but has left open the possibility of funding some innovative approaches that include encouraging abstinence.
The rate at which U.S. teenagers were having sex rose steadily through the 1970s and 1980s, fueling a sharp rise in teen pregnancies and births. That trend reversed around 1991 because of AIDS, changing social mores about sex and other factors, including greater use of contraceptives, which pushed the U.S. teen pregnancy rate to historic lows.
The U.S. rates still remained higher than those in other industrialized countries.
The decline in teen sexual activity had leveled off starting about nine years ago, and the teen birth rate began to increase in 2005. It wasn’t known before if the increase was due to more pregnancies or fewer abortions and miscarriages. For the first time, the new analysis uses those factors in calculating the teen pregnancy rate.
The analysis examined data on teenage sex and births collected by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics and data on abortions collected by the CDC and Guttmacher — the two best sources of such data.
The abortion rate among teenagers rose 1 percent in 2006 from the previous year — to 19.3 abortions per 1,000 women in that age group, the analysis found. Taking that and miscarriages into account, the analysis showed that the pregnancy rate among U.S. women younger than 20 in 2006 was 71.5 per 1,000 women, a 3 percent increase from the rate of 69.5 in 2005. That translated into 743,000 pregnancies among teenagers, or about 7 percent of women in this age group.
“When birth rates go up and down, it could be the result of kids getting fewer abortions,” said John Santelli, a professor of population and family health at Columbia University. “This shows that it’s a true rise in pregnancies.”
The rate increase was highest for blacks. Among blacks, the rate increased from 122.7 per 1,000 in 2005 to 126.3. For Hispanics the rate rose from 124.9 per 1,000 women to 126.6. Among whites, the rate increased from 43.3 per 1,000 women to 44.0.

The controversy over the use of emergency contraception in Catholic hospitals for victims of sexual assault continues to be played out in various forums — in the literature, state legislatures, pharmacies, professional groups, state Catholic conferences, dioceses and Catholic hospitals themselves.

At its heart is whether medications used for emergency contraception have an abortifacient effect, that is, whether they prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg by altering the lining of the endometrium. On the belief that they do have such an effect, some either object to or prohibit their use in Catholic hospitals or agree to their use only in conjunction with testing for ovulation to ascertain whether the woman is at or around the time of ovulation (and, therefore, could become pregnant).¹ Obviously, for women who have been subjected to a sexual assault and who seek assistance at a Catholic hospital, much hinges on accurately understanding how these hormonal medications work.

Unfortunately, such understanding is not always in play. In many instances, critics base their moral judgments on prevailing beliefs or assumptions about mechanisms of action that may be based on drug manufacturer labeling, or on outdated scientific literature, or on mere supposition. Researchers have been virtually certain that the drugs prevent or disrupt ovulation, but they have generally been uncertain about other possible effects on sperm, cervical mucus, the process of fertilization and on the endometrium. Yet manufacturers and others typically list these specific effects as possible mechanisms of action.

But are such beliefs and assumptions about emergency contraceptives accurate and adequate? This is a critical question, for women who have been sexually assaulted and for the Catholic hospitals that care for them.

One of the well-known truisms in ethics is that good moral judgments depend in part on good facts. Absent adequate and accurate information, there is an increased possibility of a faulty analysis and, therefore, of an erroneous judgment. In addition, the moral judgment itself might be seen to lack credibility either because its basis is unclear or because it seems to fly in the face of reputable data.

Take one example. In late February 2007, in a LifeSiteNews interview, Bishop Elio Sgreccia, the then-president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, reaffirmed the academy’s 2000 statement that the “morning-after pill” is abortifacient and that physicians and Catholic hospitals are prohibited from administering it, even in cases of sexual assault.² Unfortunately, the 2000 statement employed the generic term “morning-after pill,” which can refer to a variety of medications with different mechanisms of action, and the statement made no reference to scientific literature substantiating its claim that the pill is abortifacient. In addition, the comment in the 2007 interview seemed not to take account of recent scientific literature on how these medications work, particularly in the case of levonorgestrel, also known as Plan B, the current standard treatment for women who have been sexually assaulted. Yet after the interview, despite the lack of evidence, some described both the bishop’s comment and the Pontifical Academy’s statement as “authoritative.”

GOOD FACTS ARE NECESSARY FOR GOOD ETHICS
What, in fact, do we find if we look at the scientific literature on how Plan B, a progestin-only form of emergency contraception, works?

Over the past five years, CHA staff have collected, reviewed and summarized the great majority of articles on emergency contraceptive medications’ mechanisms of action — both for combination drugs (such as Preven) and Plan B.³ In addition, CHA obtained two independent analyses of the literature — one by an ob-gyn and the other by a pharmacist. The reviews concluded that virtually all of the evidence in the scientific literature indicates Plan B has little or no post-fertilization effect, that is, it has little or no effect on the endometrium that would make it inhospitable to implantation. Its mechanism of action is to disrupt ovulation.

In a thorough review of the scientific literature, Fr. Nicanor Pier Giorgio Austriaco, OP, Ph.D., a priest, theologian and scientist, wrote in the Winter 2007 issue of The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly:

Studies published in the past few months provide mounting evidence that levonorgestrel has little or no effect on post-fertilization events. In other words, given the limitations of scientific certitude, they suggest that Plan B, when administered once, is not an abortifacient. These human studies correlate well with earlier findings in rodents and monkeys that convincingly showed that the postcoital administration of levonorgestrel in amounts several times higher than typical doses given to women does not interfere with the post-fertilization processes required for mammalian embryo implantation. The evidence also addresses what until now has been a nagging, unanswerable question for pharmacologists: Why would levonorgestrel, a progesterone agonist that mimics the effect of progesterone, prevent implantation, when progesterone produced from the corpus luteum immediately after ovulation actually promotes implantation by converting the endometrium to deciduas? Answer: It does not.⁴

Several months later in the Autumn 2008 issue of the quarterly, responding to his critics, Fr. Austriaco offered an even more detailed argument in support of his conclusion.⁵ If Plan B is abortifacient, the author observes, it can have this effect in three primary ways. The first is by increasing the rate of ectopic pregnancies. However, he notes that the “combined data from five clinical trials with nearly six thousand women showed that the rate of ectopic pregnancies in women who have used Plan B is 1.02 percent as compared to the overall national ectopic pregnancy rate between 1.24 percent and 1.97 percent. In light of this finding, it is unlikely that Plan B increases the ectopic pregnancy rate … .”⁶

The second way in which Plan B could be abortifacient is by preventing implantation of an embryo. Fr. Austriaco noted that there are three ways in which this could occur. One is by altering the lining of the endometrium, making it inhospitable to implantation. “[M]orphological and biochemical analyses of endometrial biopsies of women who had taken Plan B eight or nine days prior to the biopsy have revealed that the drug does not dramatically alter the structures of this tissue. This suggests that the drug does not compromise endometrial development.”⁷

Another way in which the drug could make the endometrium inhospitable is by disrupting the function of the corpus luteum which releases hormones that are necessary for the proper development of the endometrium, including making it receptive to an embryo. After reviewing the scientific literature, Fr. Austriaco concluded that “[T]ogether, these data suggest that the risk of a post-fertilization effect from this mode of action for any particular individual woman, if it is real, would be vanishingly small.”⁸

The final manner in which Plan B could prevent implantation is by directly interfering with the implantation process itself. Fr. Austriaco replied: “[O]ne study that directly tested the ability of human embryos to implant on endometrial tissue exposed to LNG — though grossly immoral — does not support this mode of action for Plan B.”⁹ Two other recent studies confirm this conclusion.¹⁰

A third way in which Plan B could be abortifacient is by destroying an already implanted embryo. With regard to this possibility, Fr. Austriaco wrote: “[A] report from the FDA shows that Plan B does not increase the rate of pregnancy loss or the frequency of fetal abnormalities once a pregnancy has been established.”¹¹

Fr. Austriaco concluded his article: “[I] stand by my earlier conclusion: In light of the available scientific evidence and given the inherent limitations of the studies, it is unlikely that Plan B is an abortifacient.”¹²

What about the manufacturer’s label which claims that one of the drug’s mechanisms of action is to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg? Many appeal to the manufacturer’s label in their arguments against the use of Plan B. In Fr. Austriaco’s judgment, “labels mean nothing without the scientific data to back up their claims.”¹³

MORAL CERTITUDE, NOT ABSOLUTE CERTITUDE
While the preponderance of scientific evidence strongly suggests that Plan B does not have an abortifacient effect, the evidence stops short of providing absolute certitude. But is absolute certitude needed?

In the Catholic moral tradition, what is required of an agent when he or she makes a moral judgment is that he or she have moral certitude about the correctness of the action. In the words of Thomas Slater, SJ, author of a manual of moral theology: “In order to act lawfully and rightly, I must have at least moral certainty of the imperfect kind that the proposed action is honest and right. This degree of certainty will be sufficient, for ordinarily no greater can be had, as we have just seen. It is also required for right action; for if I am not at least to this extent morally certain that my action is right, I am conscious that it may be wrong.”¹⁴

What is meant by moral certitude? Moral certitude means that the agent has excluded all reasonable possibility of error. It stands between mere probability, where alternative opinions are equally plausible, and absolute certainty, where any theoretical possibility of error is not only excluded, but is impossible. Again, in the words of Fr. Slater:

Certainty in general is a firm assent of the mind to something known, without the fear of mistake. In mathematics and in other branches of exact science we can often attain absolute certainty, which rests on the evident truth of the principles which are employed to arrive at it. … In the science of morality we have frequently to be content with a lower degree of certainty than this; there is often some obscurity about the principles to be applied, and human acts are not the matter of necessary and unvarying law. We have to be content with what is called moral certainty. … I may be conscious that mistake is possible but not probable, as when a man has been condemned on evidence which has satisfied a jury of intelligent men. In such cases if there can be no prudent doubt about the justice of the verdict I have moral certainty of an imperfect but real kind. … Ordinarily greater certainty cannot be obtained in human affairs. … If I have this imperfect moral certainty that my action is right, I am justified in acting … .”¹⁵

How does moral certitude play out with regard to emergency contraception, and Plan B in particular? The first consideration deals with Plan B’s mechanism of action. Is there sufficient moral certitude that Plan B is not abortifacient? In other words, do the results of scientific research on how Plan B works rise to the level of moral certitude? Given the mounting evidence from the scientific literature that Plan B does not prevent implantation, there does seem to be moral certitude, of the imperfect kind, about the mechanism of action. It is, of course, theoretically possible that all of the studies that have been done could be mistaken, but this is not likely. Hence, if these scientific studies are correct, then Plan B is consistent with Directive 36 which states that a woman who has been sexually assaulted may be “treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization.”¹⁶ Thus its use would not be prohibited by what follows in Directive 36: “It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.”¹⁷ Targeting implantation is not the purpose or direct effect of Plan B. Rather, its purpose and direct effect is to interfere with ovulation.

Second, is there moral certitude that a fertilized ovum will not be destroyed? Some argue that in order for moral certitude to be present, the woman who has been sexually assaulted must undergo an ovulation test to ensure that she is not at or around the time of ovulation such that she could become pregnant from the rape. For example, one advocate of ovulation testing says: “[C]atholic hospitals must have moral certitude that the possibility of an abortion is excluded. The ovulation test provides this certainty. … Therefore, moral certitude can be achieved only through the administration of the [luteinizing hormone] test. To administer emergency contraception when there is insufficient information as to its effect on the specific patient in question is not only morally illicit but medically unsound.”¹⁸

Given what has been said about Plan B’s mechanism of action, such testing is not required to achieve moral certitude. Furthermore, moral certitude in these situations is strengthened by the fact that the incidence of a pregnancy after rape is between <1 percent and 5 percent. Typically the estimate is put at about 3 percent.¹⁹ Given the scientific evidence regarding Plan B’s mechanism of action and the high probability that there is no fertilized egg present subsequent to the sexual assault, the requisite moral certitude exists that a fertilized ovum would not be destroyed by the administration of Plan B.

Finally, it is generally maintained in textbooks of moral theology that when human life is involved, one should always take the safer course. This is sometimes illustrated by the example of the hunter in the woods who sees movement behind bushes. Is the hunter free to shoot, believing that the movement results from a deer? The response in the manuals is no, because the movement could be caused by another hunter. Unless the hunter can resolve his doubt, the hunter must take the safer course and not shoot. This example might suggest that Catholic hospitals must not use emergency contraceptive medications at all in the belief that they might have an abortifacient effect — or, at least, that hospital personnel do as much as they can to reduce the possibility there might be an egg present that could be or might have been fertilized. They would do this by testing for ovulation.

In the situation under consideration, if there were a likelihood that a fertilized egg were present and if there were a likelihood that Plan B has an abortifacient effect, then the example and the obligation to take the safer course would be applicable. However, neither of these conditions is the case, because there is virtually no evidence that Plan B is abortifacient and, in cases of sexual assault, there is a very high probability that there is no fertilized egg present.²⁰ Hence, there does not seem to be an obligation to take the safer course. If one were obliged to take the safer course in these situations, in order to be consistent, one would also have to take the safer course in many of life’s other activities (e.g., driving one’s car, flying in a plane) as well as in the practice of medicine generally (e.g., agreeing to a surgery with a 25 percent risk of dying, undergoing chemotherapy that could have a lethal effect).

The administration of emergency contraception to women who have been sexually assaulted is a matter of utmost seriousness since it touches on human life. It is also a matter of utmost seriousness because it touches on the well-being of women who have been subjected to one of the most heinous of crimes. Any decision about whether or not to permit the dispensing of emergency contraceptive medications in Catholic hospitals and about the protocols for their administration has profound consequences.

Those who make such decisions, whether bishops, hospital executives, emergency room physicians, nurses or others, have a grave moral obligation to take seriously one of the first rules in making good ethical judgments, namely, to obtain adequate and accurate information about the matter at hand. To do any less is not only to shortchange the moral process, but also to risk significant harm to others. And once the best possible information is obtained, those making the decisions need to keep in mind that the use of emergency contraception for women who have been sexually assaulted is a matter about which moral certitude is sufficient. Given what is currently known about Plan B from scientific research, Catholic hospitals can respond with sensitivity, compassion and assistance to women who have been raped and are in need of care, while being confident that they are also remaining true to Catholicism’s fundamental commitment to respect for human life.

NOTES

1. If ovulation testing determines that the woman is at or around the time of ovulation, generally emergency contraception would not be administered out of concern that a possible abortifacient effect of the medication could result in the loss of an embryo.
2. Pontifical Academy for Life, “Statement on the So-Called ‘Morning-After Pill,’” (October 31, 2000), http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/
   rc_pa_acdlife_doc_20001031_pillola-giorno-dopo_en.html
3. For information about the mechanism of action of emergency contraceptive medications generally: www.chausa.org/ECmedicationsReview; for information about Plan B’s mechanism of action: www.chausa.org/LevonorgestrelReview.
4. Nicanor Pier Giorgio Austriaco, “Is Plan B Abortifacient? A Critical Look at the Scientific Evidence,” The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 7, no. 4 (Winter 2007): 707.
5. Nicanor Pier Georgio Austriaco, “Colloquy: More on Plan B — Fr. Austriaco Replies,” The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 8, no. 3 (Winter 2008): 421-25.
6. Austriaco, 422.
7. Austriaco.
8. Austriaco, 423.
9. Austriaco.
10. Chun-Xia Meng et al., “Effect of Levonorgestrel and Mifepristone on Endometrial Receptivity Markers in a Three-Dimensional Human Endometrial Cell Culture Model,” Fertility and Sterility 91, no. 1 (2009): 256-64; Natalia Novikova et al., “Effectiveness of Levonorgestrel Emergency Contraception Given Before or After Ovulation: A Pilot Study,” Contraception 75, no. 2 (2007): 112-18. The immoral, but important study to which Austriaco refers is P.G.L. Lalitkumar et al., “Mifepristone, But Not Levonorgestrel, Inhibits Human Blastocyst Attachment to an In Vitro Endometrial Three-Dimensional Cell Culture Model,” Human Reproduction 22, no. 11 (2007): 3031-37.
11. Austriaco.
12. Austriaco, 424.
13. Austriaco, “Is Plan B Abortifacient?”, 707.
14. Thomas Slater, SJ, A Manual of Moral Theology, (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1925), 1:31.
15. Slater, 1:31-32.
16. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, (Washington, D.C.: USCCB, 2001), Directive 36.
17. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
18. Marie Hilliard, “Dignitas Personae and Emergency Contraception,” Ethics and Medics 34, no. 2 (February 2009): 4.
19. Melisa M. Holmes, et al., “Rape-Related Pregnancy: Estimates and Descriptive Characteristics from a National Sample of Women,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 175 (August 1996): 320.
20. Gerald McShane, et al., “Pregnancy Prevention after Sexual Assault,” in Peter Cataldo and Albert Moraczewski, eds., Catholic Health Care Ethics: A Manual for Ethics Committees, (Boston: The National Catholic Bioethics Center, 2001), 11, 16-17.

RON HAMEL is senior director, ethics, Catholic Health Association, St. Louis. Write to him at rhamel@chausa.org.