Abstract
In this chapter we investigate the political obligations of Catholic politicians as it relates to bioethical questions. We look in particular at the issues of embryo-destructive stem-cell research and elective abortion, and conclude that the core question facing Catholic politicians as it relates to those issues is determining who is a person. Looking at authoritative Catholic doctrine, we conclude that there is an obligation to enact legislation that includes all human beings as persons regardless of their stage of development. Borrowing from legal principles of construction, we conclude that the question of personhood is a fixed rule in Catholic thought, while other questions of social justice involve the application of standards. The chapter concludes by looking at particular American political controversies involving bioethics and providing analysis as to the proper ethical response from Catholic politicians.
The opinions expressed are those of the authors alone.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
President Barack H. Obama, Executive Order 13505—Removing Barriers to Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells, March 9, 2009.
- 2.
See Nelson (2005), quoting Hart and Sacks (1994): “[A] ‘rule’ [is] a directive ‘which requires for its application nothing more than a determination of the happening or non-happening of physical or mental events’ and a ‘standard’ [is] one ‘which can be applied only by making, in addition to a finding of what happened or is happening in the particular situation, a qualitative appraisal of those happenings in terms of their probable consequences, moral justification, or other aspect of general human existence.’” See also Easterbrook (1994) (describing standards as “specifie[d] values or ends”).
- 3.
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 230–31(1983) (replacing a “rigid” rule for a classic “totality of the circumstances” standard in evaluating the veracity of criminal informants).
- 4.
Indus. Union Dep’t v. Am. Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607 (1980).
- 5.
See also Pope John Paul II (1995, n. 2): “Even in the midst of difficulties and uncertainties, every person sincerely open to truth and goodness can, by the light of reason and the hidden action of grace, come to recognize in the natural law written in the heart (cf. Rom 2:14–15) the sacred value of human life from its very beginning until its end, and can affirm the right of every human being to have this primary good respected to the highest degree. Upon the recognition of this right, every human community and the political community itself are founded.”
- 6.
Compare USCCB (2005) (“We have other ways [than the death penalty] to … protect society.”) with United States v. White Feather, No. 13-2725 (7th Cir. Sept. 29 2014) (affirming the murder conviction of a prisoner—who was already serving a federal life sentence for murder—after he used a Bic razor to kill his younger, stronger, and healthier cellmate overnight).
- 7.
See California Proposition 71 (2004); Missouri Constitutional Amendment 2 (2006).
- 8.
See H.R. 534, Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003 (banning all cloning ).
- 9.
See S. 1520, Human Cloning Ban Act of 2005 (seeking to ban reproductive cloning while allowing for research cloning); H.R. 2164, Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2012 (same). See also Kolata (1997): “‘What nonsense – what utter nonsense – to think that we can hold up our hands and say, Stop,’ [Senator] Harkin [D-Iowa] said. ‘Human cloning will take place, and it will take place in my lifetime. I don’t fear it at all. I welcome it.’”
- 10.
See President George W. Bush, Statement on Stem Cell Research, August 9, 2001; Executive Order 13455, June 2007. See also Bush (2010, pp. 106–25).
- 11.
See Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 (H.R. 810); Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 (S.5).
- 12.
U.S. Constitution, Article I, sec. 7.
- 13.
As mentioned earlier, the policy was eventually repudiated by President Obama via executive order.
- 14.
See Roe v. Wade , 410 U.S. 113 (1973); Doe v. Bolton , 410 U.S. 179 (1973); Casey v. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. 833 (1992); Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007).
- 15.
See, e.g., Texas Senate Bill 5 (2011).
- 16.
See, e.g., Indiana HEA 1210 (2011).
- 17.
See, e.g., Wisconsin SB 179 (2015).
- 18.
See, e.g., S.D. Codified Law 34-23A-10.1.
- 19.
See, e.g., Texas House Bill 15 (2013-14).
- 20.
See, e.g., North Dakota House Bill 1456 (2013).
- 21.
See, e.g., Planned Parenthood v. Rounds, 686 F.3d 889 (8th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (upholding South Dakota’s informed-consent law); Stuart et al. v. Camnitz, 774 F.3d 238 (4th Cir. 2014) (striking down North Carolina’s sonogram law); Texas Med. Providers v. Lakey, 667 F.3d 570 (5th Cir. 2012) (upholding Texas’s ultrasound law); Whole Woman’s Health v. Lakey, No. 14-50928 (5th Cir. June 9, 2015) (upholding Texas’s clinic regulations); Jackson Women’s Health Org. v. Currier, No. 13-60599 (5th Cir. July 29, 2014) (striking down Mississippi’s clinic regulations); Planned Parenthood of Ind., Inc. v. Comm’r of Ind. State Dep’t Health, 699 F.3d 962 (7th Cir. 2012) (striking down Indiana’s Medicaid restrictions); Planned Parenthood Ariz., Inc. v. Betlach, 727 F.3d 960 (9th Cir. 2013) (striking down Arizona’s Medicaid restrictions); Isaacson v. Horne, 716 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2013) (striking down Arizona’s 20-week ban); Richmond Med. Ctr. for Women v. Herring, 570 F.3d 165 (4th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (upholding Virginia’s partial-birth abortion ban); MKB Mgmt. Corp. v. Stenehjem, No. 14-2128 (8th Cir. July 22, 2015) (striking down North Dakota’s fetal heartbeat law while inviting the Supreme Court to revisit Roe and Casey).
- 22.
No. 15-274. __ U.S. __ (2016).
- 23.
Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 171.0031(a).
- 24.
Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 245.010(a).
- 25.
See Planned Parenthood of Greater Tex. Surgical Health Servs. v. Abbott, 748 F.3d 583 (5th Cir. 2014).
- 26.
See Federalist No. 84: “Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. ‘We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.’”
- 27.
See Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel Memorandum, Appointment of a Senate-Confirmed Nominee (Oct. 12, 1999): “The Constitution thus calls for three steps before a presidential appointment is complete: first, the President’s submission of a nomination to the Senate; second, the Senate’s advice and consent; third, the President’s appointment of the officer, evidenced by the signing of the commission. All three of these steps are discretionary.”
References
Black’s Law Dictionary, 10th ed. 2014.
Bush, G.W. 2010. Decision points. New York: Random House.
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [CDF]. 1974. Declaration on procured abortion. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html. Accessed 21 Apr 2016.
———. 1987. Donum vitae. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html. Accessed 21 Apr 2016.
———. 2002. Doctrinal note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html. Accessed 21 Apr 2016.
———. 2008. Instruction Dignitas Personae on Certain Bioethical Questions. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20081208_dignitas-personae_en.html. Accessed 21 Apr 2016.
Easterbrook, F.H. 1994. Text, history, and structure in statutory interpretation. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 17: 64.
Francis. 2015. Laudato Si’. http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html. Accessed 21 Apr 2016.
Hart, H.M., and A.M. Sacks. 1994. In The legal process: Basic problems in the making and application of law, ed. W.N. Eskridge and P.P. Frickey. New York: Foundation Press.
John Paul II. 1995. Evangelium vitae. http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html. Accessed 21 Apr 2016.
Kliff, S. 2013.The Gosnell case: Here’s what you need to know, Washington Post, April 15.
Kolata, G. 1997. Congress is cautioned against ban on human-cloning work. New York Times, March 13.
Krauthammer, C. 2004. An Edwards outrage. Washington Post, October 15.
MacIntyre, Alasdair. 2004. The only vote worth casting in November. http://brandon.multics.org/library/Alasdair%20MacIntyre/macintyre2004vote.html. Accessed 21 Apr 2016.
Nelson, Caleb. 2005. What is textualism? Virginia Law Review 91: 374.
Rutenberg, J. 2006. Michael J. Fox, Parkinson’s and stem cells. New York Times, October 25.
Scalia, Antonin. 2002. God’s justice and ours. First Things, May.
Stolberg, S.G. 2007. Bush vetoes measure on stem cell research. New York Times, June 21.
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops [USCCB]. 2005. A culture of life and the penalty of death. http://www.usccb.org/_cs_upload/7917_1.pdf. Accessed 21 Apr 2016.
———. 2015. Selected quotes of Pope Francis by subject. http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catholic-social-teaching/upload/pope-francis-quotes1.pdf. Accessed 21 Apr 2016.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fragoso, M.A., Snead, O.C. (2017). Bioethics and Catholic Politicians: Who Is a Person?. In: Eberl, J. (eds) Contemporary Controversies in Catholic Bioethics. Philosophy and Medicine(), vol 127. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55766-3_37
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55766-3_37
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-55764-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-55766-3
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)