In the beginning of her book UnPlanned, Abby Johnson experiences a dramatic epiphany wherein she finally realizes the truth regarding abortion. “I had believed a lie! I had blindly promoted the ‘company line’ for so long. Why? Why hadn’t I searched out the truth for myself? Why had I closed my ears to the arguments I’d heard? Oh, dear God, what had I done?” (pg. 7). Mrs. Johnson’s realization shows just how the culture of death tries to operate when it comes to the subject of conscience. A well-formed conscience, especially on the subject of the value of human life, is an impediment for this culture and it will do nothing less than to try to eradicate the promptings of your conscience.
For the Church, the conscience is an essential part of man. As the Catechism states,
Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law… (no. 1778).
Man, being an intellectual creature, has the capacity to come to know the truth and act accordingly. Conscience is a part of this. Catholics believe that all people have a conscience: “In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil…” (Gaudium et Spes, 16). In essence, conscience holds us to do the good. But also, it is also every bit as important to inform our conscience, “The education of the conscience is a lifelong task” (Catechism, 1784). If, however, man were to come to embrace the falsehood that there is no moral truth, then he will quickly reject the idea of conscience since there is no understanding of morality to judge. Moral judgements are merely reduced to the “taste” of the individual.
In his recent article, “Natural Law in a World of Relativism”, Dr. John Ujda states the following,
Relativism admits to no absolute truths, only the relative truth of each individual, which is decided by how he feels, without any guidance of norms such as the natural law. Thus, autonomy has been radically changed in that it has been made absolute irrespective of what is good or true. This error is supported by the media, politicians, and those in government; indeed, such an attitude has become mainstream in our culture, while natural law and the Church’s teaching are now countercultural.
While, autonomy itself is not conscience, one can elaborate a little further on just exactly what is meant here. In this context, Dr. Ujda is pointing out the modern notion of autonomy believes that one does not need to truly exercise conscience since conscience is merely a myth. As a result of this thought, Dr. Ujda makes the claim that much of society has embraced relativism as its definition of reality.
It seems that since the legalization of the so-called “abortion right” in the US, there have been attempts by those who advocate for the culture of death to make relativism culturally acceptable and thus deny the role of conscience. One of the prime ways that the architects of the culture of death have tried to use in order to have their worldview become acceptable is by changing the law. There have been a myriad of ways in which they have tried to accomplish this task, both legislatively and judicially.
When Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton became law of the land, there were no longer any legal restrictions on abortion. As a result, those who advocated for a Culture of Life began to press for restrictions. One such legislative restriction were (and still are) bills that would mandate that prior to the abortion procedure, women receive information about fetal development, risks associated with abortion, and alternatives available. These informed consent laws are commonly referred to as Women Right to Know laws and abortion-rights advocates routinely oppose them. For those who believe in the Natural Law, it seems absurd that such legislation be resisted. However, abortion-rights proponents have termed such legislative initiatives as offensive to women.
But why is this the case? In her article, “The Slippery Slope of ‘Informed Consent’ Abortion Laws”, Jessica Mason Pieklo states, “This leaves women unable to rely on doctors and nurses, their advocates in the health care system for objective and unbiased information.” A strange analysis for two reasons: Firstly, given the fact that every state mandates doctors give patients information about any surgical procedure they are about proceed with, abortion should be no different. Secondly, Ms. Pieklo’s implication that the information abortionists give their patients is unbiased in the absence of such laws is simply ludicrous. It has been well documented that those who sell abortions use rhetoric designed to dehumanize the preborn child. The recent videos from the Center for Medical Progress demonstrated just how Planned Parenthood employees employed such dehumanizing tactics when trying to sell fetal body parts. This is primarily done in order to obscure the reality that the child is indeed human. Such tactics are designed to thwart the formation of a proper conscience. When women are given actual biological factual information that points to the reality that her unborn child is indeed human, then she is much less likely to proceed with the abortion.
But the Culture of death does not merely stop at trying to destroy the conscience of women who may be facing an unplanned pregnancy. It also seeks to extinguish the conscience of doctors as well. This can be seen on two fronts. The first attack is by abortion advocates trying to mandate that all medical students must learn how to perform an abortion. It has become apparent that those who wish to push the “abortion right” also wish to dictate that medical students must be trained in the destructive practice of abortion. Those who would object taking such courses simply would not be allowed to graduate and become a doctor. In essence, if this were to be enacted, those who believe life is sacred need not apply to medical school.
The second attack attempts to deny doctors their conscience protections when it comes to the end-of-life issues. Dr. Ujda continues in his aforementioned article,
Interestingly, such changes appear to be reducing the autonomy of medical practitioners; they feel compelled to accede to a patient’s wishes, even if they know that those wishes are morally wrong. When laws that force such acceptance are made, the pressure to comply increases, which further attacks the autonomy of the provider. In addition, of course, there is the threat of a lawsuit for noncompliance.
This particular phenomenon has been seen by Texas, in particular, where legislation has been filed in the past to mandate such activity.
The simple fact remains, when a civil law commands a properly formed conscience to be violated, injustice ensues. Again, Dr. Ujda comments, “Medical practitioners seem to be developing progressive tolerance for such diversity, and thus no longer follow objective norms. Such thinking leads to serious aberrations in health care practices, and this will likely continue (“the slippery slope”). Our laws and government edicts are codifying such behavior, which only enhances and ingrains the error.”
Again, Abby Johnson gives an insight into what can happen when law allows for the conscience to be blurred,
Ten minutes, maybe fifteen at most, had passed since Cheryl had asked me to go help in the exam room. And in those few minutes, everything had changed. Drastically. The image of that tiny baby twisting and struggling kept replaying in my mind. And the patient. I felt so guilty. I’d taken something precious from her, and she didn’t even know it.
Mrs. Johnson’s words should be more than just a mere caution, her words should be a blaring warning signal that the culture of death seeks to make man into something tragic and horrifying.
Joe Kral has been involved in the pro-life movement since he has been in college. His MA in Theology was completed at the University of St. Thomas where he specialized in bioethics. From 1996-2003 he was the Legislative Director for Texas Right to Life. During that time he was also a lobbyist for the Department of Medical Ethics at National Right to Life. From 2004-2007 he consulted the Texas Catholic Conference on pro-life legislative initiatives. In 2006 he was awarded the “Bishop’s Pro-Life Award for Civic Action” from the Respect Life Ministry in the Diocese of Dallas. He currently is an adjunct professor of Theology at the University of St. Thomas, teaches FTCM courses for the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston, and also serves as a voluntary legislative advisor to Texas Alliance for Life. He has been married to his wife, Melissa, since 2004 and attends St. Theresa’s Catholic Church.
