German church supports contraception

In Germany there was a public uproar about a woman who after having been raped, was refused treatment and in particular emergency contraception in 2 catholic hospitals in Cologne. Catholic hospitals in Germany receive financial contributions from the State... The doctors were afraid to loose their job if they gave the pill, because some time ago (gestapo style) undercover anti-abortion women had asked for it at catholic hospitals and then denounced the hospitals and doctors to church hierarchy, which then ordered catholic hospitals not to offer emergency contraception.

After this new case got public, Cardinal Joachim Meisner, Archbishop of Cologne (on the right), issued a statement, after consultation with unspecified experts, that "in the light of new scientific evidence" (mainly the study of Kristina Gemzell et al.) the emergency pill did not have an abortifacient effect. Therefore, if the "morning after pill is used with the intention of preventing fertilization, this is in my opinion justifiable," he said. A morning after pill, which would prevent the implantation of fertilized eggs, however, was unacceptable. "It belongs to the nature of new knowledge, that it is often controversial. The Church can only explain the moral principles. The individual doctor in a Catholic institution must then conscientiously weigh his own scientific judgment, whether a drug is preventing fertilization or nidation and so come to a responsible decision."This statement was immediately attacked by anti-abortion organizations and doctors who disagree with the claim, that the morning after pill has no anti-nidation effect.

Now in 2 German States, North Rhine-Westphalia and Rhineland-Palatinate, the governments have reached an agreement with representatives of the catholic church, that in all relevant hospitals under its ownership, women who have been raped can obtain the pill, and that doctors can freely decide to treat patients.
A petition launched by the family planning organisation Pro Familia, has been tabled with the federal government with more than 50'000 signatures, asking for an obligation for all hospitals in Germany to offer emergency contraception.

The German Bishops' Conference is expected to issue a statement on the matter this week.

source: Anne-Marie Rey
Abortion-information (formerly USPDA)
Grabenstr. 21 3052 Zollikofen / Switzerland
++41 (0)31 911 57 94

Separation of church and state

A Meeting Between The Pope And The Patriarch of Moscow Seems Closer Today

Italian Scholar Living in Russia Speaks On Eastern Orthodox- Roman Catholic Relations

ROME, SEPT.19, 2012 (Zenit.org).- It is “an eventuality that was never excluded in the past and which seems closer today.” The much awaited meeting between Benedict XVI and Orthodox Patriarch Kirill might not be far away, on condition that some open questions are resolved, said the hieromonk Giovanni Guaita in an interview with Aid to the Church in Need (ACN). The Italian scholar has lived in Russia for almost 30 years as a collaborator of the secretary for Inter-Christian Relations of the Department for Foreign Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate.

The hieromonk – a title attributed by the Eastern Churches to monks who have received priestly ordination – received the Papal Foundation at the Muscovite monastery of Saint Daniel, a spiritual and administrative center of the Orthodox Church, where the Department headed by the Metropolitan, Hilarion, has its headquarters.

“The hope is that the meeting will mark a moment of effective change in relations between the two Churches, and not limited to a handshake in front of photographers,” he said. First, he explained, some knots must be untied, not so much in Russia as in other countries, for example, Ukraine. The desire of a possible face to face meeting between the heads of the two Churches, however, was discussed in 2005 by the newly elected pope, Benedict XVI and the then “simple” Metropolitan Kirill.

Relations between Moscow and the Holy See were also discussed last July on the occasion of Prime Minister Mario Monti’s visit to Russia when, due to scheduling conflicts, the Italian Premier broke with protocol, meeting the Orthodox patriarch even before his meeting with [Russian President Dmitry] Medvedev. The hieromonk was present at the conversation in which there was obviously talk of the present economic crisis, a subject felt profoundly by the patriarchate. “Today Russia is facing social problems she never knew in the past, such as the enormous economic disparity between various strata of the population. And the Orthodox Church is increasingly active in this area,” he explained to ACN-Italy.

Another relatively recent phenomenon is that of immigration. Those which in the Soviet period were simply internal movements have now become migratory flows with the consequent problems of reception and integration. “In Moscow the community of immigrants, both official as well as clandestine, is very large and comes, to a great extent, from the former Soviet Republics with a Muslim majority. Because of this, inter-religious dialogue is necessary,” Guaita said.

The Russian Orthodox patriarch is also strongly committed to providing support to persecuted Christians worldwide and to opposing a “certain 'Christianophobia' present in Western Europe and where the faithful do not suffer persecution directly, but where the desire exists to relegate the Church to the margins of social life and to reduce the religious event to a private question,” he said.

Concluding his interview, the Orthodox Religious scholar thanked ACN, saying that they are “one of the very first Catholic organizations to establish very cordial relations with the Moscow patriarchate.” Immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the air was tense between the two Churches, both in Russia as well as in the countries of the former USSR. However, the Papal Foundation continued to support “an amazing quantity” of projects in favor of the Orthodox Church, be it in Moscow or in other regions of the Federation.

World Congress of Families, Madrid 2012

An Introductory Report: Multidimensional Challenges Ahead
The Echo Chamber at the World Congress of Families

This weekend, May 25–27, the biennial World Congress of Families (WCF) international conference will be held in Madrid, Spain. Running under the banner “Marriage and the Family: The Future of Society,” this year’s conference promises to be an echo chamber for regressive social views presented by advocates from a variety of arch-conservative organizations, notably the Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society, its sponsor. Biographies for selected speakers are available here.

Catholics for Choice has reported from several previous iterations of the WCF. Our previous reports are available here. Because of the nature of these gatherings, and the fact that antichoice activists tend to hold them up as examples of a new dawn in antichoice activity, we attend and report on the events in order to provide the truth about what is happening: who is there and what they are saying. Providing accurate information about the opposition’s activities helps all of us counter their propaganda from a position of strength.

The choice of Spain as the venue also provides us an opportunity to assess what really lies behind the noises that the conservative Spanish government has made about reversing the progressive laws passed under the last administration. It is clear that the decision to host this event in Spain was at least somewhat driven by the notion that “the faithful” must drive headfirst into the heart of iniquity, slaying the dragon of modernity in order to achieve salvation, both here and in the hereafter. However, as they tilt towards these windmills on Don Quixote’s home turf, it is entirely possible that a sexually progressive and politically active opposition may show up to protest. In which case, the World Congress of Families may draw some attention—just not the sort of attention that, even if they want it, will be beneficial to their cause.

One might suppose that given the current global economic climate, a significant portion of the World Congress of Families would relate to helping families make it through the crisis. Help with real challenges like unemployment, healthcare and childcare would be welcome. With breakout sessions such as “The Homosexual Lobby,” “Effects of Social Experimentation and Same-Sex Adoption,” “Solutions to Homosexual Behavior” and “Promoting Fatherhood: the Crisis of Manhood,” however, the Congress appears far more concerned with fabricated social issues that have no substantial impact on the welfare of the family.

The WCF gives the distinct impression that it means to codify an antiquated set of social behaviors they hope will safeguard them from an “encroaching darkness,” which the majority of the world simply refers to as “change,” “the future” or even “progress.”

This viewpoint draws a special assortment of speakers at the Congress. Yet the extremist nature of previous Congresses has moved big-name speakers with sympathies to the group’s aims into last-minute cancellations—the most notable of these at the last conference being Cardinal Alfonso Trujillo and Polish President Lech Kaczynski. For this year’s conference, while there are some minor EU officials, there are no figures with any sort of instant name recognition outside of the insular community of attendees.

This is no fluke—the conference has consistently failed to meet attendance expectations. In 2007, attendees to the Warsaw event were bussed in from surrounding parishes. And at one point in 2009, the only echo to be heard was conference speaker Austin Ruse infamously tweeting “What’s going on? Where is everybody?” as he looked out on an almost-empty conference hall.

The Howard Center’s first notice on the event was titled “Multidimensional Challenges Ahead,” a background document drafted by one of the Congress speakers, Dr. Farooq Hassan. With a world of rights-empowered advocates fighting for everything the Congress is fighting against, the Madrid gathering will have its work cut out as it tries to shore up its retrograde vision of society. In the next few days, Catholics for Choice will be reporting on the World Congress of Families as it faces these many challenges with all hands on deck.

For more on Catholics for Choice’s opposition work, please read Twenty Years of Taking Down the Opposition.

Pussy Riot Manifesto

The Letter written by Nadezda Tolokonnikova (Nadya Tolokno) in which she outlines the problematics of Gender Equality and other fundamental freedoms in frames of ethical consensus monopolized by the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian State, absent the plurality of the people of Russia and incarceration of Pussy Riot, as its main actors.

"The non-inoculated perspectivist understanding of truth, the notion of its dependence on the chosen frame of reference as well as on the language in which this truth is established and formulated lends itself toward such characteristic perceptions as sexism, ageism, xenophobia, and the lack of respect for non-classical practices and non-standard values as well as for the stylistic peculiarities of the lives of certain groups in society. Those who judge the activists of the punk-group Pussy Riot (P.R.) assess their activity from the height of a non-critical understanding of truth whereby they assume that there exists only one truth and that only they who are bringing judgment to bear have the right to establish this truth. I call such truth patriarchal, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, traditionalist, and fundamentalist. By rejecting all other perspectives and ways of thinking, those who side with the fundamentalist theory of a single truth move the ethical, legal, and other social norms, as well as the permissible limits of deviation from the normative models of behavior into the ranks of customs and traditions, i.e. things that are nonpolitical, that do not depend on the results of social discussion. Thus the ideal pluralistic model for social order, which assumed constant political competition between different systems of norms, as well as the constant contention between alternative views of the world, influencing the decision making process on national and other levels, as created by the difficult 20th century is hereby repudiated. Instead of competitive pluralism what we have is the consecutive naturalization of one of the possible pictures of the world. It is that picture to which adhere members of past and present law enforcement agencies, which make up the current political elite of Russia. This elite includes the Holy Patriarch Kirill.
The representatives of the Orthodox Church of Russia (OCR), as we have discussed amongst ourselves, within Pussy Riot, even before our arrest, are by no means stupid. They are not ignorant. But unfortunately they prefer that most Russians remain ignorant. They enjoy being part of the elite, not only in the political sense but in the intellectual as well. The vocalists of P.R. have noted that in Russia there are two types of groups that are concerned with gender equality. The first one, which is totally predictable, are the activists of feminist groups, the activists of the LGBT+K organizations, and the research scientists who work with gender issues. The second, and this is indeed a paradox, are the speakers for the ROC. These include Father Vsevolod Chaplin, the Archpriest Dmitriy Smirnov, and now the Patriarch of Moscow and all of Russia Kirill.
During a roundtable discussion at the University of the RF Ministry of Internal Affairs that took place recently, on 28 March, the Patriarch characterized gender from the position of social constructivism. “Gender is a social phenomenon, a person can construct his own gender,” thereby elegantly, in the artful manner of a chekist [KGB agent], reducing constructivism to the absurd. His Holiness plays on the fact that the meaning of “person” can be interpreted from the individualist, personalist as well as systemic, structuralist, and collectivist positions. The religious philosophy to which the cloth of the speaker refers to, induces us to interpret the meaning of “person” from a personalistic position. Social constructivism expresses itself in a totally different language. And the Patriarch pretends to not understand this. Undoubtedly to assume that a person can willfully change gender, as though changing gloves, is ultimate foolishness. The Patriarch is aiming for an aggressive reaction on the part of Russians toward the idea of gender equality, slyly not noticing that social constructivism speaks of persons not in the personalistic sense, but in the Feuerbach, Marxist sense. A person is s/he who has acquired his/her identity through the replication of social practices. The practices, including those of constructing gender, can be changed, but that is not a question of individual will power, rather that of serious and lengthy political work that can be compared with the revolutionary goals for the transformation of the world in the “Theses on Feuerbach” and “The Manifesto of the Communist Party.”
This is precisely the kind of work that is being done in Europe by those who are in favor of gender equality. They are honestly engaging in a political struggle with the right, conservative forces over gender laws. Whereas the Patriarch is trying to convince Russians that “gender laws” are not based on “the ethical consensus of society,” but are passed by force – through “the pressure of television, public opinion, the internet, twisting of hands, intimidation.” But even here his Holiness is sly. Television, just like the internet, are the instruments of the struggle of representatives of different frames of reference and attitudes, which exist in the context of a healthy political environment, of which Europe can be proud, whereas Russia – not, neither among its right or left forces, nor its conservatives or libertarians. One cannot say that the traditionalists and conservatives in contemporary Europe have their rights, liberties, or access to media and participation in government infringed upon. Intimidation and the twisting of hands are methods that are most often used by the right political elite. For example Sarkozy, recently, in an attempt to raise his rating in the presidential race, hectically began to arrest, beat up, and disembowel suspected extremists. In Russia, the FSB burst into the apartment of Geydar Dzhemal. To apply the devices learned in the school of law enforcement is one of the favorite political gestures of our national leader, for whom the Patriarch actively campaigned.
And the last and most outrageous statement made by His Holiness at the round table at the University of the Ministry of the Interior: according to Kirill, the “pressure” of public opinion interferes with ethical consensus. How can one even compare “ethical consensus in society” with public opinion? Apparently, in the corridors of the Lubyanka, they teach that peace is war, freedom is slavery, and consensus is arrived at in society without the participation of public opinion.
Although the Orthodox Church is concerned with gender issues, it is doing everything possible to limit the influence of the philosophy and politics of gender equality on the Russian public. Even this is not a crime. Let the OCR continue to postulate, to its heart’s content, its gender and ethics assumptions. But for an ethical consensus in society, it is not enough to have just one point of view. It is not possible to speak of consensus while the other side, which supports the idea of gender equality, is devoid of access to television channels and the paper media, to representatives in the higher echelons of power, when they are openly discriminated against by the repeatedly scandalous, sexist statements made by Premier Putin, and when they are intimidated by the demonstrative jailing of the feminist activists (P.R.).
I can’t disagree with the Patriarch that it is specifically “out of ethical consensus that the general legislative system will grow, including the protection of human rights.” However it is impossible to speak about the existence of consensus in Russia while the initiators of the public discussion in which His Holiness is currently actively taking part in are serving time in SIZO No. 6. Only Jesus consoles us: “So the last will be first, and the first will be last” (Matthew 20:16). We want to participate in the discussion that we started. We are ready to meet, discuss, and argue as equals. We are now locked behind 10 iron doors. As we are in prison, we cannot give fully adequate replies to the attacks by representatives of those concepts of sex and gender that we are opposed to. I don’t mean to accuse anyone, but this manner of putting your opponent behind bars with the threat of 7 years of minimum security colony and then, standing next to the cell, speaking about ethical consensus – doesn’t this just smack of cowardice?"
Nadia Tolokno, SIZO 6, 5 April 2012
Scanned version of hand-written original in Pussy Riot live-journal
English translation

Separation of religion and state is necessary

Advancing Women's Rights Worldwide- the new report of the Council of Europe. The report drafted by Hon.Lydie Err, Luxembourg, Socialist. The Resolution calls for new impetus to be given to the protection, promotion and effective implementation of women's rights worldwide. The Resolutions states that the "Separation of religion and state is necessary for the realisation of equality and non-discrimination both de jure and de facto" (Para 1). Further, the document underlines  that still some 358000 women die annually due to complications during pregnancy and childbirth and worldwide around 14 million girls between 15 and 19 give birth each year (Para 6). It underlined economic costs for society resulting from failure to address maternal health needs as well as called for gender and age specific data collection in this field (Para 9.3). The Resolution calls for ensuring that comprehensive reproductive health programmes receive adequate funding (Para 9.5). Moreover, it calls to ensure that UN Women and UNFPA receive resources needed to fulfill their objectives to expand women's voice, leadership and participation (Para 10.5).

Medvedev signed a new law on Health Care

arrived from Secretariat@epfweb.org

Last week, on 22 November, the President of the Russian Federation, Dmitriy Medvedev, signed a draft law that will have a series of implications on Russian women’s access to SRHR, both positive and negative. "Basics of the protection of the health of the citizens of Russian Federation," as the law is entitled, went through three readings in the State Duma (lower house of Parliament) and was the subject of wide debate in Russian society with interventions from the Orthodox Church, civil society and academia, and was heavily criticized by the Head of the National Medical Chamber of the Russian Federation, Mr. Leonid Roshal. For its final reading, more than 300 amendments were presented, 109 of which were adopted.

The new law will affect Russian women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights in three ways:

1. Access to abortion:

First, as regards access to abortion, Article 56 § 3 of the new law introduces a new "silence period", ie. a mandatory waiting period before performing an abortion. According to the article 55 § 3, abortions conducted on a woman's request within first 12 weeks of pregnancy will require a waiting period of 48 hours in the case of pregnancy in the 4th-7th week or 11^th-12^th weeks, but not later than end of 12th week of pregnancy and with waiting period of 7 days in the case of the pregnancy of 8-9th weeks. The law also sets the provision for obtaining an abortion in Art 56 § 4 that reads: "Abortion is conducted on social grounds until 22 weeks of pregnancy and in case of medical need, irrespective of the duration of pregnancy” (social grounds are set by the Government of the Russian Federation).

2. Conscientious Objection of abortion providers

Additionally the law introduced the possibility of conscientious objection in the article 70 § 3 that states "the treating doctor in agreement with the relevant official (head) of the medical organisation (division of medical organisation) may refuse to follow the patient or his treatment and also inform in written form about this refusal to conduct an abortion if this refusal does not directly threaten the life of patient and the health of those around him. In the case of refusal of the treating doctor to follow and treat the patient and in the case of notice in written form about the refusal to conduct an abortion, the official (head) of the medical organisation (division of medical organisation) must organise a replacement of the treating doctor.”

3. Family Planning services

Regarding family planning, the law guarantees free family planning consultations (Art 51 § 1); free medical assistance during pregnancy, during delivery and post-pregnancy (Art 52 § 2); provision of nutrition for pregnant women and breastfeeding mothers as well as children under 3 years old including through special nutrition delivery "points" (art 52 § 3), sets rules for assisted reproduction (Art 55). The law overall guarantees free medical assistance, allows the patient to choose the doctor and medical institution (once a year) as well as sets out unified standards of delivering medical assistance on the entire territory of the Russian Federation.

According to unofficial sources, only Members of the Unified Russia (ruling party) voted for the law (306 in favour, 123 against) in the State Duma. We are trying to clarify this with the Duma officials. 

Many thanks to the colleagues at Russian Association on Population and Development and Centre for Reproductive Rights for providing necessary information.

For those interested, more information is available in the links provided below and in the document attached:

• Federal Council Website: Law was adopted by the Federal Council on the 9th November
  http://asozd2.duma.gov.ru/main.nsf/%28Spravka%29?OpenAgent&RN=534829-5&02
• Federal Council Statement - decides to approve the law, the law is enacted as of 9 Nov :
  http://asozd2.duma.gov.ru/work/dz.nsf/ByID/9DBE72E110F249CAC3257943004EB952/$File/54043708-54046798.doc?OpenElement
• Duma website: http://www.duma.gov.ru/news/273/107861/
• Minutes of the Duma sitting:
  http://asozd2.duma.gov.ru/work/id.nsf/SGDProt/E947819B3C0EDBEEC325793B002E48FA/$File/Sovet309%D1%88.doc?OpenElement 
  (informs about the decision to forward the law to the Federal Council, lists who was present at the Duma meeting, but does not provide voting results)
• Kremlin: President Medvedev signs the law
  http://kremlin.ru/news/13612

Catholics for Russia

I will reproduce this article fully, it deserves.
+ there are very good linx
It reveals the great advantage of catholocism -- availability of church life or live church, very much unlike Russian Orthodoxy

enjoy:

From Russia Without Love

Recent legislation chipping away at reproductive options in Russia has uncomfortable similarities to struggles in legislatures around the United States. Russian women have been able to rely on legal abortion for decades. But in July, President Dmitri Medvedev signed into lawmeasures that require advertisements for abortion to focus on alleged health risks. In mid-October a set of restrictions on reproductive choice -- a measure to cap abortions at 12 weeks and impose waiting periods, ultrasounds and counseling on those seeking abortion --cleared two of the three legislative hurdles required before becoming law.

These steps are being advanced as panacea to Russia's dropping population figures, which some say are a result of the country's abortion rate, which at 73 per 100 births in 2009 is the highest in the world. However, the reality is that their effect will be largely on women's autonomy and rights, with no guarantee that the decline in population will reverse.

Russia's high abortion rate can be partially explained by the fact that Russian women's overall reproductive choices are curtailed, despite easy availability of abortion.

Reproductive choice is curiously lopsided in Russia, where contraception has always been harder to come by than safe abortion. Historically, the medical establishment, political authorities and religious forces asserted that contraception is a Western imposition, a danger to women's health and a threat to the social fabric. The Soviet system rightly saw that modern contraceptive methods promoted individual women's autonomy, and preferred to keep reproductive health care in the hands of state medical providers. Birth control pills, IUDs and condoms were of poor quality and hard to access.

Russia's artificially narrow selection of family-planning options may be unique, but some things hold true the world over. Women benefit from more reproductive choice, not less. A 1999 study showed that when women did have access to birth control, Russia's abortion rates declined. According to a Reuters reportpublished on November 8, "With the arrival to the market of modern methods of contraception in the 1990s, abortion rates fell by almost a third but have since dropped more slowly." The same report pointed to the lack of state funding for family planning programs since the debt crisis of 1998 as one of the factors contributing to the low rates of contraceptive usage.

Another universal truth is that health care serves women best when it focuses on women. But doctors have tended to give patients negative information about contraception, in part because the Russian system does not adequately reimburse for contraceptive counseling. Disturbingly, the recent legislation requiring doctors to share skewed information about abortion dangers continues the tradition of political agendas and faulty science getting in between Russian women and the care they need.

If Russia is serious about reversing population decline, it should be serious about reducing maternal and infant mortality rates -- among the highest in Europe. A 2005 study from the British Medical Journaltraced factors contributing to these trends and found a bureaucracy-heavy health-care system not designed to meet women's reproductive health needs.

Women's and children's health tends to go hand-in-hand. Russia still has far to go in closing the gender wage gap and in meeting the need for child care and early-childhood education. These are the very factors women consider when making childbearing decisions. A survey conducted in 1994 during the Russian economic crisis found that a lack of confidence in the future was correlated with a reluctance to have children. Population growth can be encouraged by non-coercive policies that provide the health care, paternal leave, child care and other supports women want for their families.

Making improvements in women's opportunities has proved to increase birth rates, as happened in Russia during the 1980s when public service benefits were extended to larger families. However, the results of coercive pronatalist policies have also been bitterly proven. Under Ceausescu, Romanian women had no reproductive choice -- the resulting high rates of later abortion and maternal death punished women, as well as the many children who were undervalued or unwanted.

As a Catholic, I recognize that the Catholic hierarchy plays a significant role in promoting restrictions on abortion -- and contraception. In Russia, the Orthodox Church has been supporting recent legislation designed to reduce abortion access. But the dynamic remains the same. These forces weave a tale full of dangers and prohibitions about reproductive choice that have little to do with the real problems and solutions that ought to concern society.

Our research shows that religious leaders do not accurately reflect the needs of their faithful. Reuters quoted one feminist as saying, "Why should a priest decide what I do with my body?" Luckily, public policy and public health have no need for such intermediaries. Policymakers must rise above religious pressure and the temptation to promote quick fixes to long-term problems. Thankfully, proposed legislation that would have required a husband's consent for a married woman seeking an abortion or parental consent for women under 18, as well an amendment to strike abortion from the national health plan were droppedafter proving unpopular in the polls.

There is no easy answer to demographic decline, and making abortion the scapegoat for decades of neglect to women's well-being will not help. Building a stronger society that supports women and children is the long, slow, sure road to a thriving Russia.

 

Follow Jon O'Brien on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Catholic4Choice

from bad to worse

During the meeting (devoted to the 20th anniversary of the revival of the Russian Orthodox Church, -- what does it mean???) the president made several statements. He said the values traditional for the state must be further promoted. "The Orthodox Church is the keeper of these values and truths of monumental importance for our state," he said. Medvedev also spoke about the role the Orthodox community is playing in Russia's development, describing it as "people with an extremely powerful inner energy and strong moral values." Hopefully, the state will rely on them, he said.

Medvedev also announced that he would ask the Defense Ministry to increase the corps of military clergy and he supported the idea of expanding theologian culture and secular ethics programs at schools, if the parents do not object.

***

Orthodoxy "helps tremendous numbers of our people not only to find their place in life but also to understand what would seem to be pretty simple things," Medvedev said.

"For example, such things as what it means to be Russian, what the mission of our people is, what made our nation great and gave it a unique identity in a definite period and what, at some point, gave a lot of trials to our nation and the Orthodox Church," he said.

New Russian Theocracy

On September 19 the chairman of the Duma Committee on Health Olga Borzova had a meeting with the working group to discuss proposed amendments to the article "Pregnancy termination" of a draft federal law "On the basis of health protection in Russia". The amendments had been submitted by representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) to prevention abortion.

Opening the meeting, Olga Borzov recalled that the coordination of positions with the ROC on the article "Induced abortion" is conducted in a constructive manner and has already reached many agreements, "July 8 between the Russiab Health Ministry (MoH) and the Russian Orthodox Church signed an agreement on cooperation, one of the directions of which is opposition to abortion. At the meeting on August 2 in the framework of this cooperation the parties agreed on the issue of "period of silence." For pregnancy up to 11 weeks this period was extended from 48 hours to 7 days, and they agree to apply it not only to primiparous, but to all women. We strive for consensus on many other clauses of this article, because we share a common objective: reducing the number of abortions. "

Head of the Committee noted that much of what the church offers, is already reflected in the law: "For example, the law is registered a ban on abortion on the same day a woman attended a clinic for this purpose. The written informed voluntary consent of a women to abortion does not need fixing since the more general rule covers this subject. The draft law now includes the possibility for a doctor to refuse of carrying out abortions, except when there are medical indications or when continuation of the pregnancy is life threatening, and the substituting doctor is not available.

However, please note that "On the basis of health protection in Russia" - a framework law, it is impossible to prescribe all the details. Therefore accompanying federal laws (currently there are 44 of them) will follow. This will include only the basic, fundamental points, and details will be specified in the coming federal laws or in legal documents of the Government. "

Director of the Department of medical care for children and maternity services of the MoH Valentina Shirokova expressed the MoH position on many initiatives of the Church and assured the audience that all reasonable proposals that are not included in the basic law, will be covered in the relevant legal documents. Thus MoH will ban any physician initiative to abortion in its procedures for rendering obstetrical and gynecological care. MoH order will introduce an obligatory preliminary ultrasound visualization of fetal heart beat for a woman performing an abortion. This order will require mandatory interviews of a woman with a psychologist and a social worker during the "period of silence." In addition, the Government plan to reduce the list of social indications for abortion.

Employee of the Synodal Department for Youth Affairs Fr Dmitry Pershin, authorized at the meeting to voice the position of the ROC, insisted on deleting abortion from the mandatory health insurance: if the taxpayer is a staunch opponent of abortion, it is impossible to collect money from him and then apply for funding of this procedure . But, as noted in the discussion, such a rule would lead to an increase in private services and to abuse.

A number of initiatives has been fully supported by the meeting participants: limiting advertising of abortion, antichoice media campaign, creation a network of shelters for single mothers. However, these issues are not subject to the bill.

When the discussion touched the article, "Assisted reproductive technology", the chairman of the Duma Committee on Health, Olga Borzov stressed that the rule of surrogacy is not a novel of the bill: "The current law surrogacy enshrined in Articles 51 and 52 of the Family Code. And in the law "On the basis of health protection in the Russian Federation" surrogacy is included as a high technology. "

At the end of the meeting Olga Borzov thanked participants for their activity and commitment to dialogue and expressed confidence that the positions on many issues continue to converge and the working group will continue its work.

September 20, 2011 Duma Administration of Public Media Relations

Norwegian shooter social program

• ban on contraception
• no sex education
• ban on abortion
• no women education
• no multiculti

etc

resume:
back to pleasant medieval lifestyle
+ difficult to reveal a discrepancy from Russian Orthodox Church doctrine

upg = Anastas Vangeli: The Norway atrocities as a turning point July 30, 2011

Svetlana Medvedeva, isn't she?

source