February 2012 Archive

The recent controversy between the Catholic Church and the Obama Administration over the issue of contraception was seen by some as a conflict between freedom of conscience and the law which guarantees medical coverage to its citizens.

Jack Marshall in his Ethics Alarms blog entitled In The Catholic Institutions vs Obamacare Showdown, Law and Ethics Trump Morality…And Should sees this controversy as a “spectacular collision of law, morality and ethics.” For him the ethics is clear. “The free exercise of religion cannot include the right to ignore, disobey or be exempted from laws.”

That is true in a democratic and pluralistic society composed of more than one religion.

Michael P. Warsaw, the president and CEO of EWNT Global Catholic Network has a different opinion. He writes in an op-ed published by the New York Times on February 22, 2012 entitled “Contraception, Against Conscience,” that the compromise proposed by the Obama Administration to have the employer’s insurance carrier provide the coverage for contraception is unacceptable because, indirectly, the employer would be “facilitating access to drugs that go against our beliefs.” Furthermore, Mr. Warsaw contends that the fine that would be imposed on an institution for breaking the law is a form of coercion that that may run some institutions out of business. A lawsuit has been filed by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty to overturn what Mr. Warsaw called an “illegal mandate.”

There can be circumstances in which some laws are contrary to one’s conscience or convictions whether they stem from a religious belief of not. In a democratic society, there are some legal alternatives in resolving a conflict between our conscience and a law that one considers unjust or wrong.

• Becoming a conscientious objector is one option if war is the issue.
• There is also the option of civil disobedience which of course imposes a penalty, possibly jail time.
• Evidently, the most effective and least taxing way is to use the power of the ballot box to vote for representatives that share your views and that will repeal laws that you believe are objectionable.
• There could also be some practical steps one can take to distance ourselves from activities that would inevitably lead us into a conflict between our conscience and the law, such as choosing a profession or an industry that is more attune to our core beliefs.

I believe that what we should all remember is that, whatever our beliefs, we should always make sure that in defending and promoting them, we do not use coercion to impose those beliefs on others.

As Friedrich August von Hayek, the Austrian economist and philosopher once wrote:

“If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion.”

I read a tragic yet the inspiring story in yesterday’s sport section of the New York Times of Quanitta Undewood, a 27 year- old woman is, according to the article, America’s best hope for an Olympic boxing medal.

Last month she decided to tell the world her dramatic story. Since the age of 10 she had been sexually abused and raped along with her 12-year old sister by her own father.  The abuse and rape went on for three years. The sisters had not confided in each other but when they finally did they decided to reach out to their mother who had remarried many years prior and lived in another city. The mother immediately called the authorities who arrested the father. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to jail.

In the article she says:  “I can be an example. I am a survivor of child abuse, and I became strong and independent.”

According to Children’s Rights, a “national advocacy group working to reform failing child welfare systems on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of abused and neglected children who depend on them for protection and care,” there were 3.6 million reports of child maltreatment in the United States in 2009 involving more than six million children. (I am honored to serve on the board of that organization.)

Research performed by the US Government Accountability Office, in 2011, revealed that more than 5 children die every day of child abuse and 80% of them are under the age of 4. The estimated cost of child abuse in the U.S. is $124 billion a year.

G.R.A.C.E., an organization that fights the sex abuse of children in the Christian community says that studies have shown that 1 in 4 women and 1 in 10 men have been sexually abused as children. (I am on the board of that organization as well.)

The obvious question is how is it possible that for three years no one, not even their step-mother, found out what was happening to the two girls? How can we, as responsible individuals, if we have any suspicion of child abuse have the courage to report it?

Certain professions such as healthcare providers and lawyers are mandated by law to report abuse, most of us are not.  Why are we so reluctant to report crimes against children?

Let me list some of the possible reasons, although none are justified.

• We may be uncertain about whether there is abuse. Safe Horizon, the largest victims service agency in the U.S. says that we trust your instinct reminds us that suspected abuse is enough of a reason to contact the authorities, that we not need proof.
• We may be reluctant to meddle in other people’s lives but saving a life should surpass these considerations.
• We may be reluctant to “get involved” because of the fear of disruption in our already busy lives. Yet we don’t really have a choice if want to be “our brother’s (and sister’s) keeper.”

Quanitta created a foundation called “Living out the Dream.” She describes her dream below:

“One day, I’m going to have the kind of parents who take care of me and keep me safe.  One day, I will be able to sleep through the night without fear that the door knob will turn and the pain will begin.  One day, I’m going to be the “Queen of the Ring” and nobody will ever hurt me again.  One day, I won’t be 12 years old and feeling helpless; one day I’ll be strong and unstoppable.”

We can make such dreams possible for thousands of abused children by simply speaking up.

Let’s remember what Karen Adams once said:

“Child abuse does not go away but 90% of child abuse is preventable.”

The Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation is a highly reputable organization that has contributed in saving thousands of lives in its fight against breast cancer. Since its creation in 1982, it has invested approximately $2 billion for breast cancer research, education and screening. Charity Navigator has given the Foundation its highest rating of 4 stars for accountability and transparency.

The Foundation came under public fire last week when it was revealed that the Foundation had made the decision, back in October 2011, that it would no longer give grants to the Planned Parenthood organization.  Planned Parenthood used the Komen Foundation funding to provide breast cancer screening and education to thousands of women with low income.  However, Planned Parenthood also provides referral services to women who decide to have an abortion.  According to the New York Times, the decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood came because of strong pressure from Pro-Life groups including threats to disrupt the “Races for the Cure” events, although the funds granted to Planned Parenthood by the Komen Foundation were for breast cancer screening and not for abortion referrals.

Faced with public outrage, the Foundation reversed its decision not to support Planned Parenthood in the future.  Mr. Raffaelli, a member of the Board of the Komen Foundation said: “then with our decision (in October) we upset the pro-choice crowd. And now we are going to make the right-to-life crowd made all over again. How do we stop that?”

Finding the right answer to this question is going to be difficult because of the highly emotionally charged, political and divisive issue of abortion.

Jack Marshall, president of Pro-Ethics Ltd asks the pertinent question, in his Ethics Alarm blog post:

“How dare anyone condemn a charitable organization for pursuing its mission as it sees fit and is statutorily authorized to do, as long as it is not abusing its charter?”

We should first remember that receiving a grant is a privilege, not an entitlement.

Secondly, I believe that the Komen Foundation should have been left alone to support (or not) any organization they wish as long as it is in line with its mission to save lives.

We should all, whether at the corporate or at the individual level, have the courage of our convictions, whatever they are. There can be no compromise possible when dealing with our core fundamental values and we should do the best we can to resist pressure that would have us alter our conduct.

As Nicolas Chamfort, the 18^th Century French author and revolutionary once wrote:

“Conviction is the conscience of the mind.”