The vaccine, two years on

Yes, I took the COVID-19 vaccine. Three shots of the Pfizer formulation, in fact. I’m as fully-vaccinated as the any abundantly-cautious person could wish, after having grave misgivings when the vaccine was first available. My biggest concern was the use of aborted children in vaccine development.

In the end, I found a statement from the American bishops persuasive, addressing moral considerations with Covid vaccines. It made two points, grossly oversimplified here (so I hope you’ll read their statement in full): 1) We need to push for ethical medical research and development, and using babies as research fodder isn’t ethical. 2) The circumstances of the current pandemic justify the use of the vaccines available, some of which are less objectionable than others.

I recall the release of Dignitas Personae by the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2008, when the papacy was held by Benedict XVI, now Pope Emeritus. He was not known as squishy on the right to life. The document included a statement on the use of vaccines using cell lines of “illicit origin:” “danger to the health of children could permit parents to use a vaccine which was developed using cell lines of illicit origin, while keeping in mind that everyone has the duty to make known their disagreement and to ask that their healthcare system make other types of vaccines available.”

I paid attention to the first part of that sentence when I first read it, without doing anything about the second. Now, on this platform that amounts to little more than a whisper, I’m catching up.

I want the CDC and everyone else concerned with vaccines to know I that I want an end to drug research and testing using cell lines originally derived from aborted children. Or you can call them aborted human fetuses, if “children” pains you.

“Too late,” I’m warned by some fellow Catholics, who think I’ve already cooperated with evil by accepting the Covid vaccine. As a back-pew Catholic with no formal training in moral theology, and in spite of some skepticism of authority, my decision was to get the vaccine because of what seemed at the beginning of the Covid pandemic to be unique urgency. Losing a friend to Covid was a factor. So was witnessing what the disease did to friends, both during the acute phase and in the weeks and months afterward.

What I did not find persuasive, then or now, were pleas from most medical professionals. I’ve spent too many decades listening to various health care providers’ opposition to pro-life public policies. I’ve listened to too many medical pros testify against conscience protections for colleagues who decline to participate in abortion. I’ve listened to physicians who serve in the legislature vote against protection for children who survive attempted abortion.

I’m hearing now about vaccine skepticism and about how members of this-or-that group are stubbornly refusing to get vaccinated. I hear about public service campaigns to reassure people about the relative safety of the vaccines as opposed to getting Covid.

I’ll never know the answer to this, but I have to wonder: how many people are skipping the vaccine because they don’t trust the medical profession? How much mistrust comes from seeing health care providers promote the direct intentional termination of human life?

Header image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Dueling rallies in Washington over Dobbs case

Cross-posted at Leaven for the Loaf.

While the Dobbs case was being argued at the U.S. Supreme Court on December 1, two rallies were taking place outside. I went to Washington for the day in order to stand with the people calling on the Court to overturn Roe v. Wade and its cousin Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Dobbs is about a Mississippi law setting a 15-week limit on abortions. May a state regulate abortion before viability? The Supreme Court might say yes or no. It might use the case to overrule Roe, or it might make a narrow ruling that OKs the Mississippi law while somehow keeping Roe and Casey in place. We’ll find out by the end of next June.

There were about two thousand people standing in front of the Supreme Court building on December 1, roughly evenly divided between pro-life and pro-Roe. A crowd-control fence divided the two groups, although there was plenty of peaceful passage back and forth. Capitol Police kept an eye on things.

New Wave Feminists at pro-life rally outside U.S. Supreme Court as Dobbs case is argued
at center: Destiny Herndon-De La Rosa of New Wave Feminists

It was a noisy gathering. Each side had about three hours worth of speakers, with mics and loudspeakers. There were chants and songs and shouts. Despite the sound system, I couldn’t make out many words on either side because of the ambient noise. Anyone following the live-streamed rallies remotely probably heard more speakers than I did.

It was worth listening later to a recording of Kathryn Jean Lopez’s speech. I recommend it. https://youtu.be/4ymvmIiaiO8

I met up with a group from Feminists for Life to pick up a sign. Just about every other pro-life group I’ve ever heard of, plus a few I hadn’t, was represented in the crowd. The diversity was great, as though speakers at the side rallies at the annual March for Life had been suddenly handed the keys to the main stage. The only thing we all had in common was a determination to move past Roe.

placard saying "Peace begins in the womb"
The sign I carried outside the Supreme Court, courtesy of Feminists for Life: Peace begins in the womb.

Ellen Kolb's avatarLeaven for the Loaf

While the Dobbs case was being argued at the U.S. Supreme Court on December 1, two rallies were taking place outside. I went to Washington for the day in order to stand with the people calling on the Court to overturn Roe v. Wade and its cousin Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Dobbs is about a Mississippi law setting a 15-week limit on abortions. May a state regulate abortion before viability? The Supreme Court might say yes or no. It might use the case to overrule Roe, or it might make a narrow ruling that OKs the Mississippi law while somehow keeping Roe and Casey in place. We’ll find out by the end of next June.

There were about two thousand people standing in front of the Supreme Court building on December 1, roughly evenly divided between pro-life and pro-Roe. A crowd-control fence divided the two groups, although there was…

View original post 209 more words

Spring on the Rail Trails

On a rail trail, spring is about the conditions, not the calendar.  Snow and ice give way to mud season. Before you know it, the trailsides are greening up, signaling a time for tuning up bikes and putting away boots. 

If winter kept you indoors, spring will nudge you outside. It’s tempting to get back to the trails and trailheads even when they’re muddy. The resulting ruts would be a problem down the line, though, so a little patience is in order while the mud recedes. Even the paved trails can be reluctant to give up their icy patches. Again, patience. Spring will win out.

Read the rest of the post, originally published for New Hampshire Rail Trails Coalition.