Observer should follow Church teachings
Letter to the Editor | Wednesday, September 10, 2003
The inaugural issue of The Observer provided incoming freshman with the following information: “The University Health Center does not prescribe birth control, but prescriptions can be filled at Planned Parenthood on 1818 Miami St. as another health resource.” We take issue with The Observer promoting contraception and the world’s largest abortion provider in direct opposition to the teaching of the Catholic Church.
The Observer’s position is that the paper has a duty to provide objective information to the student body, regardless of religious belief. That stance is appropriate when it comes to reporting the news. It is a different matter when the paper attempts to subvert a principled decision of the University.
The Catholic Church has always embraced sexual intercourse as the unitive and procreative act of a married couple. Thus, the Church opposes contraception because it frustrates these innate aspects of the sexual union. Notre Dame, in accordance with its Catholic mission, has made a conscientious decision not to offer contraception at the Health Center. In response, The Observer made an equally determined decision to provide students with information that will enable them to act in direct opposition to the moral goals of the University. Unlike advice concerning restaurants or auto repair, the use of contraception is a moral question and providing such information implies an editorial stance, regardless of the section in which it appears.
Furthermore, rather than reference the various medical facilities in South Bend, The Observer specifically provided Planned Parenthood with free publicity. Far from a mere “health resource,” the organization has a very specific agenda. Statistics show that for every pregnant woman who visits Planned Parenthood and decides to keep her child, 60 are persuaded to abort.
Women deserve better than the thinly veiled agenda of Planned Parenthood. And the Note Dame student body deserves better than a newspaper that willingly takes students’ money and the University’s aid and uses it to subvert the foundational mission of this great institution. The University should take an active role in assuring that the paper does not publish such immoral advice to 18 year old freshmen.
Law School Right to Life