The EWTN News portal reports on a study published in the Journal of the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine which claims that physicians rarely screen for abortion coercion, labeling this failure “medical negligence.” The article cites Michael New of the Charlotte Lozier Institute, “Fr.” Tadeusz Pacholczyk of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, and Kelsey Pritchard of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, all advocating for better screening, informed consent, and legislative remedies. This report manifests the profound theological bankruptcy of the conciliar “pro-life” establishment: it reduces the crime of deicide against the Image of God to a procedural failure of “medical negligence,” replaces the Kingship of Christ with the legislation of Caesar, and deploys invalid “clergy” to offer naturalistic counsel where the thunder of Divine Law is required.
The Naturalistic Reduction of Murder to “Medical Negligence”
The cited study frames the slaughter of the innocent not as a sin crying to heaven for vengeance (Gen 4:10), but as a “risk factor” for “negative mental health outcomes.” The authors—David C. Reardon, Dr. Martha W. Shuping, and Dr. Patricia K. Giebink—declare the failure to screen for coercion “medical negligence.” This language is the precise embodiment of the error condemned by Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors: “Moral laws do not stand in need of the divine sanction, and it is not at all necessary that human laws should be made conformable to the laws of nature and receive their power of binding from God” (Error 56). By adopting the forensic categories of the secular state—”negligence,” “informed consent,” “risk factors”—the neo-church “pro-life” movement implicitly concedes that abortion is primarily a medical procedure subject to regulation, rather than an intrinsic evil (malum in se) that destroys the very foundation of the social order.
The study’s focus on “coercion” as the “highest predictive risk factor” reveals a utilitarian anthropology. It suggests that if a woman freely chooses the murder of her child—absent coercion—the act becomes a manageable “healthcare decision” with acceptable risk profiles. This is the heresy of “choice” baptized in holy water. The Syllabus condemns the proposition that “The civil government… has a right to an indirect negative power over religious affairs” (Error 41); here, the “pro-life” industrial complex grants the civil government the power to define the morality of child-killing via “screening protocols” and “informed consent” forms. They have surrendered the jus divinum to the jus humanum.
The “Ethicist” of the Neo-Church: Invalid Ministry, Invalid Counsel
The article prominently features “Fr.” Tadeusz Pacholczyk, identified as a “senior ethicist at The National Catholic Bioethics Center.” From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, this title is a simulation. Ordained in the post-1968 rite of Paul VI (Montini)—a rite stripped of the sacrificial intent and the power to confect the Unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary—Pacholczyk possesses no sacramental priesthood, no jurisdiction, and no mission from Christ. He is a functionary of the conciliar sect, an entity which, since the usurpation of John XXIII (Roncalli), has erected the abomination of desolation in the holy place (Matt 24:15).
His counsel is telling: “The long list of bad mental, emotional, and health effects that regularly arise in the wake of an induced abortion should give pause… a candid discussion about the broad range of potential bad outcomes… provides an excellent starting point for dialoguing.” Note the vocabulary: “give pause,” “dialoguing,” “bad outcomes.” There is no mention of mortal sin, excommunication latae sententiae (Canon 2350, 1917 Code), the Fifth Commandment, or the judgment of God. This is the cult of man denounced by Pius XI in Quas Primas: “When God and Jesus Christ… were removed from laws and states and when authority was derived not from God but from men, the foundations of that authority were destroyed.” Pacholczyk offers psychology where theology is demanded; he offers “accompaniment” where conversion is required. His “pre-abortion counseling” is a placebo for the damned.
Informed Consent vs. Divine Law: The Heresy of “Choice”
Michael New of the Charlotte Lozier Institute praises the study as “methodologically strong” and draws the lesson that “coerced abortions are not uncommon… a substantial percentage of abortions are unwanted or are inconsistent with the values of the woman.” This rhetoric—”unwanted,” “inconsistent with values”—is the language of subjectivism and relativism, condemned by St. Pius X in Lamentabili Sane Exitu (Prop. 58: “Truth changes with man, because it develops with him, in him, and through him”). The objective reality—that abortion is the deliberate killing of a human person, an offense against the Majesty of God—is dissolved into the woman’s “values” and “preferences.”
Kelsey Pritchard of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America declares: “The abortion industry prioritizes profit — not women’s well-being, informed consent, or health.” While factually accurate regarding the demonic economy of the abortion mills, this critique remains trapped in the natural order. It seeks “informed consent”—a concept derived from liberal contract law—as the bulwark against murder. But no consent can legitimize the killing of the innocent. The Syllabus condemns: “Right consists in the material fact. All human duties are an empty word, and all human facts have the force of right” (Error 59). The “pro-life” movement, by demanding better “screening” and “consent forms,” implicitly accepts the framework that the will of the mother (properly informed) is the arbiter of the child’s right to life. This is parental sovereignty usurping Divine Sovereignty.
Legislative Salvationism: Caesar as Savior
The article concludes with the hope that “legislation to require medical professionals to screen for coercion may enable victims of coercion to sue abortion clinics.” Here lies the ultimate apostasy of the neo-church “pro-life” strategy: Statolatry. They look to the “State, as being the origin and source of all rights, endowed with a certain right not circumscribed by any limits” (Syllabus, Error 39) to solve the crisis. They petition the very Masonic state structures—”Democrats,” “mail-order abortion,” “pro-life laws”—that legalized the slaughter, to now regulate its “safety.”
Pius XI in Quas Primas teaches authoritatively: “Let rulers of states therefore not refuse public veneration and obedience to the reigning Christ… For what we wrote at the beginning of Our Pontificate about the diminishing authority of law and respect for power, the same can be applied to the present times: ‘When God and Jesus Christ… were removed from laws and states… the foundations of that authority were destroyed.'” The “pro-life” movement seeks to repair the foundations without the Cornerstone. They sue clinics for “negligence” while the Unbloody Sacrifice is profaned daily in the “parishes” of the neo-church down the street. They fight for “legislative victories” in a system condemned by Pope Pius IX as “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church” (Error 55)—a separation the neo-church hierarchy has practically ratified by its silence on the Social Kingship of Christ.
The “Pro-Life” Industrial Complex: Collaborators with the Antichurch
The entire ecosystem described—EWTN News, Charlotte Lozier Institute, National Catholic Bioethics Center, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America—constitutes the controlled opposition of the conciliar revolution. They are the Novus Ordo’s pressure valve, channeling Catholic indignation into harmless “policy advocacy,” “bioethics,” and “voter guides,” ensuring that the integral Catholic Faith—Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, the Social Kingship of Christ, the invalidity of the new rites, the sedevacancy of the Holy See—is never proclaimed.
The study’s authors call for “screening and informing women of their personal risk factors as required by ethical and legal standards.” Whose ethical standards? The Declaration of Helsinki? The Belmont Report? The Catechism of the “Catholic Church” (1992) which teaches religious liberty? There is one standard: the Law of God. The silence of the article on the reign of Christ the King, the necessity of the True Church, and the invalidity of the neo-church sacraments is not an omission; it is the modus operandi of the paramasonic structure occupying the Vatican. They offer “counseling” and “referrals” to women entering the abattoir, but they refuse to cry out: “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand” (Matt 4:17).
This article is not a defense of life; it is a testament to the death of the supernatural spirit in the structures of the counter-church. It proves that the “pro-life” label, in the hands of the conciliar sect, is merely a branding exercise for a naturalistic NGO seeking better regulations from the Beast.
Source:
Study: Doctors don’t screen for abortion coercion — and it hurts women (ewtnnews.com)
Date: 14.09.2026