Abortion Foes Chafe at Bishop’s School Clinics Stance

In a new policy statement already under attack from anti-abortion activists, the Catholic Diocese of San Diego says it does not oppose school-based health clinics as long as they do not offer counseling or referrals for birth control or abortion.

Hard-line opponents of abortion and birth control say the statement, being mailed by the diocese today, is a significant weakening of the position held by the late Bishop Leo T. Maher. Maher stridently opposed setting up any health clinics in the San Diego Unified School District because of his fear that they would provide birth-control counseling, at the least, and abortion referrals, in the extreme.

And they fear that the new policy will make plans for a clinic at Hoover High School in East San Diego, already tentatively approved by city schools trustees, easier to put into effect. The opponents are not mollified by repeated statements from parents planning the Hoover clinic that they will not offer reproductive or family planning services.

Diocesan officials said Wednesday that the new statement is intended to show that Bishop Robert Brom is maintaining the same position held by his predecessor: that the church is maintaining its unquestioned opposition to health clinics that provide any sort of birth control or abortion counseling or referrals.

An assistant to Brom, the Rev. Steve Callahan, said the diocese will not actively support the establishment of health clinics. The church simply will not oppose clinics as long as they promise not to involve themselves with abortion or contraceptive counseling or referrals, he said.

The position, Callahan said, is consistent with a 1987 statement by the National Conference of U.S. Bishops.

But, in a marked departure from Maher’s style, Callahan conceded, Brom will not be as publicly forceful on the issue.

“This policy simply reaffirms the old one under Bishop Maher,” he insisted. “The only difference I see is that Bishop Maher would publicly oppose certain clinics that he would specifically name. Bishop Brom’s style is one where he doesn’t make public statements of opposition, personally. He says, ‘Here’s the church teaching on a given issue, and you draw your own conclusion.’ ”

Rosemary Johnston, director of the diocesan Office for Human Life and Development, said, “We don’t object to providing improved access to medical, dental and mental health counseling. . . . We can’t oppose a clinic as long as it doesn’t provide the kinds of services we object to.”

Johnston called Hoover High Principal Doris Alvarez this week to say that the diocese will not fight the clinic as long as it abstains from the family planning and abortion counseling and referrals.

“But we’re not outright supporting the clinic, because it’s not in our jurisdiction,” Johnston said.

Maher, in an unsuccessful effort to defeat preliminary approval by city schools trustees in April, 1989, for a clinic at Hoover, penned a letter in which he assailed the concept of school-based health clinics.

“The proposal at Hoover High is for a sex clinic,” Maher wrote. “Otherwise, all that need be done is to expand the staffing of the school nursing program and refer students in need of more extensive health services to area facilities off campus.

“Our public schools need to be about their primary objective, which is to provide a quality academic education, including the transmittal to students of our cultural and moral heritage.”

Hoover High Principal Alvarez said Wednesday that the planned clinic, whose health component will be operated by Children’s Hospital & Medical Center of San Diego, will not provide contraceptive and abortion referrals.

“The parent committee felt that those issues are so controversial, that they are not important enough to jeopardize the major issue of basic health needs that students have,” Alvarez said. “Those (reproductive) services are much more available to students on the outside than regular health services.”

Schools Supt. Tom Payzant said that he told Brom and a diocesan committee in a meeting last month that the issue of reproductive services is not relevant to the Hoover proposal.

But he emphasized Wednesday that the school adults have the responsibility to direct students to their church, family or public health agencies should they come to them “crying out for help” in dealing with a sexual-related problem.

It’s that type of issue that leads anti-abortion opponents to question Brom’s position.

Joan Patton, a member of La Jolla’s Mary Star of the Sea Catholic Church and president of the Right to Life Council for San Diego County, said she was angered by the policy.

“They’re claiming it’s the same old policy but, it absolutely isn’t,” she contended. “Bishop Maher understood you can’t trust these people, and now the diocese is saying they recognize the need for health care and, if the schools promise they won’t do those naughty things, they’ll support the clinics.

“I have an absolute problem with that. It’s got all the pro-life people in town up in arms,” she said. “Everybody’s for health care, but if you’re talking about doing it on school grounds, I’ve got a problem with that.”

She and others active in the issue argue that, if and when a health clinic is established on a school campus, absent the diocese’s opposition, it may well offer birth control or abortion counseling.

John Cavanaugh of Encinitas, another Catholic activist opposed to health clinics, said:

“Once the clinics get their foot in the door, it’s done. . . . This statement is in direct opposition to Bishop Maher’s statements. (Brom) has a right to his own opinion, but he’s not speaking for the Catholic and non-Catholic pro-life workers in the diocese. We will continue to fight these clinics with every resource available to us.”

The current policy statement is being issued this week by Johnston’s office at the request of church activists who wondered whether the diocese had changed its position on health clinics after Brom took over last year, Callahan said.

Callahan said early feedback from Catholic activists suggested some misunderstanding or misreading of the statement.

“The hearsay is that we’ve come out in support of health clinics, but that’s not what we’re saying. I’ve even had people tell me that we said in the statement that we are supporting specific clinics, and we’re not. We don’t even address that.

“The only thing I can figure is that they like Bishop Maher making public stands. They haven’t shifted in terms of understanding Bishop Brom’s style, which is for him not to take the limelight.”

Among those who applauded the policy was Brian Bennett, principal of Blessed Sacrament School in San Diego.

“I think it’s an absolutely wonderful response to the legitimate health needs of children who attend schools in the central city of San Diego,” Bennett said.

“Bishop Brom’s response is to the question of, if a school-based clinic did not the include the reproductive services that Bishop Maher condemned, would the diocese have an objection to it? No. And Bishop Maher’s position was that, if it did include those services, the diocese would object. They’re saying the same thing. There’s absolutely nothing contrary.

“The degree of emotional misinformation that’s been offered by people who have nothing to do with education or life in the central city is a real tragedy in this process. It prevents intelligent dialogue from occurring.”