‘It’s wrong’: Catholics testify on clinic issue
September 11th, 2013 By Valerie Schmalz
Protesters at Aug. 28 South San Francisco City Council meeting on a proposed Planned Parenthood clinic included All Souls pastor Father Agnel de Heredia
Photo: Valerie Schmalz Catholic San Francisco
Catholics crowded the South San Francisco City Council chambers to oppose a Planned Parenthood clinic, but even the impassioned speech of a 13-year-old St. Augustine parishioner did not sway the majority.
“People who know the truth will know this is really a death center in camouflage,” said Jeremy Perlas, 13.
“I pray you guys make the right decision,” said San Francisco State University student Vivian Abellana, former student body president of College of San Mateo, telling the council members at the Aug. 28 meeting “you know it is wrong.”
Following three hours of testimony, the city council voted 3-2 to uphold the planning commission decision granting the conditional use permit for a Planned Parenthood medical clinic at 435 Grand Ave.
A conditional use permit is required for building uses that are not directly addressed by the existing zoning regulations. South San Francisco zoning code requires a conditional use permit for a storefront medical clinic on that section of Grand Avenue, according to a staff report.
A group of four All Souls parishioners, also known as Respect Life South San Francisco, filed an appeal to the city council to overturn the May 2 planning commission approval. Their next step will be legal action to block the clinic, a petition for writ of mandate to be filed in San Mateo Superior Court by month’s end, said attorney Gregory Weiler.
Rosa Gomez, one of the four, said 220 letters, 2,513 signatures on petitions, and “many emails” were sent to the council.
“This is something objectionable to our residents,” All Souls pastor Father Agnel de Heredia told the council. “Do not vote for political expediency.”
“I believe the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion,” said Jaime Gonzalez, holding a picture of Our Lady of Guadalupe as he spoke.
“Ultimately, the taking of human life is unacceptable,” 45-year St. Veronica parishioner Mary Beaudry told the council. She was one of a several dozen Catholics from parishes in the city and surrounding area who spoke.
In contrast, two of the three councilmen who voted for the clinic cited their Catholic faith.
“While my Catholic upbringing does tell me the taking of a life in any form is wrong, and that resonates greatly within me,” Councilman Mark A. Addiego said, he accepted the city planners and city attorney’s argument that the permit should only address land use and not the effect of the storefront clinic on the neighborhood – including ongoing protests on the sidewalk outside the clinic.
Another medical facility in the city offers abortion to those who can pay, Addiego said: “I can’t stand in judgment of others.”
Councilman Richard Garbarino voted for the Planned Parenthood clinic. He said he had discussed the issue with his “confessor,” who told him, he related ‘You have to do what you’re going to do.’ “I have to uphold the law whether I like it or not,” said Garbarino, the only one of the five council members whose term continues past November.
“I won’t stand in judgment of people who choose to use their services,” Garbarino said. Also voting for the clinic was councilman Dr. Pradeep Gupta.
Voting for the appeal, Mayor Pedro Gonzalez said the clinic was not in accord with the general plan for the downtown area and he disagreed with the city’s waiver of an environmental impact report, a requirement of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Mayor pro tem Karyl Matsumoto, the second vote against the clinic, said she supported Planned Parenthood but did not want the clinic on Grand Avenue.
Shortcutting the environmental review was unlawful, Weiler said, adding “guards or cameras or crowd control or provide more parking spaces” were all items that needed to be analyzed.
Those testifying in opposition included members of All Souls, St. Veronica’s, St. Augustine, St. Bruno’s, and as far south as St. Gregory’s parish in San Mateo. A rabbi presented a letter in support of the clinic and an Episcopalian minister said her religion supported Planned Parenthood’s services for its outreach to the poor. Board members of Planned Parenthood and a handful of South San Francisco residents spoke in favor of the clinic, as did people from other parts of San Mateo County.
The All Souls parishioners who filed the appeal were Gomez, Vera Priego, Rolando Delgadillo and Teresita Valido.
From September 13, 2013 issue of Catholic San Francisco.
– See more at: http://www.catholic-sf.org/ns.php?newsid=22&id=61723#sthash.KETfXYkM.dpuf
Re-post from John Malloy’s blog
http://johnmalloysdb.blogspot.com/2013/09/catholic-city-councilmen-vote-to-allow.html
A Shepherd’s Voice
Obamacare = Publicly funded abortion. If you support the Health Plan you are supporting publicly funded abortion
Monday, September 2, 2013
Catholic City Councilmen Vote to Allow Planned Parenthood in South San Francisco
On August 28, the City Council of South San Francisco voted 3-2 to deny an appeal brought by local citizens Rosa Gomez, Rolando Delgadillo, Vera Priego, Teresita Valido and Respect Life South San Francisco. The appeal sought to overturn land-use rulings by both the South San Francisco Planning Commission and the South San Francisco Parking Place Commission which allowed Planned Parenthood to open a new location on Grand Avenue, South San Francisco’s main artery. The location will be one block away from All Souls Catholic Church and school. The pastor of All Souls, Fr. Agnel De Heredia, and All Souls school principal Vincent Riener had strongly opposed the opening.
The controversy, which had been going on since the projected opening was announced, has been well covered in local news outlets, as well as by national Catholic and pro-life publications. Although ostensibly a simple land-use issue, the real issue is whether or not to allow the nation’s largest abortion provider to open in South San Francisco. Three of the five members of the City Council who heard the appeal are Catholics. A June 30 Everything South City article quoted a local resident named Cynthia Marcopulos, who suggested that the Catholic members of the board and had a duty to recuse themselves from the vote, since support for Planned Parenthood is counter the Catholic faith: “Coming before the South San Francisco City Council for a vote on whether there can be a Planned Parenthood facility on Grand Avenue, our City Council has an inbred prejudice. Mayor Pedro Gonzalez’s wife is an active protester on the protest line against the Planned Parenthood facility, Councilman Mark Addiego works for Holy Cross Cemetery which is owned by the Catholic Church, and Councilman Richard Garbarino is active with St. Veronica’s Church. These council members must recuse themselves for their apparent and visible biases.”
Ms. Marcopulos concern turned out to have been exaggerated. When the vote was called, two of the three Catholics on the board, Mark Addiego, (identified in 2007 by Inside Bay Area as the Operations Manager at Holy Cross Cemetery), and Richard Garbarino “active with St. Veronica’s Church,” voted to deny the appeal, and thus to allow Planned Parenthood to open. The third Catholic, Pedro Gonzalez, joined by Councilwoman Karyl Matsumoto, voted against Planned Parenthood.
An attendee at the meeting and vote told us that “Mr. Garbarino said that after speaking with ‘his confessor,’ he had decided to vote to allow Planned Parenthood to open.” Our source’s recollection was confirmed by an August 28 post covering the vote on the Everything South City website. The post quoted council members giving their reasons for voting:
“(Richard) Garbarino: His ‘confessor’ said he must take his decision; he will not stand in judgment of those who use the services of Planned Parenthood. Although he has his own convictions, that this decision must be based on laws.”
“(Mark) Addeigo: Other facilities, as seen on El Camino Real that offer many of the same services to those with insurance. Personal opinions cannot weigh come into play (sic), including his own Catholic beliefs that maybe contrary to this.”
Planned Parenthood is the largest abortionist in the United States. The Catechism of the Catholic Church treats abortion in entries 2270-2273, which are part of the section unpacking the meaning of the Fifth Commandment “Thou Shall Not Kill.” Entry 2270 reads: “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.” Entry 2271 (in part): “Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.” Entry 2273 (in part) “The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined.”
After reading the Catechism, it is clear that a vote to allow Planned Parenthood into the city would have been impossible if the Catholic council members truly accepted Catholic teaching: that the unborn child is a human being; that it is defenseless; that abortion, the premeditated killing of a defenseless human being, is therefore murder. Considering the question solely as a “land-use” issue is absurd. That simply leads to the question of why “land use” issues are important. The answer is that “land use” affects the common good of society. And once one starts considering the common good of society, and drills down to its roots and first principles, one reaches the conclusion given by the Catechism: that legal abortion causes “the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined.”
One can see the councilmen’s dilemma. Do they execute a single law when by so doing they undermine the basis for law in general? That’s a lot of weight on the shoulders of councilmen in a small and obscure city, but that is the reality that legalized abortion has created. Do they resign? Do they follow the example of San Francisco’s then-mayor Gavin Newsom, who in 2004 defied the law and issued “marriage” licenses to same-sex couples? He picked the wrong side of the issue but he acted on his “convictions” and “beliefs” that the law he was defying was unjust. He drilled down to what he perceived to be first principles which then guided his actions. I’ve always maintained that as an executive and as a man his proper response would have been neither to defy the law, nor to execute what he considered to be an unjust law, but to resign. Of course he didn’t, but if what Mr. Addiego and Mr. Garbarino said in justifying their vote was honest, they were neither true to their convictions on a critically important issue, nor did they resign.
While it is not wrong to blame Addiego and Garbarino for their votes, it should be remembered that Catholic politicians far more prominent than the SSF city councilmen (Mario Cuomo, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy) have made similar decisions and worse over and over again. And the Catholic Bishops, with very few exceptions—Archbishop Naumann of Kansas City’s denial of communion to Kathleen Sebelius springs to mind—have not responded in a way that the gravity of legalized abortion demands.
Posted by A Shepherd’s Voice at 10:08 PM