The Not-So-Great British Influence
July 22, 2014

Many who refer to the British homeland call it Great Britain. But in various cultural ways, the country could be described as anything but great.

Just prior to Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to England in 2010, Edmund Adamus, the director of pastoral affairs for the Diocese of Westminster, said in an interview:

Whether we like it or not as British citizens and residents of this country—and whether we are even prepared as Catholics to accept this reality and all it implies—the fact is that historically, and continuing right now, Britain, and in particular London, has been and is the geopolitical epicenter of the culture of death. 

Our laws and lawmakers for over 50 years or more have been the most permissively anti-life and progressively anti-family and marriage, in essence one of the most anti-Catholic landscapes culturally speaking than even those places where Catholics suffer open persecution.

Following on the heels of the Adamus interview, Edward Pentin wrote a complete analysis of Britain’s involvement in sanctioning deadly acts against the innocent, stating

When it comes to core life issues, ones that concern the most weak and vulnerable, Britain has an enormous blind spot. Why this is so was neatly summed up by Robert Moynihan, publisher of Inside the Vatican, in a recent e-mail bulletin. “Great Britain is the home of utilitarianism, of a pragmatic, problem-solving, technological view of human affairs,” he wrote. Justice and generosity, he added, are “secondary” to “the main business” of life, which, in the utilitarian view, is business.

And, indeed, the rush toward abusing human beings continues to be problematic in that nation. Just this past week, the British House of Lords debated Lord Falconer’s assisted dying proposal—a bill that would allow “medical complicity in suicide.” Lord Falconer’s proposal is supported by various pro-euthanasia groups in England, and has the support of a growing number of prominent individuals as well. As of this past Friday, the bill has moved one step closer to passage. 

The New Law Journal analyzed the impact this proposed change in British law would have, pointing out, 

The sick, the terminally ill, and the disabled are invariably the first to be regarded as proper subjects for medically assisted suicide. The logic of active euthanasia endangers the vulnerable by inviting one of the gravest of crimes in law. The practice undermines the dignity of those who may indeed be a burden.

Once enshrined in law, the practice invariably involves a move towards the elimination of those who have not asked to be killed, those who are unwanted, those who are lonely and low-income (KNMG Dutch Physicians Guidelines, position paper, 23 June 2011), and those whose deaths offer some advantage to third parties controlling the process. It does so because it involves a radically altered mindset.

Clearly the drive toward assisted suicide, or as some accurately call it, medical homicide, seems to be picking up steam. 

Thankfully, disability rights activist Mark Pickup sees through this onslaught of legislative maneuvers in Britain, and in our nation as well. He recently wrote about Baroness Grey-Thompson’s vocal opposition to the Falconer proposal while reminding us once again that the ultimate question, regardless of which nation is addressing ways to legally protect killing, is “whether every life is equally valued and worthy of protection, nurture, and care even at the end of life.” 

The conflict in the not-so-great Great Britain is the very same one America faces again and again and again. In truth, the instant we decriminalized aborting a child in America 41 years ago our nation began the identical decline to that in Britain. The solution is the same—stop the legal killing of the innocent! 

In view of such calamitous challenges, we are obligated to press on. So let us pray for our British comrades in this struggle as well as pro-life soldiers the world over. Never surrender, never tire of teaching truth, and never stop thanking God for our commitment in these dire times and always.


Click the button to subscribe to the American Life League Podcast in iTunes.

Wireless Birth Control Is No Fantasy
July 18, 2014

Recent reports announcing the era of remote-control contraception herald the very real but slightly horrifying prospects for the future for those who believe that man can literally transform himself into a machine. This phenomenon is known as the cult of transhumanism.

One news report calls the remote dispensation of contraception “creepy.” Another explains how this may come to fruition: “A challenge from Bill Gates two years ago has put science on the cusp of a revolutionary, remote-controlled method of birth control.”

Technology Review says the wireless implant, if approved for safety and efficacy, could make it possible for a woman to turn her birth control on and off at will by using a remote-control device. The implanted chip contains the chemical levonorgestrel—the same ingredient in Plan B One-Step (emergency contraception). So a woman would literally be able to abort children by remote control.

CBS News states, “The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has committed funding to a preclinical trial on a user-controlled microchip that can effectively prevent unwanted pregnancies for up to 16 years. The futuristic birth control method could make it to the general market as early as 2018.”

Upon hearing of this latest Gates Foundation venture, Professor Dianne Irving sent this comment to her e-mail list on July 10:

Well, if Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” is accurate, then the majority of women today who succumb to this “remote contraceptive” lure for “family planning” being promoted by MIT will be rendered infertile, thus significantly reducing the number of such women in the future. Have to give Bill Gates “credit” for advancing this creative eugenics pop control agenda—especially for women in Third World countries. And while “chemical” control is bad enough, what happens when someone else gains physical access to the woman’s remote control??? Human traffickers and rejected former lovers rejoice!

This valuable insight should give each of us pause. The truth of the matter is that even among Catholic communities, there are growing numbers of men and women—young and old—who have never heard Catholic teaching on contraception, do not understand why the Church defines it as evil, and consistently balk at being told the truth. Catholics like these have no problem with the government mandating taxpayers like you and me to pay for contraception. 

This is but one reason why it may well come to pass that this latest freaky discovery may grow into something so popular that the negative effects it is destined to have will be noted too late. 

On the other hand, SALON’s Sarah Gray cautions that, as of today, 

There are, of course, large kinks to work out before this could become a viable contraceptive method (not including political battles over birth control). A commenter on MIT Technology Review worries about who could potentially control such a device without the woman’s consent. It is a rather scary prospect.

The chips would need all sorts of encryption to protect data and keep the device safe from hackers. As technology entwines itself more and more within the fabric of our being—quite literally in this case—we must tread carefully, especially in terms of health.

Time will tell whether or not the transition of the human being from human to a combination of human and machine will really overtake mankind. 

Transhumanists are prepared for this future. We must not forget these wise words written by Linda Kimball: 

Transhumanism is a powerfully influential planetary “elite” movement that believes man can begin a radical transfiguration of himself by merging his brain with technology with the long term goal of eventually transferring his “essence” out of his decaying body and into a highly advanced robo-machine.

Kimball concludes, “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’ All that are in Hell chose it.”

And that is absolutely no fantasy!


Click the button to subscribe to the American Life League Podcast in iTunes.

Modern Day Eugenics
July 15, 2014

Refresher course: What is eugenics

Eugenics is the study of methods to improve the human race by controlling reproduction. The word was coined in 1883 by Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin. Galton believed that the proper evolution of the human race was thwarted by philanthropic outreach to the poor: Misguided charity encouraged the “unfit” to bear more children. This upset the mechanism of natural selection. Hence, the human race needed a kind of artificial selection, which he called “eugenics,” from Greek for good birth. Galton wanted eugenics to develop from a science to a policy and finally into a religion.

A few years ago Wesley J. Smith reviewed a book by Christine Rosen entitled Preaching Eugenics: Religious Leaders and the American Eugenics Movement. Her book details how Galton’s desire to redefine eugenics as religion was not at all far-fetched. Smith writes: 

Many lay popularizers of eugenics also appealed to religious traditions to promote their agenda. The most notable, it seems, was Albert Edward Wiggam, who traveled the lecture circuit promoting eugenics as “the final program for the complete Christianization of mankind.” Wiggam even rewrote the Ten Commandments, in which “The Duty of Eugenics” replaced “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” The “Duty of Scientific Research” supplanted the proscription against making graven images, while the “Duty of Preferential Reproduction” replaced “Thou shalt not kill.”

Wiggam lived in the 1920s, so his proposed update of the Ten Commandments cannot really be viewed as ancient history. As a matter of fact, things are happening today to suggest that Wiggam’s dreams are coming true.

Let’s consider Australian Researcher Culum Brown, who wants to see human beings include fish in “our moral circle.” According to one report, his opinion is that fish “build complex structures, are capable of using tools, and use the same methods for keeping track of quantities as humans do.” He suggests that since fish are second only to mice for scientific research projects, something must change. 

Or, to paraphrase eugenicist Wiggam, man shalt not use fish in scientific research! 

The practice of in vitro fertilization can, in some ways, also be defined as the practice of eugenics. IVF expert Lord Winston recently warned, “Breakthroughs in IVF could ‘threaten our humanity’ by prompting parents to demand designer babies.” He further claimed in a recent interview that “a ‘toxic’ climate had been created by the desperation of childless couples and the pace of scientific developments in the booming IVF industry.”

In plain English, Winston is referring to the desire of some potential parents to ensure that their baby is a made-to-order version of their specific desires. This practice exemplifies a current-day version of purification of the human race. This is the practice of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). It is applied to preborn babies after IVF creation of embryos and prior to the clinician implanting them in the mother. Imperfect babies are discarded. These babies are nothing more than human waste.

As the article about Winston asserts, “The hugely controversial theory of eugenics suggests that humans can be improved by preventing people with supposedly undesirable qualities or genetic defects from reproducing.”

The same could be said about the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. “Melinda Gates and her partners, including the British government and the world’s largest abortion providers, have launched a $4 billion campaign to push birth control onto poor women in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.” 

And when did Gates announce this? At none other than the 100th anniversary of the London’s first International Eugenics Conference in 2012.

This is no coincidence! Eugenics is alive and well! 

For further reading on this issue, see http://www.truthandcharityforum.org/physician-assisted-suicide-from-dominion-over-human-procreation-to-the-right-to-die/.

<—Click the button to subscribe to the American Life League Podcast in iTunes.

Rushing the Innocent to Die
July 8, 2014

The British Medical Journal recently announced its support for Lord Falconer’s Assisted Dying Bill. The editorial, “It’s the Right Thing to Do, and Most People Want It” reasons that since society already accepts when people decide “to reject lifesaving treatments, if they have mental capacity, regardless of any effects their subsequent deaths may have on those they leave behind,” why not move forward and decriminalize assisted suicide as well? 

The article admits that there are doctors who have already voiced objections to being involved in a patient’s decision on this matter. But BMJ editors argue that, in the case of abortion, the Abortion Act has protected conscientious objection by physicians—and has done so for the past 50 years. The same protections are written into the Falconer proposal. 

According to BioEdge

The editorial was immediately disavowed by the publisher of the BMJ, the British Medical Association. Dr. Mark Porter, chairman of the BMA council, said: “There are strongly held views within the medical profession on both sides of this complex and emotive issue. ‘The BMA remains firmly opposed to legalizing assisted dying.’ This issue has been regularly debated at the BMA’s policy forming annual conference and recent calls for a change in the law have persistently been rejected.”

Fundamentally, one can see that from the perspective of the “freedom of choice” argument, which has been so successfully used by the pro-abortion movement, the logical conclusion must be that the same mentality will dictate acceptance of killing at the other end of the life spectrum. This is so even though the rational mind can observe that there is no logic in either the former or the latter.

In a related matter on this side of the pond, “The Medical Society of New Jersey said [on June 5] that the Practitioner’s Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (POLST) form should be given more time to be adopted by doctors, hospitals, and nursing homes before the legislature considers assisted-suicide bill.” This raised a concern voiced by disability rights advocate Ben Mattlin. Mattlin, himself a victor over extreme disability, wrote in the Los Angeles Times,  

I can’t help but feel a deep-seated distrust and dread over POLST and any assisted-suicide laws. I have lived all of my 51 years on the cusp of death because of a genetic neurological condition called spinal muscular atrophy. I have never been able to stand or walk, and I lost the use of my hands 16 years ago. I was not expected to live beyond my teens but am a Harvard graduate, a writer, a husband and the father of two. And with the help of a motorized wheelchair, a voice-recognition computer and attendants, I live a full life.

He argues with obvious credibility that physician orders written in advance cannot possibly “cover every real-world eventuality.” His opinion piece rings true with commonsense observations concluding, “POLST merely hastens uninformed decision-making based on fear, just as assisted suicide’s medically monitored poisoning is based on fear. Both have equally insufficient safeguards against coercion.” 

Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) are pieces of paper that can be used for good or for evil depending on three things:

Who is describing their use 

How fully informed about the possible consequences the patient and his family are 

What the intentions of the medical professionals in a given case are regarding respect for the dignity of the patient’s life

That’s just too many variables for anyone concerned with protecting the vulnerable from those who want to hurry the vulnerable to death. 

Supreme Court 'Burwell v. Hobby Lobby' Part II - True Freedom
July 4, 2014

The Burwell v. Holly Lobby Supreme Court decision was never about contraception, be it pre-implantation killing-chemicals or otherwise. The court did write about concerns voiced by Hobby Lobby on this matter, but it did not base its ruling on those concerns. 

What the decision did address—and the reason it should be studied—was the question of religious freedom. For now, we know this is protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA.) 

The pro-aborts screamed bloody murder that, in fact, that was the crux of the decision, but such fanaticism is expected from those quarters.

The New York Times reported, “The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that requiring family-owned corporations to pay for insurance coverage for contraception under the Affordable Care Act violated a federal law protecting religious freedom. . . . Lori Windham, a lawyer for Hobby Lobby, said, ‘The Supreme Court recognized that Americans do not lose their religious freedom when they run a family business.’”

Catholic News reported

“On the same day as the Hobby Lobby decision, the Eleventh Circuit protected religious ministries challenging the same government mandate,” said Lori Windham, senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the nonprofit, public-interest law firm that is defending EWTN in court.

“It’s time for the government to stop fighting ministries like EWTN and the Little Sisters of the Poor, and start respecting religious freedom.”

“EWTN joins the 80 percent of HHS legal challenges that have resulted in favorable rulings supporting religious freedom,” the Becket Fund noted, calling the injunction “a resounding victory for religious freedom.”

The question of religious freedom, then, is the basis for the Supreme Court decision in the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case. Yet on this weekend when we celebrate America’s Independence Day, the real meaning of freedom remains fragile at best.

Independence Day celebrates the United States’ freedom from tyranny. And the Declaration of Independence acknowledges the laws of nature and of God as being the foundation for a just nation’s survival. The document declares, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

But freedom from tyranny should not include the right to kill innocent persons because of their age, health, or condition of dependency. Such a circumstance is a contradiction, pure and simple. In fact, freedom of religion itself cannot truly be taken seriously when such a situation exists. 

Today, Americans live in a nation that defines heinous acts like abortion by chemical, medical, or surgical means as an honest interpretation of justice for all. 

Thus my caution is simply this: While some celebrate the Hobby Lobby decision, we must realize that far more than the religious freedom of Christian companies is at stake if true freedom is to be celebrated.

St. John Paul II said it best, “In the moral life the Christian’s royal service is also made evident and effective: With the help of grace, the more one obeys the new law of the Holy Spirit, the more one grows in the freedom to which he or she is called by the service of truth, charity and justice.”

Freedom begins in the service of Christ, not the state.