By Michael Hichborn

Every year, the Catholic Campaign for Human Development sponsors a nationwide appeal for the stated purpose of helping the impoverished. Publicity for the appeal is reminiscent of the 1980s Sally Struthers television spots showing poor children in far-off lands, in which she made pleas along the lines of “For the price of a cup of coffee a day, you can feed this little one.” But the fact is that the CCHD does not give one dime to organizations involved in direct service to the poor, such as soup kitchens or homeless shelters. Instead, it grants money to radical community organizers more interested in political lobbying, voter registration drives and ballot initiatives than buying groceries for starving families.

To hear the speech delivered by Bishop Roger Morin, the CCHD’s chairman, at the semi-annual USCCB meeting this week, one would think that such a claim is completely out of line and that any criticism of the CCHD or call to boycott its collection will somehow deny much needed blankets to homeless people who might freeze to death this winter. But the CCHD’s own funding criteria proves the point.

The CCHD has two grant programs: one for “community organizing” and another for “economic development.”

With regard to community organizing grants, the CCHD stipulates, “Organizations with primary focus on direct service (e.g., daycare centers, recreation programs, community centers, scholarships, subsidies, counseling programs, referral services, cultural enrichment programs, direct clinical services, emergency shelters and other services, refugee resettlement programs, etc.)” are not eligible for funding.

With regard to economic development grants, the CCHD stipulates, “[Economic Development Institutions] whose primary focus is direct service (e.g. job training, business consulting, financial literacy, savings programs, or homeownership education programs…)” are not eligible for funding. 

But aside from organizations the CCHD refuses to fund, its most egregious offense is its justification for funding organizations that directly violate Catholic moral and social teaching.
Last weekend, the CCHD issued a fact sheet titled “For the Record – The Truth about CCHD Funding.” This document presents “allegations” followed by the CCHD’s “facts.” Not only do these “facts” not address the fundamental problem we have been exposing, but in some cases, they directly conflict with truth. What follows is a point-by-point analysis of the CCHD’s fact sheet.

1. "ALLEGATION: CCHD persistently funds organizations closely associated with the
pro-abortion movement.”

Rather than address the allegation that CCHD grantees are closely associated with pro-abortion organizations, the CCHD merely points to its grant writing process, guidelines and funding criteria. It is well and good that it affirms the sanctity of human life and claims that “CCHD funds will not be used to support any application which is sponsored or promoted by an organization whose primary or substantial thrust in contrary to Catholic teaching,” but the fact remains that Catholic funds have been used and are still used to support such organizations.

Here is a perfect example of the CCHD ignoring its own policies. Under this allegation, it says,

CCHD funds will not be used to support any application which is sponsored or promoted by an organization whose primary or substantial thrust is contrary to Catholic teaching, even if the application itself is in accord with Catholic teaching. (emphasis added)

If that was the case, then not only should the organizations we have profiled on www.all.org/cchd be immediately defunded, but so should every organization that has ever received funding from pro-abortion organizations, been promoted by Planned Parenthood or been involved with Marxist socialism (as many grantees are).

Moving on to the second allegation:

2. “ALLEGATION: CCHD project funds are ‘fungible’: They free up monies for
organizations to spend on other activities at variance with Catholic teaching.”

The CCHD’s response to this allegation is inadequate and inaccurate. Rather than addressing the problems involved in donating money to an organization engaged in evil as well as good projects, the response focuses on funding procedures, guidelines and monitoring. But this doesn’t answer the concern about fungibility. Every organization has a general fund, and some of the money from the general fund goes toward the organization’s projects. If one project is well funded, then money in the general fund is freed up for other projects. This fact has nothing to do with whether or not the financing of a particular project is monitored.

Suppose Planned Parenthood launched a project to distribute free pregnancy tests to women. Would the CCHD consider this project worthy of funding?  According to the response the CCHD gives to this allegation, it appears that this might be acceptable, even though its response to the preceding allegation indicates otherwise.

The bottom line is this: There are organizations that are worthy and those that are unworthy of financial support from faithful Catholics. If an evil organization is running a good project, a faithful Catholic, in good conscience, cannot donate to that project for two reasons: 1) It lends credibility to the evil organization as a whole, while causing scandal to the laity; and 2) such a donation frees up the organization’s general fund for other projects, including the organization’s evil projects.

3. “ALLEGATION: The Catholic Campaign for Human Development does not fund direct service to the poor, and is therefore not worthy of designation as a Catholic charity.”
 
The CCHD response to this doesn’t even address the allegation itself; it simply affirms the charge, and though no organization’s names are mentioned, it justifies granting money to community organizing groups such as ACORN, which the CCHD defunded in 2008 due to “questions that arose about financial management, fiscal transparency and organizational accountability,” not because it was engaging in immoral activities.

With regard to these first three allegations, we did a little digging and discovered that the CCHD addressed the exact same allegations 12 years ago, using similar fact sheets. In the CCHD’s 1998 fact sheets, following these three general allegations are allegations concerning specific CCHD-funded groups whose activities were in direct conflict with Church teaching. Similarly, after it addresses the first three general allegations, the CCHD’s 2009 fact sheet addresses allegations concerning specific organizations it has recently funded.

These striking similarities between the CCHD’s 1998 and 2009 fact sheets are very telling, because they reveal that these problems have persisted for at least 12 years, were explained away in the exact same manner in 1998 as they are being explained away now and that the granting process in 2009 is just as flawed (or complicit) now as in 1998.

But in the CCHD’s 2009 fact sheet, perhaps the most outrageous statement is made in response to the following allegation:

ALLEGATION: The Catholic Campaign for Human Development funded LA CAN and the San Francisco Organizing Project, which promoted activity contrary to Church teaching.

FACT: The Archdiocese of Los Angeles has reviewed the activity of LA CAN and determined the organization does not engage in any activity contrary to Church teaching, and has recommended continued funding for the organization. The Archdiocese of San Francisco strongly supports the work of the San Francisco Organizing Project (SFOP) to expand access to health care to children. Both Archbishop Levada and Archbishop Niederauer have spoken at SFOP events; SFOP has met regularly with Archdiocesan staff to coordinate work on health care access and other issues that affect the poor and immigrant families.

This is an absolute indictment of the Los Angeles and San Francisco archdioceses for their complicity in supporting immoral organizations. What the LA archdiocese is telling us is that promoting homosexual “marriage,” contraception and family planning are activities not contrary to Church teaching! Click here for the proof.

And there is even less excuse for the Archdiocese of San Francisco, including Archbishops Levada and Niederauer. Given that they cleared SFOP for funding after a reinvestigation and, in fact, have admitted that they strongly support SFOP, have met with SFOP regularly and have spoken at its events, then obviously the archdiocese has found no fault with the fact that SFOP won a $200,000 grant for Mission Neighborhood Health Center, which offers free family planning (read contraception) counseling and emergency contraception for teens.

Of course, as is the CCHD’s general modus operandi, none of the rest of the “For the Record” document addresses the multitude of other problematic organizations receiving Catholic funds. So when Bishop Morin told his brother bishops at the USCCB’s semi-annual meeting this week, “We do not ever grant funds to any group that is specifically involved in any activity contrary to Church teaching,” he was making an indefensible false statement. Apparently, he believes (as the LA archdiocese seems to believe) that LA CAN’s promotion of homosexual marriage, the Chicago Workers Collaborative’s involvement in international Marxism, Voces de la Frontera’s promotion of GayNeighbor.org, Massachusetts Community Labor United’s membership in a coalition to expand access to condoms and the Southwest Organizing Project’s promotion of birth control through “comprehensive” sex education are all in line with Catholic moral teaching, or he is completely unaware of these organizations' activities, or he is lying. There is no other possibility.

Whatever the case, there is no way a faithful Catholic can, in good conscience, give a single penny to the CCHD collection this Sunday, November 22. Be sure to download American Life League’s “No thank you!” cards  to drop in the collection basket and tell the CCHD that you are instead donating to an authentically Catholic organization. For more information, visit www.all.org/cchd.
 

Michael Hichborn is American Life League's lead researcher on the Catholic Campaign for Human Development and host of the American Life League Report.  

Responses

The Bishops of America and Europe rejected "Humanae Vitae" in 1969. They never corrected that rejection. Many of our Bishops still fail to see that contraception is against God's Law. Some even fail to see that abortion does NOT "help" poor women. Because of that "blind spot" maybe they don't see that they ARE lying about what CCHD is funding. You can be sure I'll use my "NO- Thank You" card this Sunday.
Grace Harman | November 20, 2009

---

It will be interesting to see if Americn Life League be denied any indentification as a Catholic group. In much the same way as Notre Dame seemed dissident on the left with the Obama issue, so no ALL seems disident on the right over the CCHD issue.
I for one, trust the bishops on this one and I am sorry to see the position of ALL, I expected better.
Tony | November 20, 2009

---

Dear Tony, by saying you expected better from ALL, did you mean that there is somehow something better than the truth? Perhaps you have just never seen the evil of abortion, that it is straight from the pit of hell. That is the only way I could understand your statement that you will trust the bishops on this instead of the truth.
Mary Kuhns | November 20, 2009

---

I for one would count it pure joy if ALL is considered dissident for it's stand of the protection for women and their babies. ALL would be in the wonderful company of many, many saints.
Mary Kuhns | November 20, 2009

---

I have listened and read offerings from both sides of this discussion carefully. Thanks to all who have taken the time to post info online and broadcast on the radio.

Just as CCHD has placed "on hold" certain grants to questionable organizations, so will I place my donation to CCHD "on hold" until I am satisfied with the answers. I understand the dilemma of the Bishops, however, my number one priority is obedience to God.

This very much reminds me of the Susan G Komen foundation controversy when it was revealed that the foundation sent money to various pro-abortion groups.

This year, and until this gets cleared up, I will be increasing my donation to our urban soup kitchens.

We all have a duty to study all the facts and act as our well-formed conscience dictates.
Mary | November 20, 2009

---

The evidence is overwelming that CCHD needs serious improvement in their investigation process of those requesting grants. The American Bishop's response to the allegations was weak and unresponsive to most of the concerns raised.
Ken | November 20, 2009

---

In the aftermath of the Stupak flimflam on abortion funding, it would be a good idea to revisit the problem of inviting the Pelosi-Reid-Obama team into the hospital room. Lately, Congress seems to be full of people who zealously adhere to principles dictating life-and-death control over the vulnerable. Yet they appear to have no understanding of the principle that matters most in health care: upholding the dignity of the human person.

Anyone who saw the YouTube video of Rep. Bart Stupak (whose amendment enabled Pelosicare to pass), in which he admits that—win or lose on abortion funding—he would support an Obamacare bill, knows exactly what I mean. The “majority” means more to these politicians than whether or not taxpayers pay for murder—at least according to Stupak.

So what about the defenseless among us who are already born? What might be in store for the severely disabled, the terminally ill and the “better off dead”? Will decisions be made by an ethical medical professional or a bioethics panel? What should we expect if the Obama administration gets its way?

The stark difference between ethical decision making and applied bioethics could provide a hint.

Professor Dianne Irving explained in Crisis magazine,“Traditional medical ethics focuses on the physician’s duty to the individual patient, whose life and welfare are always sacrosanct. The focus of bioethics is fundamentally utilitarian, centered, like other utilitarian disciplines, around maximizing total human happiness.”

Bioethicist Arthur Caplan defines the role of the bioethicist as a “moral diagnostician.” However, Caplan defends Ezekiel Emanuel's approach to caring for the dying, telling reporters that Emanuel is an “outspoken critic of euthanasia” at the same time he attacks Governor Sarah Palin’s comments on the reality of “death panel” proposals in various health care reform bills.

It is troubling when a self-described moral diagnostician sides with an avowed supporter of allocating “scarce medical interventions.” Emanuel is on record opining, “For indivisible goods, benefiting people equally entails providing equal chances at the scarce intervention—equality of opportunity, rather than equal amounts of it” (page 6).

The Caplan/Emmanuel utilitarian approach confirms Irving’s definition. So let’s move on, because clearly it is the bioethicists, not the traditional medical ethicists, who are influencing Congress these days.

This is one of the primary reasons why direct government involvement in the extremely delicate question of defining who is dying versus who is not could be treacherous. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops walks a fine line in this area and has articulated the reasons why.
 
In a paper entitled “Killing the Pain, Not the Patient: Palliative Care vs. Assisted Suicide,” Richard M. Doerflinger and Carlos F. Gomez, M.D., Ph.D., discuss the use of morphine as a pain reliever and the question of “terminal sedation”:

Very rarely it may be necessary to induce sleep to relieve pain and other distress in the final stage of dying. Euthanasia advocates call this “terminal sedation,” but it is the same kind of sedation that is sometimes needed to calm distressed or restless patients with non-terminal conditions. While some terminally ill patients may die under such sedation, this is generally because they were imminently dying already.

In competent medical hands, sedation for imminently dying patients is a humane, appropriate and medically established approach to what is often called “intractable suffering.” It does not kill the patient, but it can make his or her suffering bearable. It may also allow a physician the time to re-assess a patient’s pain needs: The terminally ill sedated patient may later be withdrawn from the sedatives and brought back to consciousness, with his or her pain under control.

This may sound tricky, so what if a bioethics panel, approved under Obama-style “health care reform,” is making these decisions and recommending terminal sedation as a cost-saving measure? Who would you trust if the patient in that bed was a member of your immediate family?

As Wesley J. Smith articulated in his analysis of the health care situation in the United Kingdom, 

[T]he U.K.’s notorious rationing board, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), urged hospitals, nursing homes, and hospices to follow an end-of-life protocol known as the Liverpool Care Pathway. The Pathway’s guidelines instruct doctors to put patients thought to be near death into a drug-induced coma, after which all food and fluids, as well as medical treatments such as antibiotics, are withdrawn until death. …

Chillingly, current Obamacare plans call for the creation of many cost/benefit/best-practices boards, the full power of which won’t be fully known until the bureaucrats promulgate tens of thousands of pages of regulations between now and 2013, when the law would go into effect. Making matters more alarming, these boards would not only govern treatment provided in any public-option health plan, but would also be empowered to set the standards of care paid for by private insurance. Unless the final version of Obamacare is amended explicitly to prohibit such centralized health planning, don’t be surprised if an American version of the Liverpool Care Pathway comes soon to a hospital or nursing home near you.

Under Obamacare, cost-benefit ratios could become a bioethicist’s mantra. Actually, this is part of what bioethicists do: attempt to balance cost against compassion. Think about it.

Peter J. Smith (no relation to Wesley J. Smith) analyzed the reasons why “death panels” continue to be a major concern: 

[I]ncentivizing doctors to offer “end-of-life planning consultations” could lead to senior citizens, the terminally ill, or disabled, being pressured into accepting lower quality care from a doctor who figures he can receive higher reimbursement rates for talking with a patient about when or how he can refuse treatment.

Indeed, as American Life League documented recently, section 240 of the Pelosicare bill (page 130) contains the sort of language that could easily be interpreted as a free pass to making life-and-death decisions.

It is noteworthy that when the editor of the American Journal of Bioethics, Summer Johnson, Ph.D., discussed Obamacare spending proposals, she devoted over half of her commentary to pointing fingers and tossing barbs.  She described the current U.S. health care system as “under-performing, over-priced, and inequitable,” whereas she had high praises for the notorious health care rationing programs of the United Kingdom and Canada.

Johnson also took a shot at Governor Palin (apparently fair game for everyone), saying, “I would happily put Harvard’s Atul Gawande MD and the National Institutes of Health’s Ezekiel Emanuel MD, PhD in a room with former Governor and vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin and let them duke it out over health reform any day and let the chips fall where they may. They have two MDs and one PhD on their side; she has rhetoric and a moose gun.”

Fortunately, there is a counterpoint to Johnson’s silliness. It was written by long-time traditional medical ethics expert Nancy Valko, a registered nurse.Unlike Johnson, Valko focused on actual statements from organizations for and against health care rationing, analyzing them fairly and expressing hope that common sense will soon emerge in the health care reform discussions. She makes it clear that some of the travesties in the various Obamacare proposals are already occurring and efficiently ending lives:

Today we have ethics committees developing futility guidelines to overrule patients and/or their families even when they want treatment continued. We have three states with legal assisted suicide. We have even non-brain dead organ donation policies (called non-heart beating organ donation or donation after cardiac death). Some ethicists even argue that we should drop the dead donor rule. 

We see living wills and other advance directives with check-offs for even basic medical care and for incapacitated conditions like being unable to regularly recognize relatives. We are willing to sacrifice living human beings at the earliest stages of development to fund research for cures for conditions like Parkinson’s rather than promote research on ethical and effective adult stem cell therapies.

So we should pay attention when Valko warns,

Death panels are not the overwrought fantasy of right-wing nut cases. Real “death panels” are already at work. They have been created by apathy, misplaced sympathy, a skewed view of tolerance and an inordinate fear of a less than perfect life. Death panels? In the famous words of the comic strip character Pogo, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

Let us not be complacent or fearful when it comes to expressing our concerns about Obamacare. We must not be intimidated into silence by those who label us as politically incorrect, ill-informed or crazy for daring to oppose it. Pelosi, Reid, Obama and their ilk want to drown out our voices as they aggressively promote the agenda that helps them make their way into that hospital room.

By their actions, these ideologues are literally telling America, “Trust us; we know what’s good for you. But please, don’t ask us for any facts to support our position and the policies we want to foist upon you with your own money.”

As I have told people with ever increasing frequency, the only reason our opposition wants to shout us down is that they have taken the indefensible position that they have the authority to choose who lives and who dies. These are the people who have trashed traditional medical ethics in favor of bioethics.

You decide: Will you entrust your life to congressional fiat or common sense? They are not synonymous.

Responses

"...maximizing total human happiness??? does not strike me as an illegitimate goal. Dealing with the reality of limited resources (because resources are always limited) is hard work that demands tough decisions. A Death Panel of no or very limited medical care already exists for millions of people just in this country. These are folks that never have the opportunity for treatment because they never even get a diagnosis until it is too late. Mother Teresa did not let her original hospice in Calcutta become a paen to technology, but spent the money raised to open hundreds more of those simple places. Just as the prolife community draws the line at life-creating acts such as fornication and IVF, so must we draw the line at life-sustaining acts that expend huge resources (hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars) while ignoring the many more that could be given life by inexpensive, effective care. Our duty goes beyond those that are already in the door to those that are outside, wanting.
Petra Spahr | November 19, 2009

---

What is particularly striking is that the government's current policies or their proposed future policies result in the same thing: the rationing of health care to those deemed "unworthy of life" or the direct imposition of death on those who are currently not actively dying.

Currently, the US Justice Dept, state Attorneys General, and local district attorneys all refuse to investigate and then prosecute the imposed deaths, i.e., medical killings of the vulnerable very elderly and severely disabled. They all turn a blind eye to the thousands of complaints they receive every year. There are patients in hospitals, nursing homes and hospices who are being denied fluids, often sedated and then die when their circulatory system collapses due to fluid volume deficit.

Rationing of health care is already happening based upon the biases of the physicians and hospital administrators involved. Futile care protocol committees ("ethics" committees) in hospitals already deny care to patients who have specifically said they want to be treated and do not wish to refuse care. In other words, the "ethics" being foisted upon the American public is a one-way street heading toward hastened death.

If rationing and denial of care is not fast enough, many patients are put into hospice where the "new hospice" agenda is implementted: imposed death through the "Third Way" method of killing. It's not assisted suicide, it's not euthanasia, it's the "pretty," peaceful-seeming death of imposed sleep/coma through the misuse of terminal sedation on patients who are not agitated and do not need to be sedated.
Ron Panzer, Pres. Hospice Patients Alliance | November 19, 2009

---

It's distressing when those who want government-controlled healthcare use Mother Teresa to try to defend their reasoning. I think we could do some fact checking and find that even if someone Mother Teresa was taking care of was in constant pain they would not have been given a lethal sedative to maximize "total human happiness", or to make room for someone else to use that hospital bed. Our duty even goes beyond "those that are ouside, wanting" to those MILLIONS waiting to be safely outside of the womb, the most dangerous place on earth.
Mary Kuhns | November 20, 2009

---

By Erik Whittington

As personhood advocates, it is critically important that we use the correct terminology to describe preborn babies, their mothers, the very act of abortion and even the facilities in which abortions are committed. It doesn’t matter if you are a full time pro-life advocate or a “normal” person who works, goes to school, takes care of your family, etc. We must all watch what we say in daily life—even in casual conversation.

So, the words we use are very powerful and can make the difference between life and death. You might be surprised to realize that even we pro-lifers often use terms and phrases that can be dehumanizing to the very people we are trying to save. That can cause confusion and can hamper our efforts to obtain recognition of the human rights of all human persons. As we educate the public and advocate for the rights of all human persons, born and preborn, we must seriously examine the language we use and make some changes, if necessary.

With that in mind, I am going to share with you this short list of terms and phrases that we should drop from our pro-life vocabulary:

1. Fetus, embryo—These terms are generally used by abortion supporters, but I also notice pro-lifers using these terms often. Fetus and embryo are actually terms referring to stages of development. Their use begs the question, which animal species, during its embryonic or fetal development, are you referring to? For human beings, embryo describes human development from the very beginning of a human being’s life through their eighth week of development. Fetus describes a human being’s biological development from the beginning of their ninth week of development until birth. We should replace these terms with “human embryo,” “human fetus” or “human being during their embryonic (or fetal) development.”

2. Fertilized egg—This is a dehumanizing term used as a form of pro-abortion propaganda. It is not a legitimate term, since it isn’t scientifically accurate. Women don’t carry eggs; they have oocytes. Upon first contact of a human sperm and a human oocyte, a newly created human person now exists who is in his/her first embryonic stage of development. This term has become popular with abortion advocates these days, in response to the state personhood initiatives cropping up around the country. We need to correct this whenever we see or hear it. Use correct terminology in its place, such as “human embryo.”

3. Mistake, accident, unwanted, unplanned— These terms have very negative connotations and are very demeaning, especially for the child who happens to overhear some mention of the circumstances in which he or she came into being. Every child is wanted by someone and no one is an accident. God creates every single person with a special purpose in life. A positive-sounding term such as “surprise” should be used instead of terms or phrases that imply that God’s creation of a baby is an unfortunate event.

4. Pro-choice—This term was developed by a marketing firm employed by the abortion lobby before abortion became decriminalized on January 22, 1973. It has been and still is a very effective term, but is very misleading. It begs the question, what is the choice? The child has no choice when threatened with an abortionist’s suction device, knives and forceps. Replace this term with “pro-abortion” or “abortion advocate.”

5. Pregnant woman—This term takes the child out of the equation and can make pregnancy sound like a disease. Abortion is often referred to as “terminating a pregnancy.” Instead, use terms such as “mother,” “pregnant mom” or “expectant mother.”

6. Health clinic/abortion clinic—“Health” gives the impression that health is being restored to an individual. Similarly, “clinic” normally denotes a respectable, morally legitimate health care facility. Abortion is murder, not health care, so we should not dignify it with such terms. Replace such terms with “abortion business,” “abortion mill,” “abortion facility,” “abortion center” and so forth.

7. The abortion issue—Taxes are an issue. Paying for education is an issue. Abortion is not an issue; it’s a tragedy. Abortion is a violent crime that kills a human person and leaves his/her mother scarred for life. You can also replace issue with terms such as “question,” “matter,” etc.

8. It—A baby boy or baby girl is not an it. Yet that is how many of us refer to children in utero or even at the moment of their birth. I hear this so often: “It’s a (boy/girl)!” Instead, say, “He is a boy” or “She is a girl” or “My/our/their/his/her/the baby is a (boy/girl).”

9. I’m going to be a ___!—This phrase usually ends with “mother,” “father,” “grandparent,” “aunt,” “uncle,” etc., But it’s inaccurate and dehumanizes the baby, because actually, it’s a done deal! The person speaking is already a mother (or father, grandparent, etc.). If you catch someone (or yourself) saying this, quickly correct it by reminding them (or yourself) that the child already exists, so they (or you) are already a mother (or father, grandparent, etc.).

This is in no way an exhaustive list. It has been compiled to get you thinking and to start a conversation that will hopefully result in pro-life advocates being more effective in changing minds and hearts, which will eventually result in legal recognition of human personhood for all, born and preborn. Let me know what you think!

Erik Whittington is director of Rock for Life, a project of American Life League. RFL is a network of bands, musicians, artists (over 800!) and their fans, who use their talents to provide life-affirming solutions to counter assaults on the right to life. RFL works to educate, activate, mobilize and unite pro-life youth to fight against the attacks made against the most innocent of all human beings. This commentary was originally published as a Rock for Life blog on November 4, 2009.

Responses

Please let Erika know how very helpful this article is!

I will work to improve my pro-life language as a result of reading this article and will pass this change in language on to others.
Laurie | November 18, 2009

---

Have always been partial to the term preborn emphiasized by the Chicago veterans speaking in their behalf: Conrad Wojnar and his sacrificial efforts in founding The Women's Centers, and his comrade prayer and protests Joe Scheilder and the Pro Life Action League. Preborn connoates the portential of being born while unborn connotes having been conceived but perhaps not being allowed to be born.
Tee More | November 18, 2009

---

A great article! I've made some of these suggested vocabulary changes already, but there are a few things listed here that I say/write that would be problematic.

The only one in these suggestions I would leave out is "expectant mother". It seems to be used often, at least in Canada, to mean "expecting a baby" when, in fact, the baby is already there in the womb. Other than that one I really like all of the suggestions.

Thank you so much! God bless.
Deborah Morlani | November 18, 2009

---

Great List!

How about changing 'abortion mill' to 'baby aborting mill".

Take care,

J
John | November 18, 2009

---

Judie, First of all, a huge thank-you for all you do to promote the value, dignity, and sanctity of all human life. Keep up the wonderful work.

I appreciate your article entitled "WORDS AND PHRASES TO DROP FROM OUR PRO-LIFE VOCABULARY". For years I've been a stickler for using accurate wording in our conversations about such critical topics. I cringe when I hear an abortuary dignified with a term like "Clinic". Many of the other phrases and terms you mention are in the same category. I appreciate you even pointing out a few that I have misused on occasion so that I can correct my own language. With all of that said, I do think you might reconsider #8.

I understand your intention, and I agree that once the sex of a person is known, it is appropriate to use a pronoun that identifies the sex of the person such as he, she, him, her, his or hers. However, when the sex of the person is unknown or even if it is insignificant in a particular context, at any age, "it" is an appropriate pronoun and should not be construed as dehumanizing when used in such a context.

While it's possible to have a conversation without using any pronouns, such a conversation quickly gets tedious. It's annoying to have a conversation with someone who repeatedly says "he or she" when "it" would suffice. There is nothing unreasonable about asking "Is 'it' a boy or girl?" Even in asking the question, I am acknowledging that there are only two possibilities, both of which are human, and I am indicating that I desire more info so that I can refer to him or her more accurately as 'he' or 'she' in the future. I know I could phrase the question as "Are you having a boy or girl?" or several other ways, but I think it's overkill (no pun intended) to try to say that 'it' is never correctly applied to a person. Even when I am referring to an adult, I may not know the sex of the person or it may be irrelevant in a given context. For example, in response to "Who called?", I can answer "It was a telemarketer." or "It was Pat" without specifying "he" or she". Using the word 'it' appropriately to refer to a human person is not at all derogatory. I am an 'IT'. However, I am also a 'HE'. All 'HEs' are 'ITs', but not all 'ITs' are 'HEs' or SHEs'. The alternative to being an 'it' is to not exist or to not even be imagined. I am glad that I exist, and that I am a 'he'.

Check out the first and second definitions of the word 'it' at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/it

While you're there, look up the word 'gender' and you'll encounter one of my pet peeves along the same line. A person has a SEX, not a GENDER. SEX is either male or female and refers exclusively to living beings. Gender is appropriate in the right context, but it becomes an inaccurate dehumanizing euphemism as used commonly by people who are adverse to the word SEX. Don't ask a person's gender when you really want to know their sex.

Don't sweat the small stuff. Keep up the good work.

God Bless, David
David Hall | November 18, 2009

---

American Life League’s “faceless bureaucrat” ad, which will run this week in USA Today, clearly explains what’s wrong with the political posturing that is currently the rage in Washington D.C. Simple statements like these are far superior to the mumbo jumbo the United States Conferences of Catholic Bishops’  bureaucracy is dishing out at this week’s Catholic bishops’ meeting in Baltimore.

(Since you may not be able to read the wording in the above image, here is the text of the ad: 

Why are these people speaking for the Catholic bishops?

Payment for some abortions, euthanasia, “family planning services,” promiscuity-promoting sex education, and lack of consistent and comprehensive conscience protection guarantees—these are all provisions left untouched by the Stupak Amendment; yet the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops applauded it.

Without the USCCB’s involvement, the fatally flawed Pelosicare bill would have failed. While the small army of lawyers, staffers and lobbyists working for our Catholic bishops may deny these things, the facts speak for themselves. Consider what remains in the Pelosi health care bill after the Stupak Amendment’s passage: 

• Section 240 permits killing of the elderly and infirm.
• Sections 258 and 259 contain contradictory language regarding conscience protection.
• Section 265 (the Stupak Amendment) pays for some abortions.
• Section 304 explicitly forces insurers to cover abortion.
• Section 1714 funds groups such as Planned Parenthood.
• Section 2526 also funds groups such as Planned Parenthood, for providing sex education programs that “improve rates of contraceptive use.”

Where is the “victory” for the culture of life?

Does the USCCB’s apparent support for these provisions send a mixed message to faithful Catholics?  Yes!

This is what the Stupak Amendment allowed Speaker Nancy Pelosi to pass—a further entrenchment of the culture of death. This is what was done in the name of the Catholic bishops by the USCCB.

We are concerned. We hope you are too.

It’s time to stop the politics of the faceless bureaucrats. We encourage each of our Catholic bishops to ask why these bureaucrats are acting as their voice.

It’s not a question of political access; it’s a question of life and death.)

In this age of sound bites, no-spin zones and other telltale signs of words without meaning, it’s time for pro-life Americans of every age and state in life to be crystal-clear when it comes to addressing the personhood of every human being, at all stages, and the reasons why we dare not compromise on this principle.

To help in that process, we offer the following talking points on the Pelosi-Obama-shamelessly compromised-anti-some surgical abortions Stupak Amendment to H.R. 3962, the House version of the health care reform debacle, also known as Pelosicare.

Q: What is the Stupak Amendment?

The key provision of the Stupak Amendment is as follows:

SEC. 265. LIMITATION ON ABORTION FUNDING.

(a) IN GENERAL—No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.

What the Stupak Amendment specifically prohibits is abortion funding (with exceptions) for the public option within the Pelosi health care bill.

What the Stupak Amendment failed to prohibit are the remaining provisions for abortion, contraception, medical “care” that allows euthanasia, promiscuity-promoting sex education, “family planning services” provided by organizations such as Planned Parenthood, contradictory and inconsistent language regarding conscience protection and other loopholes still included in the bill.

Q: Would the Pelosi health care bill have passed if the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) had not intervened in the legislative process?

No. As widely reported in the media, the Stupak Amendment gave cover for approximately 40 supposedly pro-life representatives to seemingly support the pro-life cause while also supporting all of the Pelosi bill’s major components. Without the NRLC’s and USCCB’s lobbying efforts on behalf of the Stupak Amendment, it is altogether probable that the Pelosi health care bill would not have passed the House.

Had the Pelosi health care bill failed, none of the alarming provisions included in its current version would have been carried to the U.S. Senate. By enabling the passage of the Pelosi health care bill while failing to address most of the aggressive anti-life and downright life-threatening provisions it contains, the NRLC and the USCCB are, in fact, furthering the abortion and euthanasia agenda.

Q: What is anti-life about this bill?

Here are highlights of some of the anti-life provisions in the Pelosi health care bill, all of which were untouched by the last-minute Stupak deal brokered by the NRLC and the USCCB:

Section 240 permits euthanasia by withholding/withdrawal of medical treatment/medical care and/or nutrition/hydration, by redefining certain terms.

SEC. 240. DISSEMINATION OF ADVANCE CARE PLANNING INFORMATION. …

(d) PROHIBITION ON THE PROMOTION OF ASSISTED SUICIDE.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (3), information provided to meet the requirements of subsection (a)(2) shall not include advanced directives or other planning tools that list or describe as an option suicide, assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing, regardless of legality. [So far, so good, right? But keep reading!]

(2) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be construed to apply to or affect any option to—

(A) withhold or withdraw of medical treatment or medical care;
(B) withhold or withdraw of nutrition or hydration; …

Sections 258 and 259 contradict each other regarding conscience protection (reading section 259 first makes this clearer). Moreover, section 259 only addresses abortion. What about conscience protection for persons who object to contraception, sterilization, euthanasia or any other actions that violate their conscience?

SEC. 259. NONDISCRIMINATION ON ABORTION AND RESPECT FOR RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE.

(a) NONDISCRIMINATION.—A Federal agency or program, and any State or local government that receives Federal financial assistance under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), may not—

(1) subject any individual or institutional health care entity to discrimination; or
(2) require any health plan created or regulated under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) to subject any individual or institutional health care entity to discrimination, on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

This sounds like a clear guarantee of conscience protection for those who object to abortion. But what about the potential impact of Section 258, which stipulates that state and federal laws regarding conscience protection and requirements to provide abortion override anything in this bill? Therefore, this bill provides no ironclad conscience protection. In fact, you will see that section 304 violates the conscience rights of insurers.

SEC. 258. APPLICATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS REGARDING ABORTION.

(a) NO PREEMPTION OF STATE LAWS REGARDING ABORTION.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to preempt or otherwise have any effect on State laws regarding the prohibition of (or requirement of) coverage, funding, or procedural requirements on abortions, including parental notification or consent for the performance of an abortion on a minor.
(b) NO EFFECT ON FEDERAL LAWS REGARDING ABORTION.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to have any effect on Federal laws regarding—

(A) conscience protection;
(B) willingness or refusal to provide abortion; and
(C) discrimination on the basis of the willingness or refusal to provide, pay for, cover, or refer for abortion or to provide or participate in training to provide abortion.

Section 265 (the Stupak Amendment itself) provides exceptions that allow the killing of preborn children in several circumstances.

SEC. 265. LIMITATION ON ABORTION FUNDING

(a) In General.—No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.

Section 304 forces insurance firms to pay for abortion, which violates the conscience rights of pro-life insurance firms and pro-life insurance firm employees.

SEC. 304. CONTRACTS FOR THE OFFERING OF EXCHANGE-PARTICIPATING HEALTH BENEFITS PLANS. …

(d) NO DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF PROVISION OF ABORTION.—No Exchange participating health benefits plan may discriminate against any individual health care provider or health care facility because of its willingness or unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

Section 1714 provides “family planning services” through programs administered by state governments, which would, in turn, subsidize organizations that push contraception and abortion, such as Planned Parenthood.

SEC. 1714. STATE ELIGIBILITY OPTION FOR FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES….

… (a) STATE OPTION.—State plan approved under section 1902 may provide for making medical assistance available to an individual described in section 1902(hh) (relating to individuals who meet certain income eligibility standard) during a presumptive eligibility period. In the case of an individual described in section 1902(hh), such medical assistance shall be limited to family planning services and supplies described in 1905(a)(4)(C) and, at the State’s option, medical diagnosis and treatment services that are provided in conjunction with a family planning service in a family planning setting.

Section 2526 funds organizations such as Planned Parenthood for the provision of permissive sex education programs for minors.

SEC. 2526. HEALTHY TEEN INITIATIVE TO PREVENT TEEN PREGNANCY . …

(a) PROGRAM.—To the extent and in the amount of appropriations made in advance in appropriations Acts, the Secretary, acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shall establish a program consisting of making grants, in amounts determined under subsection (c), to each State that submits an application in accordance with subsection (d) for an evidence-based education program described in subsection (b).

(b) USE OF FUNDS.—Amounts received by a State under this section shall be used to conduct or support evidence-based education programs (directly or through grants or contracts to public or private nonprofit entities, including schools and community-based and faith-based organizations) to reduce teen pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases. …
(i) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term “evidence-based” means based on a model that has been found ….

(1) to delay initiation of sex;
(2) to decrease number of partners;
(3) to reduce teen pregnancy;
(4) to reduce sexually transmitted infection rate
(5) to improve rates of contraceptive use.

Q: What tactics did the NRLC and the USCCB use to help obtain the passage of the Pelosi health care bill?

Working in tandem, the NRLC threatened to include Stupak votes on congressional scorecards, and the USCCB made it possible for Catholic Democrats in the House to pay lip service to Church teaching on abortion while voting for a bill that violates Church teachings in several ways, including abortion.

Q: Was the Stupak Amendment a victory for the pro-life movement?

No! In fact, it hurt us by allowing several anti-life provisions to remain in the Pelosi bill and enabled it to move on to the U.S. Senate.

Q: Is opposing the Stupak Amendment divisive to the pro-life movement?

The NRLC has a long history of compromising where there need not be compromise and misleading millions of sincere pro-lifers into believing that abortion-accommodating strategies are necessary to combat abortion. The grassroots pro-life movement remains united; whether the NRLC remains united to the grassroots is debatable.

Q: Is this uncharitable?

Fifty-one million children have died during 36 years of pro-life leadership failures. Now that’s uncharitable! 

Responses

Hi,
Interesting question. I have a friend who attended a Catholic church in Naples Florida last week, and he said before the service, the priest said that the Catholic Bishops (I guess in this arch-diocese) had endorsed the Health Care bill, because there were provisions to prevent abortions being paid for with tax dollars, etc. He encouraged the parishoners to contact their Senators and Congressmen and ask them to vote FOR the health care bill.

#1, are the Catholic clergy really that stupid?
#2, what right do they have endorsing legislation?
#3, would the Vatican like to know they have some renegade priests and bishops who are disregarding their doctrine??
I am not Catholic, so don't have a dog in their race, but this health care bill is unconstitutional on its face. The priests have nerve endorsing something that is in violation of the Constitution.

cindy kucharski
Ft. Myers, Fl

cindy kucharski | November 16, 2009

---

You consistently hit the nail squarely on the head, Judie, with your outstanding Catholic commentary.

Keep up the good work for Christ and His Church.

It's up to driven laity like you to set the record straight in light of the confusion coming from those wearing miters!

This has all happened before in the history of the Church where the laity has stood up to be counted for salvation's sake. And it needs to happen again, given that those purporting to be Catholic are anything but in playing with a stacked deck in favor of the father-of-lies.

When it comes to the moral order, your website is an island of orthodoxy in a sea of heterodoxy!

Much thanks for providing a safe haven for those of us who are treading water in that aforementioned troubled sea!

Judie, I don't have to tell you that we're fighting a spiritual war manifested in the natural plane for the heart and soul of our country. There is no such thing as noncombatants in this war! We're all on the front lines now because eternity is at stake.

I have been watching a WWII documentary on the History Channel entitled WWII in HD. It has footage here-to-for unseen. Last night they showed what happened to our Marines on the hell-hole that was Tarawa Atoll.

As a Catholic Vietnam Era Navy Vet, I watched the suffering and deaths of our military to keep us free. Those brave men fought and died for an America worthy of God's blessing, not His condemnation! They gave the last full measure of devotion to keep the tyranny that now has America by the jugular from attack from without.

We are now fighting the toughest war that America has ever had to fight against the tyranny from within. We owe it to those brave Marines to do everything that we can so as to not render their sacrifices, and that of all those who have fought for America throughout her history, to have been in vain!

The Catholic Church, with the help of God, should be our main ally in this war, not a millstone around our necks, such has been the case far too often with the institutional Church's de facto support for the most anti-Catholic candidate to have ever run for the presidency.

The wheat needs to be separated from the chaff in that regard. God is good. He always lets us know who are real friends are, and who will betray us in a heartbeat, in this case, those who are Democrats before they're Catholic!

How sad that is given that the Democratic Party has embraced the totality of a culture-of-eternal-death condemned by Holy Mother Church!

But we have Jesus, Mary, Saint Joseph, and all of the Archangels, Angels and Saints on our side, the Church Triumphant in union with the Church Suffering to give inspiration to the Church Militant which we are NOT going to allow the devil to turn into the Church Wimp!

God bless you!
Gary L. Morella | November 17, 2009

---

Day after day goes by, and I haven't heard a peep from the USCCB or our priests regarding CCHD, or why the Bishops are supporting the abortion president's healthcare. I no longer look to them as beloved shepherds that guard and protect the least of us, but only leaders that I must pray for. I realize there are many things I don't know about why they aren't defending the unwanted unborn, but I still don't understand their silence. I'm reading former slave Frederick Douglass' book Narrative of the Life, and replacing his words regarding slavery with abortion, it is as though they are the same. He said these things, and I believe it to be true that whoever is silent is part of the problem. In fact, it seems to me that the women who have abortions out of distress are less guilty than those who sit in their offices and do nothing to help them. "Slavery with all its bloody paraphernalia is upheld by the church of the country. We want them to have the Methodists of Ireland speak to those of America, and say, 'While your hands are red with blood, while the thumb screws and gags and whips are wrapped up in the pontifical robes of your Church, we will have no fellowship with you, or acknowledge you as Christians. There are men who come here and preach, whose robes are yet red with blood, but these things should not be. Let these American Christians know their hands are too red to be grasped by Irishmen. Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, and Roman Catholics, stand forth to the world and delcare to the American Church, that until she puts away slavery, you can have no sympathy or fellowship with them.. In America Bibles and slave-holders go hand in hand. The Church and the slave prison stand together, and while you hear the chanting of psalms in one, you hear the clanking of chains in the other." And so it is in Mass, we sing joyful songs to the Lord, and at the same time I hear the silent screams of children being torn from their mothers wombs. "..What have you done! Listen: your brother's blood cries out to me from the soil!"
Genesis 4:10
Mary Kuhns | November 17, 2009

---

Judy,

Why is it so hard to believe that the USCCB staff is actually doing the work of the bishops? Do you have any evidence that the bishops actually disagree with what was done on the Stupak amendment?
charles | November 17, 2009

---

I support you in your pro-life efforts. However, they fall short! Why? Because ALL fails to come down on the Knights of Columbus as it does on other "church-related" organizations like the CCHD. Check the records: Senator Kennedy may still be on the rolls at his local K of C council. I resigned (refused to renew) in Dec 2007 and yet the K of C still sends me the Columbian magazine.
Kenneth Aydlott | November 17, 2009

---

Cindy

The Catholic Bishops are not stupid but they do rely on bureaucrats to provide accurate information, and in some cases, the information they receive is not what it should be. Further, there are some Bishops who prefer politics to principle. I have met some of them and though I find it tragic, we must remember that each of them, like each of us, is a fallen human being stained by original sin. We should pray for them but never cease to point out the facts.

#2 I recently heard one Bishop tell me personally that he was a Bishop, not a politician and then he immediately explained how he was involved with white house negotiations. So I cannot answer #2.

#3 The Holy Father must have a major headache with all this since he too has such individuals advising him. Truth sometimes simply escapes these people.

To my mind, Cindy, I think we should all be grateful to God for His gifts and continue to expect others to see facts instead of political agendas. Catholic or not, we sure have the ability to see the facts; so why do some of us fail?

Judie Brown
Judie Brown | November 18, 2009

---

I received our local Catholic paper yesterday and sure enough, it did have the article telling us to basically ignore all of the "allegations" and go ahead and donate this Sunday to CCHD. Yesterday I also received another request to help Priests For Life financially and all I can wonder is, why doesn't the Campaign for HUMAN DEVELOPMENT give money to Priests For Life? Why does the CCHD help people get jobs but doesn't help them to be born? During the elections this Catholic paper portrayed Obama as a fine choice to vote for, and I think even tried to make him look better than McCain. Bishop Morin's article with all of it's slick smooth wording reminds me of the "Catholic" voting guide by the Bishops. By the time you're finished reading it your mind could be so mushy that you don't even remember who the candidates are. From a simple little person without even a college education I will tell them how to write an understandable Catholic voting guide: Protect the babies still in their mother's wombs. If a candidate cannot promise to do that then do not vote for them. There. Sometimes people can be too "intelligent" for their own good. Again I have to thank you Judy for giving me a safe place to share my thoughts for life.
Mary Kuhns | November 20, 2009

---

Recently, a powerful letter from a grassroots Catholic pro-lifer, Gregory Gollnick, came to my personal attention. I reviewed what he opined in his letter and asked for his permission to share it in this commentary.

I have added information here and there to flesh out Gollnick’s message. By and large, however, he has really put into proper perspective the entire matter of how we have reached this crisis in America.

He wrote,

The abortion debate has been going on for many years now. Unfortunately, I believe the Catholic Church in America inadvertently had a great deal to do with setting the stage for the passing of Roe v. Wade/Doe v. Bolton and also has been guilty of actions that have made the repeal of this law so difficult.

When Pope Paul VI signed Humanae Vitae, the reaction by a great number of Catholic priests and theologians was signed protests that appeared in prominent newspapers the following day. 

Here it is incumbent upon me to add to Gollnick’s analysis, because of the fact that James Cardinal Stafford knows the facts about this firestorm from the inside. In his remarkable reflection on how the  dissent affected holy priests and the Church (“In 1968, something terrible happened in the Church”), Cardinal Stafford pulls no punches. One of the most powerful portions of his article concerns his own ecclesial superior at the time, Lawrence Cardinal Shehan, the sixth archbishop of Baltimore. As Cardinal Stafford relates it, Cardinal Shehan, in his memoirs, recalled,

[A]fter receiving the first news of the publication of the encyclical, the Rev. Charles E. Curran, instructor of moral theology of the Catholic University of America, flew back to Washington from the West where he had been staying. Late [on the afternoon of July 29], he and nine other professors of theology of the Catholic University met, by evident prearrangement, in Caldwell Hall to receive, again by prearrangement with the Washington Post, the encyclical, part by part, as it came from the press. The story further indicated that by nine o’clock that night, they had received the whole encyclical, had read it, had analyzed it, criticized it, and had composed their six-hundred-word “Statement of Dissent.”

Then they began that long series of telephone calls to “theologians” throughout the East, which went on, according to the Post, until 3:30 a.m., seeking authorization to attach their names as endorsers (signers was the term used) of the statement, although those to whom they had telephoned could not have had an opportunity to see either the encyclical or their statement. Meanwhile, they had arranged through one of the local television stations to have the statement broadcast that night.

…The first thing that we have to note about the whole performance is this: so far as I have been able to discern, never in the recorded history of the Church has a solemn proclamation of a pope been received by any group of Catholic people with so much disrespect and contempt.

In his article, Cardinal Stafford affirms Gollnick’s premise.

Gollnick continues,

I believe this sign of revolt by many in the American Church was one of the signals that paved the way for the passing of Roe v. Wade/Doe v. Bolton shortly afterwards. This catastrophic mistake was never acknowledged or regretted by the signers, with the exception of one lone voice who wrote to Father Tom Euteneuer, sharing his sorrow over what he had done. 

Later, the Catholic Church was involved in a sex scandal that went on for years before it was even acknowledged by Church authorities. Then, a painful and hurtful charade was carried on before our eyes that tried to minimize the massive extent of this scandal to the Church and deny the homosexual nature of the scandal, which was exposed in the bishops’ own report.  Over two billion dollars later, the pathetic attempt to deny the truth to the nation and to its own embarrassed laity has failed.

The result of this is that no amount of protest by the official Catholic Church will convince anyone, because the credibility the Church once had was completely destroyed. Still, many Catholics continue to protest against abortion and are the heart of the anti-abortion movement, even though they have the albatross of their Church’s scandal around their necks.

Since the practice of abortion has gone on for so long now, I believe a shift or change in some of the language we use might help to make points that will be useful at this time. I have included three points for your thoughts.

• Racism is one of the main results of abortion. In the United States, at least 30 to 40 percent of abortions are committed on Black babies. This is from a population that comprises 13 to 15 percent of the U.S. female population aged 15–44, and it means that the rate of abortion in the Black community is two to three times greater than its percentage of the population would suggest. Now President Obama has extended the reach of U.S. involvement in abortion to the entire world with one of his first acts upon becoming president. Africa is, of course, one of the prime targets. The irony is intense, as President Obama has become the most dangerous man in the world for the Black community.  
   
• Sexism is another of the most dangerous results of the abortion industry. Especially in the Far East, boys are preferred to girls as the child of choice. This is because of cultural preferences and governmental policies that intrude into the private decisions of families. As a result, there are tens of millions more babies in China and India that are male than female, and the countries either deny it is happening or say they can’t understand why this would occur. This male preference is starting to spread to other parts of the world, and the imbalance between living baby boys and living baby girls is growing. A science fiction book is begging to be written.
   
• Cruelty is becoming even more commonplace in the world. What could be crueler than murdering a helpless and innocent person in a place that should be the safest place in the world for a preborn baby, a mother’s womb? Yet the abortion clinics are readily available in Western cultures and are being promoted vigorously throughout the world by United Nations agencies and with U.S. money. And cruelty and horror slip into our world, in the culture and lives of all citizens, and people wonder why.

In closing, I ask where are the protests that one should expect from those organizations that seem to catch every word that has racist or sexist connotations? And what about the uproar caused by every incident of discrimination that occurs in the workplace or in public? I guess that murder doesn’t seem to measure up to these types of occurrences.

And why don’t people seem to notice the horror of over one million surgical abortions every year in the United States? I believe our capacity to judge ourselves as civilized people has been impaired by the concessions we have made to the truth and to our language, as we have tried to come to grips with the awful facts and implications of the regularization of abortion in our land. And we are not going to get better until the truth is recognized and abortion is acknowledged as the evil it is and banned once again, by an informed conscience, from our land.

Mr. Gollnick has written one of the most thought-provoking commentaries we have seen in quite some time. We hope it spurs you to rethink the status quo and challenge it daily. Each of us is putty in the hands of God, and each of us has the potential, with His grace, to make a difference. Mr. Gollnick did that for me today. What are his words going to inspire you to do?

Every human being’s life is precious, so let’s act like it, today and every day. Thank you, Mr. Gollnick!

Responses

Dear Judie and Mr. Gollnick,

Thank you for the history lesson and helping the pieces of the puzzle fit.

Being of Asian background, I can confirm that boys are preferential to girls. This is a dangerous way of thinking which helps to contribute to the slippery slope.

Humanae Vitae was one of the first encyclicals I have read only recently. How brilliant a writing and hard it must have been for Pope Paul VI to write it. Thank God he did. How sad to read the plot against the teachings of Humanae Vitae.

Keep shining the truth with God's grace.

Thank you,

Patty
Patty Palmquist | November 15, 2009

---

Mr. Gollnick exposes the backdrop for the Roe vs. Wade/Doe vs. Bolton decisions and the theater in which the actors played their roles to quell the power of the Catholic Church and open the way for murder in the womb. Is it too late to turn the culture around? I think that first we have to move the Church to speak out forcefully for the unborn. I'd like to see an order from Pope Benedict in union with the Cardinals and Bishops to proclaim the truth that God is the Creator of all human life and no one but God Himself can interfere in the creation or growth and development of each and every conception. This should be proclaimed from all the pulpits in the world. A directive should come from the top of the hierarchy to all members of the Church. Maybe we can petition the Holy Father to initiate such a proclamation. Those in high public office who dissent should face public excommunication. Even though the Church has lost face with the public scandal, we must trust in God to be with us as we endeavor to stop the killing of our precious unborn children. To this end, public rosaries should be held in every state, in every county, in every town. (The organization, America Needs Fatima, promotes this idea: www.ANF.org) This may seem like an outrageous, incredible idea. But just think . . . through the Immaculate Heart of Mary the U.S.S. R. crumbled. I believe that one day the "culture of death" will crumble as well. We are in a spiritual battle, as Judie reminds us in her column in Celebrate Life. Let us put on the "armor of God" in the spiritual sense and speak out boldly for the truth. Let us petition our bishops to write to the local churches. Let us get pro-life petitions at all Masses, including school Masses. Let us do all we can to bring about the end of the heinous evil of abortion.
Rosemary McNeill | November 16, 2009

---

Judy,

Thank you!

The events in 1968 at Catholic University of America remind me of Judas 2000 years ago. Here we go again.

The Holy Spirit wins!

Pat
Pat | November 16, 2009

---

I have been detailing the problematic nature of the Stupak Amendment, the politicization of killing the preborn, the architects of this compromise in so-called health care reform legislation and what it has done to undermine genuine pro-life principle. When I wrote “The Case of the Missing Moral Authority,”  facts regarding the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ bureaucrats calling the shots were presented. Like it or not, the facts are there. My subsequent commentary dealt with the National Right to Life Committee’s contribution to the current confusion.
 
But in case there is some doubt about what Stupak’s exception-filled, compromising language does to effectively continue the abortion status quo, I would like to give you a few examples of the status quo. The first is Texas abortionist Curtis Boyd: 

Now, the doctor has made a jarring admission. “Am I killing?” Boyd said. “Yes, I am. I know that.” Boyd said he is an ordained Baptist minister who has now turned Unitarian. He said he prays often. “I’ll ask that the spirit of this pregnancy be returned to God with love and understanding,” he said.

Note that this man is numb to the very idea of the preborn child as a person, describing him or her as “the spirit of this pregnancy.” What sort of man talks like that? A man who has, for more than 36 years, plied a trade that results in bloody death while he gets paid to do it and is protected by our nation’s laws. Boyd exemplifies the status quo.

Next, we have ex-policeman Bobby Cutts in Ohio, who was convicted of a double murder last year after he brutally murdered his nine-months-pregnant girlfriend. This man aborted two people out of his life, just as Boyd aborts a single human being. The difference is that Cutts was found guilty of a crime, but in a culture that condones some murder as acceptable, couldn’t we argue that escalating violence against born human beings is one of the inevitable by-products? In my view, we certainly could and Cutts is but one example.

Actions such as his and those of numerous others represent what happens when abortion and its progeny are defined in political terms: regulated but never condemned as the direct acts of violence that they are.

Violence exemplifies the status quo.

In a stunningly insightful commentary, Dr. Mark Hendrickson takes note of this trend as well. Citing the Ohio case as one of many, he opined,  

Apparently, this particular crime is not rare. One expert interviewed for the report I saw averred that homicide is the second-most common cause of death for pregnant women in America. …

The increasing incidence of men killing their pregnant lovers coincides over the last 36 years with abortion having received legal sanction as a legitimate form of birth control. Legalizing the killing of unwanted babies was our first repudiation of the principle of the sanctity of life, a rejection of God’s plan. “Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the Lord” (Isaiah, 66:9).

A next step after abortion on the slippery slope toward death is the killing of women bearing unwanted babies. (A quick aside here: The pro-abortion assertion that a fetus is just a growth inside a woman’s body, not a life, receives a strong rebuke when our laws treat the murder of a pregnant woman as a double homicide.)

Roughly coinciding with the period of legalized abortion has been the insidious error, propagated by pagan environmentalism, that there are too many people, that having children is irresponsible, that a human being is just another mouth to feed, rather than an intelligent, creative, productive being whose life can glorify the Creator of the universe. God’s first command to man—”be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis. 1:28)—was contradicted by green theologians who proclaimed procreation a sin against mother earth.

Also feeding an anti-life culture has been the common “baby boomer” desire to remain young and carefree for as long as possible. Raising kids is hard work and ties one down, right? True, but millions of us who have opted for parenthood have found raising children to be the greatest joy in this world. But the fact remains that many boomers have preferred consumption to investment, immediate gratification to long-term, greater rewards. We’d rather partake of the pleasures of this world (exotic vacations, fancy cars, luxury goods) than sacrifice some of our immediate wants for the long-run benefit of our familial and societal posterity.

Another powerful anti-life undertow was generated by the “sexual revolution.” For many, the Judeo-Christian concept of sex for procreation was eclipsed by the philosophy of sex as recreation. Procreation or recreation: Is sex about creating life or having fun? Is it about giving life and love, or is it about taking pleasure—a self-indulgence so devoid of love that in extreme cases it culminates in murder. Is it life-affirming or life-destroying?

To the extent that sex as fun has eclipsed sex for life, we have trivialized sex and devalued life. The result: Soaring divorce rates, the emotional trauma of broken families, and even men murdering their lovers and unborn children. Clearly, being “liberated” from traditional sexual mores isn’t as progressive—individually or socially—as the proponents of sexual “liberation” promised. …

Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of a more demoralized society and one riper for the loss of self-government than one in which men choose to kill their pregnant lovers and wives.

As is always the case with life’s great issues, the Bible provides the best guidance: “Lo, children are a heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward” (Psalm 127:3) and “choose life that both thou and thy seed may live” (Deuteronomy 30:19).

What Dr. Henderson describes are the ultimate consequences of maintaining the status quo, what eventually happens when political machinations replace the principle that no human being's human rights should be denied, including those of the most silent among us: the preborn.

When a woman wrote me yesterday and asked why it was that American Life League has been nearly a voice in the wilderness, decrying our peers’ shameful support for the Stupak Amendment, it took no time at all for me to reply,

Young pro-lifers, and that’s most of our staff and supporters, are simply sick of being told to wait to end abortion, wait for the right time to fight for human rights. They want personhood now. To them, the personhood movement is a positive; it’s about fulfilling John Paul II’s dream of a culture of life. They’ve grown up hearing about abortion, birth control, embryonic stem cell research, etc., and that can be so overwhelming. But personhood ignites their passion by cutting at the very root of all of these offenses against the dignity of the human person, using the positive sword of truth: Every human being is a human person, from the beginning of their biological development.

So many in the older generation of the pro-life movement have succumbed to defeatism. We hear about “abortion neutrality” and “regulation of abortion.” The young people driving the personhood movement don’t see “abortion neutrality” as the goal. They see respect for the human rights of all human beings, from their biological beginning, as the goal.

The beauty of the personhood movement is that it is both a legislative and a cultural movement. Anyone who has had a serious debate about abortion knows that the issue isn’t whether the child in the womb is alive, but whether the child in the womb has the same intrinsic value as you or me.

... Personhood very simply recognizes that all human beings are persons and deserve equal protection under the law. It is, literally, the fulfillment of the civil rights movement.

There are several substantive actions pro-life Americans can take right now to assure that a final federal health care reform bill either respects the dignity of every human person—without exception—or dies in Congress due to its moral duplicity:

1.  Contact your Catholic bishop and ask him to get personally involved in further negotiations, rather than merely allowing USCCB bureaucrats to speak for him. You can find contact information for every Catholic bishop by clicking here.

2.  Contact the National Right to Life Committee and ask it to step away from Stupak-type compromises and press for personhood principles in health care reform: 

3.  Contact your members of Congress and inform each of them that you are not willing to compromise on a single human being’s right to life for the sake of reaching a consensus on health care reform. Explain that if they vote for such a deal, you will work for their defeat in the next election.

4.  Pray for the courage to defend what you know is right, regardless of the consequences. Take these profound words to heart:

Be constant in practicing every virtue and especially in imitating the patience of our dear Jesus, for this is the summit of pure love. Live in such a way that all may know that you bear outwardly as well as inwardly the image of Christ crucified, the model of all gentleness and mercy. For if a man is united inwardly with the Son of the living God, he also bears His likeness outwardly by his continual practice of heroic goodness, and especially through a patience reinforced by courage, which does not complain either secretly or in public. Conceal yourselves in Jesus crucified, and hope for nothing except that all men be thoroughly converted to His will. (Saint Paul of the Cross,1694–1775)

Responses

Thank you gentle lady for giving your good readers the links that allows us to voice our opinion on the health care reform bill, how it must respect the life of all, everyone from the very first moment of conception.
You Judie are truly a voice of one crying in the wilderness, you allow us by your work to join with one another and become the voice of those who have no voice.
I have contacted the bishops, I have expressed my concern to The National Right to Life Commettie and I have written to my govenmental reps.
I have also emailed everyone one on my email list and have encourage everyone to do as I have done on behalf of he unborn.
No one can do everything but everyone can do something, thank you so much Judie for all the information you provide for us.
Jimmy | November 15, 2009

---

The problematic nature of pandering to politicians with half-measures while announcing to pro-life troops that a victory has been achieved is not a new malady. It has been a relatively consistent pattern woven into National Right to Life Committee politics for many years now.  Having said that, the problem with what is currently being said about the Stupak Amendment to the Pelosicare bill is the most egregious I have seen in my 40 years of pro-life activism.

For starters, on Saturday, November 7, NRLC sent a letter to each member of Congress in which the following statement was made: 

“As NRLC’s congressional scorecard for the 111th Congress will clearly explain, a vote against the Stupak-Pitts Amendment only be construed as a position-defining vote in favor of establishing a federal government program that will directly fund abortion on demand, with federal funds, and a second federal program that will provide government subsidies to private insurance plans that cover abortion on demand. NRLC regards this as the most important House roll call on federal funding of abortion since the House last voted directly on the Hyde Amendment in 1997. If you do not wish to go on record in support of creating major new federal programs that will both fund abortions directly and subsidize private abortion coverage, please vote for the Stupak-Pitts Amendment. NRLC will regard a “present” vote as equivalent to a negative vote on the Stupak-Pitts Amendment.”

While it could appear that NRLC is threatening members of Congress with a bad score if they vote against the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, the fact is that the amendment itself is halfhearted and fraught with problems. And if one examines the actual text of H. R. 3962, the Pelosicare bill, one finds the following:
 

This should make it obvious to anyone with a heart for the principles upon which the pro-life movement was founded to see right through the smoke and mirrors that NRLC is now using to deflect criticism from its political misjudgment.

To make matters worse, as if they could get worse, Lifenews.com published an article entitled “Pro-Life Movement Must Unify After Strategy Difference on Stupak Abortion Amendment.” Its simply unbelievable observations, pitting Congressman John Shadegg of Arizona’s strategy against that of the Stupak supporters, defy logic. Steven Ertelt describes what Shadegg attempted to do to ensure the abominable Pelosicare bill’s failure and then defends the Stupak strategy, claiming that with or without the Stupak Amendment, the bill would have passed. Interesting how he defends the NRLC strategy as the only real game in town.

But the most troubling comments come toward the end of the article, where we find these Ertelt insights: 

The aftermath of the Stupak amendment vote hasn’t been pretty. I’ve read countless comments on Twitter and Facebook from pro-life people who are livid at one side or the other.

But attacking pro-life groups, lawmakers or people for supporting one strategy or the other is not productive. We have so many battles ahead that a divided pro-life movement only leads to losing the battles on abortion funding and stopping this pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia health care bill.

Even with Stupak added, every pro-life group admits that rationing and conscience issues remain and that the bill still has concerns or the pro-life movement. No pro-life group -- and even the bishops despite some mis-reporting in the mainstream media -- are supporting the House bill as approved.

Let’s cease the attacks on one another. This is only a strategic debate between people who wholeheartedly want to see abortion end immediately if not sooner and not a matter of one side or the other abandoning pro-life principles. We all want to get the ball in the end zone and some of us want to pass and some to run the ball.

There are too many unborn children and elderly and disabled at risk in the health care bill to let this one inning (excuse the mixed sports metaphors) define where we go as a pro-life community. There is an entire game to be played and adopting Stupak has riled and motivated the pro-abortion forces. Divided, they win, but united we can stop abortion funding and defeat this pro-abortion, pro-rationing bill.

Ertelt’s description of the pro-abortion forces is, of course, correct. NARAL Pro-Choice America has described the Stupak Amendment as “extreme anti-choice politics.” Of course it’s riled; not a single baby should be protected by law, according to its strategic plan. And it’s united with its fellow pro-deathers, including Planned Parenthood, which claims the Stupak Amendment is an “unacceptable addition to the health care reform bill that, if enacted, would result in women losing health benefits they have today.”

In fact, Planned Parenthood is so upset it even forgot to mention that if this bill passes, with or without the Stupak language, Planned Parenthood’s already-huge government subsidies will increase dramatically. Gee whiz! How could it have been so absentminded?

I hope my point has been made. Regardless of who is riled, who is playing politics with babies’ lives or who is running for cover as they try to make lemonade out of the lemons they’ve tossed at principle, nobody should be pleased at the prospect of government-run health care. In case we have forgotten, dear friends at NRLC, this is the very government that thirsts for the blood of the innocent in unimaginable quantities!

Obama supporters’ “health care reform” bills, regardless of their title or bill number, are so fatally flawed that wise pro-life strategists would have withheld any 11th-hour efforts, including the back-room meeting orchestrated by the USCCB and NRLC that led to the Stupak fiasco. The concerns that Ertelt now mentions about rationing and conscience protections were a concern before Stupak and still are. And, of course (though curiously absent from his analysis), increased funding for PP, abortive birth control and the like, which have been included in every version of this “health care reform” effort and are equally disquieting. All of these provisions should have been sufficient for pro-life activists of every stripe to simply walk away, continue to preach the full pro-life message and let the bill go down in flames.

Instead, we have this silly argument about how we all have to go along, now that the Stupak language is in the bill, and do our best, tra la, tra la, tra la la la.

Well, sorry, but I don’t buy it! When people fail to be honest in their interpretations of pro-life philosophy before a major political effort, what will they do afterward? Now we know. They will spin a tale, whether valid or not, about uniting forces and pressing on.

Agreed. Now that the water is over the dam and the damage is done, we all must do one simple thing! We must demand that the following be included in any health care reform proposal:

Respect for human personhood, respect for human personhood and respect for human personhood.

If this single principle were the cornerstone of reasonable health care reform—a reform based on justice for all—there would be no anti-life provisions in at all. As of this writing and regardless of which bill we read, none measure up to this standard, and thus all should be opposed.

But this is probably why American Life League does not get invited to those closed-door, 11th-hour meetings wherein some individuals negotiate away principle in order to rush out celebrating a fictitious success. Frankly, we at American Life League get on our knees and thank God that we are not invited to such events, as we would prefer to serve the best interest of the human person—who deserves equal protection under the law at all stages of life—rather than serve the special interests of Democrats and/or Republicans who are convinced that playing games with human lives is acceptable practice.

NRLC has exposed its agenda. While it’s surely no surprise, it is also deplorable. The good news is that this is not the final act in the “health care reform” drama.

So … now that the wayward have weighed in, the rest of us better get busy focusing on human personhood.

Responses

Dear Judy,

Thank you for pointing out what should have been obvious to everyone concerned about defending human lives. No matter how we look at it, the USCCB has supported letting some babies be killed. The lone fact of allowing for abortion in certain cases should have made the amendment unacceptable to the USCCB and to individual bishops who disappointingly published statements of support for the currently proposed health care legislation based on passage of the Stupak amendment. What will these men say when they meet in death the babies conceived by rape or incest, or those directly killed to save their mothers' lives? "We traded your lives for some others?" "It was a deal?" "We are powerless to do what is truely moral?" I suppose these shepherds believe compromise is truth, or a necessary falsehood, as if the ends justify the means. The bishops should instead just proclaim the word of God and teach the truth, informing the discussion, and not join in the dark politics of choosing whose lives are deemed necessary to sacrifice to Moloch. It is not unrealistic to stick to the truth. God's promise is to help those who are faithful to His commandments, those who do not believe the commandments need to be shed in tough times.
Diane Deely | November 11, 2009

---

Thank God for you Judie. The Church's pro-life efforts are so watered down as to be painful for those of us who will accept nothing short of personhood for all, as if the reality of abortion isn't painful enough. I will pray for you and ALL and ask that you pray for me also in this battle, where leaders like you are so few and far between.
Mary Kuhns | November 12, 2009

---

Catholics in the United States are faced with a terrible situation. Lacking enough political influence to block certain egregious evils, such as the legalized killing of the unborn (which, of course, is mass murder), we can launch an armed revolt to safeguard the lives of those children by overthrowing the government that permits such murder, or else we can attempt to save as many innocent lives as possible by reluctantly and painfully accepting flawed legislation under the current government. Since at least one of the essential preconditions for morally justifiable armed resistance to an oppressive state is absent at this time, we have no option but to tolerate inadequate legislation that merely discourages the legalized killing of unborn children without eradicating it. That missing precondition for revolt is a "well-founded hope of success": please see prerequisite #4 in section 2243 of the new catechism.

The American bishops and the National Right to Life Committee were acting well within the above moral framework when they decided to support the clearly inadequate Stupak-Pitts Amendment. Furthermore, in defending their prudential decision, they can appeal to the explicit guidance given by Pope John Paul II in section 73 of the encyclical *Evangelium vitae*:

"In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality.?? This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects."

If a terrorist who has threatened to kill ten hostages now offers to release nine of them, it is insane to say to him: "No, I refuse your offer until you free the tenth hostage!" Pending the conversion of our country to the Catholic Faith, we are all in such a hostage situation. That conversion, and the eventual establishment of a government that acknowledges the true religion and protects every innocent life without exception, are the ultimate answers to the horror of legalized abortion. This is why we must spread the Faith urgently.

Stephen M. O'Brien | November 12, 2009

---

Dear Judie,
I completely agree! But I guess what I would like to know is what specifically is out there that we can get behind in the lefislature that WILL keep us from spending one single penny on ANY abortions, abortifacient, IVF, etc.? Is there a single Congressman or Senaotr out there that has drawn up ANY thing that we can get behind?
Patti L. Bowman | November 12, 2009

---

I respectfully disagree with Mr. O'Brien's assertion that "pending the conversion of our country to the Catholic Faith we are all in such a hostage situation". Clearly, converting our country to the Catholic Faith would not ensure the protection of the unwanted unborn, as although Obama CLEARLY STATED his OPOSITION TO LIFE and SUPPORT FOR PLANNED PARENTHOOD before the election, a majority of "Catholics" voted him into office. I would say we need to FIRST convert "Catholics" to defending the unwanted. How many cars do we see in the Church parking lot at Mass with Obama stickers? This is unacceptable. Even if brave priests have to speak out and cause us to lose our tax exempt status then SO BE IT! Even if two-thirds of the parish quit going to Mass because they don't want to hear preaching on our duty to protect the unwanted, then SO BE IT! Few of us have protected the unwanted to the point of shedding blood. Taxes are just money. God will provide those that persevere with David's stone that slayed Goliath. My heart could just burst with thankfulness for Judie Brown and ALL.
Mary Kuhns | November 13, 2009

---

Patti

PERSONHOOD is the answer and there are now initiatives in at least 12 states that are viable, have organizational frameworks and are moving forward. Many other states are in the formative stages not to mention the efforts in Congress to promote the FEDERAL HUMAN PERSONHOOD AMENDMENT.

For details please email our expert, Johanna Dasteel at jdasteel@all.org

Judie Brown
Judie Brown | November 15, 2009

---