Having just returned from a 16-day tour of national parks in the western states, from Glacier  to Zion,  I was overwhelmed by a feeling of tranquility upon realizing that God’s handiwork undoubtedly outshines man’s foibles and fumbles, day in and day out. And then when I arrived in my office yesterday, what do I see but American Life League’s latest ALL Report: “Tiller, Terror and TV Tilt.” 

It’s painful to focus away from the majesty, wonder and serenity of Zion National Park toward a cultural decline that is clearly exacerbated by a bloodthirsty media that stops at nothing to make it appear that respect for life is the equivalent of being henchmen for Osama bin Laden!  Oh, I kid you not.

Within this five-minute-and-17-second ALL Report, you are going to see and hear images and language that belong in a trash bin, not in a civil discussion about the continuation of a “mainstream” cultural attitude that thrives on death and deception.

The establishment media has made a career out of doing all it can to downplay the effectiveness of pro-life activity, and as the video points out, it has done so at the expense of truth and civility. For example, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow used her June 5 television program  to report on American Life League’s Protest the Pill Day as an example of how pro-life Americans abuse language because we tell the truth about how the birth control pill works. She rants on and on about how events like this lead deranged criminals like Scott Roeder to gun down abortion doctors. Maddow does this with impunity while displaying an American Life League “The Pill Kills” sign, claiming that we should have cancelled Protest the Pill events across this nation because they were scheduled for the same day that George Tiller was laid to rest. Never mind that the events had been scheduled for months in advance.

A commentator such as Maddow, lacking any semblance of objectivity and with MSNBC cameras at her disposal, is not a good thing for life-affirming, compassionate pro-life Americans. However, as you watch our All Report, you will also note that Maddow is not alone in her vigilante attitude toward those who respect life.

We are reminded of the harsh words CNN’s Keith Olbermann had when talking about Jill Stanek and giving her the “wold;s worst person” award. And why did Mr. Olbermann suggest such a thing? Well, Stanek, who can defend herself with one arm tied behind her back, thank you, tells us the truth: 

 My award comes for supposedly making the supposedly last 2 late-term abortionists in the free world sitting ducks for Tiller copycat killers by posting their addresses and photos of their mills.
Never mind that I didn't actually post the addresses of LeRoy Carhart and Warren Hern… had I done so it would have been akin to posting the address of President Obama and being accused of making him a target for nutcases.

Libs, get a brain. These guys both advertise on the web. They want people to know where they operate, pardon the pun.

Lest you are still not curious about viewing American Life League’s remarkable news report, take a moment to consider this as the final straw that broke the arrogant, venomous camel’s back. In his blog, Alan Colmes, no respecter of factual evidence, wrote this about Jenn Giroux, one of the most adorable women in the pro-life movement,  under the title “Are groups that actively pursued Tiller culpable in his murder?”

Giroux, who runs ChargeTiller.com, spent two years pursuing criminal charges against Tiller, and referred to him as “Tiller the Killer,” and falsely charged that he performed illegal abortions. Giroux also accused Tiller of bribing government officials on a page that was taken down after his killing.

The accused assassin posted this on her site.

It seems as though what is happening in Kansas could be compared to the ‘lawlessness’ which is spoken of in the Bible,” it said. “Tiller is the concentration camp ‘Mengele’ of our day and needs to be stopped before he and those who protect him bring judgment upon our nation.

I’m not sure that you can claim causality when some whack-job does something insane. You never know just what sets people off.

This post by Colmes, a very well-known pro-abortion extremist, has never been corrected, annotated or in any way updated to reflect how Jenn actually explains the position of her organization, Women Influencing the Nation (WIN). She wrote this on the ChargeTiller.com web site itself:

WIN presented the petition of signatures and comments from ChargeTiller.com at Kansas legislative committee hearing on late term abortions in September 2007, which were entered into the record.

This website condemns the May 31, 2009, murder of George Tiller. Following is WIN’s public statement, released that same day:

"Women Influencing the Nation condemns all form of murder. The murder of George Tiller is in direct contradiction with the beliefs and morals embraced by those of us who believe that every life is precious in the eyes of God and no individual has the right to take the life of another. We encourage everyone to pray for the repose of Dr. Tiller's soul."

Due to the highly charged comments ChargeTiller.com began receiving upon the announcement of George Tiller’s tragic death, often profanity laden and menacing, WIN determined to disable the site for two weeks, until June 15, 2009.

ChargeTiller.com provides an excellent example of peaceful, law-abiding, respectful expression as ordained by our First Amendment. Citizens from across the nation continue to seek justice from their elected officials and law enforcement agencies to expose what happens inside the Tiller-owned Women’s Health Care Services as well as the devastating effects that his illegal practice had upon women and their families.

The site's primary focus has always been to return the rule of law to Kansas. We have yet to achieve that goal.

As someone who knows and admires Jenn Giroux, Jill Stanek and American Life League staffers, who work tirelessly to tell the truth and expose the fact that the act of abortion is a crime against humanity, and who unfailingly do so with total respect for our fellow human beings, I am grieved by such arrogance, but I am not at all surprised. We are dealing with absolute denial of evil in this nation today, and this is why the report that I have recommended to you is so important.

Yes, there are facts to back up the statements that the people such as Giroux, Stanek and “The Pill Kills” coordinator, Marie Hahnenberg, have made, and yes, abortion does exactly what we said it does. Preborn human beings with individual identities, who will never know the glory of hosting a television program or reaching millions with their voices, die by acts of abortion, be they chemical, medical or surgical. These people will never have the chance to become leading spokespeople for any cause or ideology … They are dead!

Preborn babies, not to mention all Americans, owe a debt of gratitude to these fine women and men who continue to fight on valiantly, even when the attack-dog media would love nothing better than to shut us all up by creating an image of terrorism where, in fact, there is a genuine image of Christ’s love for our fellow human beings. We are Christians; we are not perfect; but we do affirm the life of every human being.

Please watch the ALL Report and spread the word. We need the opportunity to get the facts out, and it really is up to us. For ALL Report host Michael Hichborn says, “In a world that believes violence is the answer to suffering, the only solution is promoting a culture of life.”

By Marion Amberg
 

Pro-life lawyers, doctors, politicians and journalists are crucial in the ongoing fight to halt abortion and other crimes against innocent human beings, but there is one weapon even mightier. And it’s a weapon that all of us—from first graders to great-grandpas—can carry: our rosary beads.

“When Our Lady appeared at Fatima, she told the children that wars will be stopped by praying the Rosary,” said Mary Therese Weyrich, 55, who helped found Cenacles of Life, a national Rosary campaign to end the culture of death. “We have a war going on against the innocents—the little babies in the womb, the handicapped and the elderly. If you go back in history, there have been tremendous victories when a nation fasts and prays the Rosary with the same intention.”

Vanquished by the Rosary

Just how powerful is the Rosary? It won the Battle of Lepanto in 1571! When Pope Saint Pius V learned the mighty Muslim navy was preparing to invade Italy, ultimately aiming to conquer Europe and annihilate the Christian faith, he asked Christians to pray the Rosary. Just before a decisive battle at sea, the winds shifted, and the ragtag Christian fleet decimated the much larger and more powerful Muslim fleet. The Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary on October 7 commemorates the very date that Our Lady’s intercession brought about the victory.

In more recent history, the Rosary is credited with saving Brazil, Portugal and Austria from the evils of Communism.

In early 1964, Brazil was within days of falling to Communism when the archbishop of Rio de Janeiro, Cardinal Jaime de Barros Camara, broadcast radio appeals for prayer and penance. “The response of Brazilians rose and rose until it culminated in a vast march of 600,000 Rosary-praying women in Sao Paulo on March 19,” according to Our Lady of Fatima’s Peace Plan from Heaven. On April 1, the Communists fled the country, many of them bound for Cuba. And when Communism came to power in Portugal in April 1974, a national Rosary crusade reportedly yielded pledges for a million Rosaries! About 18 months later, in November 1975, the Communist government relinquished control.

The battle of the beads in post-World War II Austria, however, was especially long and hard-fought. As they had done in Germany, the Allies divided Austria into four occupied zones, with the Soviet Union having jurisdiction over Lower Austria. Its oil fields, farming and factories made it the nation’s wealthiest area. The Austrians soon realized the Soviet Union had plans for a permanent takeover.

Recognizing the correlation between prayer and freedom, and between godlessness and war, Austrian priest Father Petrus Pavlicek, OFM Cap., launched the Crusade of Reparation of the Holy Rosary in 1947. Catholics flocked to the confessional, and by 1955, an estimated 500,000 Austrians—about 10 percent of the population—had pledged to pray the Rosary daily. Later that year, in the Marian month of May, the Soviet Union suddenly agreed to pull out. It’s reported that not one shot was fired!

Praying in His presence

If the Rosary can drive out Communism, it can end the abortion holocaust, said Mary Therese. She explained the two-fold meaning of Cenacles of Life: “First, a cenacle is a place, the Upper Room where Jesus gathered His disciples for the Last Supper. Second, a cenacle is a prayer group. A Cenacle of Life meets in a Catholic church, where Jesus is truly present in the Blessed Sacrament, and prays two Rosaries (10 mysteries).” Cenacle warriors also fast one day per week to convert the hearts and minds of anti-life Supreme Court justices, as well as other anti-life forces, so that “all may work for the protection of the unborn, elderly, sick and unwanted.”

“Prayer and fasting are the things that drive away Satan, and scripture says this in Mark 9:29,” explained the Reverend Andrew Apostoli, CFR, spiritual director for Cenacles of Life. He is also a popular speaker and author, and the vice-postulator of Archbishop Fulton Sheen’s cause for canonization. Father Apostoli related a disturbing story revealing that even Satanists employ spiritual principles (although for evil purposes): About 10 years ago, two of his fellow Franciscan Friars of the Renewal encountered a woman on an airplane who refused lunch because she was fasting to destroy Christian marriages.

“Jesus said the children of this world are more enlightened than the children of light, that they’re more dedicated to their causes,” Father Apostoli stated. “The Cenacles of Life are taking Mary’s message at Fatima—live a good Christian life, pray the Rosary daily and offer [spiritual] sacrifices for the conversion of sinners—and bringing that spiritual energy into this battle.” The Cenacles’ logo—a rosary leading to a monstrance inside a church—recalls Our Lady of Fatima’s first apparition on May 13, the Feast of Our Lady of the Blessed Sacrament.

Unstoppable graces

Founded in the spring of 2007, the Cenacles’ goal is to have at least one group praying and fasting in every U.S. diocese. “When that happens, the graces will be unstoppable to end abortion,” Mary Therese said emphatically. “We must have firm faith that the weapons heaven has given us will work!”

As of March, more than 113 Cenacle groups were meeting in 60 dioceses, which is almost one-third of the nation’s 195 archdioceses and dioceses. The holy war is being waged in basilicas, parish churches, a convent and even a nursing-home chapel. No town is too small for a Cenacle—Cass Lake, Minnesota, has a population of 833. On the other hand, Holy Child Church in Staten Island, New York, a parish with 4,800 registered families, storms heaven with seven Cenacles every week!

And when the world is thinking “Let’s party!” on Friday night, prayer warriors at Saint Rose of Lima Church in Paso Robles, California, are contemplating the special Cenacle meditations written for each mystery of the Rosary. As Jesus carries the Cross in the Fourth Sorrowful Mystery, the meditation asks, “Do we carry our cross so we can unite it with Jesus at Calvary? Or do we throw our cross down and claim sin is not sin? Do we seek the viewpoint of the world instead of the faith of the Lord’s?”

“It’s an unusual time to meet,” observed Mary Therese, about her home parish. “Most people do not think about going to church on Friday night, but we go because we want to! Can you imagine what Jesus endures watching His precious little innocent babies being killed—50 million since abortion was legalized in 1973?”

Unusual time or not, 87-year-old Mary Demaris wouldn’t skip a Cenacle at Saint Rose. Come rain or come heat, as long as Mary has life, she takes up her rosary weapon and begs heaven for the gift of life for all of the preborn and for spiritual renewal throughout America.

Practical wisdom for the battle

“The culture of death versus the culture of life is a spiritual battle,” continued Mary Therese, adding that political solutions alone won’t win the war. “If we do what the Blessed Mother asks—fast and pray the Rosary—we will be given the wisdom to do the practical in the legislative field, in the political field, in helping those in need.”

Mary Therese and her husband, David, who are the parents of eight and grandparents of six, are long-time advocates of pro-life causes. Through collaboration with the outdoor advertising industry and the generosity of the Florence Martin Campaign of Compassion, they have helped both Care Net and Heartbeat International (nationwide pregnancy support networks) erect thousands of pro-life billboards across the country. These billboards advertise Option Line, a 24/7 bilingual hotline (800-395-HELP) for pregnant women, and post-abortion women and men who need counseling or other help.

“It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness,” said Father Apostoli, about the horrific proliferation of abortion, infanticide and euthanasia bills rearing up in state and national legislatures. “If we just apathetically walk away, evil will continue to spread. God is not ignoring all the prayers and sacrifices that are being offered. When the Mother of God is ready to crush the head of the serpent, she’s going to crush it. It’s going to be a tremendous spiritual victory!”

For information on starting a Cenacle of Life, visit www.cenaclesoflife.org or write to Cenacles of Life, P.O. Box 7003, Paso Robles, CA 93447.

Marion Amberg is a freelance writer from Santa Fe, New Mexico. She frequently writes on topics of religious interest. This article was published in the May-June 2009 issue of Celebrate Life, American Life League's bimonthly magazine.

By Rev. Seamus Griesbach

(Father Griesbach delivered this homily at St. John’s Church in Bangor, Maine on Respect Life Sunday, October 5, 2008.)

I have been working on a homily for this Sunday, Respect Life Sunday, all week. And I wrote and wrote. After countless pages, I began to be overwhelmed by the task at hand, and it became clear to me that it’s just not possible to adequately address this subject in a homily.

First of all, this area of the Church’s teaching is very delicate because so many of us are affected by what John Paul II called a culture of death. Some of us have suffered the effects of abortion; some of us persist in using birth control or have undergone sterilization procedures. Some of us have watched loved ones suffer and prematurely recommended that they be put out of their misery. To speak flippantly about such matters would be foolish.

To make matters worse, many of the areas the Church’s teaching on life issues have become almost entirely politicized. Slogan slogging has become the norm. In taking a stance on a life issue during an election year, many could quickly jump to the conclusion that I am siding with one particular party or another. Politics quickly colors a discussion that should be about the truth of human life and human dignity, not about who is up in the polls.

And so I admit that it is tempting to flee into the celestial heights of religious hyperbole and give you some vague words about loving one another. But I cannot. As much as I cannot do justice to the Gospel of life placed before me, I must try.

The bitter fruits of rebellion

The readings [Isa.5: 1-7; Ps. 80: 9, 12, 13-14, 15-16, 19-20; Phil. 4:6-9; Matt.21:33-43] before us talk about what happens when a vineyard is taken over by forces opposed to God, when a culture refuses to serve the Author and Master of life, and tries to make itself its own master: Death. A society that is not grounded in a sovereign respect for God as the Author and Judge of all life dies.

John Paul II recognized that we live in a society that is faltering, that is losing its grounding. He writes,

 We are facing an enormous and dramatic clash between good and evil, death and life, the “culture of death” and the “culture of life.” We find ourselves not only “faced with” but necessarily “in the midst of” this conflict: we are all involved and we all share in it, with the inescapable responsibility of choosing to be unconditionally pro-life. (Evangelium Vitae [1995], section 28)

We are all aware, I think, that we live in decisive times. Everyone keeps saying it. We all know that something is not right. We look at the climate; we look at the war; we look at the economy; we look at the state of the family, the state of education and the drastic rise in mental illness. Something is not right. We know it.

But isn’t there the sense, deep down, that these problems are all symptoms of something larger? The truth is that we are dealing with a profound crisis of faith in the West. And because we no longer understand God, we no longer understand who we are. And that has led us to live in a way that is increasingly deadly.

The reality of our situation is stark: Until this culture comes to terms with its lack of faith, we will find no peace, no solace, no comfort and, ultimately, no life. Until we begin to believe once more that it is not in experts, not in big government, not in big corporations and not in our own private speculations that the answers to life’s biggest questions are found, but only here—in the Church of Jesus Christ, our Savior and Redeemer—we will flounder.

Wisdom and love

We seem to have forgotten that the Church exists for our salvation and for the salvation of the whole world. She does not exist to be a crutch, to make us feel better, to be nice or to appease us. She exists to save us, because without the saving mission of Christ in our midst, we will die. That is our faith.

Perhaps it seems to some that the Church’s teachings are in place to manipulate, to berate or to demean us. Far from it! Her teachings guide us along the way to salvation. They come from her wisdom and love for us, her dear children. You and I can try to pick and choose which things we might like to believe or not believe, which things appeal to us or don’t appeal to us. But we don’t do that with medical decisions; we don’t do that with investment decisions; we don’t even do that when we are trying to figure out what the weather will be like tomorrow. So why are we so willing to place our own judgment above that of the Church, who we know has been guided by the Holy Spirit so strongly that she has stood firm in her teaching for over 2,000 years? In life and death matters, we trust experts. Why don’t we trust the Church?

Pro-life from the inside out

The Church’s teaching on life is not simplistic or one-dimensional. Nor is it abstract. Rather, the Church teaches us a comprehensive way of life that will allow us to flourish as God’s children. And we shouldn’t be misguided; there is more to being pro-life than bumper stickers and posters.
The Church tells us, if you want to be truly pro-life, serve the lives of those around you. Turn off the television and the internet, and spend time with your children. Spend time serving your spouses. Show the members of your families how important their lives are to you.

And reach out to your neighbors, to those here at church and those who live in our community. Support young couples and families. Support those who have lost spouses and those who are living alone. Reach out to broken families, to teens who are in trouble. Go and meet them, and spend time with them. Let them know that you are open to the life that dwells within them, that you are a true servant of life.

There are all kinds of important legislative measures and political actions that must be undertaken in the defense of life. But let us not be misled. If we do not give ourselves over to the service of the life that God has placed right in front of us, we will have absolutely no credibility in the public square. We must be pro-life from the inside out. And that means that each day we must start by asking the Lord, “Lord, where do you want me to serve the life that you place before me today?” Because you never know who the Lord may put in front of you.

Thirty years ago, doctors told my mother that I was going to be born badly deformed: deaf, blind, mentally disabled. They recommended an abortion. I am glad that her mother convinced her to trust the Church, despite the fears and anxieties of her life at that time. Perhaps you can see why, for me, the Church’s insistence on proclaiming the Gospel of life is a matter of life and death.

Rev. Seamus Griesbach is a priest of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, Maine. He was ordained in 2007 and currently serves as a parochial vicar for the parishes of St. Gabriel, St. Mary, St. Matthew, St. John, St. Joseph and St. Teresa, in the greater Bangor area.  This article was published in the March–April 2009 issue of Celebrate Life, American Life League’s bimonthly publication.

Responses

I thank God for Fr. Griesbach. I am glad that his mother listened to her mother, also. I commend you, Judie, for persisting when the task can seem overwhelming. When we open ourselves to the life in front of us, the miraculous, wonderful life in front of us, we cannot help but fight for it.
David Volk | July 1, 2009

---

How eloquently he presents the pro-life message! How wonderful it would be if we all heard it regularly and so passionately!
VL | July 1, 2009

---

By Erik Whittington

When talking about post-abortion experiences, one hears a lot about women hurting from abortion. At pro-life events, women usually make up the majority of those holding “I Regret My Abortion”  signs. Occasionally, a middle-aged man testifies as to how abortion affected him and holds an “I Regret Lost Fatherhood” sign.

Rarely, however, do you hear from young men about how abortion has affected them. Statistically, 56 percent of women having abortions are in their twenties and 17 percent are teenagers, so it follows that roughly the same percentage (73 percent) of men involved in abortion are under 30 years old. Why don’t we hear their stories?

This year, at Ichthus Festival, (a huge Christian music event held June 10-13 in Wilmar, Kentucky), when two young men told me their stories, I got a very close look at this mostly unrecognized pain.

The first young man told me that his now-ex-girlfriend informed him that she was pregnant and getting an abortion. He pleaded with her to not kill their child. He told her he would take care of the child. He called lawyers, judges, politicians—anyone who would listen and might be able to help. All of them told him the same thing: You are a man and thus have no say in this matter. She went through with the abortion, and he was devastated! He told me, through tears, that he still has nightmares about his child being aborted.

The next day, another young man told me a similar story. His girlfriend had already made up her mind to abort when she first told him she was pregnant. He, too, had no say. He also cried as he told me about his nightmares and the year of depression, alcohol and drug abuse he endured after the abortion.  I was given the opportunity to record this young man’s testimony in audio form, which we featured in a recent Rock for Life Netcast. Young men are generally less prone to showing their emotions, especially to a complete stranger. Nonetheless, these two couldn’t hold back their sorrow over their lost fatherhood.  I was able to listen to both men and pray for their continued recovery.

The trauma both young men have experienced has fired them up about joining the pro-life movement. One of them asked about starting a Rock for Life chapter in his community. The other told me that as a college freshman, he started a campus pro-life club and would now like to associate it with Rock for Life. You can see God working in their lives as they work through their abortion experience and give of themselves at the same time.

Keeping in mind that we recently celebrated Father's Day, if you wonder why so many men seem disinterested in caring for their children … consider this: Maybe it’s because they have absolutely no voice in a life-or-death decision when those same kids are in the womb.

Don’t let the abortion advocates fool you! Abortion is not just "a women’s issue." Abortion deeply wounds men too—young and old. For more information on post-abortion healing for men, check out American Life League's Celebrate Life article "Men and abortion: Reclaiming lost fatherhood" (January–February 2009). 

Erik Whittington is director of Rock for Life, American Life League’s youth outreach, which educates, actives and equips young people to put an end to the culture of death. For more information, visit www.RockforLife.org. 

By Katie Walker

Who let Planned Parenthood speak for women?

I’m a 23-year-old woman and a product of my generation – a generation that, statistically speaking, supports the family, increasingly opposes abortion, gives and works for those less fortunate, and is willing to fight for human rights at home and abroad. We appear to be at the beginning of the anti-“me generation,” if you will. I like to think of us as Joan of Arcs with laptops. Make mine a Mac!

And judging from anecdotal evidence of women I see out and about (drum roll, please!), we increasingly like dresses. Was that a gasp I heard from the Gloria Steinem crowd? Calm down, ladies.

Now I consider myself a fairly normal, well-adjusted woman of my generation, so you can imagine my confusion when this commercial from Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion chain, began heating up the airwaves earlier this month in the Washington, D.C. area – where I live.“More than 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does is provide preventive and primary care to keep women healthy,” the soft voice-over tells me.

Primary, preventive care? Now isn’t that sweet of them? And all this time I thought Planned Parenthood was about abortion and contraception! Silly me.Let’s just mosey over to their 2007-2008 Annual Report, shall we? And we’ll read all about their primary "health care" for women of my generation.

Stop the presses!

According to their own data, primary care accounts for less than one percent of Planned Parenthood’s business—0.7 percent, to be exact. So much for truth in advertising. It appears the operative word here is “preventive.” So what are they preventing? Breast cancer, heart disease, maybe? Those two frightening killers of women? Hmmm … Not exactly.

Abortion accounts for one-third of Planned Parenthood’s clinic income of $374 million in 2008. Planned Parenthood saw 2,360,796 women for “contraceptive services” in 2008. To Planned Parenthood, “preventive” refers to prevention of both pregnancy and birth – and always has.

Margaret Sanger, in her 1915 book, What Every Girl Should Know, said this about motherhood: "I cannot refrain from saying that women must come to recognize there is some function of womanhood other than being a child-bearing machine." In her 1922 book, Woman and the New Race, Margaret Sanger said this about the purpose of sex: "[Our objective is] unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children.”

And don’t even get her started on marriage! From the same book: "The marriage bed is the most degenerative influence in the social order."

(If you think this is scary stuff, do a Google search of Sanger and check out what she had to say on eugenics, “feeble-minded” people and African Americans.)

Margaret Sanger founded the American Birth Control League in 1921. The organization changed its name to Planned Parenthood Federation of America in 1942. Today, Planned Parenthood considers itself a leader in the fields of women’s rights and women’s health. Sanger’s organization, from 1921 to this very day, has always considered pregnancy and birth a form of parasitic physical and social illness – something we need “health care” to fix.

Now we can compare Planned Parenthood’s clearly outmoded concept of femininity and womanhood with the perspective of modern American philosopher Alice Von Hildebrand, one of my favorite authors, in this 2003 interview on her book The Privilege of Being a Woman (2002):

“A woman by her very nature is maternal -- for every woman, whether married or unmarried, is called upon to be a biological, psychological or spiritual mother -- she knows intuitively that to give, to nurture, to care for others, to suffer with and for them -- for maternity implies suffering -- is infinitely more valuable in God's sight than to conquer nations and fly to the moon.”
The choice offered to young women these days is to accept their bodies and their womanhood as gifts: the unique and beautiful ability to give life, hope and nurturing to others.

Or women can accept the Planned Parenthood philosophy that our bodies are meant for self-satisfaction, self-actualization, i.e. the self. Women can choose between a culture of selflessness or selfishness.I know which one I aspire to and I know which one the stats show an increasing number of my fellow young women aspire to.

Get with the times, Planned Parenthood! This boat is leaving without you. 
 

Katie Walker is American Life League’s director of communications.

Responses

you make pregnancy sound like charity, like having a child at sixteen is really being selfless or charity to the world. Not having children is what you call selfish, but a womans personal choice of what to do with their own body, the body God gave them, is not selfishness, it's called free will. We have a choice of what to do with our bodies, it's not selfish for a woman to choose to not have a child. It is however, selfish for others to expect someone else to do what you would like them to do with their bodies.
Caitlin | June 29, 2009

---

Hello Miss Judie --- thank you again for your kindnesses during your meeting in New Orleans years ago.

How is it that the central role played by Family Bush in particular (beginning with Prescott's being Sanger's money-man) is so studiously neglected time and time again?

Honestly, I believe that if folks finally accepted the FACT that abortion is a GOP policy and always has been (see, GHB's "Earth Resources & Population" task force report of 1970, much less the chilling appearances he makes in the Congressional Record re: same beginning in 1967), the pro-life movement might finally understand how it is they always end up chasing their tails or wasting their energies on utter figments of the imagination like "parental consent."

Together with Randy Engel's excellent work on pop-control (as in "The McHugh Chronicles"), I think a more realistic picture might help galvanize otherwise lukewarm souls to the defense of life.

Surely the fact they'd been lied-to for so long about the abortion issue -- above all, the "litmus test" which has rocked elections and appointments alike -- they might rise with the righteous indignation surpassing that of a woman scorned, even.

Maybe it's not enough that their "pro-life" candidates all marry pro-abort women or -- having been elected on account of their Personal beliefs -- eschew same with the mantra the GOP stole from Kennedy:

"I'm personally opposed, but ..."
Christina Kelsey | June 29, 2009

---

By Michael Hichborn

Since 2003, American Life League has taken out a full-page ad in USA Today, to send a message to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops at its annual spring three-day conference. The ads call on the bishops to obey Canon 915 by denying Holy Communion to pro-abortion “Catholic” politicians and other public figures. This year’s ad, titled “A Message of Salvation for the Shepherds of the Catholic Church,” displays a 3-D ultrasound image of a preborn baby next to a quote from the Gospel of Matthew: “Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.” The ad can be viewed here: http://www.all.org/pdf/LeastOfTheseAdUSAtoday.pdf.

ALL places these ads in USA Today because most hotels deliver it to their guests’ rooms. The ad is timed for delivery to the bishops on the first morning of the conference. On the first day of the conference, however, we were rather shocked to learn that the bishops had not seen the ad because USA Today was never delivered to the bishops’ rooms.

While the situation is somewhat complicated, the odd circumstances and strange responses to our questions cause us to ask, “Did the USCCB’s leadership deliberately prevent the attending bishops from seeing ALL’s ad on the first day of the conference?”

An American Life League employee was on the ground in San Antonio, Texas, where the conference took place, and reported what could have been an attempt to prevent the ad from reaching the bishops’ rooms:

On Wed. morning, I woke up to find the New York Times at my door. I called the desk asking where USA Today was, and they said they had some at the desk and would send one up to me. I explained that it was our understanding from talking with hotel personnel that USA Today would be delivered to all the rooms. The person at the desk stated that they had stopped delivering USA Today a couple of weeks ago, but that they keep a small bundle for those who request it. She was surprised that I had received the New York Times, as that is not the paper they normally distribute.

I checked my copy of USA Today that was sent up to my room and found that the ad was indeed in it. I called the desk again and asked for a member of management. The person who answered was eager to please and said that it was no problem; he could run a list of the bishops and have USA Today delivered to their rooms. [American Life League offered to pay, if there was a fee for this service.] He thought he had enough copies, but if not, he would let me know.
 
Some time passed and I did not hear back from them, so I called again. This time, he had backed down, saying that the drop would have to be approved by the USCCB contact person. He referred me to Lisa, the event supervisor for the hotel, who was coordinating with the USCCB.

Lisa called me and said that we would not be able to make any drops of USA Today, due to security issues and because the bishops had approved only of having the New York Times dropped during their stay.

When an offer to pay for the hotel to distribute a newspaper they already have stocked is first accepted and then refused because the bishops stated that they only wanted the New York Times (one of the most liberal papers in the country), we can only conclude that the USCCB’s leadership wished to prevent the attending bishops from seeing our ad during the conference. And given that this is the first time—in six years of placing such ads—that something like this has happened, we can’t help but think that this was a deliberate dodge.

However, upon their return to their own diocese, each bishop who attended the conference will find a copy of the ad waiting for them in the mail.

The sad conclusion to be drawn from all of this is that the ads we place must be tugging at the consciences of the bishops who see them. And with hardened hearts, the USCCB’s leadership apparently wishes to altogether remove our reminder of the duty that most of the U.S. bishops still ignore.

But we still have hope that, through persistence, the U.S. bishops, as a whole, will finally realize their obligation to deny Holy Communion to pro-abortion “Catholic” politicians. In Luke’s Gospel, Jesus tells a parable about a poor widow and an unjust judge. The judge "did not fear God, neither did he care for people." Nevertheless, he eventually agreed to do justice to a poor widow because she was so persistent in her pursuit of justice. And inspired by our Blessed Lord’s own words, American Life League will continue to remind the bishops of their just duty, so that we will see eventually the day when all  of the Church’s shepherds have made it abundantly clear that you can’t be both Catholic and pro-abortion.

Michael Hichborn is the director of American Life League’s Canon 915 project, which encourages Catholic bishops and priests to protect the Holy Eucharist from sacrilege.

Responses

It seems that some public "Catholic" officials have been obstinate enough that excommunication would seem more appropriate than withholding Communion from them. It seems the Louisiana bishops excommunicated racist Catholic politicians in the '60s, with success. I do not know what steps they took prior to excommunication, i.e., whether they withheld Communion as a preliminary step. Have you chosen withholding Communion because you believe it will be easier to sell to more bishops than excommunication? Many of these politicians are already excommunicated through their support of abortion, so having bishops publicly reinforce this automatic excommunication would seem appropriate.
David Volk | June 26, 2009

---

Maybe next year you might want to put it in the NY Times (if they let you).

& while it may be pure coincidence that they switched papers, I highly doubt it. It does seem like a lot more than mere coincidence.
Al | June 26, 2009

---

(Today’s guest commentary was written by Dr. Dianne Irving on June 8 and posted on www.lifeissues.net. It is reprinted here with her kind permission. Dr. Irving is a former career-appointed bench research biochemist/biologist (NIH, NCI, Bethesda, Maryland), an M.A. and Ph.D. philosopher (Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.), and professor of the History of Philosophy, and of Medical Ethics.)

1. Introduction

How difficult it has been to “safeguard human life” from “the very beginning.” Indeed, especially over the last 40 years or so, the value of human life has diminished steadily and rapidly – especially with regard to its “beginning.” Yet even aside from the important and significant “personhood” debates, the Church has consistently taught that the mere fact that there is a living innocent human being before us is sufficient to safeguard the life of that human being even at its very beginning. Pope John Paul II often addressed this tragic trajectory of the loss of respect for human life, as in his encyclical Evangelium vitae:

Even if the presence of a spiritual soul cannot be ascertained by empirical data, the results themselves of scientific research on the human embryo provide "a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of the first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person?" ... Furthermore, what is at stake is so important that, from the standpoint of moral obligation, the mere probability that a human person is involved would suffice to justify an absolutely clear prohibition of any intervention aimed at killing a human embryo. Precisely for this reason, over and above all scientific debates and those philosophical affirmations to which the Magisterium has not expressly committed itself, the Church has always taught and continues to teach that the result of human procreation, from the first moment of its existence, must be guaranteed that unconditional respect which is morally due to the human being in his or her totality and unity as body and spirit ... [Pope John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 60, On the Value and Inviolability of Human Life (Encyclical, March 25, 1995)] (emphases added)

But precisely when is “the first moment of its existence”?!

Without doubt, the abuse of language, especially scientific “language,” has shrouded clear facts about precisely when the “first moment of its existence is,” and has hastened this drastic decline in the respect for human life. This linguistic abuse has been both purposeful as well as naively equivocal.  That is, it is not just because of the willful and devious use of language by ardent supporters of IVF and other ARTs, abortion, the use of abortifacients, human embryo and human fetal research, human cloning, and genetic engineering, etc., but also because even many of those who are dedicated to this “safeguarding” themselves fall victim to the use of erroneous “scientific” terms. The result is an amazingly long list over the decades of what I have often referred to as “pre-embryo substitutes.”

Given that this linguistic phenomenon continues unabated as we speak, it might be of help to remind ourselves of how very subtly these linguistic twists can come about so that we can be more sensitive to identifying them. Generally speaking, there are a number of ways that the misuse of simple scientific “language” can slip into our rhetoric and our thinking processes without notice.

2. The ‘Pre-Embryo’

First, it is to be noted historically that the authors of the now officially rejected false scientific term “pre-embryo,” which term has caused almost 30 years worth of a deluge of horrific and unethical medical policies and destructive research, were a Catholic Jesuit priest and a Catholic frog biologist – Fr. Richard McCormick and Clifford Grobstein. According to them, there is an important scientific and moral distinction to be made between a “human being” and a “human person.” That is, they agreed that the immediate product of fertilization was a human being (a "genetic individual"), but before 14-days it was not yet a human person (a "developmental individual") with a rational soul, and thus with the same ethical and legal rights and protections as all other human persons. Before 14-days there was just a “pre-embryo,” a “non-person” – and although it should be “respected,” it is still ethical to kill this “pre-embryo” for proportionate reasons. Of course, this “distinction” of McCormick and Grobstein between a “human being” and a “human person” – as with so many other similar “distinctions” ripe in the bioethics literature over the years – is a false distinction, a “distinction” without a real difference.

This false pseudo-scientific term “pre-embryo,” and its accompanying false term “individuality,” was finally formally rejected by the international nomenclature committee in human embryology. That committee made it clear that at fertilization (sexual human reproduction), the “embryo” begins to exist immediately. Thus, scientifically, there is no such thing as a “pre-embryo” that exists after fertilization and before 14-days. There is, rather, an already existing embryo. As famous Swiss human embryologist, as a member of that international nomenclature committee, and as major contributor to the Carnegie Stages of Early Human Embryonic Development themselves, stated bluntly in his human embryology textbooks years ago:

The term 'pre-embryo' is not used here for the following reasons: (1) it is ill-defined because it is said to end with the appearance of the primitive streak or to include neurulation; (2) it is inaccurate because purely embryonic cells can already be distinguished after a few days, as can also the embryonic (not pre-embryonic!) disc; (3) it is unjustified because the accepted meaning of the word embryo includes all of the first 8 weeks; (4) it is equivocal because it may convey the erroneous idea that a new human organism is formed at only some considerable time after fertilization; and (5) it was introduced in 1986 'largely for public policy reasons' (Biggers). ... Just as postnatal age begins at birth, prenatal age begins at fertilization." [Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Muller, Human Embryology & Teratology (New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001), (p. 88)] (emphases added)

Of import too is that the Carnegie Stages are professionally required to be used by all authors in their human embryology textbooks. (You will also notice the full chart of the Carnegie Stages included in these same professional scientific textbooks, as well as the Carnegie Stage numerical superscripts above the less technical renditions of them used by these authors in textbooks meant for unsophisticated students to indicate for the reader where to go to find out more detailed and refined scientific descriptions of these stages).

However, the “pre-embryo” had already been institutionalized by then (even around the world), and many on both sides of the aisle were not happy with this formal scientific refutation of their supra-useful linguistic invention. For those who wanted to pursue IVF, abortion, research, etc., they would have to come up with some other false scientific terms to scientifically “justify” what they wanted to do. And for many on the other side of the aisle the “pre-embryo” had allowed them to be perceived as more “pastoral,” more “empathetic,” more “scientifically current,” more “modern” and more popular, enabling them to “have a seat at the table.” They too would turn a blind eye at the easily accessible accurate empirical facts of human embryology known and continuously internationally documented and updated for over a hundred years – and found in libraries all over the world, even now on the internet. The temptations were overwhelming.

3. ‘Pre-embryo Substitutes’

And thus began “stage two” of this sort of verbal deception required to “scientifically” justify all manner of projects with the early human embryo. This “stage” I have often referred to as consisting of “pre-embryo substitutes.” That is, the term “pre-embryo” must now necessarily be dropped, but the same agenda could be accomplished by substituting other false “science” in its place, or simply leaving out legitimate early phases of human embryonic development as if they didn’t exist. One example of this is to claim that the “zygote” is the beginning of when a human being begins to exist. But this would render the human being already existing before the formation of the “zygote” non-existent – neither a human being nor a human person – and thus it could be used simply as “biological material,” especially in human genetic engineering research, etc. This “biological entity” is often referred to in the literature as a “pre-zygote” – that is, what is there from the beginning of fertilization up to the formation of the zygote is not a human embryo or a human being. It is just a human “cell.”

However, the Carnegie Stages of Early Human Embryonic Development make it clear that the “zygote” formed at the end of the process of fertilization is not when a new human being begins to exist. Before that, the developing embryo in Stage 1 of the Carnegie Stages begins with “first contact” of the sperm with the oocyte, followed by, respectively, the phases of development referred to as “the penetrated oocyte” and the “ootid.” In other words, the new human embryo begins to exist at first contact, at the beginning of the process of fertilization:

Fertilization, which takes place normally in the ampulla of the uterine tube [[fallopian tube]], includes (a) contact of spermatozoa with the zona pellucida of an oocyte,
penetration of one or more spermatozoa through the zona pellucida and the ooplasm, swelling of the spermatozoal head and extrusion of the second polar body, (b) the formation of the male and female pronuclei, and (c) the beginning of the first mitotic division, or cleavage, of the zygote. ... The three phases (a, b, and c) referred to above will be included here under stage 1, the characteristic feature of which is unicellularity. (Carnegie Stages of Early Human Embryonic Development, p. 9) ) (emphases added)

Note especially that “first contact” is included in, but precedes, the “penetrated oocyte” of phase (a). Given the spectacular biochemical events that are tripped at the moment of first contact of the sperm with the oocyte – events that could definitely not and do not take place in either a sperm or an oocyte alone – it is clear that a new substantial change has taken place. (It is interesting that in both biology and in classic realist philosophies, the identification of a new substance is marked in the relevant texts as “function follows form,” or “action follows being! That is, radically new functions or actions follow the formation of a radically new form – which radically new form causes those new functions and actions).

Another example of leaving out specific stages of early human embryonic development can be found in several definitions in laws and regulations. A classic example is the formal definitions of “fetus” and “pregnancy” in the federal OPRR/OHRP guidelines for the use of human subjects in research as both “beginning at implantation.” (In fact, the “fetal” period does not begin until the beginning of the 9th week of development). In this example, then, there is no embryo at all – through 8 weeks, in vivo or in vitro, sexually or asexually reproduced – gone! And all women (rather than just those undergoing IVF or ART) become pregnant only at implantation; before that they are not “pregnant” (and therefore, the use of abortifacients, embryo flushing, prenatal genetic diagnosis, as well as all manner of human embryo research, are “ethical”).

Or, one can add to specific stages of early human embryonic development. In a more recent example, the order of scientific terms that should inclusively mean the embryo at all of its various early stages is shifted. Listing the term “embryo” after them, as if what came before was not an embryo, makes the embryo during those earliest of phases of development essentially disappear. Thus we have this following subtle but spurious “pre-embryo substitute” which for all the world sounds very pro-life:

Embryos are no different in their essential humanity from a fetus in the womb, a 10-year old boy, or a 100-year old woman. At every stage of development, human beings (whether  zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, infant, adolescent or adult) retain their identity as an enduring being that grows toward its subsequent stage(s); embryos are integral beings structured for maturation along their proper time line.

So, to the casual observer, by adding the term “embryo” after the terms “zygote” and “blastocyst” – followed by “fetus,” “infant,” etc. – it would appear that the “zygote” and the “blastocyst” are something other than an “embryo” – i.e., not yet an embryo, not yet a human being (much less a human person). (Not to mention that the embryo formed at first contact, the “penetrated oocyte” and the “ootid” are not even listed). And importantly also, it would seem then that only embryos (which apparently doesn’t include the embryo at its earliest phases of development) “are integral beings structured for maturation along their proper time line,” etc. – and not also “zygotes” and “blastocysts.”

Again, one can make a “pre-embryo substitute” by articulating only one kind of human reproduction. For example, one can claim that all human beings begin to exist at “fertilization” or at “conception.” But by definition, that makes all human beings reproduced asexually disappear (which would include one of every set of naturally occurring human monozygotic twins in vivo, and all human embryo reproduced asexually using the various cloning techniques, genetic engineering, etc.).

Perhaps the most daring, and most successful, “pre-embryo substitute” was concocted by human cloning and human embryonic stem cell researchers Irving Weissman, Michael West, et al. While the McCormick/Grobstein “pre-embryo” at least acknowledged that the immediate product of fertilization is a human being (it is just not a human person), for these researchers the immediate product of both sexual and asexual human reproduction is “just a cell” – not a human being, not a human organism, not a human embryo. And the “blastocyst” from which “stem cells” are derived is simply “a ball of cells.” These researchers also concocted another way to get rid of the human embryo – in fact, they got rid of the human embryo and the human fetus – by making a false distinction between “therapeutic” and “reproductive” cloning. They claimed that the product of “therapeutic cloning” was just a bunch of cells; the product of “reproductive cloning” was a human being – but not until it was born! They also enjoyed defining “cloning” only in terms of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) – thus making all of the other dozens of kinds of human cloning techniques disappear.

Or, one can make other kinds of cloning techniques “disappear” linguistically by including in one definition what is really part of another cloning technique that they want to divert attention from. For example, it has been claimed that the product of SCNT is an “identical twin” of the donor (which is erroneous because of the “foreign” mitochondrial DNA left over in the enucleated oocyte used). But the real product of SCNT or GLNT (germ line nuclear transfer) is thus genetically unique (which has serious implications for patients when injecting them with “stem cells” from such cloned embryos – even if the donor cell is from the same patient). But by using the term “identical twin,” the writers
thus conflate the SCNT cloning technique with the “twinning” technique (i.e., blastomere separation, blastocyst splitting, embryo multiplication, etc.) – used now for many years in IVF/ART as “infertility treatments.” Thus to the “average” reader, SCNT and “twinning” are the same.

Indeed, such “pre-embryos” and “pre-embryo substitutes” as noted above are particularly useful in laws and regulations involving the early human embryo, because often such innovative and imaginative but false scientific terms used in legal definitions are legally “exclusionary” – and thus create useful legal loopholes. It’s enough to make our collective heads spin!

Yet very few on either side of the aisles have been paying attention – for several decades now.

4. Correct Formation of Conscience

As noted, this linguistic abuse of language concerning the early human embryo is an on-going concern, and ever new, inventive and imaginative “pre-embryo substitutes” appear almost on a daily basis. This is why it is important to be aware of and acknowledge the long-established and documented empirical facts of human embryology, for before long we will not even be able to define scientifically that point in time when we should start “safeguarding life from its very beginning.” The scientific terms or concepts that we use will have lost all meaning and relationship to reality.

And as Pope John Paul II has also warned, these linguistic twists of scientific terms and concepts have already had a devastating effect on the correct formation of conscience:

The end result of this is tragic: not only is the fact of the destruction of so many human lives still to be born or in their final stage extremely grave and disturbing, but no less grave and disturbing is the fact that conscience itself, darkened as it were by such widespread conditioning, is finding it increasingly difficult to distinguish between good and evil in what concerns the basic value of human life. ... [W]e need now more than ever to have the courage to look the truth in the eye and to call things by their proper name, without yielding to convenient compromises or to the temptation of self-deception. ... Perhaps this linguistic phenomenon is itself a symptom of an uneasiness of conscience. But no word has the power to change the reality of things. (Pope John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 1995, pars. 4 and 58)

Hopefully the long-known, long-documented and continuously updated accurate empirical starting point for determining when a human being begins to exist – such as those found in the Carnegie Stages and incorporated in professionally responsible human embryology and related scientific textbooks – will not be abandoned by professionals in the field of human embryology. Nothing but utter chaos would ensue.

But perhaps that is the goal.

[For more detailed references, see Irving:

-- “Human Embryology and Church Teachings” (September 15, 2008)

-- “The Carnegie Stages of Early Human Embryonic Development: Chart of all 23 Stages, and Detailed Descriptions of Carnegie Stages 1 – 6” (April 22, 2006)

-- “Framing the Debates on Human Cloning and Human Embryonic Stem Cells: Pluripotent vs. TOTIPOTENT” (July 23, 2005)

-- “Definitions of a “human organism” and a “human cell” (Oct. 3, 2004)

-- “What Human Embryo? Funniest Mental Gymnastics from Medicine and Research” (Oct. 14, 2004)

-- “Analysis of Legislative and Regulatory Chaos in the U.S.: Asexual Human Reproduction and Genetic Engineering” (Oct. 20, 2004),

-- "The Impact of 'Scientific Misinformation' on Other Fields: Philosophy, Theology,
Biomedical Ethics, Public Policy,” Accountability in Research, April 1993, 2(4):243-272]

Responses

We fall miserably short if we feel a scientific rebutal to pro abortionists is a complete strategy to iradicate this travesty from our society. While defensive stragey has merit, it is only one component & is incomplete... What is necessary is to begin a... campaign to overturn Roe v Wade. It is imperative to begin such an endeavor where it should be begun - fasting and prayer, for it is the denial of that which is sacred and true that caused our Creator to turn his back upon us and allow the ills of our society to occurr in the first place.....of which, abortion is but one element. Concerning the scientific rebutal however, I am baffled by the lack of common sense exhibited by pro lifers. Ask any pro choice person to cite one example in medical practice or even criminal justice where the system is allowed to ere on the side of death and destruction. The hipocratic oath itself presupposes an allegiance to life. Criminal law requires clear and convicning proof beyond any reasonable doubt in order to convict. Civil court requires a preponderance of the evidence before a ruling can be made to favor one side. I ask then, why have we allowed ourselves, in the abortion fight, to be maneauvered into a position whereby we ere on the side of death - when we are not certain about the issue of whether a life is taken by an abortion ? There is certainly, at a minimum, a reasonable doubt as to just when the point of life begins for a human being. We spare the life of the most hardened criminal and let him go free if there is a 'reasonable doubt' .... most certainly the life of the indisputably innocent should be spared by the same standard - should it not !

wildbill

Bill Crist | June 25, 2009

---

Dear Bill,

The fact is, we need a mutifaceted approach to criminalizing abortion and Professor Irving's analysis of the proper science is just one aspect, but a pivotal one.

There is no reasonable doubt about when a human being's life begins, Bill, as Professor Irving illustrates.

Thank you for your comments.

Judie Brown
Judie Brown | June 26, 2009

---

wildbill, in his comment, questions the value of Dr. Dianne Irving's article. I believe Dr. Irving's article is very important. I understand wildbill's feeling that rational arguments will not sway those who support killing children. Feelings aside, it is important to say what is true. As praying may similarly seem of questionable value, we believe it is the most powerful thing we can do. So, no, state the case. It has value. We know it will have an effect.
David Volk | June 26, 2009

---