Whether it's pro-life philosophy, activism or legislation, whether it's about a current topic or a situation pro-lifers face in their own lives and work, this is the place where we'll talk about it! Please forward any comments to me, Judie Brown. Thank you!
TURNING THE TIDE Posted: Wednesday July 11, 2007 at 9:46 am EST by Judie Brown
It is with the most energized form of enethusiasm that I report to you the good news, or to put it in the most glowing terms, the best news I have heard today!
According to a new study, female voters are embracing the pro-life position in surprising numbers. The study, conducted by the Overbrook Institute in Illinois, examined public opinion in the state of Missouri.
Right away one could respond to my exuberance by saying, "Missouri is not representative of the entire nation. It's middle America, Judie."
But I would respond by telling you that young men and women across this nation are having the very same experience. When they confront what abortion does to a child, they experience a change in attitude and begin to view abortion as unacceptable. We know this from the thousands who attend Christian festivals at which our Rock for Life leaders are consistently present. The testimony is the same, whether one is in Pennsylvania, Missouri or even on the left coast in Washington.
30,000 people participated in the Overbook study, which lasted more than 15 years. There is no doubt that their substantive effort reflects a change of heart among the young, not only in the midwest but across the nation as a whole.
In fact Christopher Blunt of Overbrook told the media, "The most surprising and compelling findings we have are on young people," he said. "They've grown up with high-quality ultrasound images of unborn babies, and their passage into adulthood coincides with the ascendance of partial-birth abortion as the issue's dominant frame."
So my response is to beg you ... order a copy of our DVD, "Baby Steps," a comprehesive presentation of 4D ultrasound pictures of preborn babies from as young as 8 weeks old to moments before birth and share it with your family and friends. The truth is there for all to see, thanks be to God, and it's working. This study proves it.
I find this study very hard to believe. The Worthland Polling agency found that in 1980 that 50% of Americans supported abortion in the 1st trimester. In 1998 it was about 60%. In 2003 Zogby found that 65% of Americans support abortion in the 1st trimeser. Oddly enough support for second and third trimester abortions in this time dropped significantly.
What's the problem? 90% of abortions happen in the 1st 90 days of pregnancy. So we are losing this issue where it matters most and winning where it matters least. Why is this? Because people don't understand the humanity of the unborn, they think and have been told that the unborn are just a blob of cells.
I think we need to be honest with ourselves and not be afraid to state that for 35 years talking about abortion has failed. Pople have and will see all their lives pictures of live babies or photos of babies in the womb that are in the 2nd or 3rd trimester who are beautiful and that they could never support an abortion on that baby.
It hasn't been until people have been forced to see against their will the humanity of the unborn through graphic images of abortion in the 1st trimester of pregnancy has there been real progress in America. Bryan McKinney | July 31, 2007
Dear Bryan
First, let me point out that the study that inspired my comments was done in one of the most pro-life states in the United States, MISSOURI.
Second let me say that the results, as I said, do not surprise me because I pay more attention to what I learn from keeping my finger on the pulse of grass roots America than I do on pollsters, media hype and pro-abortion propaganda.
Third, while you are correct to point out that more than 90 percent of abortions occur in the first trimester it is also true that the more we pro-lifers concentrate on PERSONHOOD and the fact that a single cell baby is equally as valuable as the six month old preborn child, the more we are convering hearts and minds. That is a victory worthy of celebration, don't you think!
Now let me agree with you on one very important point. For 35 years many in the pro-life movement have been contributing to defeat by failing to focus on personhood from the first instant of a human being's existence; many have failed to enunciate the truth about the abortive nature of contraptives like the pill and many have lead America to think that third trimester abortions are worse than all others. But that is not true of all of us, including it would seem, you!
Finally with the advent of 4D ultrasound we can show in pictures that even as young as 8 weeks there is a living baby present, but we do not need ultrasound as much as we need consistency among pro-lifers. Until politics is replaced with principle throghout the pro-life movement, your statements will be accurate and will resonate as the death knell for these babies; let us strive to change that by challenging fellow pro-lifers to either be honest or find something else to do with their time.
AL GORE'S FATHERLY IMAGE Posted: Sunday July 8, 2007 at 9:43 pm EST by Judie Brown
While some would say that the world-wide event "Live Earth" gave new impetus to Al Gore's alleged environmentally friendly efforts, I would have to say that putting a concert ahead of one's son is a poor example of priority setting. Al Gore III's arrest, while a mere blip on the world's radar screen, could have been an opportunity for Al senior to change his plans, rush to his son's side and do what he could to get to the bottom of why his son got into such trouble to begin with. It would have been the loving thing for a father to do even though it would have been inconvenient, what with a major concert a few days off, and all those photo ops coming up.
But of course, Al was preoccupied, and thus had "no comment" when several news reporters attempted to get in touch with him. But I have to ask what this says about a man who appears to place a very strong emphasis on making the world a more friendly place for coming generations. Where does Al Gore III fit into this? And why wouldn't an arrest that received at least some media attention remind Al Gore Jr. that there are times in life when one must take care of ones family before attempting to save the world?
I feel sorry for Al III. I know he was being reckless, is a 24 year old adult and made bail, got out of jail and is perhaps back to driving his environmentally friendly car, but his Dad never took the time to be there for him. And I have to wonder what that says about the family, their cohesiveness and their ability to provide unconditional love to the particular family member in need. The youngest child and only son of former vice president Al Gore might have benefited from a visit from his Dad.
Perhaps there is an inconvenient truth that Al needs to examine: on July 4th he failed his son because apparently his priorities were askew. If fatherhood has to take second place to saving the earth , maybe the Gore family needs to reassess whose world is really screwed up.
I wish Al Gore would stop going around making these sweeping incorrect statements. Al Gore and other bigots use this type of format. First they make blanket accusations against the object of their envy. When presented with evidence to the contrary, they immediately accuse the object of their envy or hatred of doing good for the wrong reason, or not doing "enough." When challenged on that, they create wild hypotheticals. And finally they resort to post-modernism. There's your "dialog" with pro-abortionists. No matter how hard the pro-abortionists huff and puff they can never change the reality that abortion is murder. Pure and simple.
PEACE AND JUSTICE? I DON'T THINK SO! Posted: Wednesday July 4, 2007 at 6:51 pm EST by Judie Brown
It's the Fourth of July and a group of allegedly Catholic Democrats have taken their stand. They have released a letter calling on the Catholic bishops to help end the war in Iraq.
Now, let me see. Who signed the letter?As far as I have been able to find out so far, the following members of Congress are included:
Rosa L. Delauro (D-Conn.) Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) Jose E. Serrano (D- N.Y.) James Moran (D-Va)
Among these signatories nary a one defends the right of the preborn child to live. They would not lift a finger nor would they take a stand to end the war in the womb.
Yet these same politicians wrote in their letter to the bishops, "In our education in the faith, we find the testimony of the Scriptures compelling, and although we have no illusions about the complexities of our current situation in Iraq, we have come to believe that peace cannot simply exist as an ideal -- our efforts must be accompanied by actions as we embrace the teachings of peace and justice."
If the brash hypocrisy of such a statement has not struck you as yet, just think about this simple statement of Mother Teresa's: "The greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child."
Interesting how the "politicians" can lecture to the Church what "issues are most important". If we can't respect the dignity of human life how can we respect the right to freedom of speech? Our bishops and priests aren't allowed to tell the truth but yet these so called "catholics" can wave around their "private" interpretation of the Catechism like the sword of Excalibur? If we teach catholics that they can't speak out against abortion then we are not a democracy we've become just subjects. Nick | July 4, 2007
so, so true...and besides, what about separation of Church and State?! That's not important to these politicans all of a sudden?! Roy and Robin | July 5, 2007
Dear Roy and Robin
As you know the founding fathers designed the Constitution in such a way that the government could never impose a religion on the people of the United States, not so that Church leaders could be prevented from teaching the truth.
Some politicians want to have their cake and eat it too ... call themselves Catholic and deny the most basic teachings of the Church. This fact is sad but true.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | July 9, 2007
Dear Nick
You are correct which is why our work in teaching people how to defend the preborn and in begging our Bishops to do likewise is so important.
THE WARPED PRO-ABORTION MIND Posted: Tuesday July 3, 2007 at 9:00 pm EST by Judie Brown
I read an awful lot of material on the Internet and elsewhere, and sometimes I could just scream. The opinions I read from those who favor abortion just seem to be so, well, Godless.
Here's an example for you. The Seattle Post Intelligencer web site provided readers with the following comment as part of an unsigned, thus unclaimed opinion: "For those women who have had an abortion and might regret it, a Christian group has come up with a name for that regret: post-abortion syndrome."
The writer then claims that because the group to which he refers, Project Rachel, is supported by the Roman Catholic Church, something must be wrong somewhere. He writes, "Religious groups ... fund the program, for crying out loud -- how open minded could it possibly be?"
The writer betrays two of his problems in these comments. First of all, he has no respect for anything that is at all related to God or religious beliefs. Second, he assuages his own feelings in support of abortion by ignoring the clinical record regarding post-abortion syndrome in favor of religion-bashing.
Finally, there is a slight note of arrogance in the writer's comment that Project Rachel "doesn't get into the very real hell that unfolds when a woman who isn't ready and able to raise a child has one."
My, oh my. Rather than accepting the fact that some mothers truly need the help of others in order to deal with difficulties not only during but after pregnancy, the writer pefers the idea of killing the baby even though the mom could have chosen abstinence in the beginning and thus never faced the problem at all.
The kind of hell that support for abortion might cause eternally isn't even on his mind.
STEM CELLS FROM EGGS? NO, NO! Posted: Monday July 2, 2007 at 9:12 pm EST by Judie Brown
Recent news reports have focused attention on scientists who claim they've created embryonic stem cells by stimulating unfertilized eggs.
They go on to claim that by doing this they have come up with an ethical way to use embryonic stem cells and will also be using cells genetically matched to the female whose egg they use. If this sounds more than a bit bizarre to you, then we agree. Something smells yucky in the lab!
A debate has arisen among ethicists about whether or not the alleged process is acceptable, but most seem to have ignored the obvious fact that whatever these scientists create in their Petri dishes, it will not be a genetic match to the woman because her DNA is unique to her and the entity's DNA will be different.
This process can also be defined as therapeutic cloning, and we all know that is unethical. As Father Tad Pacholczyk of the National Catholic Bioethics Center told a reporter, "My view is that if these grow as organized embryos for the first few days and then arrest, they may just be very short-lived human beings."
We agree, and wish these scientists would invest their time and energy into ethical alternatives using adult and cord blood stem cells, But then again, there is no financial reward in doing the ethical thing these days.
ARCHBISHOP CURTISS -- BRAVO!! Posted: Saturday June 30, 2007 at 3:33 pm EST by Judie Brown
My heart was filled with joy as I read about the Archdiocese of Omaha Nebraska's recent move to distance itself from Creighton University.
In an article recently published by the University, Michael Lawler wrote, "Our experience with young adults leads us to doubt the claim that they are living in sin. It would appear closer to the truth that they are growing, perhaps slowly but nonetheless surely, into grace."
In response Archbishop Elden Curtiss made it clear that the position of the authors was contrary to church teaching and therefore, "I have disassociated the Omaha Archdiocese from the Center for Marriage and Family at Creighton University."
The archbishop went on to say, "Couples who live together without marriage do in fact live in sin objectively."
finally someone tells the truth...
it is about time that someone admits that our youth lives in sin. eeagle | July 2, 2007
Amen, EEAGLE!
Judie Judie Brown | July 3, 2007
Archbishob Curtiss is my shepherd. We in Omaha are grateful that he took a stand regarding Creighton University. So many of us were amazed when we read in the local paper what Michael Lawler had stated. God bless Archbishop Curtiss! Mary Anne | June 10, 2008
IT'S ALL IN THE FAMILY Posted: Friday June 29, 2007 at 10:40 am EST by Judie Brown
A recent Gallup Survey gave me reason to pause. You see, the survey reported that of the 1007 adults (over age of 18) polled, nearly 6 in 10 Americans believe smaller families-two children or fewer-are ideal.
The report goes on to tell us that Catholics responded in nearly the same way, which is no surprise. However the basic cause for the disconnect between Catholic teaching on families and the average American Catholic's view of families concerns me greatly.
As we know, the Church encourages Catholics to be open to life, to trust God and never to use morally illicit contraceptive methods. However, for nearly 45 years now, Catholics have either ignored or defied that teaching and are contracepting and aborting at the same rate as the general population. Apparently, the "two-child family" rhetoric of the population controllers has had a staggering effect on everyone including Catholics. And of course materialism and moral relativism play a role in this as well.
Yet, the fact is that larger families are not only good in and of themselves, but they are and will be a blessing to our society and its future. Without a love for children and an appreciation of family life, there can be no hope of overcoming the devastating consequences America will face when the impact of more than 40 million abortions hits home ... and, believe me, it will.
My recommended solution to this problem, as enunciated in my book Saving Those Damned Catholics is really quite simple: Bishops and priests need to teach the truth of Catholic doctrine from the pulpit, regularly and without apology.
They should make the teaching appealing, explaining the reasons why birth control is a denial of one's trust in God and why natural methods of spacing children are not only in compliance with Catholic teaching, but healthy for marriage and the family.
It always saddens me to read about cultural attitudes that make no separation between Catholics and the rest of the population. I believe strongly that Catholics are in this world to set an example, not to follow the herd.
When enough people start believing that and acting upon it, perhaps Gallup will report an astounding difference in attitudes to "ideal family size." But until then, you and I have to keep on begging bishops and priests to do their job ... feed their sheep.
Small families are good for the environment. Adam | July 8, 2007
Dear Adam
If you are speaking of the good of a family's spiritual environment, or their trust in God, you are of course in error. I can see no benefit to encouraging parents NOT to have the children the Lord wishes to bless them with but perhaps you have a different perspective?
Judie Brown Judie Brown | July 11, 2007
My family of 7 likely lives a more environmentally friendly lifestyle than the average american family of 2! Large families tend to "reduce, reuse, recycle" because it is economical and with many children, it's imperative that we wisely watch our pennies. We utilize hand-me-downs and thrift store clothing. We don't use disposable items. We buy in bulk and avoid products whose price is driven up by excess packaging. Our homes are cooled by breezes, not air conditioners. Appliances have to be efficient, we don't have time for anything less. We drive less, and have fewer electricity gobbling gadgets. But the best thing is, our environment is filled with love. God has blessed us, and expects us to be responsible stewards of our blessings. The best part is, we know there will be no deformed froggies coming from our waste water since we won't put anything into or on our bodies that defile them! Lisa | July 16, 2007
Pro-Life Story: our beautiful baby boy Posted By amy senne on Apr, 24 2007 It was Christmas Eve 2005 our 22 year old daughter came to me and my husband and said one of the worst things that a parent would ever want to hear. She said Merry Christmas I'm ... Read
