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!
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY DOES THE RIGHT THING AND A WHOLE LOT OF OTHER GOOD NEWS Posted: Thursday June 5, 2008 at 9:18 pm EST by Judie Brown
After all the bad news I usually write about in my blog, today is the day I report on good news because there is so much of it and there are so many reasons to be grateful to God for the blessing of serving Him and His innocent children in our pro-life life.
Today the leadership of Habitat International announced that they had instructed the local board of Habitat for Humanity in Sarasota, Florida to drop any agreement or arrangement they had made with Planned Parenthood. The news report states:
The barrage of e-mails started with James Sedlak, vice president of the American Life League, a Virginia-based group ... They said it showed a cozy relationship between Habitat and Planned Parenthood, which the league has accused of pushing pornography to children, among other things.
On the other side of the fence, the pro-abortion “Planning is Power” Facebook group took aim at the Protest the Pill event by telling their readers what to expect from pro-lifers! One example of their rhetorical rant is this:
Be prepared for graphic and inflammatory signs and words from the other side. This can include grotesque and horrific images. If you get upset, take a walk and come back whenever you are ready.
I urge all our Catholic people and friends to express their opposition to our city leaders about the proposed PPFA project on MLK Jr. Boulevard in Portland. The so-called 'health and education services' to be provided in that facility would only destroy more human lives and promote promiscuous behavior on the part of young people. The time for saying 'no' to PPFA in our community is now.
Fox News reported early today that a mother in England who had wanted to abort her son because he could have inherited a life-threatening kidney condition is happy now that the abortion attempt failed. Baby Finley’s mom could not believe that her son survived the abortion. Baby Finley was born last November, was three weeks premature, had minor kidney damage and is expected to live a normal life.
And right here in the United States, the Safe Haven for Newborns program is celebrating the fact that the 100th baby was saved on June 4.
American Life League repeatedly announces its full support for those young people who are wearing pro-life T-shirts to school and getting into difficulties because of their clothing choices. The most recent example of discrimination against a student who was wearing a pro-life T-shirt occurred at Hutchinson [Kansas] Middle School. Erik Whittington, director of American Life League’s Rock for Life, issued a statement today in which he said,
We are also extremely excited to see the Thomas More Law Center filing a lawsuit in federal court. They have successfully defended students wearing our T-shirts in the past. When will these school administrators learn that freedom of speech is protected by the US Constitution, even if you are a student at a public school?
And finally columnist Michelle Malkin got on the anti-Planned Parenthood bandwagon again, this time focusing on "Planned Parenthood’s Obscene Profits." In her column we read,
Oil execs, tobacco execs, banking execs, pharmaceutical company execs and baseball players have all been hauled up before Congress for highly-publicized whippings by crusading lawmakers. But the executives of Planned Parenthood have escaped government scrutiny and public accountability for their predatory behavior, dangerous medical practices, deception, and deadly windfall.
In Washington, D.C., the family of 13-year-old Shantese Butler filed a $50 million suit against Planned Parenthood after a botched abortion left the girl permanently injured and infertile. Students for Life of America reports that Shantese was left with "severe abdominal bleeding, severe vaginal injury, severe injury to the cervix, significant uterine perforation, and a small bowel tear." In addition, parts of the unborn child were found inside Shantese’s abdomen.
We commend Michelle, and the other folks in the pro-life movement, medical community and America’s thoughtful public for making GOOD NEWS happen.
Great news Judie! I'm Habitat for Humanity is sticking by their Christian convictions!
Chantell Chantell | June 6, 2008
I hope American life League is donating funds or land to match the generous donation Planned Parenthood was prepared to make in order to give someone a HOME! As for myself i am disgusted that Habitat for Humanity gave in to Pro Birth Terrorists like yourselves. However, i and others have urged habitat for Humanity to not give in to terrorist propaganda. Don\'t celebrate your victories just yet.
a mother who is sick of the Probirth Terrorists | June 9, 2008
I'm just grateful someone is finally suing PP silly. They've had it coming for a while now. Isaac K. | June 10, 2008
Dear Mother who is sick of ...
Planned Parenthood is to the needy what poison is to the dying. There is no way their concerns have a thing to do with helping anyone who is impoverished while we, on the other hand, work with and support all efforts to affirm the family and provide for those who require support, esepecially mothers experiencing an unexpected pregnancy.
I am sorry that you view or efforts as terrorism when in fact abortion is the worst form of terrorism, each one resulting in the death of an innocent member of the human family.
CUNNING KILLING Posted: Wednesday June 4, 2008 at 8:39 pm EST by Judie Brown
I am on a most interesting e-mail news list that was created by the admirers and students of the world-renowned geneticist, Professor Jerome Lejeune. I had the good fortune of knowing Professor Lejeune and so understand why this newsletter is always so precise and on the cutting edge of science. What else would one expect from Lejeune’s followers?
The newsletter, Genenthique was established by the French Foundation Jerome Lejeune and is one of those e-mail items I have to read every single time it arrives. In the most recent issue a report on euthanasia caught my eye immediately.
While it deals with the situation currently facing the French government, the words and the images it presents could well be describing precisely what is happening in America.
A 2005 French law grants patients the freedom to refuse "any treatment," including any "artificial treatment" already being received. The writers point out that nearly anytime that tube feeding or tube-provided hydration is withdrawn, the very act of removing it is an act of euthanasia. Yet they tell us that withdrawing nutrition and hydration is part of what the law means by the term "artificial treatment."
The writers make their point even more shocking by referring to a well known pro-euthanasia advocate, Helga Kuhse, who suggested the very thing that this article addresses when she said:
If we can get people to accept the removal of all treatment and care, especially the removal of food and fluids, they will see what a painful way this is to die, and then, in the patient’s best interest, they will accept the lethal injection.
Kuhse uttered these words in 1984 at a meeting of the World Federation of Right to Die Societies, which means that for the past 24 years those who promote euthanasia have been using the argument to bolster the case that the quicker a "dying" patient can die the better off he will be.
You might think about this and argue, correctly, that in the United States we have not, as yet, legalized lethal injections for the incurably or terminally ill patients. But I would have to remind you that such laws are not beyond imagination.
Perhaps we are not quite ready to legalize the lethal injection, but can this be far off now that death by dehydration has become a legal “choice” and a common medical practice?
Terri Schiavo’s death was caused by starving her to death and the courts were the entity that approved the death. Her case was preceded by many others and there have been many more since that time. herefore I propose that lethal injection is just a step or two away as proponents of these acts are far more persuasive today than they once were.
Rita Marker and Wesley Smith have been warning of this impending problem for years. In an article entitled “Word, words, words,” they tell the reader,
The first official confirmation of the prevalence of nonvoluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands came on September 10, 1991, when the long-awaited government report, Medical Decisions About the End of Life was released. Popularly known as the Remmelink Report (named after the chairman of the committee that issued it), the study documents the degree to which doctors have taken over the decision making questions of euthanasia.
The findings of the Remmelink Report indicated that, in one year, Dutch physicians deliberately ended the lives of thousands of patients by administering or providing lethal doses or fatal injections.
The United States of America is not the Netherlands, but our fascination with death for the "inconvenient" or "burdensome" individual is no less deadly; we just don’t talk about it much!
Further on in the same article, in fact, Marker and Smith make the cruel pro-euthanasia American agenda obvious:
From l988 through l992, during campaigns to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide in California (1988 and 1992) and in Washington (1991), the phrase of choice among euthanasia proponents was "aid-in-dying." The words conjured up images of plumping the pillow, wiping the brow and holding the hand of a patient. But these were not the types of aid that would have been legalized. "Aid-in-dying" was defined in the measures' small print as "aid" that was to be directly and intentionally provided to "end the life" or "terminate the life" of a qualified patient.
Although the exact method for delivering the new death-inducing medical service was not specified, proponents acknowledged that it would probably be accomplished by means of a lethal injection or drug overdose. However, they went to great lengths to conceal this. ‘Try not to go into methods of aid-in-dying such as lethal injections’ was the advice given in a speakers' packet formulated by the Friends of Initiative 119, an umbrella group for the Washington state measure's supporters. Instead speakers were advised to say that Initiative 119 was needed to ‘protect our rights as patients.’ Audiences were to be told that the measure was needed to correct flaws that had been discovered by members of the medical community in the state's outdated Living Will law.
It would be wise for each of us who defend the rights of the innocent and the vulnerable so that their inherent dignity as human persons is recognized and protected in the law to pay close attention to these words.
As I wrote in my blog a few days ago, euthanasia proponents are hard at work in the state of Washington. Just as the fox got into the chicken coup through cunning, so too stealthy harbingers of doom are working their cunning to bring harm to the ill and the disabled.
Whether or not they succeed is up to those of us belonging to the pro-life cause – because without us showing them the truth, voters are likely to cast a "yes" vote that one day may kill them.
Terrible Judie! Like I've said, I live in Oregon the ONLY state euthanasia is legal. And the safeguards are NOT working!
Chantell Chantell | June 5, 2008
Oregon's refusal to pay for cancer treatments and promoting "opting out of life" policy is driven by one thing--$$$$. The very same reason insurance companies cover abortion--it is CHEAPER to pay for an abortion than to pay for ob/gyn services and allow the child to live! Mind you--I am not in favor of extraordinary means of prolonging life--but ordinary proven methods. But I cannot imagine being the insurance rep or the doctor propositioning the patient, as a matter of course, with the damning statement "Wouldn't you like to die now?" Talk about CHILLING! VL | June 6, 2008
Aid-in-dying. Right. More like got-impatient-so-I-decided-to-knock-you-off-now. These people are still alive and can still be saved. To take a life before their time is not only a huge gamble and a horrible assumption that they would never have woken up, but flat out murder. Quit softening it up and say what u mean. Let's see what support u get then.
Education is so important in this situation, just like every other situation. Isaac K. | June 10, 2008
FATHER PFLEGER, THE CATHOLIC PRIESTHOOD AND THE FEARFUL HIERARCHY Posted: Wednesday June 4, 2008 at 11:16 am EST by Judie Brown
Recently I received the following message on a forum that I host for EWTN’s web site. Because I think that some things need not be repeated verbatim when certain political figures are named, I have modified the message slightly, but I am sure you will see where my friend and fellow Catholic is going with this.
I am a confused Catholic - please help
Dear Judie Brown, Jesus said: "But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." I am very confused both spiritually and morally over this Fr. Pfleger issue. Confused as to why our Cardinal, Francis Cardinal George, has not removed this blatantly pro-abortion priest from the priesthood.
I am a life-long Chicagoan, a 50-year-old cradle Catholic and father of five children. During the last five or more years I have been focusing on evangelization and apologetics. I consider myself to be a devout and Orthodox Catholic. Of all the newspaper articles, web and TV and radio commentaries that I have seen, heard and read, no one has focused on the central issue of Catholic Theology, specifically, the fact that Catholicism teaches that abortion is one of the five non negotiable issues for Catholic voters. Abortion is an intrinsically evil action.
Now the fact that Fr. Pfleger, a Catholic priest, endorses a pro-abortion (including partial-birth abortion) candidate is a concern in itself. By endorsing a pro-abortion candidate Pfleger is de facto endorsing the intrinsically evil act of abortion, and any other evil in which a candidate may believe. In my opinion, Pfleger is not in communion with the Catholic Church!
Why has the Church hierarchy allowed this renegade priest to remain in his role as a priest in the Catholic faith?
What has happened to the standards of the Church?
What is God thinking about His Church and the leadership here in the Chicago area?
Why is the Church allowing this "Cafeteria Catholic Priest" to influence and confuse the flock??? Why hasn’t the Church hierarchy denounced and renounced Pfleger's anti-Catholic beliefs?
It is not relevant to argue that Pfleger is allowed to stay in his position as pastor simply because his parishioners like him. What does matter is Pfleger's unwillingness to conform to the teachings of the Catholic faith, some of which may not be popular in secular society but nonetheless are true. Fr Pfleger's parishioners are being deceived and misled away from the true teachings of the Catholic faith by the mere fact that Pfleger is actively endorsing a Pro-Abortion candidate. …
Why is the Church NOT standing up for the truth by stating that NO Catholic is allowed to support any candidate for any political office who endorses abortion?? Is it any mystery why so many Catholics are tepid, cafeteria Catholics? Is it any wonder why so many are leaving the Catholic Church???
I am very interested in hearing responses to these questions from the Church hierarchy here in Chicago. As you know, they do not respond to individuals who ask these questions. But they probably would respond to these questions, most which I believe are of vital interest to most Catholics in general, if posed by the media. Would you please consider posting this letter within the near future while this issue remains front and center?
Personally, I am praying for Fr Pfleger to return to the full Catholic faith, and am also praying for everyone effected by his conduct to receive an illumination of conscience from the Holy Spirit. Sincerely, WJL Chicago”
"To avoid months of turmoil in the church, Father Pfleger has promised me that he will not enter into campaigning," George said in a statement. "[He] will not publicly mention any candidate by name and will abide by the discipline common to all Catholic priests.”
And then today, Cardinal George took the further step of "temporarily" removing Father Pfleger. In a statement, the cardinal said:
To put recent events in some perspective, I have asked Father Michael Pfleger, Pastor of St. Sabina’s Parish, to step back from his obligations there and take leave for a couple of weeks from his pastoral duties, effective today. Fr. Pfleger does not believe this to be the right step at this time. While respecting his disagreement, I have nevertheless asked him to use this opportunity to reflect on his recent statements and actions in the light of the Church’s regulations for all Catholic priests. I hope that this period will also be a time away from the public spotlight and for rest and attention to family concerns.
I hope also that the life of St. Sabina’s parish may continue in uninterrupted fashion. Fr. William Vanecko, Pastor of St. Kilian’s parish, will be temporary administrator of St. Sabina’s and will assure the full complement of ministerial services during this period. I ask the members of St. Sabina’s parish to cooperate with him and to keep him and Fr. Pfleger in their prayers. They are in mine.
While all this is occurring the Chicago Sun-Times editorializes in a way that can only be described as applauding the priest as though he were nearly saintly!
Just two weeks ago, Pfleger visited with the editorial board of this newspaper to urge support for a package of anti-violence bills in Springfield. He talked convincingly about, among other matters, the need to stir good people in bad neighborhoods to stand up for themselves. On Sunday, this page ran an editorial extolling the anti-crime potential of plain old block clubs – an editorial born of that meeting with Pfleger.
Cardinal George has his hands full with Pfleger, a narcissist who gets carried away with his own rhetoric.
But if good works are the measure of a good priest, the cardinal couldn't do much better than the blond hot dog on 79th Street.
So what we can deduce from this? Well, based on our past experience five years ago when Father Pfleger invited Al Sharpton to be the homilist in his parish during Sunday Mass, we can assume that the cardinal will do little to permanently remove this priest from his position of power and influence. He has slapped Father Pfleger’s hands and will, in my humble opinion, not cause a public disturbance about this renegade priest that will have long-lasting consequences. In fact I am betting that when the dust settles, business will continue as usual and the public will be left in the same boat as my friend, WJL, wondering what is going on with the Catholic hierarchy these days!
Why permanent steps aren’t being be taken by the cardinal is a mystery. If the cardinal had acted five years ago when Pfleger hosted pro-abortion Sharpton, this current flap would not have occurred. And so we are left wondering, along with WJL.
Why do Catholics leave the Church? Better yet, why do cardinals and bishops refrain from teaching, preaching and calling evil by its proper name?
If the second question did not have to be asked, the first question would have this response:
Nobody is leaving the Catholic Church; hordes of people are joining the Church because they are so inspired by her fearless leaders.
Fearless leadership, courage enough to teach the whole truth, and confidence in the Lord to protect the faithful against evil – those are qualities we desperately need to see reflected in the actions of every single member of the Catholic hierarchy. Until we do, such debacles will continue. May God help us!
This does not require a reply. Just wanted to say that this episode with Fr. Pfleger is a case of same-old-same-old. Ditto Cardinal George's response (or, lack thereof). As a convert/re-vert, I'm getting so tired of this.
As with the American political situation, we need leaders--both secular and sacred--who have the "intestinal fortitude" to come in and "clean house". I honestly don't look for that to happen in my lifetime in either arena.
However, I do have hope for my children (grown) and grandchildren. Maybe, in their lifetimes..... After all, these liberal, don't-rock-the-boat types are not going to live forever. They will die off, and others will take their place. Considering the quality of young priests I see coming up, there IS hope. Carol Luscomb | June 4, 2008
Dear Judie, I totally understand what you and WJL are talking about regarding why the Church hierarchy is so slow to react or even take a stand these days. Just last week I was running about trying to stop a talk by Vasulla Ryden in the nearby parish, but none of the priests or nuns bothered to respond to my mails and calls. I had to follow up with them to get a reply. They seemed to think it was ok for her to talk and there was no danger to the laity. No one cared that she is not allowed to adress Catholics. Nor was this going to be made known to the unsuspecting laity.
My Archbishop finally replied to me after the talk was over, saying that he had given permission for her to talk, but he did not endorse her prayer meetings. It saddened me that so many shepheards don't even care anymore about the sheep they are called to look after.
I also don't understand this double message going across to the laity. While on the one hand our priests and bishops talk of love of neighbor and service of God. They themselves seem to be fearful of actually doing things when it counts. Their sermons are very good - make them look like saints, but their actions speak louder of their fear and indifference to the very God they have pledged their life in service.
I guess we can only pray and raise our voice everytime we have to. Perhaps persistence will wake them up, doesn't matter if we lose our heads in the bargain like St. John the baptist and St. Paul. Lydia | June 5, 2008
Carol:
God bless you!
Judie Brown Judie Brown | June 5, 2008
Dear Lydia:
We do have to do as you suggest - pray and act with the deepest humility and total confidence in the Lord and His timing.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | June 5, 2008
I wonder if Cardinal George is completely pro-life. Remember last year he welcomed Hillary Clinton to Chicago when she spoke at Mercy Home (a Catholic home for boys and girls). He should not have welcomed a pro-choice person and Mercy Home should not have had her as a speaker. Where are the Church's teachings in the Chicago area? Constance Vyas | June 7, 2008
Why does a \"Fr Pfleger\" exist\"? Why does abortion exist? Why was the Sanhedrin able to work it so an innocent man was crucified? The answer is because we want it that way.
Each and every one of us has a black little heart of dissent against God. The entire country was founded on dissent and we love our American dissent each and every one of us. In the Gospel Jesus said we would be divided 2 against 3 (lk12:52). And so we are. In the gospel Jesus said because of an increase of evil doing the love of many will grow cold (mt 24:12), and so it has. The love of each and every one of us is less than it could be.
We are all in dissent of who God would have us be. Everyone. Cardinal George is the spiritual director of a diocese. If he threw the dissenters out of the boat, who would there be to enter the kingdom? The boat would be empty. You wonder why the Cardinal is ineffective? Ask the question why is it when Jesus went to his home country he couldn\'t cure a soul. Why is it? The answer is because we wouldn\'t let him. His cure was roundly refused. I\'m sure there were many good righteous people in Jesus\'s country that refused him. Pretty much sums up the state of the Church Jesus said it in the gospel just yesterday: The sick are the ones in need of a physician, so to whom do you think Cardinal George is ministering? The righteous have no need of him. Just look at that Jesus, why he sits with sinners and tax collectors. Why look at that Cardinal, he sits with Pfleger!!!!
I find it very interesting we can be so interested in \"Justice\" until it\'s our turn. Then all you hear is the bleating MERCY MERCY MERCY. Kind of like the man who owed the king a great sum but failed to forgive the little sum. I don\'t want that man\'s fate as my own.
There is a directive in the catechism the righteous among us might want to consider, when we are so easy to beat up the Cardinal or Pfleger for that matter,
CCC
2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor\'s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:
Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another\'s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.
Now does this sound anything like what Cardinal George is doing? Could it just be the good Cardinal is a better Catholic than the self righteous know it alls among us who have studied a couple of Scott Hahn tapes? Maybe he actually read the catechism. Rash judgment by the way can raise to the level of mortal sin, and when I see comments like \"I wonder if the Cardinal is fully pro-life\", my wonder is has this risen to the level of mortal sin, since that comment is the sin of detraction pure and simple. His reputation is clearly being maligned. The murder of a reputation is a sin against the 5th commandment, the very commandment we \"pro-lifers\" love to bash everyone over the head with.
2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one\'s neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.
Yes I have my own little black heart to deal with so do not think I am any better than the rest.
God does help us, but like the people in Jesus\'s country it is us who refuse the help. Could it be Cardinal George is the real channel of grace in this situation and we are the darkness? Lee | June 9, 2008
Dear Constance:
I would very much like to know the same thing. Let us pray for Cardinal George!
Judie Brown Judie Brown | June 9, 2008
Heirarchy in any form drives me up the wall. In the church, over something this serious, drives me up the wall and makes me really mad too. Get this priest out of the church! Heresy (because that's what this is, heresy) should not be at all, anywhere, tolerated. Period. Isaac K. | June 10, 2008
Dear Lee:
While I agree that we are all sinners and constantly in need of improvement, I also know that each of us has a conscience comprised of the natural law which is written on the heart of every man. Because God has given each of us a free will, we can choose to do good or to do evil. That is our choice.
We are not all in dissent from God, as you suggest. The fact is that faithful Catholics strive to the best of their ability to serve God and do His will. That is not dissent.
Cardinal George has a moral responsibility to be a shepherd to all the souls God has entrusted to him and to protect those souls through his teachings, preachings and his life example from scandal and sin. It is the example that he sets by constantly setting aside the acts of a dissident priest like Father Pfleger that caused us to comment as we did. In this particular case, Lee, the cardinal has failed, whether you like it or not.
Let's not confuse Christ with any human being. Let us not forget that Christ is human and divine, the Son of God Who is in fact God Himself.
Christ could find no one to hear his preaching because hearts were hardened. This is precisely why He died on the cross so that people like you and I could have the opportunity to be His in every way rather than to serve the whims of the evil one.
I must say that I find your analysis of the situation in Chicago very interesting indeed for it would seem that you are using the examples of Cardinal George and Father Pfleger to excuse any and all of us from striving to take the way of the cross as our chosen avenue in this life.
Perhaps you should reflect on this teaching from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"1704 The human person participates in the light and power of the divine Spirit. By his reason, he is capable of understanding the order of things established by the Creator. By free will, he is capable of directing himself toward his true good. He finds his perfection "in seeking and loving what is true and good."
Each of us has the ability to judge objectively, without judging another person, what is evil and what good. We are then called to make what we see known for the sake of the one involved in evil as well as for our own sake, for God tells us In Ezekiel, Chapter 33:1-7:
"Thus the word of the LORD came to me:
'Son of man, speak thus to your countrymen: When I bring the sword against a country, and the people of this country select one of their number to be their watchman,
'and the watchman, seeing the sword coming against the country, blows the trumpet to warn the people,
'anyone hearing but not heeding the warning of the trumpet and therefore slain by the sword that comes against him, shall be responsible for his own death.
'He heard the trumpet blast yet refused to take warning; he is responsible for his own death, for had he taken warning he would have escaped with his life.
'But if the watchman sees the sword coming and fails to blow the warning trumpet, so that the sword comes and takes anyone, I will hold the watchman responsible for that person's death, even though that person is taken because of his own sin.'"
We are not guilty of calumny nor are we guilty of detraction. We have simply and only pointed out the ludicrous nature of what happened in Chicago, and may I say, continues to happen and has been happening for years.
Thank you so much for sharing your opinion, Lee, and may the Lord bless you.
JOIN THE ACTION: BE A PART OF THE NATIONWIDE PILL KILLS PROTESTS Posted: Monday June 2, 2008 at 10:38 pm EST by Judie Brown
Since the early 1960’s most medical professionals have known that the birth control pill can kill preborn children. Now, as we approach the 43rd Anniversary of the United States Supreme Court decision Griswold v. Connecticutthat wiped out all laws designed to protect Americans from the side effects of birth control in general, American Life League has taken up the mantle of leading grassroots Americans across the country in a protest against the pill.
Before I tell you how irate our opponents are about this latest activity and our staff who are bubbling with excitement around American Life League headquarters, let me give a little history lesson about that particular Supreme Court decision. A little-known fact is that it was this decision that created, for the first time in American jurisprudence, a right to privacy in matters of intimate sexual relations. It was in Griswold v. Connecticut that the Supreme Court defined a "right to privacy" in marital relations as emanating from the penumbra of decisions relating to the meaning of the words within the various amendments to the United States Constitution.
Yes, what I have just told you is true and extremely confusing if not downright stupid. But I did not write the decision.
In his dissent, Justice Stewart, who had no problem with birth control per se, said this about the Constitution of the United States and the Griswold decision:
Since 1879 Connecticut has had on its books a law which forbids the use of contraceptives by anyone. I think this is an uncommonly silly law. As a practical matter, the law is obviously unenforceable, except in the oblique context of the present case. As a philosophical matter, I believe the use of contraceptives in the relationship of marriage should be left to personal and private choice, based upon each individual's moral, ethical and religious beliefs. As a matter of social policy, I think professional counsel about methods of birth control should be available to all, so that each individual's choice can be meaningfully made. But we are not asked in this case to say whether we think this law is unwise, or even asinine. We are asked to hold that it violates the United States Constitution. And that I cannot do.
So from the very beginning the Griswold decision raised concerns among those who felt that the framers of the Constitution did indeed know precisely what they meant, and that they never intended for the Constitution to be interpreted to affect how birth control or abortion was legally treated in this country. But, as history has shown, political activist judges did not agree in 1965 and they do not agree today. The Griswold decision, in my opinion, was instigated by Dr. Griswold, a Planned Parenthood physician, to set the stage for decriminalizing abortion just eight short years later. It was, in essence, Planned Parenthood’s greatest victory.
But I digress!
In a few days The Pill Kills protests will take place in cities across the nation. Today American Life League premiered our latest video news report with the subject The Pill Kills.
And just today the National Organization for Women issued an alert, or should I say, an all-out attack on The Pill Kills events. They are, in a word, desperate. Their screed, "Expose the Lies: Protect Birth Control," is accompanied by a "fact sheet" and other hype. The real blessing in all this is, of course, that those who have been lying to women for the last 43 plus years simply cannot comprehend the idea that the facts about the pill are finally going to be told, shared and otherwise spread across the nation.
No wonder they are so distraught.
Perhaps this is why the pro-abortion, anti-family NOW says,
Birth Control Doesn't Intervene with Pregnancy, it Prevents it. Combination birth control pills function to prevent pregnancy by delivering a daily dose of two hormones, estrogen and progestin. These hormones stop the release of an egg from a woman's ovaries, eliminating the chance that an egg would join with sperm. These hormones also cause a woman's cervical mucus to thicken, blocking any sperm from joining an egg.
NOW conveniently leaves out the third mode of action of the pill which is to irritate the lining of the uterus so that the embryonic child cannot implant and therefore dies. The architects of the culture of death haven’t stopped deceiving people, even though the scientific evidence is mounting. They cannot afford to tell the truth because if they did, women would no longer invest in one of the most lucrative pharmaceutical discoveries of the past century!
But perhaps the most telling statement on the NOW "fact sheet" is this one: "Birth Control is one Component of Reproductive Freedom."
What exactly is reproductive freedom?
The American Civil Liberties Union says reproductive freedom is "everyone's right to make informed decisions free from government interference about whether and when to become a parent."
Or to put it another way, every person should have the right, with legal protection, to kill their babies before birth if they have chosen not to become a parent at the time they discover they are with child. Everyone has the right to ingest chemicals that will remove the possibility of the preborn child growing. Everyone has the right to be free of responsibility and free of moral guidelines when it comes to human sexuality.
To put it succinctly: Everyone should have the right to do evil regardless of the harm done.
This is the situation in America today; American Life League is striving to change it! But we need you!
We need you to get active and do something now. Please plan to be part of The Pill Kills protests on Saturday, June 7. Decide today to join thousands all across the nation – your fellow Americans who love life and want to tell the truth about the fact that the pill kills. They will be out in force protesting and hopefully you will be too.
Complete details including maps showing where protests are taking place can be found at www.thepillkills.com.
Griswold v. Connecticut is pretty darn confusing. So confusing, in fact, that I can't tell if it's downright stupid or not 'cuz it's so blasted confusing!
Judie,
Unfortunately, it would seem as if mainstream America doesn't give a care about morals. Morals are considered to be connected with religion, which is basically the opposite of our culture right now. People do care when others die, though. Whether it's moral to have affairs, do contraception, etc. is a gray area and to muddled to mess with with very high expectations, in my opinion. I would go with the hard science. Isaac K. | June 10, 2008
PERSONHOOD AND LIES! Posted: Sunday June 1, 2008 at 12:02 pm EST by Judie Brown
No sooner had the personhood amendment qualified for the ballot in Colorado than the outrageous comments commenced. One would have thought that Chicken Little had come back from the dead and was once again running around telling everyone that the sky was falling. Though in this case it wasn’t the sky falling but the culture of death’s sexually saturated cultural agenda getting a wakeup call – a call they not only detest but are committed to ending with defeat.
The amendment, known as "Definition of a Person" would provide protection to all human beings as persons from the "moment of fertilization." While it is clear that this language will not protect innocent human beings "created" by asexual methods such as cloning, the amendment is a huge step toward the victory we all seek – a victory that will end abortion in our nation once and for all if the Supreme Court ever decides to be honest and forthright in their decision-making process. But I digress.
The opponents, namely Protect Families, Protect Choice, argue that the language is "vague and deceptive" and they go on to tell the public, most accurately I might add, that the language would encroach on everything from abortion to contraception and in vitro fertilization. They are in an absolute frenzy because for the first time in the history of the pro-life movement the citizens of a state are going to be able to hear the truth and that is enough to frighten any member of the pro-death cadre that has used deceptive tactics since day one. Their brain-washing techniques are about to get shaken up. It is no wonder that they are screaming bloody murder. Excuse me, bloody murder is part of their business, now isn’t it?
Sorry for the poor choice in words.
When American Right to Life congratulated Colorado for Equal Rights on their stunning victory, qualifying for the ballot with at least 30,000 more signatures than they needed, Brian Rohrbough, president of American RTL, said,
For the first time in forty years of 'legalized' child killing, pro-lifers have moved an entire state to consider the God-given right to life of the unborn. We thank sponsor Kristi Burton of Colorado for Equal Rights, the 500 participating churches, and Colorado RTL for getting personhood on the November ballot.
But the pro-death Birth Control Watch organization took a different tactic, stating "It's Official: This November Colorado will Consider Whether Fertilized Eggs Are Human Beings." Already they are committed to dehumanizing the preborn child, calling him by an improper name in order to convince people that human embryos are no different than chicken eggs and doing all they can to obfuscate fact. This is nothing new, of course.
But I think that in this age of 4-D ultrasound, immense support from Colorado Christian churches and dedication the likes of which we at American Life League have never seen from a local grass roots effort, the pro-aborts are in for a huge surprise. They can persist, if they wish, in their deception but the truth will no longer be hidden from public view.
Even bloggers are beginning to do their homework, digging down and attempting to discern the truth even though many medical organizations have been quick to deny that a human being exists at fertilization/conception/point of creation. For example, in a popular Christian blog, written by Presbyterian pastors David and Tim Bayly, we find this little-known quote from a 1998 medical journal:
Note the call for ACOG to start defining terms dealing with human beings and pregnancy with accuracy rather than political correctness.
It is our fervent hope and prayer that the effort in Colorado succeeds and there are signs everywhere that it just might do precisely that! Onward with PERSONHOOD!
CALIFORNIA THINLY VEILS EUTHANASIA Posted: Saturday May 31, 2008 at 6:30 pm EST by Judie Brown
The California Assembly recently passed AB2747, a bill that entitles those with less than one year to live or diagnosed with a terminal illness to receive information on end-of-life options from their physician if they request it. This may sound innocent on its face, but digging into the legislation a bit reveals the horrendous nature of what this bill actually approves.
If the health care provider does not want to provide the information to the patient, he can make a referral instead! While this is a violation of conscience for the ethical physician, I will comment on that later. First, I'd like to discuss the bill’s recommendations of options for end of life care. They are:
Refusal or withdrawal of life sustaining treatment
Voluntary stopping of eating and drinking
If this sounds acceptable to you, perhaps you need to review the definitions. For example, "'Refusal or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments' means forgoing treatment or medical procedures that replace or support an essential bodily function, including, but not limited to, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, artificial nutrition and hydration, dialysis and any other treatment or discontinuing any or all of those treatments after they have been used for a reasonable time."
Let us not forget that the use of a ventilator is sometimes the only way to provide comfort for a dying patient. We also know that the provision of nutrition and hydration protects the patient from the pain and agony caused by starving to death. The only exception that would be morally acceptable to this would be if the patient’s body simply could not process the nutrition or hydration or if the provision of either caused undue pain.
Clearly, these ethical principles are not the foundation for California’s legislation. I say this because the author of the legislation, state Assemblywoman Patty Berg has long been an advocate of various forms of euthanasia. She was described by Time magazine on May 28, 2005 as a lawmaker who was pressing for legalization of doctor-assisted suicide. At that time Berg said, "Aid in dying happens in every state. We need to bring it out of the closet, impose legal safeguards and careful oversight."
In 2007 Berg revived her attempt to decriminalize euthanasia in a proposal the Death with Dignity National Center identified as the Compassionate Choices Act. The bill was an exact model of Oregon’s physician assisted suicide bill.
Even the secular news reporting agency, Times-Standard On Line, defined "palliative sedation" in precisely the way the legislation does:
The practice of administering sedative medication to the point of rendering a patient unconscious as a way to alleviate intense pain and other clinical symptoms.
This is predicated on the subjective opinions of those medical professionals in attendance, of course, and is a definition that is easily abused. For, as Nancy Valko, R.N. has written:
While some euthanasia supporters have called Terminal Sedation "inhumane" compared with a faster death by a lethal overdose, other supporters view TS as a way of getting around the 'problem' of the euthanasia movement's inability – so far – to convince voters or state legislatures to enact Oregon-style assisted suicide laws.
Increasingly, TS is being incorporated into some hospice and other "end of life" programs, even though, as writer Brian Johnston points out, euthanasia supporters like Doctor David Orentlicher are admitting in prestigious medical journals that "terminal sedation is tantamount to euthanasia, or a kind of slow euthanasia."
Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families told the media, upon the narrow passage of this bill by the California Assembly,
Just as the assisted-suicide bills of the last three years have been rejected, so should the California Legislature reject AB 2747. Assisted suicide by total sedation ignores the sanctity of human life and violates life-affirming medical ethics. People who are ill need support, spiritual care and counseling if they're depressed. But AB 2747 would ensure the death of innocent Californians at the hands of an increasingly unscrupulous insurance industry that regards people cheaper dead than alive.
Indeed, that is precisely the problem. The ethical practice of medicine, which is based on using every precaution to preserve life and provide comfort care, will be replaced by the grotesque practice of redefining compassion as the active pursuit of death.
and...this is supposed to be compassonate..how? sounds like the days when the Nazis killed all the disabled and "useless people" during the holocost. oy. Emmie K. | June 3, 2008
HABITAT FOR INHUMANITY Posted: Thursday May 29, 2008 at 11:27 am EST by Judie Brown
In case you have not been following the latest Planned Parenthood saga, it involves a potential deal between a Christian ministry, Habitat for Humanity, and the world’s leading proponent of abortion, Planned Parenthood. It seems that Planned Parenthood could not get zoning privileges on its own for an abortion mill it wanted to build in the Rosemary district of Sarasota, Florida.
Can you imagine the whining that must have gone on among Planned Parenthood planners at that point? But then a Christian ministry willing to partner with the evil empire came to their rescue. It makes me sick to think about this, but then I recall how Planned Parenthood got its start and everything falls into place.
Margaret Sanger, so many years ago, set about the business of helping the poor by convincing them that through the use of birth control they could better themselves – at least that was her public message. But the truth of the matter was that she detested the less fortunate, as was made patently clear in her book The Pivot of Civilization in which she argued that,
organized attempts to help the poor were the ‘surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding, and is perpetuating . . . defectives, delinquents, and dependents.’ She called for coercive sterilization, mandatory segregation, and rehabilitative concentration camps for all inferior blacks, Hispanics, poor whites and Catholics.
One has to wonder if the leadership of Habitat for Humanity has ever examined the roots of this infamous organization they seem so willing to help in their time of need to build yet another killing center.
As Jim Sedlak, vice president of American Life League said:
I don’t see how building a residence next to an organization that kills babies, pushes pornography and covers up for rapists gives a family dignity or safety. We are calling on everyone to contact Habitat for Humanity and demand they break this agreement.
You can help by contacting Habitat for Humanity of Sarasota, Florida. That organization can be reached at 941-365-0700 and tsouza@sarasotahabitat.com. Habitat for Humanity International’s complaint line is 1-800-461-9330.
Habitat for Humanity International is a nonprofit, ecumenical Christian housing ministry. HFHI seeks to eliminate poverty housing and homelessness from the world, and to make decent shelter a matter of conscience and action.
Clearly the definition of ecumenical "efforts to promote Christian unity" could not possibly be construed to include the commitment to eugenics that provides the foundation for everything in which Planned Parenthood’s is involved.
In the Wednesday STOPP Report, American Life League’s Stop Planned Parenthood International has been keeping the grassroots constituents informed of this evolving story and most recently shared the following:
The CEO of Habitat for Humanity in Sarasota, Tony Souza, is telling callers that the paperwork has not yet been signed and that he is having some doubts. But, he says, it is ultimately up to Habitat's Board of Directors. According to its web site, the current board members are Zeb Portanova, James Frederick, Bob Ripley, Fred Scheerle, Brock Leach, Bill Johnson, Ken Pendery, Bruce Franklin, John Schaub III, Rich Gerrity, Erin McLeod, Mark Usher, Patrick Ryskamp, Laurin Ripley, Dr. Peter Wish, Bruce Wismer, Dr. Peter A. Wish and Janice Zarro.
Please add these board members to your mailing lists and send e-mails to them at info@sarasotahabitat.com.
Interestingly, Habitat board member Bruce Franklin is reportedly a principal in the ADP Group, the architectural firm for the PP abortuary.
We encourage all STOPPers to contact Habitat for Humanity and ask that they break this agreement: Habitat for Humanity, 1757 N. East Ave., Sarasota, FL 34234, 941-365-0700, tsouza@sarasotahabitat.com.
We also encourage you to contact Habitat for Humanity International to register your complaint. You can reach them at 1-800-HABITAT. They also have a complaint line: 1-800-461-9330. Pease contact both of these numbers and let them know that Habitat should have nothing to do with Planned Parenthood. Contact, Duane Bates, Director of Public and Media Relations 404-733-3079, dbates@habitat.org.
In all of our communications with these people we should reflect our love of Christ and truth, never being harsh or judgmental in our comments. Let us focus on the truth about Planned Parenthood and remind Habitat for Humanity of its commitment to Christian principles.
Hi Judie! I hope Habitat For Humanity will find the courage to do what they know what is right, and not be so desperate for money that they compromise Christian values.
Chantell Chantell | May 29, 2008
Emailed Souza. Now he just has to read it. I remind you all, one email isn't gonna do much. It just takes 5 minutes of your time, 5 minutes that may save countless lives. Email! Isaac K. | June 2, 2008
Thanks for keeping us informed Judie, I\'ll post the info on other forums. Expose and stand. Robert in Colorado | June 5, 2008
Dear Judie,
Thank you for your tireless work on behalf of the unborn and the old and terminally ill. You are definitely part of the "Living Bible"! I just sent the following message to Habitat of Humnity and pray that thousands of others will send their thoughts.
To the directors of Habitat for Humanity in Sarasota, FL:
Having just read information saying that your group, which I have always admired and have encouraged my students to get involved with, is partnering with Planned Parenthood, I felt I had to contact you. I am just writing to ask you to please reconsider this position. Habitat for Humanity has always been about making life more livable for those who cannot make it on their own. I ask, who can be more vulnerable ... who can need more help to survive than an innocent baby in the womb. Yet, that is the target of destruction for Planned Parenthood. They kill innocent in vitro babies ... and they promote promiscuity among girls and women of childbearing age. Those actions are taking "the hammers of destruction" to our society. Your organization has always been about taking 'hammers of construction" up to build society ... to aid the family.
Once again, please, please, please for the sake of the voiceless ones in the wombs and the vulnerable moms, do not allow another abortuary to be built because of your actions.
Thank you,
Monica
Monica C | June 8, 2008
Is there any new news on this partnership? I emailed the contacts above only to get a scripted response. I would really like to know if this partnership is taking place. Compassion International has done projects recently with Habitat and we sponsor a child through them. We need info so that we can further encourage Compassion to not partner with Habitat, or withdraw our sponsorship. Thank you. Tara Shaver | June 12, 2008
Dear Tara:
As I reported in a blog last Friday, Habitat for Humanity cut off their relationship with Planned Parenthood. PRAISE GOD!
Pro-Life Story: Tina Whittington Posted By Tina Whittington on Feb, 8 2006 My husband and I brought our family to protest the March for Women's Lives organized by NOW back in the Spring of 2004. At the time Justus was ... Read
