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!
PESKY LITTLE WORDS THAT KILL Posted: Thursday June 26, 2008 at 4:27 pm EST by Judie Brown
Since my first days in the pro-life movement, more than 35 years ago, I have learned a great deal about rhetoric and how it can deceive even the most well meaning of people. I have also learned that there are people, especially on the pro-death side of the debate, who will go to great lengths to use words in specific ways in order to mislead the listener.
For the purposes of this blog, I am going to concentrate on the variety of words used to describe when a human being's life actually begins. Let's start with "conception," because that is where I started.
When I was a novice in this work I thought, as did everybody I knew, that conception, the act of conceiving a child, was the beginning of a person's life. So when it first came to my attention in the mid-1970s that the word had a couple of meanings, I looked into it. I was horrified by what I learned.
You see, many medical dictionaries, doctors and clinical researchers no longer think of the word conception as the moment when the human sperm and the human egg unite. For example, MedicineNet.com's popular online dictionary says this:
From the Latin conceptio, conceptionis meaning conception, becoming pregnant; drawing up of legal formulae; and from the Latin conceptus meaning conceiving, pregnancy; collecting, or a collection.
Notice, if you will, that definition number one differs from number two, and that number two ignores conception as defined in number one and tells the reader that the actual pregnancy does not begin until eight days after it has begun - at implantation! In other words, the two definitions are in direct conflict, but I would suggest to you that the average person does not consider this, think about it or otherwise, frankly, care.
So we have a dilemma, and for every dilemma there is an answer. This must be so, particularly in the pro-life work that we do, because words can kill people if used in the wrong way or if used naively in a way that plays into the hands of the enemy. In the following paragraphs are the details that illustrate exactly what I mean.
American Life League was compelled to research this question early on in its existence. One of the facts we found, which has been documented by many of the pro-life movement's proficient researchers, is this:
Swedish researcher Bent Boving, at a 1959 Planned Parenthood-Population Council symposium, noted that "whether eventual control of implantation can be reserved the social advantage of being considered to prevent conception rather than to destroy an established pregnancy could depend upon something so simple as a prudent habit of speech." [Bent Boving, "Implantation Mechanisms," in Mechanisms Concerned with Conception, ed. C. G. Hartman New York: Pergamon Press, 1963, 386]
The intent to deceive the public about the abortion-causing nature of anti-fertility control drugs and devices was widespread. At the 1964 Population Council symposium, Dr. Samuel Wishik pointed out that acceptance or rejection of birth control would depend on whether it caused an early abortion. Dr. Tietze, of Planned Parenthood and the Population Council suggested, as a public relations ploy, "not to disturb those people for whom this is a question of major importance." Tietze added that theologians and jurists have always taken the prevailing biological and medical consensus of their times as factual and that "if a medical consensus develops and is maintained that pregnancy, and therefore life, begins at implantation, eventually our brethren from the other faculties will listen." [Discussion, Proceedings of the Second International Conference, Intra-Uterine Contraception, held October 2-3, 1964, New York City, ed. Sheldon Segal, et al.., International Series, Excerpta Medica Foundation, No. 86, page 212]
And in 1965, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology published its new terminology bulletin that stated, "CONCEPTION is the implantation of the fertilized ovum." [ACOG Terminology Bulletin, "Terms Used in Reference to the Fetus," Chicago, American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, No. 1, September 1965.]
So there you have it. We can no longer say conception without saying fertilization. To do otherwise is to agree with the culture of death that, since pregnancy does not begin until implantation, the child prior to implantation is simply not really there at all!
But the plot now thickens even more. Enter the sadistic scientists who have no problem telling us that because there are so many in vitro fertilization embryos sitting around in a freezer somewhere, they have devised a way to put them all to good use. They will use their stem cells, thus killing each of them in the process; and help us learn how to cure disease, grow extra body parts and stop the aging process, to mention but a few of their bogus claims.
Not only that, but they will manipulate human and animal cells, and in the process, clone or otherwise asexually reproduce human beings or maybe even a human-animal chimera along the way. Regardless of what they call it, the fact of the matter is that in today's fast-moving era of science for the sake of profit, the human being is at even greater risk. For those of us in the pro-life movement, this means that our language has to be even more precise than it was previously.
So what to do? Well, at American Life League we have chosen to do everything we can to make sure that every human being, regardless of his point of his origin, is protected by law and the Constitution. The proposed human life amendment that we support states, therefore, that regardless of how human beings come into existence, whether by sexual or asexual means, they will be treated as persons and receive all of the rights bestowed by the Creator on each and every one of us, born and preborn.
There is quite simply no "mystery" or "doubt" as to when both sexually and asexually reproduced human beings begin to exist. According to properly credentialed world experts for decades now, sexually reproduced human beings begin to exist at the beginning of fertilization (when the sperm penetrates the oocyte). [See Irving, "The Carnegie Stages of Early Human Embryonic Development: Chart of all 23 Stages, and Detailed Descriptions of Carnegie Stages 1 - 6" (April 22, 2006), at: http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_123carnegiestages2.html]....
As for asexually reproduced human beings, they begin to exist when the DNA in the cells are appropriately differentiated to that of a human organism (rather than that of just a human cell). This would include all naturally occurring human identical twins/triplets formed in the woman's body, as well as all artificially reproduced human embryos in vitro (e.g., those reproduced by somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), germ line cell nuclear transfer (GLCNT), "twinning" (blastomere separation, blastocyst splitting, embryo multiplication, etc.), parthenogenesis, pronuclei transfer, mitochondrial transfer, hemi-cloning, the use of artificially constructed genes, chromosomes, nuclei, cells, sperm, oocytes, embryos, etc., and other human genetic engineering and alternative method techniques.
Clearly, the situation has changed dramatically over the past 35 years and, had I realized then what I do now, I would have been speechless and terrified. It has always been clear that many in the culture deny God because they choose to pretend that they are themselves gods, but today that is more obvious and thus more chilling than even I could have imagined.
Let us take care, then, by paying careful attention to each word we use, that we never intentionally leave a preborn human being behind by our choice of words or lack thereof.
One can trace the earliest origins of this semantic corruption of key embryology terminology to the 1969 book "The Second Genesis - the coming control of life", by Albert Rosenfeld.
This book was written only a few years after the invention of the birth control pill (BCP). The author, with remarkable perception and honesty, foresaw that there was a "problem" with the newly discovered birth control pill. The problem was that the BCP could terminate embryonic human life by inhibiting implantation. As Rosenfeld wrote:
"Because these substances (the pill) do not prevent the sperm from penetrating and fertilizing the ovum - the classic definition of conception - they are not strictly contraceptives. What they do is prevent the newly fertilized egg from implanting itself in the uterus. Since the interference occurs after conception, some hold that such practice constitutes abortion. A way around this impasse has been suggested by Dr. A.S. Parkes of Cambridge: Equate conception with the time of implantation rather than the time of fertilization - a difference of only a few days."
This initial corruption of foundational embryology definitions suggested by Rosenfeld represented a stark break from the hitherto accepted scientific view which stated that conception of a new human person was the result of the process of fertilization which marked the beginning of a pregnancy.
Conception was synonymous with fertilization, and therefore, pregnancy, as Dr Rosenfeld clearly understood.
But in 1972, the rot set in with the deliberate and strategic printing of the text Obstetric-Gynecologic Terminology, published by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG). 1
This text formally sought, as a first strategic strike, to break the developmental connection between conception and fertilization. "Conception" was no longer to be linked with fertilization. Instead it was unilaterally decided that conception would be associated with "the implantation" of the human embryo.
John Wilks John Wilks | July 1, 2008
Hi Judie,
I'm glad you brough this up about the distinction that is now made between "conception" and "fertilization". A friend sent me an article by Dianne Irving, whom you quote above, and it was in regards to Colorado's Human Life Amendment. Do you knoow if there is any plan to clarify the issue for Colorado? Michelle | July 2, 2008
Dear Dr. Wilks:
Thank you so much for this vital history lesson. Deception appears to have infiltrated much of what was once the proud profession of medicine.
God bless you!
Judie Brown Judie Brown | July 2, 2008
Dear Michelle:
I have been communicating with the people in Colorado and believe the amendment is too far along for a correction to be made. It is a very sad thing to admit, but I do not think the people driving the amendment were aware of these matters early on before the language was approved.
I know that we didn't realize what the language said until we read it after approval. The horse is out of the barn.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | July 2, 2008
Whoever said "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words can never hurt me" couldn't have been more wrong. Isaac K. | July 7, 2008
PEW SURVEY, FATHER PFLEGER AND THE USCCB Posted: Wednesday June 25, 2008 at 4:58 pm EST by Judie Brown
The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has just released its new findings on Americans and their attitudes toward religion, God and doctrine. It is not too surprising that most of those surveyed are suffering from a bit of confusion when it comes to the difference between faith in God and claiming to be somehow associated with religion.
What moved me the most about this survey was, sadly, the conundrum we face in the Catholic Church, which is actually a very good example of why the results from the Pew survey are not at all extraordinary. They may be sad, but are certainly not unexpected.
I think the best way to explain what I am trying to tell you is to quote from a recent e-mail I received from a very confused lady who happens to be a former Catholic. She wrote the following:
I am quite confused and dismayed – I have written Cardinal George – but of course got no reply! I was always taught as a Catholic that if you believed in abortion you would not be allowed Holy Communion – and that you could not support a political candidate that supports and believes in abortion – especially partial birth abortion.
So please answer me as to why a Catholic priest, Father Pfleger, is allowed to stand on the altar of God acting as Jesus and preside over Mass – how does this priest receive Holy Communion? I still want an answer regarding Fr. Pfleger! I have stopped going to church because I don't believe in our priests anymore – some are no holier than you or me!
My astonishment upon reading this was tempered by the crisis I could see and the frustration I could feel in this dear woman's words. She probably represents more Catholics than I can imagine, and her concerns and the reasons that drove her away from the Church are representative of the malaise that has affected the entire nation.
It has clearly come to pass that most people who identify themselves as religious are people who have decided that one can claim to be aligned with religion without ever attempting to live a Christian life – that is, one that is based on Christ's teachings and God's laws. If this were not the case, we would not have seen such a wide array of attitudes in this survey that, for the most part, reflect the "broadmindedness" and compromise that have become the status quo.
The day after the Pew survey results were made public, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops issued its own statement, which contained a quote that left me incredulous! The claim is made that "the steady and ongoing response of the Church is an ever renewed commitment to robust catechetical efforts."
I find that to be the farthest thing from the truth that anyone could imagine. If it were true that the Catholic Conference of Bishops has been pursuing "robust catechetical efforts," we would not have ladies, such as the one who e-mailed me, driven away from the Church because of the scandalous, unchecked behavior of someone like Father Michael Pfleger!
Nor would we have Catholics who, according to the Pew survey, are split on abortion. Don't forget that the Catholic Church teaches that abortion is an act of murder, an act that is never justified for any reason. And yet according to that survey, 48 percent of Catholics say that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 45 percent say it should be illegal in all or most cases. It seems to me that the gospels of tolerance, diversity and equivocation have been spread much more effectively than the preaching and teaching of the Gospel of life that should have been taking place.
As I said on the day Pew issued its results, "The real enemy to the preborn, to our culture, to our nation, is the moral relativism that has our world, literally, in a death grip. That same mentality blurs the line between right and wrong and has opened the door for abortion."
The prevalence of such "relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and 'swept along by every wind of teaching,' looks like the only attitude acceptable to today's standards," according to Pope Benedict XVI . I would have to agree with him. Clearly, America needs a reality check.
According to one man who claims to be a humanist, "God is a symbol that everybody can relate to. They look to it as a visual thing. But, actually, God is inside of them." It seems to me, upon reading the survey results, that this man's concept of God is held by more than a few of those who would not describe themselves as humanists but whose attitude toward God is equally as nebulous.
It is clear that Americans are at a crossroads today and that true faith in God and His existence is in crisis. The question is, what can one person do about it?
If it were up to me, I would beg every single person, Catholic, Protestant and Jew, who has a deep and abiding faith in God, to study the results of this survey. I would ask them to make a conscious decision to reach out to others, helping them to understand what it truly means to love God and to be aware of His love for us. Each of us has a sphere of influence and each of us can have an effect on those around us if only we are willing to reflect Christ and His goodness in our words, actions and very lives.
Our nation is in need of a revival, and it can and will occur when each of us who knows and loves the truth is willing to spread it far and wide.
Geesh! I wonder what these priests excuse is for supporting abortion? I wonder how they justify it?(I know you can't REALLY justify it, but you know what I mean.)
Chantell Chantell | June 25, 2008
Right on, Judie! These older 'bishops' are worthless scum---they are NOT real Christians themselves. They CAUSE the multiple scandals by their inaction, derelictions of duty, and are cowards. UNlike Jesus, they seek the praise of men, not God. This Pope MUST remove them forthwith! JP II MAY be "great" but he lifted hardly a finger to stop the worst scandals and the deaths of 10s of millions of innocent babes in the womb. john stafford, JD | June 28, 2008
JUDIE, I AGREE WITH YOUR COMMENTS BUT LIKE YOU HAVE POINTED OUT BEFORE, WE SHOULD TRY TO PRAY AT DAILY MASS ALONG WITH ONGOING
ROSARY & HOLY SPIRIT PRAYERS FOR ALL BISHOPS & PRIESTS TO SUPPORT CANON LAW 915 WHICH WOULD HELP CHANGE FOR GOOD THE PRO-LIFE SITUATION IN THIS COUNTRY. DEAN DEAN RICHARDS | June 28, 2008
oh dear. I agree with my whole heart that these preists are wrong and someone needs to do something. I also will say that they are human, and there are some \"bad\" preists out there, but that is no excuse for their behavior. Emmie K. | June 29, 2008
June 29, 2008
Dear Judie,
A lady wrote you, ???I have stopped going to church because I don't believe in our priests anymore ??? some are no holier than you or me!???
Every abortion is intrinsically evil. Abortion is the most immoral offence possible against an innocent preborn human being. Without the right to life for all preborn babies, there are NO other rights for anyone. There is no defense of abortion. It is indefensible. Remember, Satan always lies about abortion to human beings who are willing to listen to him. It is Satan???s nature to lie. Some Catholic Priests fall for these lies. Most do not.
Do not equate the intrinsic evil of abortion with the words or actions of a particular Catholic Priest. Abortion is worse.
There are about 47,000 Catholic Priests in the United States. The Rev. Michael Pfleger does not represent the majority of Catholic Priests in the USA! Fr. Pfleger is a distraction. Pray for Fr. Pfleger. Then, stay with the Catholic Church. Find a different Catholic Church building, if necessary. The Holy Eucharist is the Heart of the Catholic Church. The Holy Eucharist is given to each of us practicing Catholics only by a Catholic Priest. The Catholic Priest does not have to be in the state of sanctifying grace, for us to receive the consecrated Holy Eucharist. If the Catholic Priest is not in the state of sanctifying grace when he consecrates the Holy Eucharist, it is between him and God. Keep out of it.
Jesus Christ is God. The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, created personally by Jesus Christ. As such, the Catholic Church Jesus created is always perfect, because God is perfect. All valid and licit Masses bring each of us the True Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, under the species of bread and wine, through the hands of the Priest saying Mass!
All practicing Catholics, who are by definition in the state of sanctifying grace, i.e., in venial sin but not mortal sin, are trying to follow Jesus. Many people call themselves Catholics, while they practice, promote, protect, vote for, and otherwise empower the evil of abortion. These are the people who get the headlines, but they are not practicing Catholics, no matter what they call themselves.
Do not forget the basic combat training we need for the spiritual and physical war we are in against the abortionists. We practicing Catholics are morally obligated to form our consciences about abortion, and then vote according to our formed conscience, on Tuesday, November 4, 2008.
Respectfully yours,
Jim Doody
Arizona
Jim Doody | June 29, 2008
Dear Jim:
Thank you for your reflections on Father Michael Pfleger. Abortion is an act of murder, Father Pfleger does not agree and he should be removed as should any priest who is creating scandal and sacrilege by his behavior.
How many immortal souls has Pfleger misguided? Who is responsible? Why doesn't the Cardinal simply remove Pfleger's faculties?
FARCICAL FACADE: PLANNED PARENTHOOD IN OVERDRIVE Posted: Tuesday June 24, 2008 at 1:19 pm EST by Judie Brown
Some of the most curious things in our topsy turvy world have to do with man’s inability to comprehend the reality of evil and how it twists everything, including the words we use in our daily speech. Take, for example, Planned Parenthood's latest reinvention, as detailed in The Wall Street Journal, which provides a clear picture of how words and reality can be twisted.
In a particularly well-balanced report by Stephanie Simon the operational aspect of Planned Parenthood's activities was examined with a special emphasis on the manner in which they market abortion. Here is how one of Planned Parenthood’s competitors, abortion clinic operator Amy Hagstrom Miller, whose clinics are located in Maryland and Texas, is reacting to the new, corporate, high-end PP image:
Ms. Hagstrom Miller competes with Planned Parenthood for abortion patients – and finds it deeply frustrating. She does not receive the government grants or tax-deductible donations that bolster Planned Parenthood, and says she can't match the nonprofit's budget for advertising or clinic upgrades. She has carved her own niche by touting her care as more holistic – and by charging $425 for a first-trimester surgery at her Austin clinic, compared with $475 at the local Planned Parenthood. (Both Ms. Hagstrom Miller and Planned Parenthood say they work out discounts and payment plans for the needy.) 'They're not unlike other big national chains’ Ms. Hagstrom Miller said. ‘They put local independent businesses in a tough situation.'
The article goes on to make a point that should not be lost on any of those who are focused on ending the abortion of children in the United States:
Even as the total number of abortions in the U.S. has dropped, the number performed by Planned Parenthood has grown steadily, to nearly 290,000 a year. In 2005, the most recent year that national statistics are available, Planned Parenthood accounted for about one in every five abortions. In part, that's because independent providers have quit the field, tired of battling antiabortion protesters. Ms. Richards also said that she has encouraged more Planned Parenthood clinics to offer abortions.
In other words, as heroic protesters continue to make it more difficult for independent abortionists to continue plying their trade, Planned Parenthood is quietly, and under cover of their new public persona, making it their business to kill more and more children.
But that’s only the beginning. For as we have learned over time, Planned Parenthood has many weapons in their arsenal, and among them is the "charitable" work they continue to pursue in minority communities. Every time a well-healed customer or someone with adequate health insurance does business with Planned Parenthood, more of the organization's income can be used to provide sex education and abortion to the poor – and we all know what that means.
The African American community continues to be targeted and, as LEARN points out on their web site, the Planned Parenthood professionals continue to assure that nearly 35% of all abortions are performed on mothers who are black, even though only 12% of the population is African American. The leadership of LEARN points out,
If the current trend continues, by 2038 the black vote will be insignificant. Did you know that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a devout racist who created the Negro Project designed to sterilize unknowing black women and others she deemed as undesirables of society? The founder of Planned Parenthood said, 'Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated.' Is her vision being fulfilled today?
Without hesitation they tell us the answer is yes, indeed. And because Planned Parenthood has successfully re-created its image by making sure to locate near Starbucks and other businesses in well-to-do neighborhoods, more and more of their discretionary income can be spent on this project - which of course they would quickly deny. But the facts speak for themselves.
The last time a studious examination of the exact locations of Planned Parenthood facilities was done, in 2006, it was reported that "76% of the Planned Parenthood abortion facilities are located in areas where these collective minority populations are higher."
Further, “a striking 45% of the abortion facilities are surrounded by Hispanic/African American populations that are at least ten percentage points higher than that of the city or the state. Considering that Hispanics and African Americans combined make up only 24.8% of the national population, ten percentage points is a significant variation.”
But it’s not only minorities being targeted, but the young as well. It is only because Planned Parenthood's monstrous appetite has to be fed with more and more clientele who will naively use their facilities that they are driven to such superficial tactics in the first place.
If you want to know what is really behind Planned Parenthood's drive to reestablish itself as an upscale, service-oriented safe place to do business, I can tell you. It is because organizations like Stop Planned Parenthood International and their collaborators are successfully exposing the sordid truth about Planned Parenthood that they are being forced into reinvention mode. Planned Parenthood is getting a face-lift to disguise the cancerous venom that runs throughout its history.
The very foundation of its corporate identity is based on a voracious desire to increase income, increase client numbers and increase the opportunities it will have over time to entice the young in their pursuit of sexual pleasure. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.
Look who is opposing abstinence education for young people! It's none other than Planned Parenthood! As Ryan Anderson tells us in his latest article, "The War on Abstinence,"
Few people seem aware of the coordinated effort to achieve all this that the ACLU and Planned Parenthood have undertaken (working in conjunction with such local groups as Advocates for Youth and the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States). In this year's Planned Parenthood annual report, the group boasts success in getting governors to reject federal funding for abstinence: 'The tide is shifting in America, and last year 10 governors refused' federal funding. On their web site, you'll find hyperlinks where you can 'help Planned Parenthood bring vital information about birth control and responsible decision making to the classroom' and ‘tell your elected representatives it’s time to end dangerous abstinence-only programs and to stand up for real sex education!'
Obviously, nothing much has changed about Planned Parenthood's core agenda, only the trappings are being cleverly updated to bestow a new look of respectability designed to help America see how caring and dedicated these people really are!
Hogwash!
If young people practiced abstinence there would be no client base for Planned Parenthood. Let's face it, sexual relations outside of marriage breed all sorts of diseases that Planned Parenthood can treat and the creation of a market for birth control and abortion services begins with the young. So whether your local Planned Parenthood is in a chic mall or down the street next to a high school, the goal is the same and we must never forget it.
AMERICA'S INFAMOUS KILLERS Posted: Monday June 23, 2008 at 4:38 pm EST by Judie Brown
Those who make their living by taking the lives of preborn babies and generally deceiving or otherwise victimizing the mothers of those babies are individuals who, at least in my opinion, already have a credibility problem. They are people who have little to no compassion for anyone – let alone the mother – who, if given the chance for real help, would never darken the door of their business establishment.
So when I read about one of them getting caught actually breaking a law that matters to law enforcement, I was not all that shocked. But recent events have made me furious! I just have to tell you about three of these monsters so that you can share my frustration with the law and the culture.
Let's start with Bertha Bugarin in California. She is an unlicensed abortionist who was recently arrested and jailed on 10 felony counts and one misdemeanor count for practicing medicine and prescribing drugs without a license. If convicted, she faces nine years in prison. Her sister is charged with four counts of collaborating in the sham.
Bugarin had no medical training, but at the same time, she owned five abortion mills in California and has been pretending to be an abortionist while her sister was aiding and abetting her in the dangerous business that, thanks to pro-life leader Troy Newman, has finally been exposed. As Newman told the media,
Bugarin has had a heck of a time keeping abortionists over the years and has always hired the very bottom of the barrel. It looks like when she couldn't get one of her quack abortionists in the office, she did the job herself. Bertha is a predator who has a mercenary attitude about abortions. Laws mean nothing to her, as is the case with so many abortionists. She has been quoted as preferring to target Hispanic communities with her mills, presumably since women there may not be in the country legally and will be less likely to report problems. The sooner Bertha and all of her cohorts are behind bars, the better.
Take a moment and think about the fact that if Bugarin had been pretending to be an eye surgeon or a neonatal specialist, she never would have had the chance to harm anyone for she would have been apprehended immediately! Not so for this would-be abortionist. It took years for the law to catch up with this woman.
And in case you thought that was the most horrific item you could have read about today, think about abortionist Hamid Sheikh in Lexington, Kentucky, whose practices were described by one reporter as "hellish."
Sheikh is reported to have defrauded Medicaid out of thousands of dollars and is accused of running a dirty facility with unsanitary conditions, including soiled hospital gowns and bloodied surgical equipment. It seems that at one point there was biohazard waste in the facility that had been there for three months. Again, I have to ask you – what if this had been a legitimate medical office for a pediatrician or a dermatologist? Do you think it would have stayed open long enough for biohazard to collect at all? Hardly!
How will the "safe and legal" trade that profits from killing babies and maiming mothers explain away Sheikh's actions, as well as Bugarin's? What can anyone say about this, other than that such practices should be outlawed once and for all, regardless of who the "beneficiaries" are alleged to be?
One of the things I learned from writing about these merchants of despair and death is that, in the state of Kentucky, there are no inspections of abortion providers. And, as WHAS-TV reported, "According to what seven of Sheikh's unhappy former patients told the Kentucky medical licensure board, some of those abortions were excruciatingly painful, unsanitary and illegal."
Of course, Sheikh is claiming that he has been doing this for the last 33 years and never had a complaint registered against him until last year. Now of course, in my opinion, anyone who believes that is probably someone who also believes in tooth fairies and fairy godmothers.
Ah well, moving on from Kentucky for a moment; let's discuss the nation's most infamous abortionist, George Tiller of Kansas. Apparently he has a fan club.
Suzanne Poppema, who happens to be the chairman of the board of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health tells readers in a letter to the editor that Tiller is a heroic figure who will "safeguard women's health, performing abortions – safely and with great compassion – that few doctors in the country have the training to handle."
This is the same physician who recently had to appear before a grand jury and is one of the few in the nation who actually specializes in doing away with babies during their last two months in the womb. So far, he hasn't been arrested or put out of business. Perhaps his infamous practices have simply evaded the watchful eye of law enforcement!
I did notice, however, that Poppema did not take the opportunity, while extolling the virtues of one abortion practitioner, to carry on about Sheikh or Bugarin. Perhaps she is saving that for another letter. Time will tell.
Truth be told, whether we care to admit it or not, every abortionist is actually a criminal because taking the life of a preborn child is, according to the natural law, an act of murder. The fact that America's laws at present are at odds with rationality does not make abortion any less of a heinous crime. And that is precisely why the questionable legality of the practice should inspire each of us to expose its grimy realities as Troy Newman has so successfully done in the last couple of weeks.
It takes all sorts of dedicated people to persist in the pro-life effort. But when we learn about the devastation caused by some who either pretend to be or do a very bad job of being abortionists, we have to examine the reasons why such stories are not on the national news, covered in the major papers or otherwise brought to the attention of the public. We know, from all the studies and surveys we have read, that the vast majority of people still do not think about abortion in terms of crime, grime and slime.
Until they do, whether your name is Tiller, Sheikh or Bugarin, you are going to get away with murder unless, of course, you do something really awful like defraud the government or forget that you're not really a doctor after all.
Hypocrisy abounds, but truth will eventually win the day. You can count on it. I hope we can count on you to be part of the solution.
You are so articulate, Judie. Please go to the Wall Street Journal web site and see the front page article for today, Monday 6/23/08 "Planned Parenthood Hits Suburbia" (which I think you referenced). It occurs to me that it is a prime opportunity to write a Letter to the Editor responding point by point to the article. i.e. Talk about Margaret Sanger's EUGENICS and plan to exterminate the minorities when they reference "low income clients", and it would be good to get at the root of the Morality issue that "planning" your family ids exactly the Sin of Adam: playing God. God bless you. S de D Suzanne de Decker | June 23, 2008
What these abortionists have done, is awful! But I'm glad they were caught.
Chantell Chantell | June 23, 2008
JMJ
God bless you, Judie, and all of the brave people at ALL. When we were in a better financial position we donated regularly to ALL, but now can give only small amounts and irregularly, BUT WE DO PRAY FOR ALL OF YOU EVERY DAY. We pray for your health, endurance, courage, conviction, and you CAN count on us "to be part of the solution." Luis Howard for the Howard Family | June 25, 2008
Dear Luis:
Prayer is the most powerful donation we can receive! God be with you and bless you.
SITUATION GRAVE Posted: Friday June 20, 2008 at 12:36 pm EST by Judie Brown
Lately, there have been a few headlines that have stunned and grieved me. It is when these things come to my attention that I must muster certain level of optimism before I can begin to write about them or comment on the effect such tragic situations have on the culture and our pro-life work.
One example was a report out of Weld County, Colorado. A preborn child was found in a port-a-potty at a sand and gravel lot. The little boy was deemed to be, upon first glance, no more than seven months gestational age. An autopsy had not been performed at the time of the report.
The shock of it overwhelmed me as I contemplated how many of these incidents must occur without anyone even taking notice. When, I wondered, is America going to wake up and understand that a disproportionate number of children go to their graves in complete anonymity and are likely to be remembered by no one?
Within days of that report, we heard the news from Gloucester, Massachusetts about the teenage girls who had made a pact to get pregnant. This news report had a twist that made it different than most of those out-of-wedlock pregnancies I have read about. It made me think that maybe there was a connection between the teens in Massachusetts and the child in the port-a-potty. It's called disregard.
My impression from the various news reports that I read was that adults were not concerned about the driving force that would create a desire among more than 15 girls to get pregnant. Rather, it provoked discussion about whether or not it was time to start providing birth control pills on the school grounds!
Now pardon me for being ignorant, but isn't there something more profoundly problematic in this situation than whether or not the pill is available? Has pregnancy become such a meaningless word that those who are older and should know better are not even concerned about the underlying causes of this crisis? What about the parents of these girls and their responsibilities?
Well, all the principal could say about it was that these young girls are "girls who lack self-esteem and have a lack of love in their life."
Another report suggested that the ones who appeared to be most upset were those who were not yet pregnant! I can only hope that the reason why the parents of these girls were not commenting is that they prefer to do some soul searching as they prepare to be supportive of their daughters and their grandchildren. But I have to ask myself this:
Hasn't the frivolous nature of this attitude toward bearing children dawned on anyone? Who among the "officials" being interviewed for this story has made mention of the fact that the underlying cause of this "problem" might possibly be a total disregard for the dignity of the human person, starting with each of these girls and their own idea of self-respect, purity and dignity? So far, the answer is nobody – and that is tragic not only for these particular young women, but for society as a whole.
It would appear that the nation is rapidly moving down a road, at least philosophically, where the majority of our thinkers have no regard whatsoever for the individuality and vulnerability of each person. Children having children has become such a commonplace occurrence that we view situations like the one in Gloucester as nothing more than a curiosity that deserves a few lines on the nightly news and a page or so in Time magazine.
Our collective response, if this latest report is any indication, seems to be summed up in this line: "Last month, two officials at the high school health center resigned in protest over the resistance from the local hospital to the confidential distribution of contraceptives."
And as if that were not horrific enough to jar us into wondering why the culture seems to think that pills will solve what is, at its core, a crisis in values, we hear about a 16-year-old immigrant in Richmond, Virginia. This young girl has no parents, was in foster care and was being given assistance by the local Catholic Charities staff. But it seems that the counseling she was receiving consisted of having her fitted for a birth control device and then paying for an abortion when she conceived a child.
Of course, the local Catholic bishop, Francis X. DiLorenzo, is upset about the situation, has issued a statement about it, has permitted the firing of a few employees and so forth, but again, we are faced with a question of human dignity that is being handled with attitudes bordering on frivolity.
Now, I mean no disrespect to the Catholic bishop or the Gloucester High School officials or the police who are investigating the reasons why someone left a baby to die in a port-a-potty, but I am suggesting that, at its core, our society has lost its will to protect the vulnerable, shield the young and accept responsibility for its errors along the way.
There is an underlying mentality that makes it possible for mothers to dump their children, parents to consign their teens to unfettered activities and charity workers to take the easy way out of a difficult situation: It is called moral relativism. It is the prevalent philosophy among those who truly believe that problems must be solved with no regard for the consequences, even if it means someone has to die.
As I read the story about the Gloucester teens – not a single one of whom is over age 16 – and I reflected on the 16-year-old Guatemalan immigrant whose baby is now dead, I had to think about that baby in the port-a-potty whose mother has not come forth and ask myself, "What are we doing to our children?"
Have we as a nation, because of our nearly 40 years of decriminalized abortion, arrived at a juncture in history where problem-solving naturally includes the option of doing away with someone in order to avoid the more difficult task of accepting responsibility and making sacrifices? Are we now speeding into the fast lane of contempt for the vulnerable? How many of those teens in Gloucester will be admonished for their behavior but affirmed in their motherhood? How many will quietly visit an abortion mill as parents spend a little cash now to avoid helping out with a grandchild later?
Where in the world is America headed? Is the situation grave? Oh yes, it certainly is. And without a U-turn toward God and His law, it can only get worse.
How awful! Also, I heard about that pact with those girls last night on Fox news. In general I don't get why anyone would want a baby so young. Also, by the way I live in Hood River, Oregon which is a little town about 60 miles west of Portland, which has the LoveJoy clinic, which I heard is one of the biggest abortion clinics in the country. And as most know, Oregon is the only state to have legalized physican-assisted suicide.
Chantell Chantell | June 20, 2008
Dear Judie
Your words about the revolting developments in Richmond and Gloucester and elsehwere were spot on. Why don't more columnists expres them that way and that well? This also gives me a chance to thank you & your team for the important work you do so well. When I get little more $$ I'll send you another contribution for you all deserve lotsa support. Keep up the grrrrreat work you do about educating the public.
JOHN John Jay Daly | June 20, 2008
wow. while I think that things have been going down the drain ever since 1973, this is pretty bad. Emmie K. | June 21, 2008
I am very sad after reading your letter. It rips my heart from my chest to know this is happening. Thanks to people with courage like you that can speak so eloquently that gets people attention and makes a difference. It feels like there is no way we can defeat this. But when people speak out, little by little we win and will keep winning. GOD Bless You!! Abelino Menchaca | June 30, 2008
RATTING ON PLANNED PARENTHOOD Posted: Wednesday June 18, 2008 at 10:40 pm EST by Judie Brown
I found a study from the University of Michigan that detected a problem with misoprostol to be a bit curious. This is a drug that, according to patient information, "reduces stomach acid and replaces protective substances in the stomach that are inhibited by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and aspirin."
This drug is taken, for example, by people who are using NSAIDs for arthritis and other painful conditions because the NSAID can cause serious indigestion.
However, that is not why the study was begun in Michigan. No, the fact is that for some years now misoprostol has been used for the FDA-approved purpose of complimenting mifeprex (RU-486 ) in the medical abortion process. And that, my friend, is why I thought the research a bit curious!
To be frank, it isn't very often that a mainline research facility connected with a less-than-pro-life bastion of higher education exposes the gruesome underbelly of the abortion cartel.
But here we have it. The study is at hand and it is shocking.
The preliminary University of Michigan studies indicate, according to the UMHS Newsroom, that oral use of RU-486's companion drug misoprostol is safe, but off-label vaginal use may undermine body's immune responses.
Since the 2000 eight women who were otherwise very healthy died rather questionable deaths – questionable because nobody could explain what had happened to them. But in seven of the cases women who had acquired medical abortion chemicals from Planned Parenthood were instructed to use both the RU-486 and misoprostol vaginally rather than taking the medication orally.
Due to the manner in which the misoprostol was administered, according to researchers, the immune system was compromised.
It is true that the initial results of the studies being done by Michigan employed rats as research subjects, but the findings are most interesting and may point directly to why the women died. This assumption is precisely what the researchers are suggesting. They report,
In animal and cell culture studies, the U-M researchers found that misoprostol, when given directly in the reproductive tract, suppresses key immune responses and can allow a normally non-threatening bacterium, Clostridium sordellii, to gain the upper hand and cause deadly infection. When absorbed through the stomach, however, the drug did not compromise immune defenses or cause illness.
The Centers for Disease Control provides a clinical definition of this bacterium:
Clostridium sordellii ("klaw-strĭ-dee-um sore-dell-ee-I") is a rare bacterium that causes pneumonia, endocarditis, arthritis, peritonitis, and myonecrosis. C. sordellii bacteremia and sepsis occur rarely. Most cases of sepsis from C. sordellii occur in patients with underlying conditions. Severe toxic shock syndrome among previously healthy persons has been described in a small number of C. sordellii cases, most often associated with gynecologic infections in women and infection of the umbilical stump in newborns.
It is a bit sobering to read such a definition and then contemplate the horror of why these eight women died.
It is obvious from all I have seen on this study that in each of the cases where the woman died, Clostridium sordelii got totally out of hand and caused the death. And in each case, the death could have been avoided had the expectant mother sought help to carry her baby to term rather than help to end her baby's life – help that organizations like planned Parenthood are all too willing to provide, I might add.
The study, which appears in the Journal of Immunology, is being described as one that will help doctors understand possible risky infections that could occur during pregnancy, but I have to ask a very simple question when I read something like this: Isn't there a huge difference between a normal pregnancy that is occurring as it should and one that is violently interrupted by the use of clearly dangerous chemicals designed to prematurely end the pregnancy? The obvious answer to my question is yes, but then the obvious is never quite clear in some circles! I digress.
Planned Parenthood caught on right away when clients started dying and did issue a warning. Subsequently, Planned Parenthood changed their recommendations regarding the vaginal administration of the drug, but I would imagine that had more to do with the possibility of malpractice lawsuits than it did with a sincere concern for the welfare of women.
One of the news reports stated that this research done on rats caused the statement regarding the possible cause of death for the eight women to be made. It is also reported, of course, that "more than a half–million women in the United States have undergone medication abortions safely using the two drugs since the FDA approved the method in 2000."
That's the sort of callous statement that relegates human beings to percentage points on a scale and then dismisses their sad demise as a mere blip on the abortion radar screen. Business as usual it seems, though I dare say this research study has not done much to enhance the moral status of Planned Parenthood in the eyes of an ever more aware public – thanks in no small part, I would suggest, to the rats!
Planned Parenthood not only disregards the lives of babies in the womb, but the lives of their mothers as well.
It's time people stopped viewing Planned Parenthood as a responsible healthcare organization and see it for what it is – a money-making, social engineering group that plies its trade of sex and abortion without regard to human life, born or preborn.
CATHOLIC BISHOPS AND STEM CELLS Posted: Wednesday June 18, 2008 at 10:15 am EST by Judie Brown
You may recall that in my June 13 blog I made mention of the fact that the United States Catholic Bishops were preparing a public statement on stem cells. And I warned that it would be a disaster if the bishops fell into the semantically-flawed traps that Professors Irving and Denker describe in their articles.
Well, the statement "On Embryonic Stem Cell Research" is now public and it has more than a few areas of concern. But don't take my word for it: Once I provide you with the list of concerns provided by Professor Dianne Irving, who is the expert in the matter, you can visit the document and make your own decision about whether or not the USCCB has done a thorough job of setting forth moral principles that can be used to defend the human embryo.
Following is a numbered list provided to me by Professor Irving. I share it with you to give you some food for thought:
No use of the term "person"
Uses the phrase "direct killing" three times; therefore, "indirect" killing is not covered.
Uses the phrase "deliberate killing" one time; thus non-intentional direct killing is not covered.
Uses the term "conception" two times, thus leaving out all asexually reproduced human embryos/beings.
Does not even mention that IVF and other ARTs are inherently wrong to begin with.
Doubt that "assumptions" read into the Declaration of Independence can be sustained historically.
Fetus Farming Prohibition Act only applies, by its own definitions in the bill, to sexually. reproduced human beings; it does not cover asexually reproduced human embryos/fetuses.
This is only the beginning because Professor Irving also points out that the document "does not acknowledge the dozens of human cloning and other genetic engineering techniques already being used for 'research' and for 'reproduction'. Essentially defines 'cloning' only in terms of SCNT; by default even does not acknowledge human cloning using nuclear transfer by means of germ line cell nuclear transfer (GLCNT) – which is even worse, as the genetic changes are passed down through the generations."
Further, she expresses the same concern each of us should have because the document "maintains the use of the false distinction between 'therapeutic' and 'reproductive' cloning.
It is inconceivable to me that the bishops could overlook a word as fundamental to this discussion as the word person. The Vatican pointed out this undeniable fact in the document Donum Vitae, in which the following statement is made:
The fruit of human generation, from the first moment of its existence, that is to say from the moment the zygote has formed, demands the unconditional respect that is morally due to the human being in his bodily and spiritual totality. The human being is to be respected and treated as a person.
Yet the bishops overlooked the word!
We at American Life League have become painfully aware of the problematic nature of the word conception, which has been redefined by the pro-abortion forces, the medical community and scientists in general. As science has moved into the realm of the unthinkable our effort has to be far more precise and our language has to be exact. We realize that the bishops have a lot to think about but surely those who advise them on matters like human embryonic stem cell research are as aware of the deconstruction of the word "conception" as we are so why use it?
While I hate to repeat myself in these commentaries I feel compelled to point out again and again, that it is the Catholic Church that teaches that in vitro fertilization and similar technological manipulations dealing with the creation and commodification of the human being are morally repugnant and must be rejected, yet the bishops did not mention it at all.
And I ask you: If there were no in vitro fertilization, would we have to be so concerned about the dehumanization of the human embryonic child? No, we would not! And if we cannot depend on our moral leaders, the princes of the Catholic Church, to shine the light of truth on the egregious area of scientific madness, who can we depend on?
So I leave you to contemplate the list that Dr. Irving has provided. And I ask you to review the bishop's document with the list at hand so that you can come to your own conclusions with regard to the flawed nature of what has been prepared.
We look forward to a full analysis of this document by Professor Irving, and I will add that link to this commentary as soon as it becomes available. In the meantime, you know how much I hate to share bad news in this blog, but - for heaven's sake - it would be unethical for me to ignore this travesty!
The Bishops who wrote this document are not Catholic but in name only. My message to Catholics is do not obey this document it is not of the Holy Spirit. The Church Fathers would have used harsher language then what I'm using. This document is an example of what happens when you dumb down the word of God. Nick | June 18, 2008
Pro-Life Story: So naturally you are pro choice? Posted By Wendy Vosachlo on Apr, 7 2007 After discussing the aspects of my life with friends I realized that people just assumed I was pro choice...Let me further elaborate...
I am agnostic...
I was a victim of ... Read
