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!
POPULATION CONTROL? YES! FACTS? NO! Posted: Thursday September 4, 2008 at 12:00 pm EST by Judie Brown
When a friend told me about the Science Olympiad, my first reaction was that this is a wonderful way to get young people into the habit of thinking for themselves, enjoying the pursuit of scientific inquiry and generally exploring areas that might otherwise be unattractive to them. As a former teenager myself, I can remember being less than excited about studying molecules and the like.
After I visited the web site, my interest turned to concern. In the section entitled "Disease Detectives", there are two items dealing with population. Could this ominous-sounding title, "Disease Detectives," suggest that people are a disease infecting our pristine planet?
Well, the heading for the population section is "Population Growth Concerns." If that doesn't tip you off, all you have to do is read the entries available to the student, and alarm bells will sound.
The first article is entitled "Population Growth Threatens Public Health." The fact that the headline is a scare tactic with no basis in fact is clearly not a concern for this web site's architects. The article relies on sources totally dedicated to population control, presents the student with the one-sided view that "sustainable development" is only achievable with the use of "family planning services" and employs other tactics designed to discourage people from having children.
A link is provided for many related articles, and implicit in a number of these is the assumption that the presence of more people is never better. Apparently, we human beings are responsible for all sorts of tragic events in the world, including the near extinction of the tiny beach mouse.
Please don't get me wrong. I am not a huge fan of air pollution, bizarre forms of waste disposal or other threats to the environment. I do believe that man was placed on this earth as a respectful caretaker of God's creation, upon which he depends for sustenance. But I also believe that the study of science requires objectivity and an ability to learn all facets of a subject, in order to make the best decisions and provide the best research data. However, not everyone holds that view.
Try as I might, I could not find one source on this web site that would lead students to opinions other than those apparently held by this site's architects. One such divergent view has been expressed by author James Weber, who has written on the positive aspects of population growth and, in one essay, told his readers,
Population growth creates a need to change, to improve, to find better ways of doing things. No other force on earth provides greater motivation to discard old, outmoded customs and adopt new, innovative methods than the demographic pressure of increasing numbers of people for whom room must be made at the table. Population growth is the engine of economic progress, providing the growing numbers of people necessary to develop new knowledge and technology, create expanding markets, solve environmental problems, produce greater savings, and increase labor-force flexibility. Most important, population growth both stimulates and reflects faith in the future, an intangible yet absolutely necessary precondition of economic advancement.
Weber's 2005 article is not on the recommended article list.
Some years ago, then Vatican official Archbishop Renato Martino expressed the Catholic position on world population growth this way:
Serious as the problem of interrelation among environment, development and population is, it cannot be solved in an over-simplistic manner and many of the most alarming predictions have proven false and have been discredited by a number of recent studies. "People are born not only with mouths that need to be fed, but also with hands that can produce, and minds that can create and innovate." As for the environment, just to mention one instance, countries with as few as 5% of the world population are responsible for more than one quarter of the principal greenhouse gas, while countries with up to a quarter of the world population contribute as little as 5% of the same greenhouse gas.
Not a single Vatican statement on population growth and the dignity of the human person will be found in the suggested reading material on the Science Olympiad web site.
Realizing that the pro-population control forces have the ear of our current public policy makers, it occurs to me that the only way to remedy this one-sided presentation is to begin challenging the Science Olympiad status quo. We should feel an obligation to let those in charge know that we cannot understand their bias.
We will never know if we do not ask. If we do not ask, we have failed in our obligation to make sure that all of the facts are provided to those who truly want to study the problem from every angle possible. And remember, it does no good to complain about something unless you are prepared to do what you can fix it.
ADMINISTRATOR'S NOTE: THE FOLLOWING POST HAS BEEN EDITED.
That's exactly why I'm not voting for [pro-choice candidates], [some] believe that women should only be able to have 2 kids and then be fixed. Kinda like China. I think God should decide how many kids we have. I'm not against getting fixed, I just don't believe the decision is [theirs] to make! elisabeth | September 4, 2008
So they think abortion is the answer to the population control problem?
Chantell Chantell | September 5, 2008
Does PP really realize that they're, in effect, trying to destroy civilization?
They've got the human race demonizing itself now. Good grief. Isaac K. | September 7, 2008
KILLING ME SOFTLY … IN CALIFORNIA Posted: Wednesday September 3, 2008 at 1:42 pm EST by Judie Brown
The California legislature has decided that the state should push patients to choose being put to death as their preferred healthcare option. That is the way I read the "Terminal Patients' Right to Know End of Life Options Act", also known as Assembly Bill 2747.
According to a report published by WorldNetDaily, the bill would allow certain patients under certain conditions to be drugged and then starved to death. The report states,
"AB 2747 allows a physician assistant or a nurse to opine that a patient is 'terminal,'" and then push for unnatural death by 'palliative sedation,'" charged Randy Thomasson, chief of the Campaign for Children and Families."Depressed patients who succumb to this pressure will be drugged unconscious and die from dehydration."
The time to act is now. I urge you to read the analysis prepared by the Campaign for Children and Families and then take time to alert your friends, communicate your concerns to the governor, and pray that this bill is vetoed.
Please contact Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and urge him not to sign the bill. To contact Governor Schwarzenegger, write to him c/o State Capitol Building, Sacramento, CA 95814, or call 916-445-2841, or fax 916-558-3160 or e-mail at http://gov.ca.gov/interact.
BOPPING FACTS FOR POLITICAL GAIN Posted: Tuesday September 2, 2008 at 1:25 pm EST by Judie Brown
When you look up the word bop in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, you find that, when used as a verb, the word is defined as "hit" or "sock." In other words, the word means to knock around or knock out, depending on the severity of the blow.
Well, I thought that was an appropriate way to describe the antics of James Bopp, Jr., the National Right to Life Committee's general counsel, who spent some time at the Republican Platform Committee's proceedings attempting to water down language that was designed to support a ban on all human embryonic stem cell research.
Stephen Spruiell was the first to tell the tale in his August 28 on-line column, "Re: Cell Breakthrough." He details the amazing victory pro-lifers had with the addition of language that has never before been in any party platform, at least as far as I know. The language now reads:
Taxpayer-funded medical research must be based on sound science, with a focus on both prevention and treatment, and in accordance with the humane ethics of the Hippocratic Oath. In that regard, we call for a major expansion of support for the stem-cell research that now shows amazing promise and offers the greatest hope for scores of diseases – with adult stem cells, umbilical cord blood, and cells reprogrammed into pluripotent stem cells – without the unethical destruction of embryonic human life. We call for a ban on human cloning and a ban on the creation of or experimentation on human embryos for research purposes. [emphasis added]
The reason Spruiell, and later, Jill Stanek emphasized the word "or" is simple, once you read what Mr. Jim Bopp had to say or listened to it yourself on Jill Stanek's blog. Mr. Bopp tried hard to convince those listening that experimentation on human embryos for the specific purpose of research was actually a good idea. But please don't take my word for it. Here is what he said:
I strongly favor protecting human infants in research and from intentional destruction, from experimentation that results in their death. I think the amendment inadvertently could be read to ask that therapeutic research that would involve human embryos be prohibited. And therapeutic research, that is research that is done on human subjects for their benefit, is under certain circumstances appropriate.
Well, some could argue that what Bopp was attempting to suggest is that if a researcher was doing something to the embryonic child that would benefit that child, then of course we should agree that such research was not only worthy of being done, but an ethical plus!
Hmmm! Apparently, that argument would be false. For Spruiell asked Bopp what he meant, and here is his response:
There are no current research projects that would be therapeutic for a human embryo, but it is perfectly conceivable that there will be. An example would be altering DNA that has genetic markers for a serious disease. If that becomes possible, and it certainly could become possible at some point in time, someone's going to have to do it the first time. And when they do it the first time it's going to be therapeutic for the embryo involved, but it is also going to be experimental.
All therapies have at some point been experimental and were done on a human being. But as long as it's only done for that human embryo's benefit is it ethical or moral, and it is that research that I was concerned that this language may inadvertently affect.
Bopp attempted the same thing four years ago, according to Family Research Council staffers, whom Spruiell spoke with after he talked with Bopp. At that time, he is reported to have argued that the platform's language shouldn't contradict the presumptive presidential candidate's position. At this juncture, I have to add that I had heard the very same thing from someone who attended the most recent platform deliberations. She was astounded by what she heard and grateful that his voice fell on deaf ears.
Well, folks, all I can say is, thank God for the principled delegates at the Platform Committee proceedings who fought for truth, for people like Stanek and Spruiell who publicized what happened there, and for our own American Life League … Yes, we had something to say about it as well. Exposing agendas is the name of the game, and once the facts are out there, I say, let the chips fall where they may.
And I also say, Mr. Bopp, if you do not agree with what we have reported here or have an explanation, we would be happy to print it right here in my blog.
Terrible! I wonder what this guys excuse is!?
Chantell Chantell | September 2, 2008
Mr. Bop has been an anti-life drag on the National Right to Life committee since at least the fiasco in S. Dakota. He is the main reason I refuse to support the National Right to Life committee. Carol Luscomb | September 2, 2008
STEM CELL RESEARCH: MORE INTERESTING DEVELOPMENTS Posted: Friday August 29, 2008 at 1:27 pm EST by Judie Brown
I was very intrigued by a few news reports that crossed my "e-mail desk" this week. I guess that’s how you have to view e-mail these days – few write you a real letter anymore, and everyone who does send e-mail wants a response immediately. Well, in my case, they have to wait because this granny is going to take her time. But I wanted to share these interesting developments in the field of stem cell research.
You may remember that in February, a group of scientists at the University of California at Los Angeles did a surprising thing:
Led by scientists Kathrin Plath and William Lowry, UCLA researchers used genetic alteration to turn back the clock on human skin cells and create cells that are nearly identical to human embryonic stem cells, which have the ability to become every cell type found in the human body. Four regulator genes were used to create the cells, called induced pluripotent stem cells or iPS cells… The UCLA study confirms the work first reported in late November of researcher Shinya Yamanaka at Kyoto University and James Thompson [sic] at the University of Wisconsin.
In June of 2007, Professor Dianne Irving raised a red flag regarding the Yamanaka and Thomson studies, and her concerns were based on the absence of all the facts needed to make a proper judgment with regard to ethics:
Considering the enormous stakes involved, it would seem that it is incumbent upon scientists involved in especially ethically sensitive research to be as open and detailed in their publications as possible. The trend, however, seems to be to camouflage and dilute the scientific details as much as possible -- not only in order to evade professionally appropriate questions from their scientific peers, but also to evade the very questions that society and ethics have traditionally required of all scientists. Rather than use and report the accurate scientific facts, it would seem that scientists prefer to secure their successes by using false and misleading manufactured "scientific" terms, verbal hype, and empty promises. Even the most basic requirements of research ethics appear to have been abandoned, including the required use of the most accurate and reliable scientific facts, as well as the "denial" of the age-old dictum that it is simply wrong to purposefully kill innocent human beings - regardless of their stage of development, ethnicity, culture, degree of illness, etc., and regardless of whether or not their destruction could be of benefit to other human beings. Needless to say, even the most desperate of sick patients should not be exposed to "therapeutic" research or clinical trials when such participation unwittingly puts them into serious danger of harm and even death. One even wonders how such patients could give legally valid "informed consent".
We would all obviously welcome a viable scientific and ethical resolution to the divisive politics of human embryo and fetal research that has consumed us for so many years. These iPS studies, however, do not appear to be that solution.
Dr. Irving’s concerns about the Yamanaka and Thomson studies were later validated when, early this year, Dr. Theresa Deisher, an internationally renowned expert in the field of adult stem cell therapies and regenerative medicine, wrote, "A close inspection of the two published papers revealed that cells from an electively aborted fetus were used in the work, and therefore it cannot be considered moral."
Indeed, this statement by William Lowry, one of the UCLA study's lead scientists, clearly illustrates the need for caution about the ethics involved in this research as well: "It is important to remember that our research does not eliminate the need for embryo-based human embryonic stem cell research, but rather provides another avenue of worthwhile investigation."
The next bit of interesting news I discovered is that the Harvard Stem Cell Institute’s George Daley, who once warned that reprogramming stem cells was "extremely high-risk," is now saying that he and his fellow researchers have used reprogrammed adult stem cells to produce cell lines for 10 diseases, including muscular dystrophy, juvenile diabetes and Parkinson’s disease. However, because this research likewise involves the reprogramming of adult stem cells, its methodology requires further scrutiny to ensure that it did not entail the use aborted fetal or embryonic material.
Thus, because of what was discovered about the original adult stem cell reprogramming research, I always approach new supposedly non-embryonic stem cell developments with hesitancy these days, but it does at least appear that in the next case, there are promising new findings that did not involve the use of aborted fetal or embryonic material.
This study touts the use of stem cells obtained from a baby’s amniotic fluid and placenta to literally create liver, pancreatic, nerve and kidney tissue. The stem cells used are readily available at birth. The lead researcher in this study, Dr. Anthony Atala, once told an interviewer regarding amniotic fluid stem cells, "Actually, the fluid is chockfull of cells, because the embryo is constantly shedding cells. But we were looking for a stem cell population, a cell that we could derive to become other things that would be nimble. And that particular cell makes up about 1 percent of the cells in the fluid and the placenta."
Because the stem cells found in the placenta and the amniotic fluid are so "nimble," Dr. Atala explained, the cells can easily be driven to become different tissues. He may have come upon a genuinely ethical solution to the ethical quagmire created by scientists who are less than fully forthcoming about their studies or are discovered to be using immoral means. Only time will tell.
But the encouraging news is that some scientists are aware of the despicable nature of research that kills one set of human beings to possibly benefit another, and they are at least searching for ethical ways to reach the same end. Let us pray that their work continues to progress, that one day soon scientists are focused on the full truth of their work and that we stop talking about ways to bend the truth.
PELOSI'S ERROR BECOMES A BISHOP'S OPPORTUNITY Posted: Thursday August 28, 2008 at 11:30 am EST by Judie Brown
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is, as we know, an avowed proponent of aborting innocent preborn children, and for that she makes no apologies. But what Pelosi is not honest about is her position and what it means (or should mean) when she claims to witness to the truths of the Catholic faith.
She recently said that she is an “ardent, practicing Catholic” who has studied the question of abortion for a long time.
Oh? Well, in her study, something has gone terribly wrong. She told Tom Brokaw that the debate within the Catholic Church on the question of when life begins has been ongoing and that nobody really knows when a human being begins. With all due respect to the Speaker of the House, I think she must be getting her Catholic education from an avowed atheist! Her misrepresentation of truth is fatally flawed.
And I am so happy to say that several Catholic bishops have come forward and spoken about this, telling the media the truth. For example, Cardinal Edward Egan of the Archdiocese of New York said, “What the Speaker had to say about theologians and their positions regarding abortion was not only misinformed; it was also, and especially, utterly incredible in this day and age.”
Archbishop Donald Wuerl, of the Washington, D.C. archdiocese, who has persistently said he would not deny the body and blood of Christ to pro-abortion Catholics like Pelosi, told the Washington Post, "Abortion is evil. It's the destruction of a human life... this teaching has not changed and remains unchanged."
Archbishop Charles Chaput, of the Denver archdiocese, who is not denying Holy Communion to any pro-abortion Catholic during the Democratic National Convention or at any time as far as we know, wrote in an open letter released just after Pelosi’s diatribe, “Abortion kills an unborn, developing human life. It is always gravely ill, and so are the evasions employed to justify it. Catholics who make excuses for it – whether they're famous or not – fool only themselves and abuse the fidelity of those Catholics who do sincerely seek to follow the Gospel and live their Catholic faith."
Cardinal Justin F. Rigali, chairman of the U.S. Bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William E. Lori, chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee on Doctrine, issued the following statement:
In the course of a "Meet the Press" interview on abortion and other public issues on August 24, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi misrepresented the history and nature of the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church against abortion.
In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, "Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law." (No. 2271)
In the Middle Ages, uninformed and inadequate theories about embryology led some theologians to speculate that specifically human life capable of receiving an immortal soul may not exist until a few weeks into pregnancy. While in canon law these theories led to a distinction in penalties between very early and later abortions, the Church's moral teaching never justified or permitted abortion at any stage of development.
These mistaken biological theories became obsolete over 150 years ago when scientists discovered that a new human individual comes into being from the union of sperm and egg at fertilization. In keeping with this modern understanding, the Church teaches that from the time of conception (fertilization), each member of the human species must be given the full respect due to a human person, beginning with respect for the fundamental right to life.
We are grateful to God that so many bishops have found it necessary to publicly clarify Catholic teaching on the value and dignity of the human being and when each human being’s life begins. It is indeed a breath of fresh air!
But I have to ask, amidst the celebration about this remarkable turn of events, why these same bishops – and their fellow bishops – do not follow through and make it clear that pro-abortion Catholics should stay away from the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist until they have repented of their sins, and that if those who publicly support abortion attempt to receive the sacrament, they will be denied!
When Nancy Pelosi was asked whether or not she had been denied Holy Communion, she told a reporter that she has not experienced this and said, “That would be a severe blow to me…”
And that is precisely my point! Nancy Pelosi is telling the world she would be devastated if her priest told her that until she repents of her public support for aborting innocent preborn children, she may not receive the body and blood of Christ. However, her actions in defense of abortion support the tragedy of severe, deadly blows being leveled at thousands of preborn children daily. Can’t she see that? And will she ever see it if bishops remain timid?
Just as surely as it is wrong to misrepresent Catholic teaching on such a fundamental question as when a human being’s life begins, it is equally outrageous for so many Catholic bishops to ignore Church law and, in the process, fail to protect Christ from sacrilege and reach out to those whose eternal salvation is at stake to help them realize they must repent of supporting abortion.
Dear Judie, I too rejoice that many Bishop's have strongly and clearly spoken the Truth about the Sanctity of Human Life in response to public comments made by people presenting themselves as Catholics but who are in league with the forces behind the "culture of death." Though while encouraged by their responses, I am dismayed that they cloud the issue when it comes to (un)enforcement of Canon 915.
AB Chaput, just on Neil Cavuto's show, dodged a direct question on denying Holy Communion (8/28). He did clearly state the truth about abortion...but not about the Church's law.
They'd all want a chance to "talk to them" first if they present themselves in the Communion line: but haven't we been "talking to them" for years now??? Fr. William J Kuchinsky | August 28, 2008
Unfortunately, we Catholics might end up learning the hard way why abortion is immoral and evil. Nick | August 28, 2008
It is nice to hear a few Bishops speak up. A couple have even said "No Communion". Now to see how well they enforce it, or if it is just for show.
I suspect God is putting a little fire at the Bishops' feet to get them to do something, & if they don't the heat will be turned up. Al | August 29, 2008
Dear Father Kuchinsky;
You have hit on the real crux of the problem. I believe it is a contradiction, and Chaput is guilty of it per his interview with Cavuto. He tells Cavuto that abortion is always wrong, and then says he would like to talk to an avid pro-abortion Catholic before deciding whether or not to protect Christ from sacrilege.
That is not only disappointing but scandalous in my humble opinion.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | August 29, 2008
ADMINISTRATOR'S NOTE: THIS POST HAS BEEN EDITED.
Dear Judy,
One thing none of the bishops addressed was the second part of Nancy's Pelosi's statement. You rarely hear one of our priests or prelates address the contraception issue. They don't want to upset the significant number of pew sitters who embrace this sin (it impacts the collection plate and the building/church construction programs). I quote Nancy Pelosi again..."If you want to reduce the number of abortions, and we all do, we must--it would behoove you to support family planning and, and contraception, you would think. But that is not the case. So we have to take--you know, we have to handle this as respectfully--this is sacred ground." All of the prelates ignored this part of her statement which is also erroneous. The ground is so sacred that the bishops refuse to address it. Perhaps they didn\'t want to admit nationally, i.e. DNC, that this might be a problem even among the faithful. This is what is known as being pastorally sensitive to the needs of the parish.
I recently sent a letter to my archbishop (Mobile) asking him to speak out in October about forming our consciences to vote. I urged him to call upon all of our parish priests and his fellow bishops to speak to these issues. He answered my letter. What he does remains to be seen and heard.
God Help Us All,
Nicholas E. Barreca, M.D. | August 29, 2008
Thank God for Judie that you are not afraid to speak the truth! Even though several Bishops spoke out in this case, they usually act more like CEOs rather than Apostles. Jim Dress | August 29, 2008
FINALLY, the Bishops are starting to wake up and become more vocal with our "so called Catholic pro-abortion" politicians! I hope they go the extra mile and forbid the Eucharist to be given to them at Mass. Thanks for putting a "fire" under them Judy. God bless you for all you do for life.
Carol Carol | August 30, 2008
God bless you, Father Kuchinsky and you, Judie Brown.
My husband and I were watching the Chaput interview and it left us frustrated and angry. Why are the bishops unable to say the words "mortal sin" out loud? When was the last time any of them uttered the words "state of grace?" I think it's pathetic that we have reached the point that a bishop is a hero if he is "brave" enough to say anything. Meanwhile Pelosi and Ted Kennedy and John Kerry and Joe Biden (the list goes on and on) all waltz to communion while thumbing their noses at the Pope the the Magisterium.
Meanwhile, the rest of us are told that missing Mass is a mortal sin.
I, for one, am really sick of the message that I'm held to a different standard -- my punishment for behaving. Karen Hall | August 31, 2008
Excuse this illustration. But, a Bishop is like a military general. Once the troops get away with something under a particular general, with no corrective penalties, the general looses authority and becomes a "Wimp." Hello, today.
I went to Mass last Sunday in a Texas town where I failed to recognize my Catholic faith. The Liturgy appears to now have been designed by lawyers. "Just enough to make it legal." All I could think of last Sunday was "why wasn't this Priest fired!"
When I once expressed in confession that this "sloppiness" was getting to me, I was told to "get over it." Exact quote.
...but, I'm hanging in there! Sam Gallo | August 31, 2008
If a law was passed but no penalty was attatched then violating the law would be meaningless. Unless and untill the Bishops inforce the penalty proscribed in Cannon Law then all of the arguements, unfortunately including, sadly, yours, are, to the likes of Palosi, meaningless. Syd Lane | September 1, 2008
Dear Judie:
St. Paul the Apostle made it clear that allowing sacrilege of our Lord's Body and Blood would have disastrous effects for the Church. I'd hope that the Sex Abuse Scandal, Lack of Sufficient Priestly and Religious Vocations, Seminaries run by people who turn away Catholics who have Priestly Vocations because "they are too conservative", Lower Mass attendance, empty pews and lack of reverence for our Lord's Body and Blood and Massively Reduced Donations and the forced sale of hundreds of buildings which were once the pride of the Church would be enough to get their attention.
But, I guess the Bishops' attachment to the Democratic Party and Socialism is so great that it isn't, which means that they must be warned, "The SALT that has lost its savor is good for nothing but to be thrown out and to be trodden underfoot." If they want to know what that means, maybe they need to look at Elizabethan and Puritan England and the French and Mexican Revolutions - These aren't pretty sites.
Michael Michael Sweeney | September 2, 2008
Dear Dr. Barreca;
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. We should pray for our bishops and continue to encourage them to be bold in these trying times. I hope your bishop at least does what you have requested.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | September 3, 2008
Dear Karen;
I wish there was a simple explanation for why a particular bishop will not use the words "mortal sin," but you know as well as I do that there is nothing that be said to defend such an omission. It occurs to me that some members of our hierarchy are afraid of offending or turning off people and so they steer clear of words the media has portrayed as "judgmental," "mean spirited" or "zealous."
And so we are left with leaders in the Church who focus more on appeasement than on hard teaching; tough love is out the window and that is such a shame.
Pray for our bishops.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | September 5, 2008
I severely dislike politics.
When politicians, bishops and anyone in a position of authority realize that the point is NOT to look good and to stay in office but to SAVE LIVES, that the point of prolife activism is to PROTECT OUR COUNTRY FROM THE BIGGEST THREAT IT HAS EVER FACED, that will be the day we finally win this. Until then, we'll be stuck with bishops who are, to alter the saying a little, "media angels, church devils". Isaac K. | September 7, 2008
PRO-LIFE MEMORIAL DAY Posted: Wednesday August 27, 2008 at 11:12 am EST by Judie Brown
In the midst of all the clamoring, posturing and bickering of the election season, it is easy to get swept up in discussions on how to vote, if one should vote and why it is important to vote. And, of course, it is of the utmost urgency that we take full advantage of our freedoms in America and do all we can to select those men and women who will keep our nation safe from external dangers and internal strife.
Not only do we entrust the implementation of just laws to these people, but we also rely on them to make prudent decisions in matters affecting the rest of the world and those who defend our nation at home and abroad.
As Americans, we commemorate our war heroes and their sacrifices by setting aside one day each year to honor them: Memorial Day. On that day, we remember in prayer and in our hearts the thousands of valiant, heroic men and women have given their very lives to protect our right to live in the land of the free and the home of the brave. They are the ones who have secured our liberty and confirmed with their blood the principles that make America great.
So why am I asking you to take time out of your politicking and busy schedule to think about a memorial day of a different sort? The single most important reason is this: Electioneering is not saving preborn babies, and the so-called pro-life individuals who have been elected as a result of our blood, sweat and tears have not even made a dent on restoring personhood to the preborn.
Far too many in this nation have never thought of the struggle to end abortion as a war – a war that has taken more lives than all the wars in the history of America combined.
This is precisely why we set aside a day each October to mourn the loss of the millions of Americans whose lives were cut terribly short. Not a one of them will ever have an opportunity to cast a vote, wear a uniform or defend the borders of this nation. They are dead, and if you put this fact in the proper context, its profoundly tragic dimensions become even clearer. For example, those 744,600 Americans who died prior to birth in 1973 alone would today be 35 years of age and contributing to society in ways we cannot even imagine.
Maybe one of those 35-year-olds would have discovered a cure for Parkinson's disease. Perhaps one of them would have mesmerized a nation with a vision of what it means to follow Christ and never count the cost. It is feasible that at least a few of them would have been among those heroic men and women we honored this past Memorial Day.
But they are all gone – murdered in the wombs of their mothers before they ever had a chance to give a hug, shed a tear or inspire a child. Their loss is our loss, and we must never forget them, lest we forget the real reason why we struggle to end this plague.
In addition, October is Respect Life Month all across America. We will participate in Life Chain; 40 Days for Life will be well under way and religious services will be held so that Americans can pray for our nation, mothers who have aborted their children and all others affected by this tragedy.
October is the month when leaves change colors, and autumn presents us with an array of colors that please the eye, reminding us of God's awesome gifts. Appropriately, October 6, 2008 is also the day when we will take time out to remember those boys and girls whose fate was intentionally and irrevocably sealed by the slice of a knife, the stab of a needle in the heart or some other grisly practice resulting in premature death.
More than 49,000,000 children have died in this tragic war being waged in the wombs of mothers on a daily basis. To my mind, this sobering fact should prompt anyone truly committed to ending abortion to use October 6 as an opportunity to remember the dead and resolve to actively pursue the protection of those persons not yet created – none of whom should face premature death by abortion.
CONSCIENCE: PROTECTING THE PROTECTED Posted: Tuesday August 26, 2008 at 12:24 pm EST by Judie Brown
When I first wrote about the proposed federal regulation designed to protect healthcare workers who refuse to participate in abortions, I was a bit incredulous. It boggled my mind that the government would take such a bold step considering our current culture. But I was wrong.
The latest news is that the Department of Health and Human Services has published the regulation, and after the 30-day comment period, the regulation may go into effect. This is important for many reasons. According to the HHS press release, this proposed regulation would
Clarify that non-discrimination protections apply to institutional health care providers as well as to individual employees working for recipients of certain funds from HHS;
Require recipients of certain HHS funds to certify their compliance with laws protecting provider conscience rights;
Designate the HHS Office for Civil Rights as the entity to receive complaints of discrimination addressed by the existing statutes and the proposed regulation; and
Charge HHS officials to work with any state or local government or entity that may be in violation of existing statutes and the proposed regulation to encourage voluntary steps to bring that government or entity into compliance with the law. If, despite the Department's efforts, compliance is not achieved, HHS officials will consider all legal options, including termination of funding and the return of funds paid out in violation of the nondiscrimination provisions.
When you visit the web site, you will be able to read the steps Congress and HHS have taken in the past to protect the conscience rights of those who simply cannot commit abortions, do not wish to be trained in the procedure and are uncomfortable being pressed into the role of abortion advocate. HHS is recognizing the fact that it is indeed a form of discrimination for employers to expect, if not demand, that their employees to compromise their consciences. It has been a long time coming, but at least the proposed regulation makes some sense.
In the summary of the proposed rule, you will note that the rule would apply to those entities that receive federal funds from HHS, and that in order to comply with the rule, the entity would not be able to discriminate in any way against those who do not wish to perform or refer for induced abortion. What this means in plain English is that the proposal addresses surgical abortion or chemicals that are known to induce abortion, such as RU-486.
However, it should be noted that the current version for which comments are being sought does NOT contain earlier language that defined abortion as "any of the various procedures – including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action – that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation." This language thus encompassed hormonal contraceptives' ability to cause an early abortion. Its deletion from the published version of the proposed regulation is tragic, and as we said in a media release earlier this month,
"[HHS Secretary Mike] Leavitt, who says he wants to protect conscience rights of physicians, is backing down: 'An early draft of the regulations found its way into public circulation before it had reached my review,' Leavitt said on his blog.' It contained words that lead some to conclude my intent is to deal with the subject of contraceptives, somehow defining them as abortion. Not true.'"
So while we recognize the proposal as a sign that the federal government wants to stop the type of discriminatory action recommended by the American Medical Association earlier this year, it is clear that HHS will continue to pander to the proponents of chemical abortion. This is indeed a sad reality.
In a press release on the regulation, Karen Brauer, president of Pharmacists for Life International, said, "This agency has ventured into the business of making regulations against intolerance."
But it appears to me, at least, that they are continuing to be blind to the fact that the birth control pill can and does kill. What a tragedy. This is indeed a bittersweet moment for preborn children.
HHS is accepting comments on the proposal for 26 more days. You may submit electronic comments on this regulationor via e-mail.
To submit electronic comments, go to the web site and do the following:
Click on the box next to "Select to find documents accepting comments or submissions."
Type the keywords "provider conscience" in the blank field above this and then click on "Go." This takes you to a page listing a document titled "Ensuring that Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices in Violation of Federal Law."
Click on the "Send a Comment or Submission" link, which will take you to the "Public Comment and Submission Form" screen. You may also attach documents to accompany your comments.
You may send written comments (one original and two copies) via regular mail to the following address only:
Office of Public Health and Science, Department of Health and Human Services
Attention: Brenda Destro
Hubert H. Humphrey Building
200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Room 728E
Washington, D.C. 20201
Pro-Life Story: God spoke to me.... Posted By Amanda Conner Sherburn on Mar, 1 2007 Hi I'm Amanda and I'm 15. I got pregnant when I was 13 years old. My baby is truly a miracle. I was determined to get an abortion and everyone else wanted me to get one too. No ... Read
