Paul Sutton, a demographer for the National Center for Health Statistics, has just released new data on the number of teens getting pregnant and carrying their babies to term. With the release, Sutton commented,

To see 26 states with statistically significant increases is fairly remarkable. We're seeing increases in both the number of teens having births and also the rate at which they are having births. Both of them are going up.

USA Today, the newspaper from which we retrieved the report, was kind enough, on its web site, to provide links to related items for those interested in more information on the possible cause for this crisis. And indeed, it is a crisis, though the media does not see it that way.

In November of last year, USA Today reported on a study released by the prestigious Pediatrics medical journal. Pointing out that sex on television could be a leading cause for the escalating rates of adolescent sexual activity, the study reported, 
 

By age 16, teens who watched a lot of sexually charged TV were more than twice as likely to be pregnant or father an out-of-wedlock baby as teens who watched very little: 12% vs. 5%. The gap holds steady through age 20. Researchers controlled for parents' race, income and education and teens' total TV time.

The same report provided a rather insightful comment by psychologist Dave Walsh, of the National Institute on Media and the Family, who suggests that parents are "delegating sex education to Hollywood. …If I'm a 15-year-old kid and no one's really talking to me about sex and I'm watching a lot of sex on TV, it's not a direct, conscious decision – but over time I start to think, 'That's what people do. That's the norm.' "

The real problem with Walsh’s observation is not that a parent is or is not talking to his or her children about sex, but rather that there is an enormous amount of unsupervised time being spent by kids who watch television because it has become the national babysitter. The parents are not only not discussing matters of life and death with their children; they are not even there to participate in a healthy discussion in the first place, or to monitor what is being viewed. The last time I checked, it was parents who had the responsibility of raising children, not the sex education teacher–TV set–video game combo that seems to prevail in much of the nation these days.

Clearly, there are many who argue, correctly, that if these teens had been exposed to a bit of abstinence education in their high school or middle school curriculum, they might have been spared the experience of a pregnancy, or even worse, a collaborative effort to hide the problem by having the baby killed by abortion. Concerned Parents Report has published one such document.  

But, I daresay, abstinence education these days isn’t even a band-aid for the problem our children are facing. There is much, much more at risk than simply an untimely pregnancy.

Just a few days ago, Pedro Jose Maria Simon Castellvi, president of the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations, startled the world by stating, "We have sufficient evidence to state that a non-negligible cause of male infertility in the West is the environmental pollution caused by the pill. …We are faced with a clear anti-environmental effect which demands more explanation on the part of the manufacturers." 

Pardon me for suggesting that the world was shocked by Castellvi’s statement. Actually, the news media dismissed this report out of hand and quoted other “experts” to debunk the comment. However, this is not the first such report on the pollution caused by millions of women ingesting artificial hormones and, whether or not the national news media reports it, the body of evidence is bound to increase.

Further, on the same day, Castellvi had another report published in the Vatican’s official newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, asserting the abortifacient and carcinogenic effects of hormonal contraception. He wrote, "The means of contraception violate at least five important rights: the right to life, the right to health, the right to education, all right to information (their spread is at the expense of information on natural resources) and the right to equality between the sexes (the burden of contraception falls mostly on women)."

This is potentially life-changing information about serious matters and widespread life-threatening circumstances. Yet among the many reports I have read on the subject of adolescents, contraception and pregnancy, I have never seen a warning in the mainstream media about the dangers of birth control. Thus, it too is accountable for the rising rates of adolescent pregnancy because the only facts reported are those that make contraception appealing.

How many teens are victims of Planned Parenthood’s birth control as the way to hide promiscuity bandwagon? Millions, I am sure, and these young people are the same young people who are getting how-to lessons on television and experiencing plenty of unsupervised time for experimentation. Now, of course, Planned Parenthood and its cronies in the "drive-by" media and elsewhere will say, “Well, they are going to do it anyway,” to which I would respond, "That may or may not be true, but we should not accept that argument. Our responsibility is to combat it by affirming a teen’s self-respect, and teaching each of them the true meaning of love and the lasting rewards of saving sex for marriage. Making assumptions that young people are no better than chimpanzees is how we got into this problem in the first place."

In the lyrics for the song “Looking for Love in All the Wrong Places,” we read these words: 

Hoping to find a friend and a lover,
I'll bless the day I discover
another heart, looking for love!

This song misses the very point that must be made, as do the messages far too many of our young people are getting from their parents, the television and so many other sources one can hardly count them.

Love is much more than finding another person to whom you can give your body; it is a gift that must be nurtured, must grow and should be the foundation for a marriage that will last a lifetime, not a brief fling. But if parents do not accept their proper role first, then we'll continue to read headlines on teen behavior such as today's, until the story itself is no longer newsworthy.

Pope John Paul II made the obligation of parents very clear in his May 2004 message "The Media and the Family: A Risk and a Richness": 
 

Parents, as the primary and most important educators of their children, are also the first to teach them about the media. They are called to train their offspring in the “moderate, critical, watchful and prudent use of the media” in the home (Familiaris Consortio, 76). When parents do that consistently and well, family life is greatly enriched. Even very young children can be taught important lessons about the media: that they are produced by people anxious to communicate messages; that these are often messages to do something - to buy a product, to engage in dubious behaviour - that is not in the child’s best interests or in accord with moral truth; that children should not uncritically accept or imitate what they find in the media.

Parents also need to regulate the use of media in the home. This would include planning and scheduling media use, strictly limiting the time children devote to media, making entertainment a family experience, putting some media entirely off limits and periodically excluding all of them for the sake of other family activities. Above all, parents should give good example to children by their own thoughtful and selective use of media. Often they will find it helpful to join with other families to study and discuss the problems and opportunities presented by the use of the media. Families should be outspoken in telling producers, advertisers, and public authorities what they like and dislike.

The parental love described by the Holy Father, which requires self-sacrifice and commitment, achieves much more than merely ensuring that children view only appropriate media. It lays the foundation for the kind of real love that children raised this way will one day seek for themselves.
 

Responses

So sad that teenage girls look for love in all the wrong places.
Chantell
Chantell | January 8, 2009

---

Humanae Vitae fortold the consequences of the acceptance of birth control. Maria Goretti died to preserve her own innocence. The Planned Parenthood groups hav made an all-out assault on the innocence of our children. This whole group especially has to be greatly offending God. People need to see this for what it is-a tool of Satan. It's influence is around the world and it is pure evil. No one who supports it can be a faithful Christian.
Grace Harman | January 8, 2009

---

It is no secret that the final version of the new conscience rule, approved by President George W. Bush, was published by the Department of Health and Human Services on December 19 and is scheduled to take effect on January 20. The new rule, complete with a comprehensive presentation of the comments and responses made during the pre-publication period, is readily available for anyone to read and assess.

The purpose of this new rule is plainly stated, as is the context within which the rule is to be enforced. From a pro-life perspective, the new rule is imperfect; in fact, it is a disappointment. But that is not the major problem. The major problem is that it has been sorely misrepresented by those who do not believe that any sort of conscience protection should be granted to those who find it ethically problematic to medically or surgically abort a preborn child.

The regulation is quite clear and states,
 

(e) Entities to whom this paragraph (e) applies shall not, on the basis that the individual or entity has received a grant, contract, loan, or loan guarantee under the Public Health Service Act, the
Community Mental Health Centers Act, or the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000, require:
  (1) Such individual to perform or assist in the performance of any sterilization procedure or abortion if his performance or assistance in the performance of such procedure or abortion would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions, or
  (2) Such entity to: 
  (i) Make its facilities available for the performance of any sterilization procedure or abortion if the performance of such procedure or abortion in such facilities is prohibited by the entity on the basis of religious beliefs or moral convictions, or
  (ii) provide any personnel for the performance or assistance in the performance of any sterilization procedure or abortion if the performance or assistance in the performance of such procedure or abortion by such personnel would be contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of such personnel.

In the comment-and-response section preceding the regulation itself, we find the federal government backing off in response to Planned Parenthood's allegations of the past several months.  Planned Parenthood had argued, with its usual hysterical hyperbole, that there was a danger that the proposed regulation would, in fact, define certain contraceptives as abortion-causing chemicals and devices. Thus the federal government found it necessary to make clear its intentions not to upset the hedonistic family-planning giant. In fact, Health and Human Services was quite specific, stating,

 

After the full consideration of Comments on this issue [a clear definition of abortion], the Department declines to add a definition of abortion to the rule. As indicated by the Comments, such questions over the nature of abortion and the ending of a life are highly controversial and strongly debated. The Department believes it can enforce the federal health care conscience protection laws without an abortion definition just as the Department has enforced Hyde Amendment, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110-161, Div. G, Sec. Sec. 507, 508(a)-(c), 121 Stat. 1844, 2208 (Dec. 26, 2007), abortion funding restrictions without a formal definition. Additionally, nothing in this rule alters the obligation of federal Title X programs to deliver contraceptive services to clients in need as authorized by law and regulation.
 

In other words, the new regulation honors the conscientious objection of those who, because of religious belief or moral conviction, will not participate in medical or surgical abortion, and the regulation obviously provides the same protection for those who do perform such procedures. There is nothing ostensibly pro-life in the regulation.

Thus the regulation is pabulum, pure and simple, hiding behind words like "controversial" and "strongly debated" rather than defining that a human being begins at his beginning and therefore some forms of contraception are in fact abortive. Chicken Little lives. But not so, according to commentaries in leading newspapers, including the St. Louis Post Dispatch, which editorialized, "Under the rule, pharmacists are allowed to refuse to fill a prescription for contraceptives or for medications associated with medical abortion. A doctor can refuse to tell a pregnant patient about the availability of abortion even if the patient asks about it and even if a continued pregnancy threatens the patient's life." 

Given the fact that the rule does not define abortion and insists that recipients of Title X funding must provide contraceptive services, I have to ask if the Post Dispatch editorial writer(s) actually read the regulation or merely chose to make wild claims about aspects of the regulation that are either nonexistent or watered down to the point of being meaningless.

Of course, a more plausible explanation for this disingenuous attack is that the Post-Dispatch and its ilk are laying the groundwork for the Obama administration to employ the same arguments, in order to overturn the regulation.That is just the sort of trickery that likely future HHS secretary Tom Daschle  is good at, as we all know.

As Nancy Valko, RN, said in her letter to the editor of the St. Louis newspaper,
 

As a registered nurse for almost 40 years, I am shocked that the editorial "Unconscionable" (Dec. 24) would suggest that doctors, nurses and pharmacists with ethical objections to participating in certain procedures or treatments just "choose another profession." This is not just about abortion. Assisted suicide is legal in Washington and Oregon. Missouri has seen similar efforts. Should we then just choose another state?

As a recipient of health care for almost 60 years, I am more than nervous about a health care system populated by doctors, pharmacists and nurses who are comfortable with ending life. We have enough problems as it is with medical ethics. We deny conscience rights at our own peril.
 

What specifically is it that the "mainstream" media wants from the federal government? I have a feeling I know the answer. They want a policy that basically states that nobody in the healthcare profession who is committed to defending and protecting innocent human persons need apply! There is no other possible conclusion! When so much protest can be raised over the simple matter of making certain that freedom of conscience applies equally across the board to those who will kill as well as those who will not kill, something is drastically wrong.

The problem is that too few see the rising tide of morbid ideology that underlies commentaries such as that published by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. One hopes that this situation will change before it is too late. If it does not, eventually the circus could turn into a spectacle at which people of conviction are fed to bloodthirsty lions. History has witnessed this before, and it is not pretty.

Responses

We should have a right to deny anything that we don't agree on. OB doctors are trained to bring life into the world, not kill it! We should have the right as long as it doesn't harm/kill anyone and this should include unborn children!
elisabeth | January 8, 2009

---

Danny Platt of New Orleans, Louisiana is among the most incredibly sadistic alleged murderers I have ever read about in my entire 64 years of life.  But then again, he is simply acting out what thousands of people do daily in America.

Who is Danny Platt? He is a 22-year-old father who was ordered by the court to pay child support for his two-year-old son, Ja Shawn Powell. Platt was behind in his payments. According to news reports, he was on record as saying that rather than pay child support, he would kill either his wife or his son.

On Saturday, January 3, Danny Platt was arrested and charged with first-degree murder. He confessed to killing his son. In a news report he states, "I'm sorry about killing my baby. And I'm sorry for the family that I caused trouble with."

While it is truly heartbreaking to read this report and realize that a little boy has apparently died a horrible death at the hands of his own father, it seems to me that, if this is true, it is but another example of how the culture of death has made it easy to solve problems by employing acts of violence.

We all know, whether we admit it or not, that abortion is undoubtedly the most heinous form of child abuse known to man and a frequent underlying cause of other forms of child abuse. Yet widespread abortion continues unabated.

As Theresa Karminsky Burke, Ph.D. and David C. Reardon, Ph.D. make clear in their article "When the Doll Breaks,"

 

Experts agree that during past the 25 years the rate of child abuse has increased dramatically. Between 1976 and 1987, alone, there was a 330% increase in the reported cases of child abuse. While a portion of this increase is due to better reporting, experts agree that these figures reflect a real trend toward ever higher rates of abuse.

These figures clearly contradict the claim of pro-abortionists that abortion of "unwanted children" prevents child abuse. Ignoring the obvious illogic of this argument – which suggests that killing children is better than beating them – there is not a single scientific study that supports this theory. Instead, there is a clear statistically association between increased rates of abortion and increased rates of child abuse. Indeed, statistical and clinical research support not only an association, but causal connection between abortion and subsequent child abuse.

 

Further, a published study involving 518 participants, entitled "Associations between voluntary and involuntary forms of perinatal loss and child maltreatment among low-income mothers," by Priscilla K. Coleman, Charles D. Maxey, Vincent M. Rue and Catherine T. Coyle, asserts the following in its summary:
 

Compared to women with no history of perinatal loss, those with one loss (voluntary or involuntary) had a 99% higher risk for child physical abuse, and women with multiple losses were 189% more likely to physically abuse their children. Compared to women with no history of induced abortion, those with one prior abortion had a 144% higher risk for child physical abuse. Finally, maternal history of multiple miscarriages and/or stillbirths compared to no history was associated with a 1237% increased risk of physical abuse and a 605% increased risk of neglect.
 

It would seem obvious that children who are viewed to be either "unwanted" or "inconvenient" are children whose lives are at risk, not only prior to birth but well after that as well. And while some might want to avoid this fact and argue that Danny Platt's alleged action has nothing to do with the massive numbers of abortions that occur in this nation daily, I would disagree.

What Platt is accused of exemplifies how far this culture has sunk into the depravity resulting from 35-plus years of solving problems by intentionally murdering preborn children prior to birth. The callous disregard for the dignity of the human being who is not seen, but makes his presence known in a variety of ways, was and is a precursor to the horrors that are now part of everyday life and exemplified by Platt's alleged action.

When an international women's magazine, A – The Abortion Magazine can explore "how abortion-rights advocates, acting as human-rights advocates, become part of a larger, united movement to promote the equality of all people," something is fundamentally askew. 

While it may seem inconceivable to some that the act of killing a preborn child could ever be perceived as a human right, the ideology that supports this concept is the very ideology that drives mothers to kill the flesh of their flesh. It is what drives parents to abuse their children and drives older children to support the act of euthanizing their own parents.

It is obvious that mankind is headed down a destructive path that can only be reversed by a total conversion of attitude among human beings toward their fellow human beings and their innate dignity, regardless of their size, age or condition of dependency. As Pope John Paul II taught so eloquently in The Gospel of Life (#19),
 

 

[E]very man is his brother's keeper, because God entrusts us to one another. And it is also in view of this entrusting that God gives everyone freedom, a freedom which possesses an inherently relational dimension. This is a great gift of the Creator, placed as it is at the service of the person and of his fulfillment through the gift of self and openness to others; but when freedom is made absolute in an individualistic way, it is emptied of its original content, and its very meaning and dignity are contradicted.

 

A human right cannot possibly be equated with a right to murder an innocent baby, whether born or preborn. There can never be, in a civilized society, a right to do wrong, a right to kill, a right to demonize some people for the express self-interest of others.

Danny Platt has allegedly acted in violence, but if we are truly honest, we would have to admit that Danny Platt lives in a nation steeped in violence. Inspired by the memory of Platt's son, Ja Shawn, let us strive as never before to focus attention on the brotherhood of man, including the youngest of our fellow human beings.
 

Responses

Your so right! Our culture is steeped in death! I read about Danny Platt on Msnbc.com. How could he kill his son?
Chantell
Chantell | January 6, 2009

---

Dear Judie,
I read an online news report about this man who killed his 2 year old son so that he wouldn't have to pay child support. People were encouraged to leave their remarks. Mine were not published, apparently I made too much sense for them and they chose instead to publish one's that went on and on about "hanging him", "torturing the sick "bleep!" ones that said "I would have never let him see my son if he weren't paying child support!", "throw him in jail to rot for life.", etc...things of that nature.

My comments are below:

This man is more than sick. He needs a ton of prayer!

There isn't much respect for life anymore!!

People are told to pay child support and they don't, nothing much is done about it - (they probably weren't supporting their family to begin with, no wonder they ended up divorced.) People don't go looking for a divorce for no reason, something isn't right to begin with.
Most people will generally put up with quite a lot before they deceide to get permanally seperated from their spouses.

Tougher laws need to be put in place for these "dead beats" that don't respect the life God gives them to love, raise and support.

People abort their children, no one is shocked about that much anymore, no respect for precious life!!

Until people learn that life is precious, we'll probably see more of this insane and sick behavior.

A lot of prayer is needed. A lot of action is needed, a lot of respect for life is needed, NOW!!

May our good Lord hold that precious little boy close to His heart and comfort his Mother.

(For those of you that say that you wouldn't have let him see him if he wasn't paying his child support..., well, the laws say different.)
Isn't that sick and sad too?....(end of my comments on that news site.)

You Judie, are one of the few people, that I know or read about whom when I hear about all that you do I think that one day you will surely hear these words: "Well done, good and faithful servant!" Thank you Judie for all that you do. You are a real blessing to all of us. I only wish I had half the ability to get through to people like you do. If nothing else I do or try to do gets accomplished, at least I know that God hears from me on behalf of the preborn and born children daily, I always keep them in my prayers. More of us need to keep their parents and care-givers in our prayers too so that all may come to respect life.
Alice | January 7, 2009

---

Every year, at about this time, many Americans make what are commonly known as New Year's resolutions. It is no surprise to any of us mere mortals that most of these resolutions may not last beyond the time it takes to enunciate them. But I think that there are a couple that all of us in the pro-life community could adopt with gusto and keep, regardless of the political atmosphere, cultural meltdown or increasing lack of belief in God.

The first is based on the profound words spoken last month by Dominican Father Augustine DiNoia,  undersecretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Father DiNoia was lecturing at Rome’s Pontifical North American College, and it is reported that he said the following in his message:

No one in his or her right mind will be interested in a faith about which its exponents seem too embarrassed to communicate forthrightly… We have to be convinced that the fullness of the truth and beauty of the message about Jesus Christ is powerfully attractive when it is communicated without apologies or compromise…In our conversations with young people, we have to avoid the temptation to fudge – to adapt the Catholic faith so as to make it palatable to modern tastes and expectations.

In these words reside the fullness of what it means to be a Catholic without apology and also what it means to be a pro-life American, regardless of religious identity. For just as surely as the only resonant Catholic teaching is the tenet that is set forth plainly and succinctly, so too the fundamental principles of the pro-life movement are best understood when set forth clearly and without qualifications.

For example, pro-life Americans should never use the term "pro-choice." Why? Simple!

Pro-choice is meaningless because it actually reveals nothing about the true convictions of the person describing himself this way. What the term is designed to convey is that the person describing himself as pro-choice believes that an expectant mother should have the choice to kill or not to kill her child and that such a position is not pro-abortion, just pro-choice. That is ridiculous.

This is why we should always say “pro-abortion,” as that is exactly what pro-choice really means. Here is an example of the pro-choice position applied to another scenario:

Question: How do you feel about mothers who drown their two-year-old daughters?

Answer: I would never do that myself, but I would not impose my views on anyone else; each mother should be free to choose whether or not to drown their two-year-olds.

Sounds incredibly evil, doesn't it? But that answer is a pro-choice response. That is why we should never say pro-choice. There is literally no difference between a two-year-old child and an embryonic child, other than size and place of residence.

Pro-life Americans should never say that abortion is “legal,” for if one measures the gravity of the act of abortion against the natural law, one knows immediately that an act of abortion violates that law which is written on every man’s heart.  As Archbishop Chaput put it,

Our national soul was expressed best in our founding document. In its structure, the Declaration of Independence has a clear religious resonance. It refers several times to a Creator or Supreme Being. But more importantly, natural law principles shape the whole text. These principles have their roots in Christian medieval thought, which itself drew on the Hebrew tradition, classical Greek thought and Roman jurists.

Natural law is not a "sectarian" idea. It is much larger and older than that. It exists in every society. Natural law teaches that all creation has a "nature," an inherent order and purpose. By using their reason, men and women can know what conforms to their human nature and is therefore good. This knowledge doesn't require a theology or law degree; we all instinctively sense it. Murder, lying, cheating, stealing, exploiting the poor, abusing the weak and elderly — these things are universally seen as evil whether a person is Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Taoist or agnostic, because they violate a natural moral law written into the human heart.

This is precisely why we should point out that while the Supreme Court may have decriminalized abortion, which is indeed an act of murder, it does not mean that the act is morally or ethically legal. Something as heinous as abortion could never be legal in the strict sense of the word.
The reality is quite simple, really. Father Richard John Neuhaus makes this clear:

The abortion battle is over abortion and whether the unborn child counts as a human person, but where one comes out on that question is, I believe, powerfully influenced by a host of other beliefs and attitudes aptly summarized in the pro-life language of a culture of death versus a culture of life. There are two cultures, one focused on rights and laws and the other on rights and wrongs; one focused on maximizing individual self-expression and the other on reinforcing community and responsibility.

And that brings me to the final New Year's resolution that each of us can adopt at once and adhere to with little or no effort at all: Let us never refer to the preborn child as an "it," and by the same token, let us never refer to an expectant mother as a "pregnant woman." The baby has a gender; the expectant mother is a mother from the instant her child's life begins, and we, the members of the growing culture of life, are the only ones who will make those seemingly little but nonetheless powerful distinctions.

At the end of his commentary, “The Pro-Life Movement as the Politics of the 1960s,” Father Neuhaus tells the reader, "All of us would do well to ponder the wisdom in the observation that there are no permanently lost causes because there are no permanently won causes." But there are causes that can grow and flourish in effectiveness, conversion and conviction, until finally illegitimate acts like abortion become so abhorrent that nobody would dare discuss it, let alone practice it.

Humanizing the preborn child, acknowledging his or her mother and taking great care never to buy into the culture of death’s deceptive rhetoric are vital first steps in converting the culture. Proper word usage will help average Americans visualize who the preborn child is and why abortion is not an “issue,” not morally or ethically legal and never the right choice!

P.S. Please remember Father Neuhaus in your prayers, as he is, as of this writing, quite ill.

It was shocking when I saw it; I knew it couldn’t possibly be true, and I prayed it was a New Year’s Eve joke! But indeed, it was factually correct and my heart sank. What in the world could be done? Well, here is the story and an invitation to you to get active and do something now.

An action alert from Children of God for Life arrived in my “in box” moments ago. When you read the headline, please note that the word “monovalent” is defined as an entity “having specific immunologic activity against a single antigen, microorganism, or disease,” such as a monovalent vaccine.  Following is the action alert:
 

Manufacturer Stops Sales of Monovalents for Measles, Mumps, Rubella Vaccines

ATTENTION - all concerned parents and medical professionals - Merck needs to hear from you  now!

Without the separate doses for measles and mumps there will be NO MORAL ALTERNATIVES in the US for these vaccines!

Concerned Catholics

In December 2008, the Holy See affirmed in Dignitas Personae, that “everyone has the duty to make known their disagreement and to ask that their healthcare system make other types of vaccines available.” The Vatican further stated that “there is a duty to refuse to use such “biological material” even when there is no close connection between the researcher and the actions of those who performed the abortion.
 

What is really alarming about the decision is that Merck’s announcement was met with a smug – perhaps bordering on arrogant – statement from the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP). In the AAFP news account we read,

Doug Campos-Outcalt, M.D., M.P.A., who serves as the AAFP’s liaison to the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and is a former member of the AAFP Commission on Clinical Policies and Research, said Merck’s decision was insignificant in terms of public health. He added, however, that some parents likely will be unhappy.

“The use of the single antigen is pretty limited,” he said. “There’s no harm if you need one in getting all three. There are some parents out there that want a delayed vaccine schedule. They want the vaccines spread out over a longer period of time and not so many at once. That’s a lot of hooey. Alternative schedules have never been proven to be superior.”

Campos-Outcalt just doesn’t get it! This is not about whether or not a particular vaccine mixture is superior. Rather, it concerns the fact, clinically proven and obvious to anyone with eyes to see, that the MMR vaccine is tainted with cells from aborted children! That is immoral, and that is why parents clamor for ethical alternatives.

It is incredible, if not demonic, that a mega-pharmaceutical company would act in way that denies parents the opportunity to select a moral alternative for the vaccines in question. In fact, it makes one wonder if perhaps Merck’s strategy is to quell all opposition to its ongoing attempt to show there is nothing morally wrong with providing children’s vaccines that would not exist today if not for aborting a preborn baby years ago.

If that is what their strategy is, they are soon to realize that they have failed. Parents across this nation are going to be as scandalized as I was upon reading this news, and the hope is that they will make their voices heard by commenting directly to Merck.

Debi Vinnedge, founder and director of Children of God for Life, has made the task of communicating with Merck a simple one. Please note her letter to Merck CEO Richard Clark, which states in part,

On behalf of over 610,000 US citizens, physicians and members of the clergy who have petitioned Merck in the Campaign for Ethical Vaccines and are deeply concerned with the use of aborted fetal cell lines in the rubella portion of your MMR II and other vaccines, I am asking you to reconsider your position.
 
Our organization has written to your Corporate offices many times in the past regarding this issue. We presented these concerns to former Merck CEO, Raymond Gilmartin at your annual shareholder meeting for two consecutive years as a result of the shareholder resolution filed jointly with Human Life International. Over 60 million votes from Merck stockholders confirmed our position that Merck ought to discontinue the use of WI-38, MRC-5 and PER C6 in future vaccine development. I am enclosing copies of the statements presented at those meetings for your review.
 
You will note that in 2004 we commended Merck for making Attenuvax and Mumpsvax available to the public so that parents could at least protect their children from these diseases without compromising their moral and religious beliefs. When there have been shortages of these vaccines in the past, parents have waited patiently for the doses to become available, even willing to pay the higher costs in order to avoid the “tainted” MMR II. Once again, many of these families are waiting for you to resume production and their children will be unprotected unless you provide the doses. They are already abstaining from rubella and some have even flown overseas to vaccinate their children. That is, in my view, a disgrace to American healthcare.
 
Mr. Clark, if you would read the hundreds of thousands of letters we have received, you would understand not only the depth of these families’ convictions, but also the serious need to continue to provide the separate measles and mumps vaccines. As the sole provider of these important immunizations in the US, I believe you have a duty to public health and safety to ensure that as many children as possible are able to be protected from infectious disease. Otherwise, it is likely that we will see an increase in measles and mumps outbreaks as we have experienced in recent years when there were shortages.

Please contact Merck and make your voice heard:

Richard Clark, CEO
Merck & Company
One Merck Drive P.O. Box 100
Whitehouse Station, NJ 08889-0100

Please send a copy of your letter to

Julie L. Gerberding, Director
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
1600 Clifton Rd
Atlanta, GA 30333

Updates on the situation will be available on the Children of God for Life web site: http://www.cogforlife.org/merck1208.htm

Responses

Dear Judie,
God bless you for your insight! Regarding the "tainted" vaccines and the link with the epidemic of Autism--could it be a terrible consequence of immunological rejection now passing on? This is very important information. Thank you once again for being our hero. -Sarah Sonrise, Special Educator

Sarah Sonrise | January 2, 2009

---

Dear Sarah

The Centers for Disease Control reports the following about MMR and autism: "Carefully performed scientific studies have found no relationship between MMR vaccine and autism."

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/mmr_autism_factsheet.htm

The vaccine safety website appears to agree: http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/cc-mmr.htm

Judie Brown
Judie Brown | January 8, 2009

---

No one who studies Planned Parenthood’s tactics would be surprised by a recent “news” item  that claims that, according to a "large federal survey," teens who pledge to remain virgins until marriage or promise to save themselves for marriage are just as likely to have sex as those who don't make take pledges or make promises.

This latest alleged revelation, which is hardly surprising when one considers the source, deserves a little research. First of all, the survey is not – by any stretch of the imagination – a scientifically valid study. For starters, the author of the report is Ms. Janet E. Rosenbaum of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Rosenbaum authored a study published in the American Journal of Public Health a couple of years ago entitled "Reborn a Virgin: Adolescents' Retracting of Virginity Pledges and Sexual Histories." That study concludes,

Adolescents who initiate sexual activity are likely to recant virginity pledges, whereas those who take pledges are likely to recant their sexual histories. Thus, evaluations of sexual abstinence programs are vulnerable to unreliable data. In addition, virginity pledgers may incorrectly assess the sexually transmitted disease risks associated with their prepledge sexual behavior.

Clearly, Rosenbaum is no stranger to the study of adolescent sexual behavior nor is she making the claim that teens who talk about their sexual adventures are people whose claims can be trusted. All the same, she and others like her are doing all they can to debunk any sort of program or project that emphasizes saving one's self for marriage. As one of her fans, Cory Silverberg, pointed out in his blog in 2006,

Basically the research shows that teens who promise to be virgins aren't keeping that promise, and teens who have had sex and then promise to be virgins may be behaving as if they've never had sex at all. Which raises the obvious concern that their new "re-virgined" status may make them believe they couldn't have an STD (or at least may make them unlikely to be tested for or talk to a potential sexual partner about STDs).

All of which makes you wonder why we're having teens go through the process in the first place. This research seems to support the majority of scientific research that suggests that virginity pledges don't work. But it also highlights a general problem in studying teen sexual behavior (not that researchers are really allowed to study much of it), which is the possible lack of reliability of the data. In a prepared statement the author of the study suggests that asking teens about their sexual behavior may not provide the best data and "a better and more reliable measure than adolescents' self-reported sexual history might be the straightforward results of medical STD tests."

Obviously, anyone who understands teens sees the fatal flaw in Rosenbaum's ongoing study of adolescent sexual behavior. The young people who are answering the questions and therefore providing a basis for all of this ongoing research are the same people who cannot make their bed, cannot hang up their clothing and forget to brush their teeth if their iPhone rings. I mean really! How much credibility can such a study have?

Oh! I think I know the answer, and you probably do as well. The time is fast approaching when Obamaism, the new philosophy of the White House and surrounding environs, will be examining how best to spend taxpayer dollars. And of course, we all know that Planned Parenthood sits in the driver's seat on that question, having had more than 35 years of experience in federal funding acquisition and now having the ear of the big man in Washington, D.C. So a small study here and there that proves Planned Parenthood's long-held position that abstinence education doesn’t work is good for its wallet. Planned Parenthood types have claimed for years that abstinence education is old fashioned, while sex instruction is extremely successful.

Let's not forget that, earlier this year, when it was reported that abortion rates were declining, Planned Parenthood was quick to take credit.  It asserted that it was its emphasis on birth control and its sex ed programs that resulted in the alleged decline.

Today, Rosenbaum's study adds fuel to that allegation and is going to go a long way toward helping Planned Parenthood to get its grubby hands on the millions of additional dollars it wants to acquire as it digs even deeper into federal coffers. Rob Stein writes in his Washington Post report, “The findings are reigniting the debate about the effectiveness of abstinence-focused sexual education just as Congress and the new Obama administration are about to reconsider the more than $176 million in annual funding for such programs.”

Oh, really? If I give you a multiple-choice question, can you guess where Planned Parenthood would like to see that money go?

Even if you get the answer right on the first guess, one has to wonder what it will take for well-balanced reporting to make its way into the public square. Why doesn't the Washington Post reporter provide a counter to the Rosenbaum study? All Stein was able to bring himself to share with the reader is that Valerie Huber, of the National Abstinence Education Association, expressed concern over Rosenbaum's "ideologically tainted and inaccurate analysis."

Stein could have contacted the Medical Institute for Sexual Health and found on its web site information about programs that involve parents in the education of their teens. One such program

capitalizes on the most important influence for teenagers – their parents. This initiative prioritizes training parents on effective parenting skills and communication skills, as well as providing medically accurate sexual health information. With age-appropriate, easy-to-use videos and discussion guides, parents may learn how to engage in open, honest, and informed conversations with their children regarding sexual health. This initiative includes the book Hooked, released in August 2008, which describes the emotional consequences of sexual activity on adolescents and young adults. It also includes the Tell Me NOW! DVD and educational guide that contains a fast-paced, entertaining 22-minute video filled with age-appropriate information about puberty and sex for 3rd-5th graders and their parents.

The results of the Tell me NOW! DVD project could have been reported by Stein – or even evaluated.
Stein could have also contacted Richard Wetzel, M.D. and learned more about Dr. Wetzel's work in the area of valid education that allows parents to share the facts with their teens. Dr. Wetzel even has a special program for Catholic parents. Where are his comments in the Washington Post?

Clearly, the timing of the reports on Rosenbaum's most recent study raises a number of questions, and those questions will remain unanswered by the mainstream media as long as its agenda is driven by the cultural fascination with sex devoid of responsibility. That is the challenge we face; that is the reason why we must persist in doing all we can unmask the deception and to defund Planned Parenthood.

Perhaps it is not unusual, shortly before a new year arrives, to see a plethora of headlines telling us what is best and worst about many facets of daily life. For example, Yahoo just announced the list of singers who destroy songs and CNN is telling the world about the "Top 10 entertainment stories of 2008.” Not really very life shattering, is it?

But what disturbed me – and was not at all entertaining – was the new Gallup poll that found that among those queried, 67 percent “think religion is losing its influence on U.S. life.” The USA Today reporter compared this percentage to that of a Gallup poll conducted three years ago, when it appeared that Americans “were nearly evenly split on the question.” But you see, the wrong question was asked to begin with, and that is what is causing me not a little concern.

Let's face it. Up front and off the bat, the media is no friend of God. They make it perfectly clear, in report after report, that unless there is a sex scandal of some sort, they are not going to "report" accurately on Catholic bishops or Protestant ministers, not to mention other religious groups in the U.S. and around the world. There is no room for God in the public marketplace of ideas, according to most of the mainstream, “drive-by” media.

But apart from that, pro-life Americans know that our nation’s people are not only moving away from Christ-centered, biblically-oriented frames of reference, but in many cases have already left the building.

Take, for example, the comments of allegedly Catholic MSNBC host Chris Matthews, who provided the Media Research Center’s "quote of the year,” selected from 2008’s “most outrageous and/or humorous news media quotes.” While Matthews was being interviewed by CNN’s ever-memorable Keith Olbermann, here is how the "best" quote went down:

Matthews: "I have to tell you, you know, it's part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. My – I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often."

Olbermann: "Steady."

Matthews: "No, seriously. It's a dramatic event. He speaks about America in a way that has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with the feeling we have about our country. And that is an objective assessment."

Note that the man refers to "feeling," but his comment indicates he has separated his supposed Catholicism from the stark reality that Obama is committed to doing all he can to protect a "a legal right to abortion” – thereby aborting our nation’s future.

Surely Matthews could stand a heavy dose of realism, not to mention objectivity. His comment, however, says a lot about where many Americans are today in their thinking and their ability to relate their own faith in God to their emotions – emotions which subsequently dictate their actions, whether in a voting booth, on a street corner near an abortion mill or in a cathedral where they might have to slide their chewing gum over to the side of their mouth in order to receive the body and blood of Christ in Holy Communion.

The suggestion that Americans are losing touch with faith or their own religious identity is not only obvious, but also chilling. What is even more disastrous, though, is the idea that much of the public and many of those who report the news to the public are not swayed by factual evidence but rather by warm, fuzzy feelings one might experience after hearing a stirring song or seeing an emotionally charged movie. These feelings could, in a very short time, bring disaster to the healthcare profession, to our families and to future generations.

My dear friend Paul M. Weyrich wrote in a commentary published after his death on December 18,

The President-elect did make a dogmatic statement regarding the so-called "Freedom of Choice" Act (FOCA). He said he will propose FOCA, which would eliminate all State and Federal restrictions upon abortion. It would purport to force Christian hospitals to perform abortions or close. It would demand that physicians perform abortions or give up their practice…

It is inconceivable to me that a majority in Congress can't agree upon freedom of conscience. Counting the votes, I doubt that there are enough pro-lifers in Congress to maintain the restrictions previously passed by Congress. However, even honest liberals would favor allowing a physician to practice medicine consistent with his or her life-saving principles of conscience. Most Republicans, as well as many Democrats, ran as pro-lifers in the 2008 election. This fundamental issue may become the first test of their commitment to life. If we force hospitals and physicians to perform abortions against their beliefs, in other words in violation of their conscience, then we will be on a downward spiral from which there may be no return.

This will be a test, America. God help all of us.

What Weyrich is telling us is that those elected representatives, who could impose laws on Christian hospitals making it impossible to stay in business unless they perform abortions, were elected by American citizens. Many of these very same Americans apparently have no concern whatsoever for the fate of their eternal souls or the fate of the preborn baby, his parents or subsequent generations.

Does America have a crisis of faith? Yes, it does! Will this nation recover through the self-examination that should occur in the hearts and minds of all those who, we hope, realize that they have lost touch with the Lord? Only God knows the answer, but like Paul Weyrich, a wise and faithful brother in Christ, I say "God help all of us."

Responses

How can people lose faith? It really seems like some people DO seperate their faith from their politics.
Chantell
Chantell | December 29, 2008

---

It seems to me that all the horror and tragedy of our current society in the U.S. makes more sense if you look at it from the perspective of our being "under judgement". Otherwise, it's all just a jumbled confusing mess (a case of being too close to the forest to see the trees!).
Look at our recent history from God's perspective. He's been diligently trying to get our attention for over 100 years (WW I and fwd). He used what seems to me (and forgive the pun) His best shot in Sept. 2001. And, STILL, we wouldn't repent and turn back to Him!
I firmly believe we've crossed some kind of "line in the sand", and He's going to allow the U.S. to take herself down (all the way down) with the evil she prefers to Him. What we have to do is figure out how we are to live--and witness to Him--in a time of judgement. Old Testament, anyone?
Carol Luscomb | December 29, 2008

---

God bless you and keep you
God let His face shine upon you
God hold you in the palm of His hand and the angels all round.

Thank you for all you do

Christian religion and beliefs have been persecuted before and they persist dispite all attempts to end them . We will prevail. Yes we can .

Paul A Reszel | December 29, 2008

---

Carol

Thanks for your perspective on this. I have never been one to consider what God thinks or what He might do. Judgment is His and He does not need my input.

I find it much better to simply surrender everything to Him and then do all I can to be His servant.

having said that, I see your point. God bless you.

Judie Brown
Judie Brown | December 30, 2008

---