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!
KUDOS TO KRISPY KREME! Posted: Monday January 19, 2009 at 1:50 pm EST by Judie Brown
American Life League's press release of this past Thursday started a chain of events that is both heartwarming and instructive. And, if I may say, it was also an eye-opener for me, as never before in my 37 years of pro-life activity have I been described in so many unflattering ways. Practically every epithet, from “wing nut,” to “nut case,” was used, including a few I cannot repeat. It seems some people just didn’t appreciate the fact that we take our work seriously, especially when it comes to helping others see the power of words.
It should be clear by now that American Life League did not attack Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corporation; we simply pointed out that we were hoping that Krispy Kreme made an honest public relations gaffe. And as it turns out, that was indeed the case.
After communicating with Krispy Kreme staffers and explaining why we were so concerned about their poor choice of words, the company’s public statement went from this:
Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. (NYSE: KKD) is honoring American's sense of pride and freedom of choice on Inauguration Day, by offering a free doughnut of choice to every customer on this historic day, Jan. 20. By doing so, participating Krispy Kreme stores nationwide are making an oath to tasty goodies -- just another reminder of how oh-so-sweet "free" can be.
to this:
Krispy Kreme Doughnuts' Inauguration Day promotion on Tuesday, January 20, 2009, is offering one, free doughnut of a customer’s choice at participating Krispy Kreme locations nationwide. No purchase is necessary. The promotion allows customers to commemorate Inauguration Day by selecting one free doughnut of any variety at local participating stores. On Election Day, November 4, 2008, Krispy Kreme ran a promotion that provided customers with one free star-shaped doughnut at stores nationwide. The Inauguration Day promotion is not about any social or political issue.
We understand that Krispy Kreme is not nor has it ever been aligned with either side of the hotly debated "abortion issue," but that does not excuse it from inadvertently using a phrase that suggested to us that it was, in fact, very much in support of abortion rights in America.
During the course of our communications with the company, I pointed out to them,
The use of the phrase “freedom of choice” is unmistakably a pro-abortion phrase to pro-life Americans. It is a phrase used over and over again by those who favor abortion. Therefore, if your company truly did not intend for that phrase to be an endorsement of a pro-abortion agenda, it is only right that you say so publicly and apologize to pro-life Americans, who are among your customer base, for making a terrible public relations error.
While Krispy Kreme did not formally apologize to anyone, it is equally clear that the company took our request quite seriously and did in fact rewrite its statement. For that, each and every one of us should be most grateful.
But for those who do not understand why we took the company to task in the first place over this misuse of words, let me take a moment to explain the thought process that went into our decision to bring this to Krispy Kreme's attention in the first place.
First and most important, there is no doubt if one does a web search for the term freedom of choice, one finds that the phrase has become inextricably linked to the pro-abortion movement. It is one of those terms that has been co-opted by activists who argue repeatedly that nobody is “pro-abortion,” but everyone is in favor of “freedom of choice."
Part of the rhetorical arguments frequently used by those who foster the idea that everybody is in favor of their definition of "choice" is based on the proposition that abortion should be a "choice" that is no different than choosing the right color to wear. Or, as the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice puts it,
We must move beyond the bitter abortion debate to ensure that every child is wanted; that every pregnant woman has quality, affordable health care; that all parents—male and female—understand their responsibilities and have the support they need; that children are educated about sexuality so they can make responsible choices; and that freedom of choice—basic to our way of life—is preserved.
Clearly, the simple word "choice" has been clandestinely high jacked in recent years; the word that once meant the ability every single human being has to make decisions has now morphed into a word that can also represent the alleged right of a mother to take her preborn baby's life. After all, they say, it is her "choice."
This is why all of us at American Life League are so conscious of the dubious ways in which the word and its attendant phrases are used. As one astute pro-life writer put it,
God gave man the gift of freedom. The freedom to choose what is right and wrong. However, when one's freedom of choice is exercised erroneously, it may result in regret, disappointment and failure. Choosing abortion presents countless dangers to women.
And we might add, is deadly to children. Nobody at American Life League is ridiculous enough to argue that nobody should have the ability to make choices; that would be silly. But what we are concerned about and will continue to monitor is the misuse of terms that can and do have something to do with the political activity of our nation’s pro-abortion movement. We felt that in Krispy Kreme's case, it was a simple oversight, a public relations nightmare, if you will, and so we communicated our concerns.
One of our supporters e-mailed American Life League’s communications director, Katie Walker, to ask why we took on Krispy Kreme. Katie explained American Life League's statement beautifully when she wrote,
We acted on Krispy Kreme's promotion and release for two reasons:
1) Out of concern that use of the phrase by a national company of Krispy Kreme's celebrity and popularity would contribute to social acceptance of a "freedom of choice" – thus making the work of those pushing the pro-abortion agenda and the "Freedom of Choice” Act in particular that much easier.
2) To showcase the importance of language in the cultural battle we are both fighting and to highlight the undeniable connection between the current meaning of “freedom of choice” and the culture of death. The diligent work of pro-aborts over the years has made abortion palatable precisely because they have been able to frame their case in terms like “freedom of choice.” We must not contribute to the pro-abortion PR campaign by advancing their talking points. It is high time to remind everyone that “freedom of choice” is nothing more than a benign, even noble, sounding name for genocide.
As we said in the original release, we hope Krispy Kreme just made an unfortunate choice of words.
Fortunately, for all of us who love those hot, sugary, glazed Krispy Kreme donuts that are particularly yummy when they are warm, we can eat them with a renewed sense of confidence in the wisdom of at least some corporate executives who will not intentionally take an action that overtly or otherwise advances the culture of death!
I am greatly embarrassed for Catholics because of ALL's press release. To react to a company's use of the word "choice" and twist it to fit your own political agenda is very sad. Despite the clarification of Krispy Kreme's statement in response to your irrational press release, ALL's attempt to get publicity at the expense of a corporation that is just trying to celebrate a new administration taking office is juvenile. Rather than speaking for Catholics, you have rather served to make Catholics appear ridiculous.
Please don't indicate that speak for all Catholics. You certainly don't speak for me! Dave Barnett | January 19, 2009
Thanks for bringing Krispy Kreme's anti-choice position to my attention. My family and I will be taking our business elsewhere from now on. Oregon Mother | January 19, 2009
Thank you Judie for pointing out to Krispy Kreme that their phrase about "choice" could be offensive to people who are offended by reference to the abortion "choice" to kill babies. Grace Harman | January 19, 2009
Great Job. Their was an article in the Floida Catholic last week A8 that we wrote several letters of objection. David Olio | January 20, 2009
Andrew is correct, KrispyKreme's website has the original version of the Jan. 14 news release on the website.
I want to share my outrage with all of the negative posters, here. If the pro-aborts would never have connoted "choice" and "freedom of choice" will killing innocent children, then we would not be offended by the use of the phrases in any context. Restore legal protection to all human life, and you go along way to rehabilitating these innocent words. God love you. David Volk | January 21, 2009
Dear Dave
I am terribly sorry that you are embarrassed; we are doing what we are obliged to do by bringing concerns we have to the attention of those who can, if they choose, modify the manner in which they write and speak.
I never said I spoke for all Catholics, nor would I nor should anyone.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | January 21, 2009
Dear oregon
Please note that Krispy Kreme corrected their public statement. That is what my commentary is all about.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | January 21, 2009
Thanks Judie!
I wish Dave and other Catholics would be embarrassed due to our pro-abortion politicians. I am. Lee | January 21, 2009
Years ago, Nick at Nite had its first original sitcom, "Hi Honey, I'm Home," in which a 1950s sitcome family come to life in the 1990s. It contrasted the Donna Stone/June Cleaver-mom with the nextdoor neighbor, a typical 1990s sitcom "mom." In the pilot episode, the divorced single mom neighbor asked the protagonist if she would sign a petition supporting "A woman's right to choose." "Choose what?" asked the 1950s mom. The neighbor said something sarcastic like, "kitchen hot mats," and she said, "Sure!"
I've seen many ad campaigns over the years talking about "freedom to choose" or "right to choose," and I don't shop at those businesses.
If someone uses the term "states' rights," which really *was* a separate issue from slavery, the response from the Left is, "That's just a code word for racism and slavery."
If ALL doesn't speak for Catholicism, I don't know what organization does, since it's one of the few organizations which speaks against the evil of contraception. JC | January 21, 2009
Dear JC
Our point regarding Krispy Kreme was a simple one: the timing was bad! When all that we read about in the news, leading up to the inauguration, is the "Freedom of Choice" act, it was unconscionable to us that KK would use the same phrase.
Under any other circumstance we would NOT have made an issue out of it.
I hope you understand that we are not nut cases here, but found this particular example one we could not ignore.
And thank you for acknowledging our commitment to Catholic truth.
God bless you.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | January 22, 2009
Hi Judie,
After reading that Victoria Lambert received a negative prenatal diagnosis I
had to tell you about a new organization. I called your office and told your secretary and she said she'd pass the info on to you. Just in case she forgot for some reason, I thought I'd follow up.
The name of the organization to which I refer is: Prenatal Partners for Life.
Both women who founded this org. received a negative prenatal diagnosis of Trisomy 18. Both refused to abort. Both are Catholic.
Pam, who attends the parish I belong to, and who is a friend, got the diagnosis after 2 miscarriages. Finally pregnant and hoping to add another child to their 2 child family, received this devastating news. She would never abort. Little Colm was born and either died at birth or just after. I attended his funeral. Colm was the impetus to get involved.
Mary wrote an article in the Catholic Spirit about her little boy who is still living with Trisomy 18. Being told she should abort, it was something Mary would never do.
Pam read the story, contacted Mary, and these two wonderful mother's created Prenatal Partners for Life.
Colm's short life lives on and Mary's son is thriving and his life gives testimony to the inherent value of each and every human life.
Judie, This is a great organization. My cousin, a deacon in Utah, sent out emails requesting prayers for friends who had just received a negative diagnosis. Their unborn child would not live and because of their pro-life convictions and Catholic faith they brought this child, who they named Maria, into the world. Maria died at birth. But when I received the email from my cousin I told him about Prenatal Partners. I gave them a call and gave them my cousin's email address. Long story short, they connected and PPL was a tremendous spiritual and emotional support to Maria's parents.
Please visit their website at: www.prenatalpartnersforlife.org and you will find a site rooted in the Catholic Church and available to all couples who hear the doctor say, " It would be best if you aborted."
God bless Judie.
In Christ and Life
Joanna Donohue
Counselor/Board Member
Pregnancy Choices LifeCare Center
Apple Valley MN
www.mypregnancychoices.org
FEMINIST SEEDS OF MISERY Posted: Friday January 16, 2009 at 4:35 pm EST by Judie Brown
Many years ago, one of my girlfriends called to tell me that a new women's organization was forming in our small Ohio town, and she wondered if I would like to attend the first meeting with her. We both had small children and husbands who occasionally would spring for babysitting duty so that the girls could have a night out. So, off we went to a National Organization for Women organizing meeting. Now remember, this was in the early 1970s, just after Roe v. Wadehad been handed down, but we certainly did not know that this meeting was being hosted by some of the most horrific examples of femininity we would ever see.
Needless to say, when the shrill rhetoric started, we made a beeline for the door and decided shopping at Kmart was much better suited to our frame of mind. Well, things have changed quite a bit since then, but they have not changed for the better.
Ever since those early days and the crowing of that era’s feminist leaders, such as Molly Yard and Eleanor Smeal, the nation has been exposed to a side of female thinking that often leaves many confused, dismayed and downright disgusted. But to be honest, a number of women apparently buy into the stuff NOW is selling, and some of it has rubbed off on women in a really discouraging way.
For example, recently I saw a web site called Feministing. On this site, I found an article that was so ridiculous I could not believe my eyes. The article, entitled “Say No To …,” is perhaps the best example of anti-family gobbledygook that I have seen this week. An excerpt from it read as follows:
My understanding of reproduction is that it is the basis of the institutions of marriage and family, and those two provide the moorings to the structure of gender and sexual oppression. Family is the social institution that ensures unpaid reproductive and domestic labor, and is concerned with initiating a new generation into the gendered (as I analyzed here) and classed social set-up. Not only that, families prevent money [sic] the flow of money from the rich to the poor: wealth accumulates in a few hands to be squandered on and bequeathed to the next generation, and that makes families as economic units selfishly pursue their own interests and become especially prone to consumerism.
This writer is apparently put off by the whole idea of procreation, which she has chosen to refer to in the corporate language usually applied to animals and factories. I believe she is using "reproduction" to replace the commonly known term, marital relations. At least that is what I am assuming. Far be it from me, of course, to put words into this female's mouth!
It never occurred to me that anyone would equate marriage and family with gender and sexual oppression, but I guess if you're a disgruntled feminist, then your “feministing” is going to get a little wacky.
The problem, however, is a bit more serious than that, for it occurs to me that when people surf the internet for information about the philosophy underlying the feminist movement, they are going to encounter these writings, and to my mind, that is a pity. It is obvious, from just this short paragraph of a much longer screed, that the woman is so turned off by the idea of marital bliss and happiness, and love and joy, that she cannot imagine anything good about the institution of the family.
I know a whole lot of families in the pro-life movement, most of which are very pleased with their state, but are certainly not selfish, wealthy or oppressors of the needy. In fact, quite the contrary is true, as I am sure you would agree, if you are familiar with happy families where there are lots of children and loads of joy. Happiness abounds there, at least most of time.
On the other hand, negativity has a habit of rubbing off on people, and it makes them unhappy which is part of the problem we have these days in the United States. Why else would we abort so many little children who have done nothing to anyone?
Why else would so many young people be mesmerized by the idea of promiscuous sex while totally disengaged from the art of spelling, completing a math course or graduating with honors?
Why else would parents split up and divorce at a rate fast approaching more than 60 percent?
Something is terribly wrong with any perspective of family so thoroughly imbued with pessimism. I might add, this woman's diatribe is a good example of what is ailing far too many of us.
The author of this opinion piece, who signed herself as "freethinkr," [sic] asserts that those with children and families to take care of are cruel to the poor, the needy and the lonely. I wonder if she ever visited a pro-life pregnancy care center or a home for unwed mothers or a soup kitchen like Martha's Village, manned by retirees in the Palm Springs, California area. I would venture a guess that she has not visited any such place and that if she has, she has been blinded, by her own worldview, to the merciful goodness that is so apparent in these wonderful average American citizens, most of whom have loving families with children and grandchildren.
I feel sorry for this lady, whose views are so twisted and whose own background, if we are to believe her writing, could have been a source of greater happiness, had she not had so many downbeat views toward those who are married and have families.
But I feel greater remorse for those who will read what she writes, agree with her and turn their backs on the most wonderful gifts that are available to the many who cherish family, appreciate what they have and give until it hurts, so that others can experience the joy too.
The world can be overwhelming, but it can also provide so much good if only people would look beyond their own perspective and see the thrilling opportunities that are right there before their very eyes. The next time you meet someone who claims to be disenchanted with family, engage them in a conversation and maybe even give them a hug!
Asking for your help with an ALL Press Release about Krispy Kreme. The Chairman and CEO Jim Morgan is a personal friend, intercessor and very pro-life - has two adopted children. He supported my litigation efforts on the birth certificate. When he discovered the \"Freedom of Choice\" promo by his ad firm, they cancelled the use of the phrase. Please help stop the \"friendly fire.\" Thanks for standing strong, but need your help on this one.
Blessings.
Tom Tom Smith | January 17, 2009
Dear Judie,
too many people today got a strange idea of what feminism is.
Being free for a women means the right to live a decent life, witout being pressured by any kind of group. Today diktats may have change from the past century but here they are. A woman forced to think that winning in life is living without a family and without values is not free. And is not a feminist.
Simona M. | January 18, 2009
You say that the world can "provide so much good if only people would look beyond their own perspective" and yet throughout your entire article I have not seen a spot where you were willing to look beyond your own perspective. Even when you used phrases like "on the other hand" and "it never occurred to me" the sarcasm dripping from the sentence negates any honest point that might have been made. Some women (and some men) do not want to get married or have children, and I fully intend to respect their decision just as I will respect the decision to marry and have children. It would have done more good if you had stayed at that feminist meeting and tried to talk about your opinion there instead of taking on feminists and their blogs behind the comfort of your computer. LeAnn Kelly | January 19, 2009
Judie, I have a few thoughts of love and lessthanlove on this little article.
I just love how your open mind stayed for the shrill rhetoric, totally accepting that there is an incredible spectrum of women activists, as with all social movements.
I also love how you refer to the 'marital bliss and happiness' of which you later so confidently round the statistics up to a 60% divorce rate. Your logic is phenomenal. You praise the ideals of marriage which tend to keep women in their traditional role of oppression and in the next breath lament the disintegration of the loving institution. Somehow, in the next line of logic, you manage to try and throw some "examples" of why feministing.com is so terrible (or maybe you are trying to get kids to compete in spelling bees, I am not quite sure if your keyboard went gobbledygook or what happened there) by throwing in a little tantrum about teenagers having sex. What a concept: hormones are raging and their less-than-blissful parents are not there to protect them from discovering their genitals. How incredibly terrible that we discover our sexuality that is different from the way you discovered yours (which was probably the equivalent of being raped on your blissful wedding night).
If you are going to accuse the writer of feministing, and therefore all of feministing, to be twisted, please read more than this one article. Try these:
Try those out, read Feminism is for Everybody by bell hooks and please stop using fluffy, feel-good language at the end of your controlled angry posts in an effort to make yourself feel better.
Cheers!
Lia Krinersdorf
Lia Krinersdorf | January 19, 2009
I'm a first time poster on ALL, and a long time fan of Feministing. First of all, this was a hot post on Feministing with much discussion, because believe it or not, Feminists are not monolithic and have differences of opinion. There are some very good analysis on Feministing of this. Instead of looking at the political or economic aspects of this piece, you chose to focus on the emotional "seed of misery" of the author because she doesn't chose to have children. Believe it or not, some of us are happier without children or a family. You conjecture she's never volunteered at charities of your choice. Maybe she has, and has seen some very different economic and political implications of the hardworking poor having to be cared for these families rather than being able to care for themselves. Most of this critique is nothing more than emotional statements and rhetorical statements about how miserable the author might be, and exulting your own conception of the nuclear family. Please, try to at least attempt to understand a world view outside your own. Alexandra | January 19, 2009
Hey, guess what? "freethinkr" is a man, as you can see from the comments left on the post.
Plz 2 read before expousing an opinion.
By the way, good job picking out the most extreme opinion on a fairly moderate feminism collective blog, and not mentioning that most people (women, at that) commenting on it were disagreeing. Although most people will agree that we don't like strangers coming up to us and hugging us - boundaries!!! B | January 19, 2009
As B pointed out, freethinkr is male. He's also from Pakistan, so your suggestion that he visit a crisis pregnancy to see "wonderful average American citizens" at work is kind of beside the point. It is difficult to take your argument seriously when you clearly didn't even bother to read the comments on the post or visit freethinkr's own blog to get some context for your accusations. K | January 19, 2009
Dear Judie:
I am 22 years old, beginning a career, an occasional feministing reader and planning to get married at some point in the future. I haven't decided yet whether or not to have children.
I will be the first to admit--I've been a little discouraged by the venom in some of the responses by feministing readers. On paper, I probably am more in their camp than yours, but I still believe there are a variety of viewpoints to be considered and that no one ever got anything done by making fun of the competition.
On the other hand, I felt like your post oversimplified the argument offered and the decision women are making today. My mother had children late in life (36 for me, older for my sister) and ultimately quit her job to raise us. She is still happily married to my father and was always there for but felt downright suffocating in parts of my childhood and has never had much of a personal life beyond her children. I recognize that my tune may change a bit in a few years, but at present I'm beginning a career I'm excited about, considering going back to grad school and pursuing a number of other interests. Furthermore, I work in professional non-profit fundraising and do in fact notice a difference between donors without families (who do tend to give more) and donor with them. With these issues in the back of my head, I'm not 100% sure having children makes sense within the context of my life.
I would also like to challenge what seems to be an implied assumption on your part that a happy "family" has to include children. Unlike your assumptions about freethinkr's post, I believe there is a difference between "marital relations" and "reproduction," and that one can plan one's family even without resorting to abortion. I have dated men I have seriously considered marrying and fully expect that I will get married eventually. However, there is no reason in my mind that Future Husband and I couldn't live together childless, surrounded by friends and potential nieces and nephews and happy. Furthermore, I feel like assuming children are an ingredient to a happy life denies infertile couples and/or couples without the financial means to support natural or adopted children the possibility of happiness. I think the worldview for anyone's system of beliefs allows for some variation of the notion of "family" to some degree (whether age, size, living arrangement, etc.) and that denying that openness is exactly the kind of bigotry both your blog and feministing are working against.
KWel | January 19, 2009
Excellent piece.
"It never occurred to me that anyone would equate marriage and family with gender and sexual oppression, but I guess if you're a disgruntled feminist, then your 'feministing' is going to get a little wacky."
I sincerely believe that someone so steeped in the milieu of victimhood must have deeply rooted psychological problems and would benefit from serious counseling. To view marriage in terms so simplisitic and so negative, to view gender relations in terms so unnuanced and utterly horrible is breathtaking in its inanity and bespeaks someone who probably is not able to cope well with the complexities of everyday living. The piece by freethinkr requires little refutation. It is akin to holding the world up to a funhouse mirror where the image it creates is so misshapen that it is impossible to discern reality from it.
The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of men and women in Western Civilization get along just fine, thank you, as morally free agents without the shackles of "oppression" holding one side back. Are there some men who negatively stereotype women? Certainly. Are there some women who negatively stereotype men? freethinkr is exhibit "A".
The better question is why would a Web site such as femininisting.com give voice to lunacy and hatred no more factually correct than a piece written by someone espousing the KKK's view of the world.
We need to call this horse manure for what it is, and you've done exactly that. Archivist | January 19, 2009
First, your suggestion that freethinkr's anti-reproduction views represent feminism as a whole fails supremely. Perhaps your readers might dare to venture to the Feministing site to examine for themselves the many diverse views expressed there.
Second, your article betrays your fear and disgust toward womanhood as stereotyped in much of our culture-- woman as the dark, irrational, easily swayed, unanchored, twisted, demonic shrew in need of taming and guidance. "[A] side of female thinking that often leaves many confused, dismayed and downright disgusted." Female thinking? What exactly do you mean by "female thinking?" You owe us females an explanation for your meaning, because I have a feeling you are not referring to the psychological studies done by Carol Gilligan.
Third, though freethinkr's attempt at an analysis of the gendered economic functions of the family is incorrect, there are many others that are actually quite insightful. The normative, heterosexual, male-headed, nuclear family idealized in the west clearly, as indicated by your own citation of a 60% divorce rate, isn't working. At least be honest about it and don't romanticize or harken back to a time when it was legal for husbands to beat their wives, when women were forbidden from voting or holding property, and when children were treated as property and were suceptible to perfectly legal and socially sanctioned beatings.
No, the answer isn't a simplistic, "Abandon marriage and stop having babies!" as freethinkr implies. But the answer isn't a naive and nostalgic, Leave-it-to-Beaver fantasy either.
Nicole Anderson | January 19, 2009
A bunch of entries are posted on that community every day. They're only representative of the author of the post, not the people who read the blog, edit it, don't read it, or identify as feminists. There were plenty of feminists who commented on that blog and disagreed with freethinkr's sentiments. Lumping us all together is pretty ridiculous, as is assuming there's something wrong with freethinkr to think this way. We all have different experiences, and we form our opinions accordingly. Everyone's entitled to them.
Deciding to be childless does not mean they're turning their backs on families or "wonderful gifts." People include who they want in their families, and I have decided not to include offspring in my family. I still have relatives, friends, and pets who fill my life with joy. I don't need to have a spouse or a child to be happy. Emily | January 19, 2009
If you took the time to read, you'd see that freethinkr was a community post, where people get to take post their own writing. I could come to this website and think you are a pro-choice wacko just from reading one post. What you don't understand is there are academic ideologies that allows ideas to develop, people like you try to shut that down insults like ".I feel sorry for this lady, whose views are so twisted"
If anything challenges your little world you think there is a problem with the messenger.
You may think freethinr needs a hug but you need an openmind. armyvet | January 19, 2009
I believe she is using "reproduction" to replace the commonly known term, marital relations.
"Marital relations" are more commonly known as "sex". "Reproduction" is more "commonly" known has "having children". The two don't necessarily go hand in hand. ;) whatsername | January 19, 2009
"Why else would so many young people be mesmerized by the idea of promiscuous sex while totally disengaged from the art of spelling, completing a math course or graduating with honors?"
Sex is awesome. So is my master's degree, so is my future PhD, so are the half-dozen-plus languages I'll have to learn by the time I earn it. I earn a paycheck correcting people's spelling.
Turns out sex and brains are not mutually exclusive.
If you took the time to read a little farther into Feministing, and any number of the other blogs and news sites listed in its sidebar, you'd learn that feminists don't hate family (necessarily), or marriage (necessarily), or children (necessarily), and many want some combination of the three. What we do hate (and this is the reason why the rather controversial post you so conveniently chose to highlight was so, well, controversial) is being told what we should think.
Conversations are fun. Join ours sometime. MaggieF | January 20, 2009
Judie,
Good article. You can expect the shrill voices from Feministing to start stomping their feet, it is after all, what feministing is all about.
There are several comments that Feminism is about freedom for women. This is FALSE. Feminists have always claimed that they were freeing women, but at the same time they have deemed that women should NOT BE ALLOWED to make certain decisions. This tact failed miserably so they began to soften their rhetoric. But make no mistake, feminists desire the destruction of the family.
Keep up the good work.
Signed a Pagan with Christian Values. Joseph | January 20, 2009
Judie,
Another point I want to make. It seems that comments here probably have to be approved. I've noticed that you have approved several dissenting views from feminists. GOOD FOR YOU.
Now I suggest you head over to feministing and try to post disenting views. You will find, that no matter how polite you are, if the view is "too contrary", it will be deleted. Feminists CANNOT tolerate free speech. I say free speech in this, though they are not a government organization, and the Constitution does not apply to them, because, were you to delete their comments here, they would decry you as a censor.
Of course they never think they are censors. But that is par for the course for feminism.
Signed a Pagan with Christian Values. Joseph | January 20, 2009
Dear KWel,
I am touched by your sincere warm-heartedness. With your good will, and honest searching, you are on the right track for finding answers.
The Church teaches that love is fruitful. Two people truly loving each other will produce fruit of that love. An infertile couple is not being "denied" happiness by that truth. You yourself say, "there is no reason in my mind that Future Husband and I couldn't live together childless, surrounded by friends and potential nieces and nephews and happy." For a couple to choose to remain childless, unless through abstinence, denies that fruitful aspect of love.
I get a kick out of your comment, "I work in professional non-profit fundraising and do in fact notice a difference between donors without families (who do tend to give more) and donor with them." I was married late, and while single was much more generous to outside causes. Which do you think a parent should be more generous to, outside causes or their families? Which do you suppose is more effective in making the world a better place, turning your money over to others for their efforts or meeting one's own responsibility in raising good children? David Volk | January 20, 2009
Dear LeAnn
Thanks for your honest appraisal, wrong though it may be. I too respect those who choose not to marry; not sure why you would think otherwise, but that does not mean that we should sit idly by and ignore rhetorical garbage, regardless of the source.
I am sure you would agree.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | January 21, 2009
Dear Alexandra
I want to thank you for sharing your perspectives on this hot topic. I am well aware that many women and men are happy not having children, and I am also aware that more than a few people practice promiscuous sex. However, denigrating the beauty of marriage and the bearing of children is something I personally do not condone and thus I wrote a commentary.
We have learned that the "she" is actually a "he" which of course makes the situation all the more tragic. At any rate, thanks for your comments.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | January 21, 2009
Dear Lia
Thank you for sharing your perspective, and might I add, your own blend of hyperventilating rhetoric. Somehow it is not surprising, and yes, I would do all I could as a Mother to protect my children from that which is dangerous to mind, body and soul.
Obviously you do not agree and that's OK! We will pray for you anyway because you and I and all God's children deserves to be affirmed in our personhood ... even when we are wrong.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | January 21, 2009
Dear KWel
Thank you for your thoughts on my commentary. My idea of family is based on my beliefs as a Catholic and as a pro-life person who has seen damaged and destroyed families that rejected children by aborting them.
To my mind the entire idea behind marriage is the openness of the married couple to God and to His will for them which or may not mean bearing children. Far be it from me to suggest that anyone could or could not be happy choosing to live a child-free marriage, but as a thinking human being that translates into meaning that as a couple you would be using birth control, which of course I also oppose.
Thank you again for your congent comments.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | January 21, 2009
Dear Nicole, Tha rate of divorce in America is not due to mis-matched couples as much as it is due to the practice of birth control which literally means "sex without consequences." There you have the foundational problem with unhappy marriages that result in divorce, and I won't even get into the irresponsible decisions some couples make to marry even though they have not had sufficient time to reflect on whether or not they will actually be happy if they proceed and do get married.
That is why it would be so helpful if those, like you, who are in such severe disagreement with people like me, would take the time to examine what marriage means, what it should be and which virtues one needs to assist in making a marraige work during good times and bad.
I have no fear or disgust toward womanhood, but I have a serious case of concern for banshees who scream about reproductive rights while denigrating all that is holy and good about marriages based on faith in God and openness to children.
You have some pretty jaded views, Nicole, and I thank you for sharing them.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | January 21, 2009
Emily
Thank you for your perspective. I don't believe I lumped any group of people together as that would indeed be ridciulous. I do understand, however, that some women are far too defensive about their identity as card-carrying feminists.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | January 21, 2009
Dear Armyvet
I do have an open mind, but I also have an understanding of a framework for defining the family that resides within the teachings of the Catholic Church which is where, I suspect, you and I differ.
Thanks for your critique.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | January 21, 2009
Dear What
Reproduction relegates the human experience that that of the animal kingdom. If that makes you happy so be it.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | January 21, 2009
Maggie
Nobody should be TOLD how to think; that would not work since each of us has a free will and an opportunity to choose which sort of life we wish to live. I chose the Catholic way of life and it is from that perspective that I offer commentary.
Sorry if that upsets you but I do have a problem with rabid feminists including those men who pretend to be female commentators on the website.
PRO-ABORTS AND BELLIGERENT BEGUILING Posted: Thursday January 15, 2009 at 3:01 pm EST by Judie Brown
Recently, a pro-life coworker sent us a very interesting letter that he had received from his congresswoman in response to his request that she vote no when and if the Freedom of Choice Act comes up for a vote in the House of Representatives.
He felt it was a waste of time to write rabily pro-abortion Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, but he did so anyway because he believes, as we all do, that we should never give up on anyone.
Since I am a great believer in helping people understand pro-aborts’ misuse of the English language, I wanted to use the congresswoman's letter as a good example of why we have to be so careful about the words we use. Following is the text of that letter, and my analyses of Baldwin’s distortions are inserted in bracketed blue text.
Thank you for contacting me about a woman's right to choose. [I presume she means a mother’s right to choose death for her preborn child, should she be so inclined.]
It is good to hear from you. As you are aware, abortion is a difficult and divisive issue, but one on which I have a firm position. [Abortion is an act that takes the life of a human being.]
I am pro-choice and support the United States Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, which protects a woman's right to choose. [She is pro-abortion by her own admission. Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton do not address the personhood of the child, but rather render unto mothers – not mothers and fathers – the decision to decide to end a preborn baby’s life by a decriminalized act of killing.]
For this reason, I was deeply disappointed when, on April 18, 2007, the Supreme Court ruled to uphold the federal abortion ban. [The Supreme Court ruled to permit partial-birth abortion in cases wherein the mother’s life is allegedly in danger and spoke to the ways in which the same babies could be killed by other methods.]
For the first time since Roe v. Wade, the Court approved an abortion prohibition that contains no exception safeguarding a woman's health and allowed abortion procedures to be criminalized. [A mother’s health or lack thereof should never be a reason to murder anyone, including a preborn child. It is a fact, according Dr. James Dobson, among others, that not a single abortion will be prevented by that Supreme Court decision.]
The Court majority's belief that the health and well-being of the mother are not factors in whether to permit a medically-recommended procedure is an affront to all women and their families. [Abortion is a brutal act of killing. Aborting a child has never helped a family situation improve; abortion causes pain, anguish and deep sorrow.]
This decision is cause for deep concern to every American who cares about women's health and is merely the first wave in the Administration's attack on a woman's right to choose. [No, it is not a concern for those Americans who understand that a mother’s health is not improved by her decision to end her child's life. No need to comment, as the new administration is committed to abortion in all cases and circumstances.]
I believe that the abortions protected by that decision should be rare and safe, but that it should be a decision made between a woman, her family and her doctor, based on her own health, her personal beliefs and her faith. [There is no defense for an indefensible act, which is precisely what every intended abortion is. The real decision involves choosing evil or choosing good.]
To this end, I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 1964, the Freedom of Choice Act. H.R. 1964 would, for the first time, codify the rights guaranteed under the Constitution by Roe v. Wade. [There is no constitutional right to abortion.]
The bill would bar all levels of government from interfering with a woman's fundamental right to choose to bear a child, or to terminate a pregnancy. [Here is what I believe the congresswoman really means: The bill would bar all levels of government from restricting the license to choose to bear a child or terminate that child’s life.]
H.R. 1964 has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, of which I am a member. However, it appears that this legislation will not be acted upon before the end of the current legislative session.
Please know that I will keep your thoughts in mind should legislation affecting a woman's right to choose come before me in the House of Representatives. [Perhaps she will keep his thoughts in mind, but it will not be for the purpose of opposing the license to abort babies. She has already made this perfectly clear.]
While it sickens me to read such egregious bias against truth, it equally disturbs me that we pro-lifers allow such deconstruction to continue unchallenged. What each of us needs to do is what I have tried to do in this commentary.
Read the words, become familiar with the actual meaning of those words and then challenge those who support abortion to speak clearly. Of course, when they do, many will become converts to the pro-life position, but it’s up to us to challenge their every misleading phrase, comment or public pronouncement.
Otherwise, we will be the unmistakably cowardly who, by our silence and tolerance, permitted our foes to pursue their ongoing effort to deceive, corrupt and otherwise mold the culture into one based on hatred for God’s gift of life.
They like twisting things around for thier own agenda.
Chantell Chantell | January 15, 2009
WASHINGTON (CNS) -- Declaring that every life is "a gift from our Creator that is sacred, unique and worthy of protection," President George W. Bush proclaimed Jan. 18, the Sunday before the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, as National Sanctity of Human Life Day.
On this day "our country recognizes that each person, including every person waiting to be born, has a special place and purpose in this world.
We also underscore our dedication to heeding this message of conscience by speaking up for the weak and voiceless among us," he said in the proclamation issued Jan. 15.
Bush urged Americans "to recognize this day with appropriate ceremonies and to underscore our commitment to respecting and protecting the life and dignity of every human being." Paul | January 15, 2009
Our local newspaper did a feature on what local people would tell the President-elect Barack Obama. I submitted the following on-line.
"Your election fulfills the promise of our Declaration of Independence ("All men are created equal"), and aspirations for racial equality to an unprecedented degree. You violate that same principle in your support for legal abortion. Blacks are people. This was denied for so many years. Now, the same denial is made about the personhood of unborn babies. God forgive us for the 50 million babies legally killed since 1973. Our children are being sacrificed, and our society views ancient cultures which practiced this as pagan and barbaric. Please live up to the standards your election represents, and reverse yourself with respect to the evil of legal abortion." David Volk | January 16, 2009
Judie,
She sounds like a female version of Sen. Harkin here in Iowa. Seeing what she wrote just turns my stomach. You are absolutely right about 1 thing, whenever we see this "bias against truth" we MUST challenge it.
Thank God for organizations like yours that give us the information we need to be able to do so. Al | January 17, 2009
So a mother's health should never factor in when murdering a baby. Except unborn babies aren't considered people, so we call them fetuses. So the potential for a fetus to become a baby is more important than the right of a full grown woman to live, if it comes to that, because to choose her life and the ability to create more children over that one potential child's life is murder. Are you sure you thought this out? Oh | January 19, 2009
She sounds to me like a intelligent woman with a confident stance. I don't think it is very intelligent or reasonable of you to forego debate and analysis in favour of interjecting your own opinion between her lines. It is clear from your article that your considerations regarding abortion stem from your religious beliefs, although at the very least you will admit that the Constitution guarantees that a US citizen should not be forced by law to follow practices singular and essential to religion, not justifiable in a rational and secular line of argument.
If you have something to contribute on these premises, then by all means contribute. Otherwise you are just preaching via congress, which is a particularly bizarre and fanatical brand of oppression. Nik | January 19, 2009
Dear Oh
The word "fetus" is Latin for "little one" or "baby." The problem is that regardless of your perception of that preborn child, or what the Supreme Court has to say, that entity living within his mother is a human being.
The fetus is a baby, the fetus has his or her own DNA from the instant her life begins, and she is as valuable a member of the human race as you or me.
It's all there for you to study in biology 101 or any fetology text.
Oh, and no mother can "create" a child on her own. I think you probably knew that.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | January 21, 2009
Dear Nik
Thanks for your perspective. The Constitution of the United States guarantees equal protection for all human beings, and it guarantees our right to life. The Founding Fathers could never have imagined a day when America would protect under cover of law the "right" of a mother to pay someone to kill her own baby.
My perspective is based on logic, common sense, biology and as a Catholic, my faith as well. But even an atheist who gives this matter sufficient time and study can see what abortion does to a preborn human being.
Expectant mothers do not await the birth of a dog or a cat, they know they are carrying a baby.
PREVENTION FIRST ACT: PATHOLOGICAL PREMISES Posted: Wednesday January 14, 2009 at 2:24 pm EST by Judie Brown
Immediately after the election, I took the opportunity to share with our readers the facts regarding what would be in store for families, especially the youngest members. The one thing I failed to address is a horrific piece of legislation that has now been officially introduced in the United States Senate. At the time of the election, the Prevention First Act (S. 21) was an established goal in the mind of Senator Harry Reid and his fellow congressional pro-aborts. Since that time, much has occurred, and none of it is good for preborn children or for the American family.
It is always a good idea to examine the facts prior to making a value judgment. And in the case of the PFA, the actual details about what this piece of legislation would do are staggering. Rather than reinvent what we have already reported at American Life League's Stop Planned Parenthood web site, allow me to share the analysis:
The Prevention First Act has several components, all of which would fund programs that are promoted by Planned Parenthood and would put millions more of our tax dollars into PP's coffers.
These components include
• Making Title X (family planning) a permanent program and funding it at $700 million or more. Since its inception in 1970, Title X of the Health and Human Services Act has always been a major funding source for PP. However, Title X is not a permanent program and must be reauthorized every year. Title X was funded at $300 million for fiscal year 2008. PP receives about 25 percent of the total or $75 million. Thus, the PFA would more than double the tax dollars given to PP ($175 million) by this one program. It would also make Title X a permanent program.
• Mandating that health insurance programs that cover prescriptions must cover abortifacient contraceptives. There are several reasons why some insurance companies do not include birth control coverage in their policies. Chief among them is that many of their customers belong to religions that are opposed to birth control and do not want to be forced to pay for this coverage. The PFA would take away the ability of consumers and insurance companies to seek the coverage they want and would force every insurance plan that covers prescription drugs to pay for birth control. This is an outrageous intrusion into the religious beliefs of millions of Americans.
• Creating a government program to push abortifacient "emergency contraception." Selling emergency contraception is one of PP's most lucrative activities. PP routinely purchases Plan B for $4.25 a kit and then sells it for $30 a kit, thus making a $25 profit on each one of the 1.5 million it sells each year. But still, PP is not content. The PFA would create a government-funded five-year "educational" program to promote emergency contraception and drive even more Plan B business to PP.
• Taking all federal money away from any hospital that refuses to administer emergency contraception (an abortifacient), to rape victims. Many hospitals, doctors and pharmacists have problems dispensing emergency contraception because of its abortifacient nature. Indeed, in the above-listed educational program, PP wants the government to tell the public that emergency contraception works by "preventing ovulation, fertilization of an egg, or implantation of an egg in a uterus." Yet, this section of the PFA demands that hospitals tell patients that "emergency contraception does not cause an abortion." In addition, it would require that every hospital, even Catholic, Baptist and others opposed to abortion for religious reasons, MUST provide patients with emergency contraception or lose all of their federal funding.
• Creating additional massive government funding for PP-style sex education programs (abstinence-only programs are specifically excluded from funding). Under the subprogram named "At-Risk Communities Teen Pregnancy Prevention Act," the PFA would create a program to conduct research and educational sessions for the purpose of reducing teen pregnancy. All kinds of organizations (e.g. Planned Parenthood) would receive taxpayer funds, and all kinds of theories and ways of preventing teen pregnancy could be researched and taught EXCEPT abstinence-only programs. The PFA specifically stipulates that "funds under this section are not intended for use by abstinence-only education programs. Abstinence-only education programs that receive federal funds through the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant, the Administration for Children and Families, the Adolescent Family Life Program, and any other program that uses the definition of 'abstinence education' found in section 510(b) of the Social Security Act are ineligible for funding."
• Permanently including family planning services as part of the Medicaid program. The Medicaid program was never intended to pay for family planning services. Yet, beginning in the 1990s, states started applying for Medicaid waivers to allow them to add family planning for Medicaid-eligible recipients. The federal government has approved these waivers, and their approval must be renewed, on a state-by-state basis, every five years. Because of the waivers, Medicaid is now the largest single program providing taxpayer money for PP. The PFA would do away with the need for waivers and write family planning services permanently into Medicaid, thereby opening the floodgates of taxpayer funding for PP even wider.
Note the egregiously false rhetoric.
First - "implantation of an egg in a uterus" is erroneous. The proper language is "implantation of a human zygote in the wall of the uterus." A human zygote is a human being, and the inability of this person to implant causes his or her death. Therefore an abortion occurs.
Third - "Teen Pregnancy Prevention" is a misnomer for a program that will inundate young people with false information about the birth control pill, including the availability of abortion, should their birth control of choice fail.
I could go on, but I think you are getting the idea that the FPA is replete with deception, misinformation and government intrusion of the worst kind.
If this sounds like the Freedom of Choice Act's evil twin, then you are on the right track. This bill is everything that the Planned Parenthood Federation of America could ever hope for, summarized and neatly packaged in a piece of legislation that has gotten little to no attention.
While nearly everyone is running around waving their arms and decrying the horrors that FOCA would impose on the nation, Prevention First is quietly making a huge noise in Congress and we have to do all we can to stop it … dead in its tracks. The fact is, at least among those who have been carefully tracking both pieces of legislation, the advancing PFA is no surprise at all.
If you visit the Obama transition web site and review the statement prepared for the transition team by outside organizations, you will find that on page 13 of the 55-page "Advancing Reproductive Health in a New Administration" document, the Prevention First Act takes center stage. The claim is that, by using taxpayer dollars, this bill will reduce "unintended pregnancy and the need for abortion."
Between the lines, one finds out that what this bill is really all about is an escalating amount of government money for the marketing of abortifacient birth control devices and chemicals, brainwashing techniques for our children masquerading as sex education, and more. Whenever Planned Parenthood and its minions discuss "factual information", the buyer must beware! Such organizations and their leadership never met a fact they could not twist to suit their anti-life, anti-family agenda.
As Jim Sedlak, of our American Life League team recently told the media:
[A] large slice of the pie would go to Planned Parenthood ... "and the bill would do other things including writing Title X into permanent law so that it doesn't have to be reauthorized every year." ... "And Title X right now gives Planned Parenthood over $70 million a year -- and they want to more than double what Title X does."
Make no mistake about it, these people are out for blood … the blood of preborn children. And while they are at it, they will prey on our young people, tantalizing them with the very sort of "education" that has created the out-of-wedlock pregnancy problem in the first place.
My advice is simple. Prevent emotional child abuse by taxpayer-funded educators … stop the Prevention First Act before it stops developing human beings from becoming all they can be.
There is a specific sort of pathology that underlies all that Planned Parenthood touches with its greedy paws, and we dare not allow that sort of disease to spread any further than it already has. For as my dear mother used to say, "You can lock a thief out, but you can't lock a liar out."
ACTION NEEDED:
1. Contact your members of Congress and let them know how you feel about the Prevention First Act.
2. Watch for updates in future issues of the Wednesday STOPP Report. We will let you know as soon as the bills are introduced in the next Congress and give you the correct bill numbers.
3. Monitor the activity in your state and take action to prevent a state PFA from passing.
Not many people know that HHS is the pipeline for Planned Parenthood. I did not really know where and how the money source was coming from. Now that I know more how to be more informed, I will watch the new administration that is pro-abort. What can I do? I want to be on a panel that can do some good in preventing the pipeline shoveling the money to PP Richard Allan Kent | January 14, 2009
Dear Judie, wonder if there is any way we could get this analysis of the PFA in a format which we could study and thus use as we contact our US Senators. Thank you for your efforts and may God Bless. Jim Henderson | January 15, 2009
Hi, Jim!
The analysis was excerpted from a Wednesday Stopp Report which is on line and formatted. If this is not what you had in mind, let us know what you would like to have and can perhaps accomodate you.
The URL for the analysis in report format is http://www.all.org/article.php?id=11701
Judie Brown Judie Brown | January 16, 2009
Dear Richard
The best way to be involved in deconstructing Planned Parenthood and their pipeline is to become a weekly recipient of the Wednesday Stopp Report. You can do that online at www.all.org/stopp
SAINTS ALIVE, IT'S CORPUS CHRISTI! Posted: Tuesday January 13, 2009 at 3:16 pm EST by Judie Brown
Nothing is quite as exciting as encountering a strong, enthusiastic Catholic priest who is inspiring an entire parish to do God's will, stand in the gap and defend the innocents. There's something so blessed about being able to share a story with the special twist of holiness.
In this case, I am referring to Father James Farfaglia, pastor of St. Helena of the True Cross of Jesus in Corpus Christi, Texas.
When you visit the web site for this parish, you are automatically impressed by the invitation the parish extends:
We are Corpus Christi's newest Catholic parish family. We are pro-life, pro-family and loyal to Pope Benedict XVI and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Everyone is welcome! Come join this young, joyful and dynamic parish community.
If your identity is centered on your religious beliefs and your morality derives from those beliefs; if you are attracted to a worldview that challenges many of the values of the current secular culture; if you want to embrace challenging faith commitments that offer firm guidelines on living a healthy, moral and happy life; if you long for mystery and trust your intuition that what you are looking for has to be true, real and worth living to the fullest; if you are seeking guidance and formation from legitimate sources of authority and want to trust these to help find lasting happiness and avoid repeating painful mistakes of the past; if you are striving for personal holiness, authenticity and integration in your spiritual life and are attracted to people that do the same; if you are repelled by complacency, hypocrisy and pandering; if you are concerned with impacting and engaging the larger culture and want to live out your beliefs among an authentic community that supports and holds you accountable...then this the place for you!
And that's just for starters. Father Farfaglia is a pastor on fire for life and the truth of Catholic teaching. He has been a lightening rod in many ways, not only in Corpus Christi, but also in his willingness to reach out and speak the truth, in season and out. He is one of Archbishop Raymond Burke's strongest defenders. One year ago, the archbishop spoke out about St. Louis University's basketball coach, Rick Majerus, explaining to the media that because Majerus publicly voiced his support for abortion, the archbishop would deny him Holy Communion.
The archbishop's comment ignited a firestorm of media controversy that went far beyond Missouri borders, and of course, treated the archbishop as the bad guy!
But Father Farfaglia set the record straight when he told noted Catholic columnist Matt Abbott,
I applaud Archbishop Raymond Burke's courage. He is always speaking out with clarity regarding pro-life issues. If every bishop in America were to follow his example, the horror of legalized abortion would be over with. Too many bishops hide behind the walls of their cathedrals and do not speak out. Too many of our bishops will not take a stand against Catholics who openly defy Church teaching. The scandal of our times is the hierarchy who are not speaking out. Let us pray for the few bishops that do have the courage to take a stand.
In the past, I have noted Father Farfaglia's commitment to truth and his dedication to lifting up and inspiring his flock. For example, when Therese Perez, a parishioner, generated opposition to local funding for Planned Parenthood and won that battle, it was Father who paid her the ultimate compliment by telling us at American Life League that Therese is the Joan of Arc of Corpus Christi.
And just this past week, we learned that National Catholic Register has taken note of Father Farfaglia's remarkable leadership qualities in an article entitled "Parish's big victories."
In what I believe is a seminal report on what can happen when a Catholic parish is invigorated by dynamic leadership that is both spiritually and action-oriented, we learn the following:
When pro-life messages and actions are consistent and regular, pro-life fruits are sweet and abundant. The 4 1/2-year-old parish of St. Helena of the True Cross of Jesus Catholic Church in Corpus Christi, Texas, is seeing several ripen.
Every Tuesday, in numbers too big to ignore, parishioners plant themselves in front of the city's one remaining abortion business. They pray the Rosary and offer counseling. Led by their pastor, Father James Farfaglia, they've been at it for nearly two years.
Thanks to the work of Bishop Emeritus Rene Gracida, along with a very active chapter of Operation Rescue, three of the city's four abortion businesses had closed by the time the St. Helena group got a full head of steam. Only one remained. On Jan. 22, 2007, after Father Farfaglia finished the Rosary during the annual diocesan Roe v. Wade protest at this lone business, he asked parishioner and longtime pro-life worker Ray Reeves: What next?
"Be here," Reeves said assuredly, "every week."
Father Farfaglia took that suggestion to heart and brought it to his flock at the still-new parish. With Lent about to begin, "I told my people rather than giving up desserts and candy, let's do something serious. Let's be at the abortion site Tuesday mornings as our Lenten sacrifice." Throughout Lent, up to 100 people showed up every week. When Lent ended, they continued.
Father Farfaglia and Reeves calculate that, at the start of these Tuesday vigils, between 40 and 50 abortions – possibly as many as 75 – were being carried out each week. Now, they estimate, the business is down to less than 20.
Pro-life activists in Corpus Christi are blessed to be led by a number of inspiring leaders, including retired Bishop Rene Gracida and fearless attorney Cliff Zarsky. But in order to make significant progress, the pro-life effort needs the commitment of young, vibrant priests like Father James Farfaglia. His efforts are a testimony to the effectiveness of speaking the truth in word and deed, and with love and dedication, to make whatever sacrifices are necessary to restore personhood for preborn babies.
The pro-life movement needs more saints, and it occurs to me that we could take a page from the book of Saint Helena of the True Cross of Jesus Christ, whose worthy actions were described by early Catholic Church historian Eusebius.
Especially abundant were the gifts she bestowed on the naked and unprotected poor. To some she gave money, to others an ample supply of clothing; she liberated some from imprisonment, or from the bitter servitude of the mines; others she delivered from unjust oppression, and others again, she restored from exile. While, however, her character derived luster from such deeds,… she was far from neglecting personal piety toward God. She might be seen continually frequenting His church, while at the same time she adorned the houses of prayer with splendid offerings, not overlooking the churches of the smallest cities. In short, this admirable woman was to be seen, in simple and modest attire, mingling with the crowd of worshipers, and testifying her devotion to God by a uniform course of pious conduct. (The Life of Constantine, XLIV, XLV)
Thank you, Father James Farfaglia! May your zeal be infectious far beyond the borders of Corpus Christi, Texas!
Thank you Judy for the fine article. I thought the pro-life movemnt was going to fall apart when Bishop Gracida the Great retired, but God sent us Father James. I cannot express in words how inspirational it is to have a Pastor loyal to the Magisterium, who will speak out against contraception, abortion, sterlization, gay marriage, pro-abort politicians, and will lead by example on the front lines. We are truly blessed at St. Helena's. Please keep us in your prayers; for the devil and our hunamistic society (clergy included) have stepped up thier attacks. On Thursday, January 22nd Bishop Gracida will lead faithful Catholics in the Rosary at the only remaing killing center in Corpus Christi. We will continue to be their in prayer, until the mill closes. Yours in Christ, Ray Ray Reeves | January 13, 2009
Ray
Thank you so much. Your words are music to my ears and I thank you for being such a strong part of the solution!
APATHY BLANKETS NORTH AMERICA WITH SHAME Posted: Monday January 12, 2009 at 4:03 pm EST by Judie Brown
In a recent tribute to pro-life Congressman Henry Hyde, who died in 2007, Congressman Chris Smith said of him, "Hyde was the star, a trailblazer. It's tougher to blaze the trail than to follow on. Henry taught me the lesson that some things are worth losing elections for, and life is one of them."
This is one of four rules that the congressman not only shared with his political peers, but with pro-life Americans as well. As a Catholic leader, Hyde knew that Catholic teaching does not admit compromise when addressing fundamental truths concerning abortion and the attack on marriage. Hyde rarely had a problem focusing on the nonnegotiable teaching that an act of abortion was never acceptable. His leadership was based on that principle.
Principles, particularly for the God-fearing person, do not change and in fact actually formulate the kind of person we are individually and the kind of culture we strive to nurture and protect collectively. But what happens when there is a flaw in the fabric of principle, a misstep in the defense of never-changing truths?
My friend Mark Pickup tells us what happens, and the picture is not a pretty one. In his January 10 blog post, he shares the facts about something that happened in Canada regarding same-sex marriage, and it reminded me of what could happen when Obama is sworn in, in a few short days, and starts dealing with abortion. While we are here discussing same-sex marriage in Canada and abortion in America, the scenarios of how the two nations arrived at their current juncture are quite similar. Here is what Mark wrote:
I would like to bring readers’ attention to a special reprint of an article entitled "The conspiracy to abolish marriage in Canada: If everything is marriage, then nothing is." See
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/sep/0
I 60925a.html
When recognition of same-sex marriage was rammed through Canada's Parliament under the Liberal government of Paul Martin, it was not supported as a free vote. Prime Minister Martin invoked strict Party discipline in order to pass the bill. All ministers, parliamentary secretaries and committee Chairs (not to mention back bench MPs) were expected to support the same-sex marriage bill, under threat of losing portfolios, perks, and privileges. Self-interest prevailed for most Liberal MPs: all but a few courageous Members fell into line and voted to recognize homosexual marriage.
Was this departure from historical definition of marriage – as between one man and one woman – warranted by stacks of social science or empirical studies validating the advisability of such a change? No. In fact, there were studies showing that children raised in homosexual partner homes have considerable problems. Quite simply, the law was changed on the basis of liberal social fashion (disguised as human rights).
Recognition of same-sex marriage (in Canada and abroad) is a deviation from history and wisdom of the ages. It is a dangerous social experiment that threatens to bring down Christian civilization that previous generations fought to preserve.
Two major pillars of Christian morality are marriage and the sanctity of human life. Both are being supplanted by secularism, relativism and a neo-paganism. The result has been disastrous to the Christian concept of life's sanctity. Now the marriage pillar is being torn down. Like the article noted at the beginning of this blog says in its title, "If everything is marriage, then nothing is." A primary building block of society will disappear.
Sadly, the dismantling of our [formerly] Christian country has been aided by Christians themselves. So often the Canadian Evangelical response to the destruction of the sanctity of human life ethic has been pale and uncertain.
Now, with the redefinition of marriage, Canadian Evangelicals seem to have thrown up their hands as though the matter was decided. It may have been decided by our liberal courts and political elites, but it has not been decided by ordinary people on main street Canada. They are looking for leadership back to sanity.
Evangelicals seem to have shrunk away with embarrassment from standing resolutely and forcefully against the destruction of traditional marriage by a vociferous and litigious homosexual lobby. Protection of their church charitable status is more important than speaking out against redefinition of marriage or homosexuality. They are afraid of being called names, maligned by the press, or being dragged before a quasi-judicial human rights tribunal.
Perhaps I should not be surprised. Canadian Evangelicals have been slow and uncertain to respond against the holocaust of abortion throughout the past 40 years in Canada. I can only presume it [their response] will be equally pale and uncertain with euthanasia. There are courageous exceptions, of course, like the late Pastor Ken Campbell, and the Pentecostal Church, but they are the exceptions.
Denominational policy statements decrying the evil of abortion without persistent and consistent public action, or clearly articulating Biblical and Christian answers outside the church foyer, have failed the sacred cause of life. Will [Evangelicals] be equally timid to make their presence felt defending the Biblical definition of marriage?
But timidity has not been the greatest failure of the Evangelical Church; its greatest failure has been accommodation. Rather than transforming the culture with Biblical truth, it has been guilty of accommodating the culture and that ultimately denies the transforming power of Biblical truth.
As Dr. Francis Schaeffer was dying in 1984, he wrote his last book, The Great Evangelical Disaster. He addressed this spirit of accommodation: “For the evangelical accommodation to the world of our age represents the removal of the last barrier against the breakdown of our culture. ... To accommodate to the world spirit about us in our age is the most gross form of worldliness in the proper definition of the word.” (p. 141-142)
The great man said the only legitimate response for Christians is confronting the culture – loving confrontation – but confrontation nonetheless in the crucial moral and social issues of our day. Anything less is a failure to live under the full authority of God's inerrant Word: the Bible.
Many Evangelicals avoided The Great Evangelical Disaster. Its truth was also a confrontation – a confrontation many evangelicals are still not willing to admit.
I call upon Canadian Evangelicals to join together with their Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ and spill into the streets in unshakable resolve to reclaim our dying Christian culture. Militate for Biblical morality on the sanctity and dignity of marriage and human life.
Don't worry about being dragged before human rights commissions on bogus charges, losing your tax status or being called names. Previous generations of Christians faced more serious threats for the sake of Biblical truth.
We are in a spiritual war of monumental proportions!
Mark was an Evangelical prior to converting to Catholicism, and so he understands the Evangelical mindset quite well. The challenge he sets forth in his commentary should not go unnoticed, because we in America, when writing about Catholics and the question of whether or not it is acceptable to murder a preborn child by an act of abortion, are facing precisely the same kind of moral relativism. Lest we forget, Obama is going to be sworn in, in just a few days, in no small measure because more than 50 percent of Catholics cast their vote for him.
Dr. Schaeffer defined such an action as "accommodation to the world." Pope Benedict XVI has defined it as moral relativism, and he has warned repeatedly of its devastating consequences. In fact, the Holy Father has said, "We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism that recognizes nothing definite and leaves only one's own ego and one's own desires as the final measure." I would simply call it an exhibition of the greatest act of denying God ever in the history of mankind.
Even though Catholics and, in fact, all Christians, are not called to accommodate evil but rather to expose it and struggle against it for as long as the situation requires, it is painfully clear that this is not happening.
We are indeed in a spiritual war of enormous proportions. This is not a war against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers. St. Paul reminds anyone with ears to hear and eyes to see,
Put on the armor of God so that you may be able to stand firm against the tactics of the devil. For our struggle is not with flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens. . . So stand fast with your loins girded in truth, clothed with righteousness as a breastplate, and your feet shod in readiness for the gospel of peace. In all circumstances, hold faith as a shield, to quench all (the) flaming arrows of the evil one. (Ephesians 6: 11-12, 14-16)
God bless you, Judie, and all of the people at ALL! This column is espcially timely because the Bishop of the Diocese of Tucson is a USCCB politician and refuses to do anything more by way of instruction for the faithful in Tucson regarding abortion than \"Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,\" nothing more than pap--which is why Obama was able to get elected.
We pray for your health, endurance, courage, commitment. Luis Howard for the Howard Family | January 12, 2009
Luis
Thank you ever so much and God be with you! This is, after all, His struggle and we are blessed to be part of it.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | January 14, 2009
Didn't Henry Hyde have an affair (breaking a commandment) in his forties that he called a "youthful" indiscretion? LewArcher | January 16, 2009
Dear Lew
I am not sure about that so I won't comment except to say that even if that were true, why would we hold it against him if he, as a Catholic which he was, confessed his sin and received forgiveness?
THE GRAMMAR OF RIGHT THINKING Posted: Friday January 9, 2009 at 5:43 pm EST by Judie Brown
Not a day passes without one headline or another grabbing my attention and riveting me to a search engine on my computer, sort of like a mad dog! But I learned that one of the best ways to share the undeniable truths that are not yours or mine, but God’s, is to focus on those aspects of daily life that prompt us to think about what kind of people we are. Whether we are Americans or Brits or Africans or Sudanese or claim any other cultural identity, we all have the same gift from God – written on the heart of every man.
That gift is called the natural law, and one brilliant woman, Professor Cynthia Toolin, recently wrote in the Social Justice Review, “Just as grammar is inherent in each language, each human person has the grammar of the natural law written on his heart.”
But what happens when that grammar is denied or despised?
One mother, Victoria Lambert, wrote about her decision to abort her preborn child because of a negative prenatal diagnosis she had received. I think the title speaks volumes about what happened when she ignored the grammar written on her heart. In the article entitled “I aborted my baby because he was disabled but it still feels like murder and haunts me every day,” she shares this heart-wrenching detail:
I've been unable to talk about it easily, unless with a drink in hand, let alone write about the experience. This is partly because I have felt out-of-step with the rest of the world, where the validity of abortion is a given for millions of people - especially women - and to admit to being uneasy about this seems to make you a traitor to any notion of “sisterhood.”
Yet also, and this is the crucial point, because of an overwhelming and isolating sense of shame. Almost from the moment I awoke from the anesthetic, I have deeply regretted my decision. Whichever way I looked at it, it felt then and it feels now like murder.
Lambert’s abortion occurred nine years ago, and she is only now dealing with the aftermath, with all of its pain and sorrow. Things might have been so very different for her if only she had heeded the grammar of the natural law, written on her heart, in her moments of anguish those many years ago.
But at the other end of the scale is Christ Hospital in Jersey City, New Jersey, which is under investigation to determine if employees tossed a stillborn baby’s body into the trash, since the baby’s body is missing. Dr. Manny Alvarez told his readers that this is not the first time he has heard such a report. He wrote,
I have tried to talk to the hospital, to the Hudson County Prosecutor’s office, as well as the Jersey City Police Department, to try to understand how a baby’s corpse could have possibly been thrown out with the hospital trash, but no proper answers were given, since everybody is hiding behind rules and regulations.
A mother’s child must always be respected – whether alive or dead. And I am truly sorry for what has happened to this family. I just hope that this hospital will learn so that this will never happen again.
Can you imagine the horror of such an act? Can you see that scene in your mind’s eye and grasp the disregard for the human person that must have influenced the individual who tossed that child’s body away?
Yet as Branden Cobb writes,
We've all heard about medical mistakes before but what happened to one mother in New Jersey is beyond comprehension. Kalynn Moore told reporters in New York yesterday that when she went into labor a month early on December 21, doctors at Christ Hospital in Jersey decided to do a C-section.
But instead of getting her Christmas miracle, a healthy baby boy named Bashir, Moore's son was stillborn. Devastated, the young mother left her baby's remains in the care of the hospital and went home. When she came back to claim him, the hospital couldn't find his body. That's right, you heard me, the Christ Hospital claimed it couldn't find Bashir. ...
How does a hospital lose an infant's body?
If that wasn't bad enough, Moore says police told her that her son had accidentally been thrown in the trash; tossed away like garbage. How in the world could that happen? Surely, medical professionals can tell the difference between a little black boy and a pile of trash, right? Apparently, not because now officials are searching dumps in New Jersey and Pennsylvania looking for Bashir's remains.
It makes me wonder about the state of health care in this country. And, it should make you think the next time you check in the hospital.
I have to tell you that reports like these not only tear at my heartstrings, they make me feel so sad for those individuals who have rejected objective truth. Such people – and there are millions of them – appear to be blind to the violence that surrounds them. In his message for the World Day of Peace on January 1, 2007, Pope Benedict XVI said something worth repeating in view of these tragic reports:
[T]he norms of the natural law should not be viewed as externally imposed decrees, as restraints upon human freedom. Rather, they should be welcomed as a call to carry out faithfully the universal divine plan inscribed in the nature of human beings. Guided by these norms, all peoples —within their respective cultures—can draw near to the greatest mystery, which is the mystery of God… The duty to respect the dignity of each human being, in whose nature the image of the Creator is reflected, means in consequence that the person cannot be disposed of at will.
It is as if his words, though spoken in a completely different context, acutely describe the problematic situations noted above. And he continued:
Respect for the right to life at every stage firmly establishes a principle of decisive importance: life is a gift which is not completely at the disposal of the subject. Similarly, the affirmation of the right to religious freedom places the human being in a relationship with a transcendent principle which withdraws him from human caprice. The right to life and to the free expression of personal faith in God is not subject to the power of man. Peace requires the establishment of a clear boundary between what is at man's disposal and what is not: in this way unacceptable intrusions into the patrimony of specifically human values will be avoided.
For those of us who strive to end the wholesale murder of innocent persons from the instant their lives begin, the suffering of Victoria Lambert and the tragedy that has afflicted Kalynn Moore and her family cannot be overemphasized. There is no political solution to their plight, and there will no political solution to ending the killing of the preborn until such time as the grammar of right thinking becomes accepted among all people, so that respect for the dignity of the human person will always come before everything else.
The human family has been fractured by ignoring the specific grammar written on the heart of every human being. We must work to mend the human family before the fracture becomes irrevocably terminal.
When living children are routinely killed, then disrespectfully treating the body of a dead child is not surprising. Horrible for this family, who did hoped for a live child, definitely. Surprising, given the state of our society, definitely not. David Volk | January 12, 2009
Pro-Life Story: Haley Posted By Haley on Mar, 28 2006 This past fall, I became pregnant and was devastated by my sinfulness. I felt that the pregnancy would disqualify me from ministry and from the Lord's plan for my life. My fiancé ... Read
