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!
BRAZIL'S BISHOPS BELEAGUERED BUT BLESSED Posted: Friday March 20, 2009 at 2:11 pm EST by Judie Brown
The past few days have given all of us a bird's eye view of what it means to be a Catholic bishop who comprehends the meaning of the word sin and is not afraid to punish those who offend God by acts of murder. The case in question involves a nine-year-old girl who, according to media reports, was repeatedly raped by her stepfather. He apparently began sexually assaulting her when she was three years of age.
Ghastly seems too delicate a word for such evil acts. And yet, when she was diagnosed as being four months pregnant, and the doctors explained to her mother that she was carrying twins, the immediate decision in the case was to abort the babies. This is where Archbishop José Cardoso Sobrinho became involved. Upon hearing of the case, and after a thorough investigation of the matter, he announced the excommunication of the doctor who performed the abortion on the nine-year-old girl, as well as the family members who made the decision to carry out the procedure.
"The Church, in fidelity to the Gospel, positions itself always in favor of life, in an unequivocal condemnation of all violence done against the dignity of the human person," they wrote, adding that "in the face of the complexity of the case, we lament that has not been faced with serenity, tranquility, and the necessary time that the situation demanded. Furthermore, we do not agree with the final outcome of eliminating the life of defenseless human beings."
"It is a sad case but the real problem is that the twins conceived were two innocent persons, who had the right to live and could not be eliminated," he said.
Re, who also heads the Pontifical Commission for Latin America, added: "Life must always be protected, the attack on the Brazilian church is unjustified."
A day later, the president of the Pontifical Academy for Life announced that he did not agree with Archbishop Sobrinho's action. Archbishop Rino Fisichella wrote a commentary for the newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano.
Archbishop Fisichella lamented the precipitous condemnation in such a morally delicate case. Referring to the excommunication "latae sententiae" [automatically incurred at the moment of the act], he said that "such urgency and publicity was not necessary."
What is most needed at this time, he explained, "is the sign of a testimony of closeness with the one suffering, an act of mercy that, even while firmly maintaining the principle, is able to look beyond the juridical sphere."
It is true that the girl "carried within her innocent lives like her own, though the fruit of violence, and they have been done away with; however, this is not enough to pass a judgment that weighs as a condemnation," he added.
However, since those events of early this week, we have learned two things. The first is that the abortion, at least according to two medical authorities was uncalled for in the first place. LifeSite News interviewed Dr. Paul Byrne, a world-renowned neonatologist.
Byrne told LSN that it is certainly medically possible for a young girl safely to carry a pregnancy of twins to term. He acknowledged that the circumstances are unusual, but said that the problem of giving birth with an undeveloped pelvic structure could be safely avoided by a caesarean section.
Dr. Byrne cited the case of Lina Medina, a Peruvian girl from the Andean village of Ticrapo who made medical history when she gave birth to a boy by caesarean section in May 1939 at the age of five years, seven months and 21 days.
But he emphasized that no matter what the situation in the case, "abortion is not the solution." The girl, he said, "was sexually abused" and needed treatment. "Someone should have tried to help this girl."
And now, Fr. Berardo Graz, a Brazilian priest and medical ethics expert, has denounced the statements by Archbishop Fisichella.
Fr. Berardo Graz of the Diocese of Guarulhos has issued a statement asserting that "if Msgr. Fisichella had received more correct and detailed information about what happened in the case he would not have written what he wrote." Graz is on the board of directors of Stela Maris Hospital in Sao Paulo, and was trained as a physician in Italy.
Through all this controversy, however, the Brazilian bishops have kept their wits about them and simply moved forward, knowing that there is never a reason to execute an innocent human being and that everything should have been done to protect this very young mother and her two babies. They broke their silence on March 18, responding to Archbishop Fisichella. That statement reads in part,
1. The fact [the rape of the little girl] did not happen in Recife, as the article states, but in the city of Alagoinha (Diocese of Pesqueira).
2. All of us – beginning with the parish priest of Alagoinha (undersigned) – treated the pregnant girl and her family with all charity and tenderness. The Parish priest, making use of his pastoral solicitude, when aware of the news in his residence, immediately went to the house of the family, in which he met the girl and lent her his support and presence, before the grave and difficult situation in which the girl found herself. And this attitude continued every day, from Alagoinha to Recife, where the sad event of the abortion of the two innocent [babies] took place. Therefore, it is quite evident and unequivocal that nobody thought in "excommunication" in the first place. We used all means at our disposal to avoid the abortion and thus save all THREE lives. The Parish priest personally joined the local Children's Council in all efforts which sought the welfare of the child and of her two children. In the hospital, in daily visits, he displayed attitudes of care and attention which made clear both to the child and to her mother that they were not alone, but that the Church, represented by the local Parish priest, assured them of the necessary assistance and of the certainty that all would be done for the welfare of the girl and to save her two children.
3. After the girl was transferred to a hospital of the city of Recife, we tried to use all legal means to avoid the abortion. The Church never displayed any omission in the hospital. The girl's parish priest made daily visits to the hospital, traveling from the city which is 230 km [140 mi] away from Recife, making every effort so that both the child and the mother felt the presence of Jesus the Good Shepherd, who seeks the sheep who need most attention. Therefore, the case was treated with all due care by the Church, and not 'sbrigativamente' [summarily], as the article says.
4. We do not agree [with Archbishop Fisichella] that the "decision is hard... for the moral law itself". Our Holy Church continues to proclaim that the moral law is exceedingly clear: it is never licit to eliminate the life of an innocent person to save another life. The objective facts are these: there are doctors who explicitly declare that they perform and will continue to perform abortions, while others declare with the same firmness that they will never perform abortions. Here is the declaration written and signed by a Brazilian Catholic physician: "...As an obstetrician for 50 years, graduated in the National Medical School of the University of Brazil, and former chief of Obstetrics in the Hospital of Andarai [Rio de Janeiro], in which I served for 35 years until I retired in order to dedicate myself to the Diaconate, and having delivered 4,524 babies, many from juvenile [mothers], I never had to resort to an abortion to 'save lives', as well as all my colleagues, sincere and honest in their profession and faithful to their Hippocratic oath. ..."
The statement, which is presented in full on the LifeSite News web site is signed by five priests and diocesan officials intimately involved in the case. In fact, I would encourage anyone who is concerned about the apparent discrepancies reported in the media regarding what some view as soft peddling on the part of at least one Vatican official, to read the official statement from the diocese where this occurred in Brazil.
No wonder faithful Catholics get confused, frequently feel betrayed and then wonder what shoe will drop next! Well, that's why we put our faith in God, not man. And it is also why…
Our hats are off to the Catholic leaders in Brazil for standing true to the faith and the Magisterium of the Church and not buckling under pressure. Praise God for each of them!
Bravo, Brazilian Church leadership. "the moral law is exceedingly clear: it is never licit to eliminate the life of an innocent person to save another life." The moral law may be exceedingly clear. The difficulty comes with grasping for things we "want", rather than submitting ourselves to what is right. David Volk | March 20, 2009
What a sad case, but we cannot allow anyone to murder those twins for the sake of the young mother. Theresa Smith | March 21, 2009
This article is an excellent example for Catholics, like me and my family, to grow in pro life strength, because it shows that we must all be like the Brazilian priests who couragessly and compasionatly tried to help the young girl and her twin unborn babies.
It is however, a sad depiction, as well, of other Roman Catholic priests that are clouded and confused. I pray for all priests and lay people to seek an understanding of the heart and mind of God. The poor young girl now will face the torment of being raped by her father and also raped again by the abortionist. I will be keeping all in my prayers. JUdy, thank you for all the many years of bringing truth into a world that somehow bypasses it.
Sincerely, David and Lori Kleist lori kleist | March 22, 2009
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT COMPASSION Posted: Thursday March 19, 2009 at 10:44 am EST by Judie Brown
Though not widely publicized, the case of 35-year-old Air Force Captain Michael Fontana brings to light the tentacle of the culture of death that is snake-like and sneaky. That tentacle is euthanasia, which has come to be known in recent times by a myriad of names, none of which is designed to expose the horror of what it actually means.
In the case of Air Force Captain Michael Fontana, a nurse formally accused of ending the lives of three patients in his care by giving them overdoses of medication, the military has acted with due diligence in formally charging the officer and is currently pursuing a rigorous investigation. Fontana, who is continuing to work in the hospital where his deeds occurred, though not allowed contact with patients or records, will be handled with a presumption of innocence until all of the evidence is gathered and a formal military trial is held. That is how the hospital's spokesperson explained it to the media a couple of days ago.
In a just society, this is the way such allegations should be handled. But the actions allegedly taken by this male nurse do not represent justice toward those entrusted to his care. On the contrary, if proven to be true, Fontana will be another example of a growing, socially acceptable, yet sordid view of those who are facing death. It could well be that each of the three victims in this case were "end-of-life terminally ill patients."
However, a condition like that does not rob a human being of his personal dignity, nor should it be reason to hasten death by a direct act of killing.
In Georgia, a similar case is being played out. The victim in the Georgia case was a 58-year-old man suffering from cancer of the throat and mouth. The accused individuals who "helped" the man kill himself are members of an alleged assisted suicide ring known as the Final Exit Network. According to news reports, the network's president, its medical director and two other members of the group facilitated the death of the cancer patient.
While some have argued that no crime was committed, in this case others have given the case an appropriate definition.
"How is this not murder?'' asked Stephen Drake of the group Not Dead Yet, an advocacy group for the disabled that opposes assisted suicide and euthanasia.
"This is predatory. These are people who get off on being there for death. They target certain types of people,'' he said. "And when we make laws, when we talk about people who want to commit suicide, we're getting into very dangerous territory.''
Though the accused have been arrested, one can be assured that this case, like others, will drag on and in the final analysis it is highly unlikely that justice will be served. For as the newspaper has already reported, "People convicted of assisting in suicide in Georgia can be sentenced to up to five years in prison."
Where the law protects assisted suicide, as in the states of Oregon and Washington, there are other problems that are faced with honesty only by those who labor night and day to defend human dignity and fend off those who would euthanize while calling it something else.
A pro-euthanasia group monitoring how the Oregon law is working, recently issued a press release in which they claimed the following:
Compassion & Choices today noted that nearly 100% of terminally ill individuals using the law in 2008 were enrolled in hospice. Hospice enrollment among those using the Act increased to 98%, with 59 of the 60 individuals enrolled. Over the prior ten years of the Act's existence, 86% of patients using the Act were enrolled in hospice, in itself a very high rate of use.
The Death with Dignity Act has contributed to the increased use of hospice, and high quality of end-of-life and palliative care in Oregon. ... Nearly universal hospice enrollment among patients using the Act is a direct result of the increased communication that legal aid in dying prompts.
Please take note that the protection of a law provides a shield for the very acts that result in premature death, or death on demand, as I prefer to call it. The promoters of euthanasia, in other words, want the same legal safeguards that abortionists have!
We applaud the Oregonian's recommendation that Washington voters reject I-1000, the physician-assisted suicide measure.
We must comment on two realities: first, the group controlling assisted suicide in Oregon is also the group controlling what the public is told; second, the claim that Oregon is a leader in improved end-of-life care because of assisted suicide is inaccurate.
The editorial board correctly notes "a coterie of insiders run the program, with a handful of doctors and others deciding what the public may know".
The group promoting assisted suicide, so-called "Compassion and Choices (C&C)", are like the fox in the proverbial chicken coop; in this case, the fox is reporting its version to the farmer regarding what is happening in the coop. Members of C&C authored and proclaim they are the stewards of Oregon's assisted suicide law. They call it "their law". They have arranged and participated in 3/4ths of Oregon's assisted suicide cases. Their medical director reported she'd participated in more than 100 doctor-assisted suicides as of March 2005. A physician board member reported in 2006 that he'd been involved with over forty such patients. Their executive director reported in September 2007 that he has attended more than 36 assisted suicide deaths. He has been involved in preparing the lethal solution. Yet, he is not a doctor.
In 2006, C&C's attorneys intimidated the Oregon Department of Human Services (DHS) to change to euphemisms in referring to Oregon's assisted suicide law. The limited DHS reports of assisted suicides is another indication of this organization's influence. Information that is damaging to the "good public image" of Oregon's assisted suicide law is hidden or glossed-over in the DHS reports. As such, we believe the initials "C&C" of this organization more properly reflect its repeated public behavior—that is, "Conspiracy & Control".
Regardless of one's perspective on assisted suicide, all citizens should be concerned about the controlling influence of this death-promoting organization. In all other areas of medicine, we are striving for increased transparency—not conspiracy and control.
What about assisted suicide causing improved end-of-life care?
There is improved end-of-life care in Oregon. In training physicians, we have sought to improve patient-physician communication, and improve patient care at many levels. We have made improvements. However, similar improvements have occurred in other states that have not legalized assisted suicide. Many states do better than Oregon in this area. The latest data ranks Oregon ninth (not first) in Medicare-age hospice-utilization; four of the top five states have criminalized assisted-suicide. The Wisconsin Pain Policies Studies Group issues grades regarding states' pain-policies.
While Oregon & Washington both have high grades on their pain-policies, an OHSU study documented that after four years of assisted suicide in Oregon there was a decline in end-of-life pain-control. This doesn't prove that the pain-control decline was due to assisted suicide. At the same time, the data doesn't support the claim that legalization of assisted suicide improved care at the end-of-life.
In summary, we should all be wary of the false "C&C" claims.
Clearly, those who have a vested interest in imposed death by demand; rather than serving the dying with love, appropriate pain management and unconditional commitment to comfort; are most successful when they are in charge and can spin the story their way. Sound familiar?
Captain Fontana, the Final Exit Network folks and the "C&C" leadership all have something in common. They firmly and perhaps sincerely believe that their agenda, rather than God's, helps more people.
Their sort of "compassion" almost always results in a planned, premature death.
For my money, I'll stick with Pope John Paul II and his profound message regarding genuine compassion.
The parable of the Good Samaritan belongs to the Gospel of suffering. For it indicates what the relationship of each of us must be towards our suffering neighbor. We are not allowed to "pass by on the other side" indifferently; we must "stop" beside him. Everyone who stops beside the suffering of another person, whatever form it may take, is a Good Samaritan. … Sometimes this compassion remains the only or principal expression of our love for and solidarity with the sufferer.
SPLITTING HAIRS SO WE CAN KILL 'EM AND USE 'EM! Posted: Wednesday March 18, 2009 at 1:38 pm EST by Judie Brown
Like everyone else who first saw the CNS headline, "Obama Signs Law Banning Federal Embryo Research Two Days After Signing Executive Order to OK It," I was very confused. We had people at American Life League scrambling in an effort to understand precisely what was actually going on regarding human embryonic children and their susceptibility to murder. And after a great deal of reading, reviewing and re-reading the matter began to clarify for us.
Now I think we have solved the riddle. But before we get into the details, allow me to say that there is evil afoot in all this, not to mention deception, delusional thinking, demented goals and downright dirty politics.
Get this:
Federal funds cannot be used to create human embryos for research purposes and cannot be used to destroy or harm human embryos, but federal funds may be used to conduct human embryonic stem cell research as long as those stem cells were taken from human embryos killed by private sources and/or with private funding.
This is so because several years ago, two members of Congress authored what is now known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment.
As someone involved with the actual writing of the original Dickey-Wicker Amendment in 1996, I understand its limited value and I understand how a devious mind could work around it. According to the Genetics and Public Policy web site,
In the United States there is no federal legislation prohibiting cloning for either reproductive or therapeutic purposes. However, under the 1996 Dickey-Wicker Amendment it is illegal to use federal funds to support research "in which human embryos are created, destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.204 and 46.207, and subsection 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act." Moreover, the Dickey-Wicker Amendment defines a human embryo as "any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of enactment of the governing appropriations act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells."
In essence, then, the Dickey-Wicker Amendment prohibits the use of tax dollars for the purpose of killing.
But it does not prohibit research on those human embryonic children killed with private funding. And that is where the devious details reside … by splitting hairs, Obama could have it both ways, eat his cake and have it too, or as I prefer to describe it, put himself an arm's length away for the first gruesome act of killing so he can authorize funding for the second grisly act of using human embryonic cells to advance the work of those who refuse to acknowledge their own failure.
When the New York Times reported on Obama's executive order a couple of days ago, they made a rather astute observation. Yes, I did say that the New York Times was perceptive because you have to give the devil his due. At any rate, the editorial began by stating
No sooner had President Obama lifted the Bush-era restrictions on financing embryonic stem cell research than critics began urging that any federal support be limited to work with stem cells derived from surplus embryos at fertility clinics. That would be a mistake. The guidelines should define the eligible research as broadly as possible to allow the greatest potential for advances.
This is an astute observation because the New York Times is not being disingenuous; it is being brutally honest, which is more than one can say for the shrewd plotters within the Obama camp. The New York Times wants no limits on the killing of human embryonic children, and as you can see, discusses these human beings as if they were french fries left over from lunch at the local deli.
Isn't it a shame that throughout this discussion, that has occupied many hours of reporting over the past week, very few have pinpointed the obvious fact that to kill one innocent person for the sake of allegedly helping another innocent person is gravely immoral and must never be done under any circumstance?
Note, for example, the comments of Republican Congressman Mike Castle, who relegates the Dickey-Wicker Amendment to the trash heap of history in the way one might toss out an outdated suit coat, "[t]hat was passed in 1996, before we realized the full potential of embryonic stem cell research. Some researchers are telling us now that that needs to be reversed."
But you know what? The end game in all this is never addressed, and perhaps it won't be since the vast majority of politicians favor winning over moral principle. The sad fact is that regardless of who is paying for the research or who is doing the research, the practice is going to move forward and it is going to grow unless and until America bites the bullet and moves to ban in vitro fertilization, period!
The Catholic Church has warned from the early days before the practice began to yield freezer children, octo-moms and the like, that nothing good would come of this practice.
Pope John XXIII taught that since the "transmission of human life is entrusted by nature to a personal conscious act, and as such, is subject to the all-holy laws of God," in assisted human procreation " ...one cannot use means and follow methods that could be licit in the transmission of the life of plants and animals." The Church has condemned in vitro fertilization between husband and wife (homologous in vitro fertilization) because it is in itself illicit, and in opposition to the dignity of procreation and of the conjugal union. It has also condemned in vitro fertilization in which sperm or ovum of a third person is used (heterologous in vitro fertilization) because, in addition, it violates the reciprocal commitment of the spouses and shows a grave lack of regard for that essential property of marriage which is unity. Furthermore, it deprives the child of her or his filial relationship with parental origins, can hinder the maturing of personal identity, can damage personal relationships within the family, and has repercussions on civil society.
In vitro fertilization is neither in fact achieved nor positively willed as an expression and fruit of a specific act of conjugal union. The human embryo is treated as a product of technology and not as a gift of God. In its use and in the use of many other techniques of genetic engineering, a human person is objectively deprived of his or her proper perfection. Such fertilization establishes the domination of technology over the origin or destiny of the person. This domination is contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children. Therefore, in vitro fertilization is morally unacceptable.
Obviously one of those "repercussions on civil society" is the debate regarding who pays for the murder of the embryonic child versus who gets to use his or her body parts. How much more utilitarian can it get?
When will our fellow human beings wake up and see this tragedy for what it really is?
At its core, and regardless of alleged safeguards such as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, as long as artificial reproductive technologies are practiced, human embryonic children will be slaughtered. As Shea explains
The whole truth is that the immediate product of fertilization or cloning is a cell, but it is also a single cell organism, a human being, and a human person. In short, in order to prevent research on human embryos from occurring, in vitro fertilization by all methods must be generically prohibited in both public and private domains by law. It is not enough simply to oppose abortion and research on human embryos. If we are ever to succeed in outlawing those two crimes against humanity, we must lay the axe to the root of the tree. We must vigorously and persistently oppose contraception (both surgical and chemical) and all forms of in vitro formation of human embryos, both by fertilization and by all [other] techniques.
Send that message to your local congressman, stand back and watch the dust fly. Being a politician who is "pro-life" has become a political gambit with no moral teeth! If I were wrong, at least one member of Congress would have already echoed Dr. Shea's accurate statement within the last couple of days.
That sound is clapping.....great article and anaysis. ESC research and applied therapy has resulted in the death's of about 10 "human guinea pigs". Adult SC therapies have yielded over 70 cures. and no adverse side effects...so why push the dangerous route and killing of embryonic stage humans?? G Smith | March 18, 2009
COWS AND CHEMICAL COAT HANGERS Posted: Tuesday March 17, 2009 at 5:08 pm EST by Judie Brown
Anna Anderson, the executive director of Care Net Pregnancy Center of Green County, Wisconsin, and is a friend of Stephenson County Right to Life Pro-Life Corner in Freeport, Illinois. We can vouch for the integrity of this wonderful grassroots organization, which has been there, helping mothers and their babies, and providing good material to American Life League for years! They are part of our family, and we are proud to be able to shed a spotlight on them, but certainly not proud of what they have uncovered.
It seems that the American Animal Hospital Association made mention of a practice that astounded us and clearly raised the eyebrows of many pro-life Americans in Wisconsin when they first heard of it. It's one of those reports that you just know has to be a hoax. Well, it isn't. The Wisconsin Veterinary Medical Association and the American Veterinary Medical Association have been monitoring this issue. This is the report from AAHA:
Report: Teenagers Taking Medication Used to Induce Abortions in Cows
The Wisconsin VMA executive director contacted the AVMA about reports that teenagers were using a "medication meant to induce abortions in cows" to abort unwanted pregnancies and avoid parental knowledge or the cost of an abortion.
The drugs mentioned included prostaglandins, Cystorelin, Factrel, Gonadorelin and Lutalyse. The WVMA executive director contacted the district school nurse, who verified that the district has received reports of this abuse.
Whether or not these reports prove to be true, this situation underscores the need for veterinarians to remain vigilant about storing, distributing, prescribing and using veterinary products that can pose human health risks.
In addition, food animal producers must be vigilant about all veterinary drugs they may be storing or using at their facilities.
When we first heard of this, our Celebrate Life editor, Stephanie Hopping, made note of the fact that this report "illustrates that decriminalized abortion does not stop highly dangerous abortion methods like this. In fact, it probably encourages the use of them mightily, because this is hardly different from an RU-486 abortion, except that it isn't done under medical supervision, so if there is any criminal offense involved, many judges these days would probably give the offenders next to nothing as a sentence or let them off the hook completely. Now, if abortion were illegal and there were stiff penalties attached to it, doesn't it seem likely that these kids would think twice before doing something like this?"
And that is the point. Young people hear that there are chemicals available in a farmer's barn that can cause an abortion through the 10th week of pregnancy. And they have also heard that if such chemicals are paid for, the cost can be prohibitive.
Such chemicals, mifepristone (RU-486) being the most popular, are abortive and do kill, but they are marketed as being "easier" on the mother who does not want to carry her baby to term. The web site for the drug affords easy access to doctor's offices where a "medical abortion" can be provided. "Medical abortion" is the clinical term applied to those abortion drugs that are specifically designed to abort up to eight or 10 weeks after the preborn child's life begins. Such drugs differ from those chemicals like the birth control pill that may abort during the first eight days of life depending on whether or not the woman ingesting the pills conceives or not.
But a teenager who is trying to hide the truth from her parents, and knows that the local farmer has a drug that is going to take care of her "problem," could not only succeed in killing her baby, but could kill herself. The culture of death would shed not a tear, of course, but for those of us who struggle to restore moral sanity to America, a report like this sends shivers down our spines. But enough from me. Here is Anna Anderson. She will now share, in her own words, the tragic details of the dangerous and barbaric practice teens from Monroe, Wisconsin, a close-knit farming community, are using as they ingest abortion drugs designed for cows:
I am writing this letter to alert the public of a deadly practice in which our high school youth and possibly our middle school students are engaging. Although I just learned of this, it has been going on at least since this past summer when a young "hired" man in our area gave a girl a medication meant to (among other uses) induce abortions in cows and horses to cause her to abort their child. This drug is injected into cows and horses but the girl drank a large dose of it. I spoke with veterinarians, physicians, and poison control staff to find out the potential consequences of pregnant human females consuming this drug. This is a very deadly drug for fetuses. According to a local veterinarian, pregnant women are not even supposed to handle the bottles in which it is stored unless they are wearing gloves. Needless to say this girl lost the baby. The drug consists of a high concentration of hormones so human ingestion of it is not poisonous to the girls but it is deadly to the developing fetus and has potentially deadly consequences for the girls.
The news of this young couple's success in aborting their baby has spread through the Monroe High School and possibly elsewhere, which has resulted in other pregnant girls obtaining and consuming this drug in order to abort their unborn babies. Some of the girls who are taking the drug are much further along in their pregnancies than the original girl. This is resulting in life-threatening complications for the pregnant girls when the drug successfully results in the placenta pulling away from the uterine wall; the baby being starved; the baby then dying; which results in spotting and uterine contractions followed by an abortion of the baby. In these more advanced pregnancies, these girls could potentially bleed to death or have a life-threatening systemic infection if the uterus is not completely emptied of the baby and other pregnancy tissues. In addition, one physician said that there could be clotting issues because of this drug. Another physician said these drugs can cause health concerns for asthmatics.
These girls do not want to go to the emergency room or any other medical provider because they know the medical facility will eventually bill their parents and their parents will discover that they were pregnant. In many cases, the reason they are taking the drug is to prevent their parents from finding out about the pregnancy. Others take it without the father of the child even knowing. When these girls have life-threatening complications, they do not discuss any of this with their parents so the parents do not know to rush them to an emergency room. Girls (and obviously their babies) are going to be dying because of this. Babies have already died because of it.
If this is going on at our high school, chances are that it is happening at other high schools as well – especially in rural agricultural areas. Unsuspecting parents and anyone else who might be in a position to help these girls and stop this deadly practice need to be aware of this "drug abuse" among area teens. This drug is not a "controlled substance." It can be purchased from a number of different sources. It is sold under names such as Prostaglandins, Cystorelin, Factrel, Gonadorelin, and Lutalyse and most likely readily available on the majority of beef and dairy farms as well as horse operations.
I would strongly encourage farmers or anyone else with these drugs in their possession to keep them locked safely away where teens and "twenty-somethings" cannot access them. Even if the farmers do not have teens of [their] own, they might have hired help that will provide this drug to their friends and/or girlfriends. In addition, it is not just teens. Men in their twenties are routinely engaging in sexual activity with young girls in their teens, some of whom then give this drug to the girls to abort the babies that result from these sexual encounters.
Please help spread the word about this deadly practice before more babies and possibly teens die.
Anna Anderson
Executive Director – Care Net Pregnancy Center of Green County
Anna can be reached at: pregnancycentered@tds.net
SIR RICHARD GARDNER'S GROTESQUE GARDENING Posted: Monday March 16, 2009 at 12:56 pm EST by Judie Brown
One of the world's leading stem cell experts, British Professor Sir Richard Gardner of Oxford University, has startled some with a rather gruesome recommendation. Before I tell you about it, please note that the professor is a zoologist and that is what he teaches.
Expressing surprise that the possibility has not been considered, he said using fetal tissues for organ transplant is "probably a more realistic technique in dealing with the shortage of kidney donors than others."
Experiments in mice, he said, have shown that fetal kidneys grow extremely quickly when transplanted into adult animals.
Using aborted fetuses "is something that could be done but it's not something that's talked about much."
"It is at least a temporary solution," he said, also calling for a study into the feasibility of such procedures.
Further,
Professor Stuart Campbell, a London obstetrician who argued for the abortion time limit to be lowered, had no ethical objections to the proposal, arguing that many babies were aborted quite late.
"If they are going to be terminated, it is a shame to waste their organs," he claimed.
Warner Todd Huston, who writes for the Stop the ACLU web site, heard about this latest report and commented
How do we know the difference between a fetus that was "going to be aborted anyway" and one that was aborted solely to satisfy transplant needs? How do we know that the mother of that fetus was properly informed of the choices before her and not just cajoled into an abortion to supply "science" with necessary study materials?
Whose fetuses will be aborted most often? Minorities? Will they find their children murdered to supply science at a greater rate than the majority in any given country? How do we assure whose babies are killed with "good" reason? …
Science is a great thing, we all know. But science cut free of the moorings of morality and a respect for human life is a destructive force that will lead to our demise as a species. Professor Sir Richard Gardner should be excoriated for his inhuman, Mengele-esque musings.
Indeed, Huston asks the proper questions. It would be a good idea to add to his thoughts that common sense and ethics grounded in God's law would expose the tragic consequences immediately. The theories this report has exposed are based on a concept so repulsive that one can hardly believe they were given any ink by the media at all! But perhaps this is, after all, but another symptom of the culture of death. It is quite clear that the dehumanization of persons, including those who are dead due to murder by abortion, is escalating at a pace more rapid than the bullet train in Japan!
Commentator William Saletan, about whom I have written in the past, got hold of the Gardner proposal and wrote a commentary about it entitled "Drill Babies, Drill."
It's hard to say whether Saletan is troubled by the slide from human embryonic stem cell research to the possibility of cultivating the dead bodies of older aborted children, or whether he thinks the whole thing is a good idea. My money is on the latter. In his commentary, he provides a clue.
The argument against fetal tissue is that because it's less fundamental and less pliable than embryonic stem cells, it's less useful for research. But in some ways, its advanced development makes it more logical as a source of transplants. As Gardner pointed out, our prospects for engineering completely functional organs from stem cells are "remote." And if stem cells do prove useful in this endeavor, fetuses may still be crucial. Four days ago, Art Caplan, a leading bioethicist who supports Obama's stem-cell policy, observed:
No one … knows what the best source of stem cells will be for treating diabetes, spinal cord injuries or cardiac damage from heart attacks. No actual scientist can say with any degree of certainty whether it will be embryonic, fetal, adult, cloned or induced stem cells—those made by modifying adult stem cells so that they act like embryos—that will prove most effective. It will take a lot of money and at least five to 10 years to find out.
From this uncertainty, Caplan concluded that "embryonic stem cell research ought to be generously funded and aggressively pursued."
Why isn't the same true of research on fetuses?
This is precisely what I mean when I note the speed with which dehumanizing the human person is moving. Reports on recommendations of scientists like Gardner, as evil as they are, are in the public domain, are receiving coverage that provides credibility, are gaining traction and are contributing even more to the ongoing mentality of denial regarding the total humanity of the child not yet born.
Whether you call this human person a single-cell zygote, a human embryo, a human fetus or a preborn human being, the fact is that in each case, these men are talking about making recommendations about, and deliberating over, the moral consequences of murdering a human being! They are considering the value of continuing the murder.
Why can't the Saletans, Caplans, Gardners and Campbells see this? Are they blind to the facts presented in human embryology textbooks? Or could it be that, on the other hand, they are convinced that some human beings are individuals who can be relegated to a dehumanized status? Are they so dedicated to advances in science that they are driving the mad move toward total disintegration of the framework that once defined Homo sapiens as "humankind" rather than merely a higher degree of flesh-eating carnivore?
The time for human personhood is now, not later. If news reports like this one don't get you on that page, nothing ever will.
That bullet train is speeding right into the grotesque garden and only legal protection for every individual human being's civil rights, equal rights and human rights is going to stop it dead in its tracks.
May God give each of us the strength to persist!
You are certainly correct. "Animal Farm", and "Soylent Green."
See the article, 'Cardinal Pell Says Secularism Is Getting Totalitarian', at http://www.zenit.org/article-25349?l=english David Volk | March 16, 2009
Dear Judy,
The problem is so deeply spiritual. We live in an age where lower sciences-emperical in nature have been elevated, and the higher science-theology, has been manipulated in such a way to provide a path for this and many grievous errors. Until we take Divine Revelation seriously, work to put government and science in their rightful place, this unfortunate path will continue. I believe we are reaping what we have allowed to be sown!
Thanks and God bless you! Catherine Lemek | March 16, 2009
FYI, My following letter to the editor was published in the 3/17/09 edition of the Centre Daily Times of State College, PA.
Tuesday, Mar. 17, 2009
Comments (0) Recommended (1)
Your Letters
Violating code of ethics
In the matter of embryonic stem-cell research, it is a basic moral principle that one cannot benefit by the wrongdoing of others. Courts have long held that to allow government to benefit from a wrongful act provides an unhealthy incentive to persist in such acts.
You cannot distance yourself from previous immoral acts that have resulted in the killing of embryonic human beings.
The end does not justify the means. You do not kill people to save people.
Such a view of human embryos flouts ethical principles contained in the Nuremberg Code and in the National Institutes of Health???s Guidelines for the Conduct of Research Involving Human Subjects. Both clearly express the fundamental principle governing human experimentation that ???no experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur.???
The common good, which is supposed to be the primary goal of the state, is not served when embryonic human beings are arrogantly denied a right to life by former embryos.
To consider this ???good science??? by ignoring the proven success record of nonembryonic stem-cell research is a bastardization of science.
A longstanding medical principle, ???do no harm,??? has been breached.
We are no longer talking about a slippery slope. We have completely stumbled and are falling head first into a disastrous pit where the next expendable utility, as determined by the state, could very well be the reflection in our mirrors.
Gary L. Morella
Lemont Gary L. Morella | March 17, 2009
So--did anyone catch President Obama's comments at the signing of the executive order lifting federal funding of embryonic stem cell research? He said (paraphrasing)"...that ideology should not be an impediment to scientific research". Basically, he overtly inferred that religion, morals, or ethics should not be involved in the process. Furthermore, he also stated that "..government policies should not be dictated by anything but scientific FACTS" (his emphasis). Since when? This is from a man who cannot tell us when life begins because it is above his paygrade and he refuses to listen to anyone who is willing to tell him when life begins because it is not what HE believes. Now who is playing the ideology game???? VL | March 17, 2009
Very good letter, Gary L. Morella.
"Do no harm." Doctors should be leading the pro-life fight. Their profession is compromised by this dastardly act, performed by practioners who intend to do harm.
Right behind in the shame department are those in public health. Killing millions of the public is a beneficial intervention? The rationale is to force developing countries to follow the pattern of the west - in reverse. Western Europe and the U.S. saw falling birthrates as the standard of living rose, over the last couple of hundred years.
So, if we want to raise the standard of living in developing countries, we drop the birthrate. If we have to kill babies to do it, push contraceptive drugs and condoms, and sterilize, oh well, that will replicate the western economic rise. Intellectuals lost without a moral compass. David Volk | March 17, 2009
ACTION NOW! STOP OBAMA’S CONTENTIOUS CONSCIENCE CHARADE Posted: Friday March 13, 2009 at 2:09 pm EST by Judie Brown
In an earlier commentary “OBAMA CHRONICLES V: CONTRARY TO CONSCIENCE,” I evaluated the planned changes proposed by the Obama administration. It was further noted by Noam Levey that at some point, a 30-day comment period would be opened up so that people of all viewpoints could put in their statements of support or concern.
The public comment period on removing conscience protections for health-care workers is now open. The first action should be to review the rules governing the submission of comments and the summary and text of the proposed regulation.
You will find the summary, which begins on page 11 of the pdf file. Following the summary you will find the complete text of the proposed regulations.
As a non-lawyer, I read what our ardent opponents in the struggle to defend the preborn from the deadly assault of abortion were saying.
Obama’s move to rescind the greatly expanded “conscience clause” was printed in this Tuesday’s Federal Register, triggering a 30-day process of public comment that must occur before the new administration can act. Obama has said he supports a tightly written “conscience clause.”
“This is a commonsense fix,” said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and is consistent with goals to increase rather than hinder patients’ access to care.
Further,
Women’s rights groups rallied their troops to use the 30-day comment period to spell out how the Bush regulation was dangerous. The National Women’s Law Center said, for instance, that “a woman with cervical cancer should never be denied information about the option to extract and freeze her eggs before her cancer treatment as a result of her health care provider's religiously based opposition to infertility treatment.”
From another source, we find this from Kim Gandy of National Organization for Women, “the move is a ‘victory for women who rely on access to a full range of family planning services, and a victory for patients who deserve full information and medical care that is not withheld without their knowledge or consent’."
We applaud the Obama Administration for its proposal to rescind the provider refusal regulation that took effect on the final day of the Bush Administration. The regulation is onerous, damaging and unnecessary. It reinterprets existing laws to allow nearly any employee in a federally-funded health-care setting who claims a religious objection to refuse to provide information, referrals, or access to a range of health care services.
If not repealed, this regulation will dramatically reduce access to family planning information and health services, particularly for low-income women, because it elevates the rights of providers over those of patients.
While supporters of the regulation claim that a climate of intolerance prevents qualified individuals from entering the health profession, it offered no evidence whatsoever to substantiate its claim.
In acting quickly to do away with this unnecessary regulation, the Obama Administration is taking politics out of health-care policy. This is a smart, compassionate action.
“Taking politics out of health-care policy” once again places the concerns of those who do not wish to be involved in the wholesale destruction of preborn children outside the “elite” who know what’s best for mothers and their babies. It’s enough to make one regurgitate, but there’s no time for that.
President Obama is working to deprive the country of medical professionals who use their consciences when treating their patients," "Women, babies, and families deserve conscientious healthcare by doctors who believe in the sanctity of human life. It is wrong for the U.S. government to condemn doctors who follow the Hippocratic principle of 'do no harm'. This is un-American.
The reversal of this regulation could cause conscientious doctors to stop practicing medicine leaving a significant void in the availability of healthcare providers. And the problem will be compounded if the government attempts to force Catholic hospitals to offer abortion. Please email HHS to stop Obama's first attempt to purge healthcare of all people with religious or moral objections to taking human life.
ACT NOW!
Please review the regulation and send your comments. The time to act is now!
To submit electronic comments to http://www.Regulations.gov, go to the web site and click on the link “Comment or Submission” and enter the keywords “provider conscience”. (Attachments should be in Microsoft Word, WordPerfect, or Excel; however, Microsoft Word is preferred.)
I am an anti-abortionist. It is sad to see that so many women had their unwanted baby aborted but so many other women want babies desperately but cannot have one. Adoption is a viable alternative to abortion and accomplishes the same result. And with 1.5 million American families wanting to adopt a child, there is no such thing as an unwanted child venezk | March 13, 2009
Re: the pdf file with the summary and complete text of the proposed regulations: where do I find it/ how do I access it? I need to know quickly so I can pass the word on to others. Jeanne Smith, MD | March 14, 2009
Focus on the Family has a web-based petition against tax dollars funding abortion at: http://www.focuspetitions.com/185/petition.asp?PID=20514872&NID=1
I emailed this to everyone in my address book. One friend replied, "I'm pro choice." My response:
"I am pro-choice, also. Everybody ought to have the chance to make their choices, and not the existing situation of other people deciding those chances will never happen." David Volk | March 17, 2009
Dear Jeanne
I just checked again and the link is a live one:
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2008pres/08/20080821reg.pdf Judie Brown | March 18, 2009
HOLOCAUST THEN AND NOW Posted: Thursday March 12, 2009 at 2:05 pm EST by Judie Brown
We have frequently argued that one of the main reasons why we want to redefine the "pro-life" movement as the pro-human personhood movement is that it is a positive, upbeat way for us – in this age of iPhones, MySpace, Face Book, Twitter and Blackberries – to bring the humanity of the child, from his first instant of existence, right into your telephone, so to speak. We realize that there are literally millions of young people who have either never thought about the fact that a child dies during an abortion, or have grown up accepting as fact that abortion is part of health care. Anyone younger than 50 could be oblivious to the importance of protecting the rights of all persons, including those not yet born.
By the same token, we are obliged to teach history, because many are still unaware that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. This is why we frequently refer to the American holocaust of direct abortion as far worse than the Holocaust perpetrated on millions of Jews, Christians and others by the Nazi regime in the 1940s.
Some take offense at this comparison, but perhaps if one considers the words of Leo Alexander, M.D., offended feelings might fade into a better understanding of why such a comparison is not only valid, but urgently needed. "Medical Science under Dictatorship" is a seminal paper written by Dr. Alexander.
The article first appeared in the July 14, 1949, issue of the New England Journal of Medicine. While it is much too long to put into a commentary, a few excerpts should assist the reader in understanding that America is repeating a history that devastated the human race once before and is doing so today:
Science under dictatorship becomes subordinated to the guiding philosophy of the dictatorship. Irrespective of other ideologic trappings, the guiding philosophic principle of recent dictatorships, including that of the Nazis, has been Hegelian in that what has been considered "rational utility" and corresponding doctrine and planning has replaced moral, ethical and religious values. Nazi propaganda was highly effective in perverting public opinion and public conscience, in a remarkably short time. In the medical profession this expressed itself in a rapid decline in standards of professional ethics. Medical science in Nazi Germany collaborated with this Hegelian trend particularly in the following enterprises: the mass extermination of the chronically sick in the interest of saving "useless" expenses to the community as a whole; the mass extermination of those considered socially disturbing or racially and ideologically unwanted; the individual, inconspicuous extermination of those considered disloyal within the ruling group; and the ruthless use of "human experimental material" for medico-military research.
Note the use of the word "unwanted" and compare his reference to "expenses" with the current argument that abortion actually saves not only money, but also future healthcare expenses, particularly when prenatal diagnosis or preimplantation diagnosis uncovers a child suspected of carrying a genetic disease of some sort.
Propaganda campaigns sold the unsuspecting German population on what turned out to be heinous crimes against the human person. As Dr. Alexander explains,
Lay opinion was not neglected in this campaign. Adults were propagandized by motion pictures, one of which, entitled I Accuse, deals entirely with euthanasia. This film depicts the life history of a woman suffering from multiple sclerosis; in it her husband, a doctor, finally kills her to the accompaniment of soft piano music rendered by a sympathetic colleague in an adjoining room. Acceptance of this ideology was implanted even in the children. A widely used high-school mathematics text, Mathematics in the Service of National Political Education,… includes problems stated in distorted terms of the cost of caring for and rehabilitating the chronically sick and crippled, the criminal and the insane."
And he points out that during the Nazi regime,
The original program developed by Nazi hotheads included also the genocide of the English, with the provision that the English males were to be used as laborers in the vacated territories in the East, there to be worked to death, whereas the English females were to be brought into Germany to improve the qualities of the German race. (This was indeed a peculiar admission of the part of the German eugenicists.)
The above example of eugenic practice is not unlike the practices of today. In our age, scientists developed pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and prenatal genetic diagnosis for the express purpose of improving the human race. Such practices allegedly weed out the unfit because, as proponents suggest, their quality of life would be severely impacted for the worse.
In addition, we recognize in abortion statistics the blatant eugenics practiced on African American preborn children. It is a sad fact that although less than 14 percent of Americans are black, more than 33 percent of African-American preborn children are murdered by abortion.
Eugenics, it would seem, has played a deadly role in man's history in more than a few frightening ways.
Survivors, a Christian pro-life activist organization dedicated to educating and activating young people, tells its web site visitors, “If you were born after 1972, we challenge you to consider yourself a Survivor of the Abortion Holocaust. [One third] of your generation has been killed by abortion in America!
Those today who relegate the unborn to only potential life and the handicapped to lives not worth living, need to be informed that down through the ages women were consigned to the status of a defective and inferior sex. Jews and others in the Third Reich were portrayed as defective inferior lives, not worth living. Peasants in the Soviet Union were depicted as backward, stupid individuals who were doomed to extinction. Black people in the pre-Civil War American South were regarded as a subordinate and inferior class of beings incapable of self-government. Native Americans were viewed as an inferior breed destined to disappear with the coming of white civilization.
When today's purveyors of degrading language define the unborn [preborn] as fetal material and female property, and nursing home patients as work objects, they should be made aware that for centuries, women were considered to be merely property. Rape was defined in the law not as violence against the woman, but as trespass against another man's property. The victims of Nazi genocide were handled as merchandise and material for shipment to death camps. Prisoners in the Soviet Gulag were processed as expendable raw material for death-inducing work projects. Slave owners regarded blacks as articles of property and merchandise for slave labor and public auction. Native Americans have often been defined as anthropological specimens whose way of life belongs with that of other museum pieces.
The degrading terminology of today ranks with the most extreme forms of name-calling in the annals of inhumanity. These linguistic parallels are so alarming and so devastating to the contemporary anti-life mindset, that they are likely to be met with silence, disbelief, or dismissed as the gross fabrications of so-called anti-choice fanatics. Extensive documentation demonstrates that such degrading expressions are not manufactured by pro-life proponents, but comprise main stays in the lexicon of anti-life advocates.
Recalling that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, we believe strongly that now is the time to turn back this horrific disregard for the integrity of the human person. We will not stand by as the dark, gruesome history of the past rears its ugly head again. We will do as Pope John Paul II invited us to do and call things by their proper names:
Given such a grave situation, we need now more than ever to have the courage to look the truth in the eye and to call things by their proper name, without yielding to convenient compromises or to the temptation of self-deception [section 58].
We will do this as we move forward in the pro-human personhood movement, so that the phrase "Never again!" applies, first and foremost, to the undoing of the culture of death and its evil agenda.
We will expose the truth and march forward toward human personhood for one and all, for every human individual from the first instant of his or her beginning.
Why did Sam Brownback, a very avid Pro-Life advocate back Gov. Sibelius on the Obama Cabinet in charge of health and Human Services. She has one of the most liberal Pro-Abortion advocate. Richard A. Bloom | March 12, 2009
Dear Judy,
On March 12, WND provided a video of former President Bill Clinton saying it's OK to experiment on 'unfertilized embryos'. The interview is with Dr. Sanjay Gupta and proposes the question if the former President is confused. Honestly, I think the former President is not confused but the purpose of the interview is to confuse the public.
Thanks and God bless you! Catherine Lemek | March 14, 2009
Dear Richard
Politics has a way of separating the genuine from the phony, and to my mind, what Brownback did was totally gutless and uncalled for. I question is "avid pro-life" credentials.
As you may know, he has never introduced a truly pro-life anti-cloning bill either, and that caused us problems a few years ago.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | March 14, 2009
This was either a display of ignorance, or an intentional attempt to mislead. Either way, Gupta has no business being a medical expert for a network, and definitely not our country's Surgeon General.
If Gupta was party to an intentional attempt to mislead, then perhaps this was his way of being more useful to the Obama administration than serving as Surgeon General. David Volk | March 16, 2009
Pro-Life Story: Not aborted in Washington Posted By Anonymous on Jul, 10 2006 This story is about time spent in my mothers womb. I am the fourth of five children and I was supposed to have been aborted. Why? The doctors told my parents that I would be a ... Read
