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!
WACKY ‘CATHOLIC SOCIAL JUSTICE' GROUPS? OR WORSE? Posted: Monday September 21, 2009 at 1:58 pm EST by Judie Brown
Sometimes e-mail provokes deeper reflection about a pro-life subject. I don’t like to rush to respond when there are layers of meaning in the comments being made. In this case, I think the final result of my reflections needs to be stated publicly.
My correspondent wrote,
Have you been following this story – “‘Social Justice’” Catholic groups protest Cardinal Rigali for Opposition to Health Reform over Abortion”?
Doesn’t Cardinal Rigali and these social justice Catholic groups see how flawed the health care reform bills are, with or without abortion? Is this why the bishops have been so silent – to see this very flawed bill be passed? Or are they helpless?
The article mentioned reports on a protest planned by the Catholic Peace Fellowship, the House of Grace Catholic Worker and the Philadelphia Catholic Worker, to pressure Justin Cardinal Rigali, the chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, to explicitly endorse a version of Obamacare. According to the report, these groups claim that “abortion funding is not included” in the health care “reform” proposals. This is a claim that we know is false, misleading and utterly ridiculous.
Such organizations fear that if the bishops persist in their demand that taxpayer funding not be used for most abortions, then people will be driven to oppose health care reform because of what the bishops are saying. Such organizations want to see universal health care reform legislation passed now and then, supposedly, worry about abortion later.
Based on what the USCCB has been saying, however, I have the impression that there is a growing element within its bureaucracy that wants to see health care reform now, whether or not it conforms to Catholic health care principles. For example, just recently, Archbishop Donald Wuerl wrote a commentary for Politics Daily in which he told his readers, “Our nation has the capacity and the resources to ensure that all have access to health care coverage.” He goes on to explain that the Catholic Church offers “a safety net for many who fall through the huge cracks of a failing health care system.”
Archbishop Wuerl then presents his vision of the basics of health care reform: “It is essential that reform include long-standing and widely supported federal restrictions on abortion funding and mandates and uphold existing conscience protections for health care providers.” He continues, stating that in addition to its defense of Catholic principles regarding abortion funding and conscience protection, the Church, or rather the USCCB, urges that health care coverage include “the immigrants in our midst” who are here legally and do pay their taxes, but frequently do not have health care coverage.
In other words, the archbishop is asking the federal government to pick up the slack, and do for the poor and the needy in our midst what charity alone used to accomplish in days gone by. To some Catholics, federal tax dollars appear to be necessary for the Catholic charitable works of our present age, regardless of the strings that are or will be attached to those dollars. To my mind, such Catholics are not very forward-thinking.
First and foremost, the USCCB should see it as crucial to ensure that there is absolutely no funding for abortion – or any other tentacles of the culture of death – in any health care legislation. Thus, how can it be that the USCCB would sit back and welcome a federally mandated health care “reform” program before the fundamentals of such a program have even been worked out? Am I being too judgmental? Could it be that the Church has come to a point in its history wherein federal funding is a necessity for charitable works?
Within 24 hours of Archbishop Wuerl’s column being published, the USCCB issued a news release stating that the Hispanic Catholic bishops met with Latino lawmakers and others in Congress to discuss policies that affect the Hispanic community. The release explains that the four topics discussed included the following:
The U.S. [b]ishops have for decades been in favor of health care reform that is truly universal and respects the life and dignity of all, including the poor and legal immigrants. Health care legislation must allow all legal immigrants, regardless of income level, to participate in any new health care system and oppose any ban that would prevent them from participating for five years. Such legislation must also support the inclusion of pregnant women and children, regardless of their legal status.
Here again, we find the USCCB making a sincere effort to win over Democrats by enunciating a goal of caring for the poor, immigrants, expectant mothers and immigrant children, including those who may not have legal status in this country. While this is laudable, it is also unrealistic. The Democratic Party is now, more than ever in its history, the party of death. It is led by a man who is committed to abortion, contraception, sterilization, euthanasia, assisted suicide, human embryonic stem cell research and therapies derived from that research.
This is perhaps why Cathy Ruse, formerly the spokeswoman for the USCCB’s Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, opined in Human Events,
The tragedy, and what astounds observers of what Father Richard John Neuhaus called The Catholic Thing, is that the Democratic party is so beholden to the abortion industry and its ideology that it is willing to turn its back on its great friend, the Catholic Church, to risk an embarrassing defeat for its new leader, and to squander the opportunity to realize the shared dream of providing access to quality health care for all, especially the poor.
Ruse knows of what she speaks. There was a time when the Democratic Party was the party of the most needy and helpless in our midst, but that is history. It is definitely not now, nor will it ever be again, barring a miracle. But let’s set this aside for a moment.
There remains the fundamental question that my friend asked and that has not been addressed at all in the lofty statements and recommendations of many at the USCCB, and that is this: Does Cardinal Rigali and these so-called social justice Catholic groups see how flawed the health care reform bills are, with or without abortion?
Could it be that any federally funded, federally controlled health care program, regardless of its stated intentions or promises, is fatally flawed by the very nature of the operatives in charge, be they Democrats, Republicans or otherwise? Is it really government’s proper role to control health care and health insurance coverage?
Should the USCCB be pushing for health care reform at the federal level and insist on its “abortion neutral” requirement? As the liberal commentator Peter Steinfels wrote in the New York Times, “Abortion neutral may be an elusive concept, but it remains very much alive if Congress, the White House and supporters of the overhaul effort want it to be.”
Is it really enough for the USCCB to argue that Catholic bishops would be happy if health care reform only permitted abortion in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is endangered? That is, after all, what “abortion neutral” means, according to the USCCB’s web site.
U.S. News & World Report’s religion reporter, Dan Gilgoff, has put the matter in the proper context, answering questions that have troubled many of us when he wrote,
One of the most prominent voices in the antiabortion movement, however, has carved out a much different position in the healthcare debate. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, while fiercely opposed to abortion rights, has lobbied for decades for universal healthcare coverage as a fundamental right. “We think the right to have basic healthcare is corollary to the right to life,” says Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities at the bishops’ conference, which represents the Roman Catholic Church’s roughly 270 American bishops. “And that society has some obligation to help provide it.”
Yes, apparently, the USCCB does believe that society’s obligations to the less fortunate are the same as the federal government controlling health care coverage, health insurance and simultaneously providing something called “abortion neutrality.”
That same government need not address the fact that health care “reform” could end up rationing care, financing euthanasia and assisted suicide, funding contraception or bankrolling Planned Parenthood, according to what the USCCB has been saying lately. Apparently, that same government need only promise that it will pay for only a few abortions (in cases of rape, incest or threat to the mother’s life), and everything will be hunky-dory in USCCB-ville!
Hark! Listen up! Society is not the federal government. Society is individuals, families and communities that can and should strive to reach out to those in need. A federal government bureaucracy is not in this equation. In 1887, when President Grover Cleveland vetoed a bill to give disaster relief to farmers in Texas, he wrote the following:
“The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the [g]overnment and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.”
Something’s definitely wacky, but I don’t think the wackiness is confined merely to certain “Catholic social justice” groups.
Dear Judie, Rita and wonderful staff,
Our Bishop in Amarillo has been interviewed in our local Catholic newspaper and has supported Pro Life. His quote "Life cannot become an economic issue" as well as participation in 40 Days for Life and a pilgrimage to The Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Groom is great inspiration. Larry Casey | September 22, 2009
Judie,
I am troubled by the appearance that you and ALL (I've had a similar conversation with Michael Hitchborn) are implying that the actions of the USCCB are out of line with the teaching of the Magesterium.
As I told Michael, I think ALL is reading into statements made by the USCCB (or taking them out of contect) and coming to incorrect conclusions.
You may be familiar with the 1993 document by the USCCB titled "A Framework for Comprehensive Health Care Reform: Protecting Human Life, Promoting Human Dignity, Pursuing the Common Good." That document states: "Our constant teaching that each human life must be protected and human dignity promoted leads us to insist that all people have a right to health care. This right is explicitly affirmed in "Pacem in Terris" and is the foundation of our advocacy for health care reform."
So, yes, as you stated - the U.S. Bishops say that health care is a right. Yet, ALL is implying that this is contrary to true Catholic teaching.
Referencing the source document, John XXIII's 1963 encyclical "Pacem in Terris," paragraph 11 reads: "But first We must speak of man's rights. Man has the right to live. He has the right to bodily integrity and to the means necessary for the proper development of life, particularly food, clothing, shelter, **medical care**, rest, and, finally, the necessary social services." (my emphasis)
And also in paragraph 64, which speaks of the role of government: "The public administration must therefore give considerable care and thought to the question of social as well as economic progress, and to the development of essential services in keeping with the expansion of the productive system. Such services include road-building, transportation, communications, drinking-water, housing, **medical care**, ample facilities for the practice of religion, and aids to recreation. **The government must also see to the provision of insurance facilities**, to obviate any likelihood of a citizen's being unable to maintain a decent standard of living in the event of some misfortune, or greatly increased family responsibilities." (my emphasis again)
I can see no conflict between the policies and public statements of the USCCB and the teaching described in "Pacem in Terris."
Regarding an "abortion neutral" stance of the USCCB, you are taking a quote out of context. You state: "Catholic bishops would be happy if health care reform only permitted abortion in cases of rape, incest or when the mother???s life is endangered?" Re-read the bishop's document. No where does it state or imply they would be "happy" to maintain the status-quo. The document was written as a response to pro-abort groups who are touting incorrect information about current legislation. The argument the bishops are making is that as a minimum, the protections granted by the Hyde Amendment as well as conscience protection must be included in any health care reform proposed. In other words, public funding for abortion must be explicitly excluded and conscience protection must be explicitly included. Granted, the term "abortion neutral" may not have been the best term to use, but I think a careful reading of the document will show the true intent of the bishops, that healthcare "will preserve current policies that bar use of
taxpayer funds, respect conscience rights, and generally encourage childbirth over abortion; it
will not mandate abortion as part of any ???basic??? or minimum benefit package."
Re: the promotion of insurance coverage for illegal immigrants: are there any official documents of the USCCB that promote that idea? I am not aware of any. If there are, please point me to those links.
You're equating a meeting with Latino lawmakers as trying to court Democrats and you say it as though there's something nefarious about it. Could it be that the USCCB is trying to convince Latino lawmakers that supporting any legislation that includes abortion is wrong and that it runs counter to the life values and development of the Hispanic family?
Who are you to say that it's unrealistic? Are the bishops to ignore the needs of the Hispanic community just because their majority political affiliation is with the Democratic party?
Why does ALL assume bad intention? Does that not run counter to the teaching of Christ who himself was in the presence of tax-collectors and prostitutes? Would ALL then say that Christ was being unrealistic because he cared about the needs of and taught those same tax-collectors and prostitutes?
In closing, I think this is a time when pro-life groups need to be coming together rather than sowing the seeds of separation and unjust criticism as I feel ALL is doing. It is also a time when Catholics who are truly pro-life need to rally behind and support our bishops in their teaching.
Besides, if the USCCB was acting counter to the teaching of the Magesterium on an issue as important as this, don't you think the Vatican would have come down on them already? Stephen Pandolfo | September 22, 2009
Dear Judie,
Thank you so much for explaining about the wacky social Catholic justice groups, the Bishops and the health care reform. These questions have been bugging me for awhile. From all that I have read, seen, not seen and experienced this answer you give rings true.
Yes, I am adamantly opposed to a government run health care reform, abortions and all the other evil mandates a government-run health care would/could bring. Some improvements could be made in health care, but not like this. This is not about health care; this is about power and control. I hope and pray all the Bishops soon see it and unite and speak out against all the evil mandates in this government-run health care which is being pressed very hard by the President and Democrats. I hope the Bishops get rid of this abortion neutral stance. I will pray for our Bishops and all Priests in this year of the Priests.
Some good news:
Washington D.C. September 21, 2009
In an address to InsideCatholic.com's 14th Annual Partnership Dinner Friday evening, Archbishop Raymond Burke, Prefect of the Vatican's Apostolic Signatura, said that funeral rites should not be given to pro-abortion Catholic politicians. He, also, defended the duty of Catholics to speak in charity against the scandal caused by such figures. The archbishop said that, while "we must speak the truth in charity, "Catholics also "should have the courage to look truth in the eye and call things by their common names."
LifeSiteNews.com Sept. 21, 2009
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/sep/09092111.html Funeral Rites Should be denied to Publicly Pro-abort Catholics: Vatican Official Says Catholics also "should have the courage to look truth in the eye and call things by their common names"
Thank you Judie Brown and American Life League for speaking the truth with charity and clarity.
May God bless and protect you now and forever.
Keep shining God's truth!
Patty Palmquist | September 22, 2009
Dear Stephen
We have taken nothing out of context and continue to argue, as do several Bishops, that the USCCB is in error to support the idea of the federal government being in charge of health care. The government is not a dictatorship; it is a body of elected officials whose job is to defend and protect the people of this nation.
The proper role of the Church is to provide the charitable outreach to those in need of healthcare without depending on the taxpayer. The Catholic Church is not and should never be an arm of the federal government. And as you may know, once tax dollars are involved, independence from government regulation is gone.
"Abortion neutral" is a sham. The Catholic Church teaches that abortion is an act of murder; the Church is not neutral about killing the innocent.
Pro-life groups come together frequently on the goal of our efforts which is to defend life. We cannot agree that nationalized health care reform is a good thing for preborn babies, families or the elderly and infirm and we will not.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | September 27, 2009
Dear Mrs. Brown:
In response to your column entitled ???Wacky ???Catholic Social Justice??? Groups? Or Worse???? I wish respectfully to point out the following: while the teaching authority of the Catholic Church has not said that a national government *must* provide single-payer health insurance, the Church has certainly *not* said that it is intrinsically wrong for a government to provide such insurance. All that the Church has said is that such insurance must not pay for abortion (surgical or chemical), euthanasia, assisted suicide, *in vitro* fertilization, embryonic stem cell research, sterilization, or contraception.
In fact, section 2211 of the *Catechism of the Catholic Church* maintains that the ???political community??? must ???ensure [. . .] the right to medical care,??? and section 52 of *Divini Redemptoris*, Pope Pius XI???s 1937 encyclical condemning atheistic communism, can be reasonably interpreted as looking favorably on a single-payer health care system as a means of making ???suitable provision through public or private insurance for old age, for periods of illness and unemployment.??? Please note that the Church has never condemned in principle the national health care systems of Britain, Canada, and France. As long as abortion and the other grave evils listed above are excluded from coverage, I see no reason why Pope Benedict XVI would denounce in the United States what he has not denounced in those three countries.
While fighting along with you to keep payments for sinful procedures out of any new health care system, I urge you to consider the advantages of single-payer insurance. One of its advantages is that it would pay for prenatal and obstetrical care, thus eliminating an economic incentive for abortion and contraception. Please allow me to recommend the Web site of Physicians for a National Health Plan:
http://www.pnhp.org/
Whenever Catholics, intentionally or not, closely associate the pro-life movement with indifference to the economic anxieties of millions of our fellow citizens--and paying for health care is such an anxiety--we alienate millions of people from the Faith and the pro-life movement and thus further endanger the lives of unborn children and the overall well-being of our nation.
Thank you very much, Mrs. Brown, for being kind enough to take the time to consider my perspective on this issue.
Keep and spread the Faith.
Very truly yours,
Stephen M. O???Brien
Stephen M. O'Brien | September 28, 2009
Dear Mr. O'Brien
Single payer insurance is now a dead letter in Congress.
However you are attributing a false allegation to us and our position when you accuse us of being indifferent toward the economic anxieties of millions. We are well aware of the devastating effects that government excess has had on many including members of our own family. However, the answer to it is not to provide that same government to decide who will receive health care, when and where.
The very government that condones preborn child murder cannot be trusted with health care reform, particularly for those most in need.
Love and truth in charity does not alienate anyone, Mr. O'Brien; it sheds light on the dark places the government wishes to hide from public view. There is nothing we could possibly do to endanger the lives of the preborn; the government has already taken that to its maximum evil end. And we are paying for it.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | September 29, 2009
Dear Mrs. Brown:
One of the reasons why money-saving, paperwork-slashing single-payer national health insurance (with Catholic exclusions for abortion and other sinful procedures) is a dead letter in Congress is that you and many other Catholics fail to support it despite implicit encouragement from the Church's statements on medical care as a human right that necessarily flows from the right to life.
Another reason is that Congress may be about to hand a payback to the health insurance industry. Please see this column by Paul Craig Roberts:
http://www.infowars.com/health-care-deceit/
I plan to continue to think in accord, not with the philosophy of Grover Cleveland, but with that of the official social doctrine of the Catholic Church, as expressed, for example, in the *Catechism of the Catholic Church* (section 2211) and the encyclicals *Divini Redemptoris* (section 52) and *Pacem in terris* (sections 11 and 64). I thank Stephen Pandolfo for the references to *Pacem in terris*.
Thank you very much for taking the time to reply.
Keep and spread the Faith.
Very truly yours,
Stephen M. O'Brien
Stephen M. O'Brien | October 1, 2009
Dear Mr. O'Brien
The fact is that the Catholic church's call to equality in health care does not equate with having the federal government control who sees a doctor, age limitations on treatment, health care rationing and the like. The Catholic teaching was once addressed by the charity of Catholics and their parishes; at that time nobody was waiting around for tax dollars to do the right thing.
I think that if the Good Samaritan were walking along the road today, he would be terribly upset by those who not only walked by the injured man but did so because they were on their way to receive a federal handout.
I hope you will continue to think with the Church; we all should.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | October 2, 2009
Abortion is murder. Those who doubt this obvious fact need to try abortion on themselves. Until they do, they are merely insincere hypocrites with a demonstrated lack of credibility. Randy Crawford | October 3, 2009
HEY YOU, BARBARIAN! LOVE CAREFULLY! Posted: Friday September 18, 2009 at 11:58 am EST by Judie Brown
By Kortney Blythe
While perusing a flea market booth where old photos, news clippings and other vintage paraphernalia were for sale, I came upon a pre-Roe Planned Parenthood bumper sticker and promptly purchased it. Evidently, before PP ditched any effort to connect sex with love, it came out with this gem of a marketing scheme: “Love Carefully.”
Allow me to describe this bumper sticker. On a bright pink background, a cave woman, holding a club, is deviously dragging an unconscious cave man with a flower in his mouth. Then in big letters, it says, “LOVE CAREFULLY! Planned Parenthood.”
Um, what? Not only is the picture perpetuating the now-pervasive theme of de-masculinized and feeble men, but it begs this question: What does an androgynous-looking woman wielding a weapon and pulling along a lifeless man have to do with love or being careful? Should women hit men with clubs to avoid the “dangers” of sex? Is rendering another human unconscious an act of love? Okay, maybe I’m reading too much into a bumper sticker.
The barbarian theme, though, is strikingly appropriate. That’s what Planned Parenthood wants – a bunch of zombie-like, pleasure-seeking, responsibility-shirking Neanderthals mindlessly engaging in sexual acts. But, they expect these same hormone-crazed people, who can’t control their natural impulses, to take certain “precautions.” I’ve always wondered how, on the one hand, PP thinks that humans are too weak, animalistic or overwhelmed by hormones to practice chastity and, on the other, expects those same humans to be thoughtful, controlled and mature enough to take a pill at the same time every day, or stop “in the heat of the moment” and use a condom?
Pick a side – do you believe we are just highly evolved animals who should give in to our every desire? (This has far-reaching, frightful implications.) Or are we moral agents, made in the image of God, who can and should say “no” to “ungodliness and worldly desires,” and “live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age” (Titus 2:12)?
Apparently, when this sticker was created, PP recognized that most people associate sex with love (a connection that they’ve now successfully severed). “Love carefully” was an early rendition of the now ubiquitous phrase “safe sex.” And I’ve written plenty on the true meaning of that phrase.
If you truly want to know what it means to “love carefully,” read 1 Corinthians 13:4-8a: “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.”
Kortney Blythe is the chapter and street team coordinator for American Life League’s Rock for Life project, which brings the human personhood message to youth through music, education and human rights activism. This commentary first appeared in the September 11, 2009 issue of the RFL e-newsletter. You can view it here in the RFL blog.
LATEST HEALTH CARE REFORM PROPOSAL: AMERICA’S HAPPY PUPPIES AND RAINBOWS ACT OF 2009 Posted: Thursday September 17, 2009 at 11:53 am EST by Judie Brown
Just yesterday, Michael Hichborn, host of our ALL Report, got roped into the unbelievable task of reviewing the new Max Baucus version of the health care reform bill. Now, before I highlight some of the things Michael found, I have to share what he said to a member of our board of directors, Mildred F. Jefferson, M.D.:
The title of this act, “America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009,” is SO propagandistic, we should refer to it as “America’s Happy Puppies and Rainbows Act of 2009.”
If that doesn’t give you a flavor for what is patently wrong with this proposal, then there is nothing more to say. Take two aspirin and we’ll call you when this nightmare is over.
The following is excerpted from the actual piece of legislation, pages 25-27, which as you might recall, was not supposed to provide a single cent of taxpayer money for abortion:
Application of State and Federal Laws Regarding Abortion
Current Law
The performance of and payment for abortions is regulated by both state and Federal laws. State law, for example, sometimes prescribes parental notification, waiting periods and other procedural requirements before an abortion may be performed. Under Federal law, certain kinds of Federal funds may not be used to pay for abortions and certain recipients of Federal funds may not discriminate against specified health care entities that perform or refuse to perform, pay for, provide referrals for, or provide training for abortions.
Chairman’s Mark
This provision would ensure that state laws regarding the prohibition or requirement of coverage or funding for abortions, and state laws involving abortion-related procedural requirements are not preempted. The provision similarly provides that Federal conscience protections and abortion-related antidiscrimination laws would not be affected by the bill. The rights and obligations of employees and employers under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would also not be affected by the bill. In addition, this bill does not affect state or Federal laws, including section 1867 of the Social Security Act (EMTALA), requiring health care providers to provide emergency services.
The above is a smooth, if not deceptive, way of agreeing to the status quo insofar as abortion services are concerned. When dealing with a “surgical procedure,” which is what abortion is called in some circles, there are certain things the federal law should not prohibit. In other words, killing the preborn child is still an option according to what you have just read.
To continue, the following is also found in the document:
Abortion Coverage Prohibited as Part of Minimum Benefits Package
Current Law
Currently, Federal funds may be used to pay for abortions only if a pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest, or where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed. However, many private insurance plans include coverage for abortion beyond these limited categories.
Chairman’s Mark
This provision provides that abortion cannot be a mandated benefit as part of a minimum benefits package except in those cases for which Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services are permitted. A qualified health plan would not be prohibited, however, from providing coverage for abortions beyond those for which Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services are permitted. Federal funds continue to be prohibited from being used to pay for abortions unless the pregnancy is due to rape, incest, or if the life of the mother is in danger.
Red alert, folks. Please read the current law again, just to make sure you get the gist of the statement in the Chairman’s Mark, which reads, “except in those cases for which Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services are permitted.” In other words, just as the USCCB had hoped, federal dollars can only be used for the killing of babies set aside by the watered-down, abortion-for-some Hyde Amendment from days gone by; or for that matter, any reason that an abortionist can justify based on his argument that continuing the pregnancy might result in the mother’s death.
Nowadays, the language — or at least a version of it — is more commonly referred to as the Stupak/Pitts amendment. Congressmen Stupak of Michigan and Pitts of Pennsylvania proposed an amendment which has already been defeated in previous attempts. It goes like this:
No funds authorized under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.
It’s another way of giving an out to the abortionist. But after more than 20 years of playing Russian roulette with the lives of the preborn, some actually hail this language as pro-life. Not American Life League, thank you. We know that this is hogwash. We also know that when the government is involved, a whole lot of slop gets through the big cracks created by exceptions. Apparently this new proposal is no different.
Here’s another excerpt:
Rules Regarding Coverage of and Tax Credits for Specified Services
Current Law
No provision.
Chairman’s Mark
The Secretary would ensure that in each state exchange, at least one plan provides coverage of abortions beyond those for which Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services are permitted. The Secretary would also ensure that in each state exchange, at least one plan does not provide coverage of abortions beyond those for which Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services are permitted.
This can be interpreted to mean a number of things, I suppose. But the fact is, according to the proposal, there must be abortion coverage “beyond those for which federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services are permitted.”
This means that the federal government is placing itself in the role of marketing abortion and requiring abortion coverage beyond what the taxpayer has to actually pay for at a given moment. If this sounds a little bit like borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, you’re onto something. Only in this case, it is the lives of babies that are being held in the balance, so that not a single abortion is left behind. And you thought President Obama meant it when he guaranteed the people of our nation that abortion would not be covered in health care reform.
Silly you!
The gist of this proposal is deadly. Deal Hudson, having analyzed the very same bill that we quote above, explained in his blog:
Right now, the USCCB is hoping the Obama administration will honor its promise. That's fine and good, but are they willing to use their muscle? We will see.
Now is an excellent opportunity for the USCCB to take a leadership role in the debate instead of looking like it does now, like the only guys in town who don't get the joke.
My greatest fear is not only that the USCCB will be happy with the exceptions as noted in the Baucus proposal, but that they will once again surrender to political pragmatism and accept the killing of some. It is high time that Catholics and, for that matter, all pro-life Americans, stood up and made it perfectly clear that the emperor has no clothes. Exceptions have created gaping holes in his stockings, accommodations to evil have disintegrated his moral authority and decay, passed off as tolerable federal law, fills the pockets of his tunic.
To suggest that the commandment “Thou Shalt Not Kill” must take a backseat to legislative garbage — allegedly supposed to make us all happy about our “healthy future” as we permit our tax dollars to be used to pay for child killing in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother, or whatever — is disgusting. We’ve had enough.
Happy Puppies and Rainbows doesn’t save preborn children from murder by abortion, regardless of the excuse used to murder them; courage does!
REVISIONIST HISTORY AND HEALTH CARE REFORM Posted: Wednesday September 16, 2009 at 3:05 pm EST by Judie Brown
American Life League is having a surprising effect on the health care reform debate. Media coverage of our activities has brought out a lot of good people and some people who are terribly confused. Here’s one example.
American Life League designed a placard for the September 12 taxpayer protest in Washington, D.C. that reads, “Bury Obamacare with Kennedy.” This slogan offended some people, even though it is based on the undeniable fact that President Obama is proposing health care reform that is philosophically in tune with the late Senator Edward Kennedy’s culture-of-death convictions. It is based on the record and the fact that Kennedy was the architect of the so-called health care reform legislation.
Many bloggers, such as Politico’s Ben Smith, posted a picture of the sign. Comments literally flooded his blog. Many were hateful, many supportive. But in all honesty, you have to ask, why the furor?
Well, if you dig beneath the hysterical comments, such as this one I received, the true motives will surface. A woman wrote me,
You make me sick with your sponsored sign “Bury Obamacare with Kennedy.” Why would any group who proclaims to honor life want to deny health care to people? Why? Do you champion people living unhealthy lives? Having good quality-of-life? I suppose so. Who do you think paid for the care of people like Terri Schiavo for decades? Government-provided health care, that’s who [sic]. So you oppose that which sustained life when no for-profit insurance company would have. Your stance is idiotic.
After I answered her, explaining that the proposed health care reform would authorize the immediate killing of severely disabled people such as Terri Schiavo, she replied, “And you call Schaivo’s [sic] existence life? I suppose in the sense she was breathing, but there was no quality there. Not a life I’d choose to life [sic], that’s for sure.”
So, now we get down to the nitty-gritty of the anger generated by the sign. People such as this woman do not want to learn the facts; they do not want their tax dollars spent to preserve lives that don’t meet their own arbitrarily defined quality-of-life standards and they don’t want us talking about such things. This woman represents a segment of the population that probably agrees with much of what we find despicable about the various health care reform proposals floating from desk to desk in Washington, D.C. right now.
This is why we persist in our efforts to expose what lurks under the surface of so-called health care reform. Just yesterday, at American Life League, we released the second part of our video report series on Obamacare. This one, entitled ”Obamacare: Ending the Elderly” goes into great detail about what the actual legislation states. There is no overstatement of fact in this video. There is, instead, a great deal of hard evidence to support our claim that Obamacare could easily be deadly to you, if you are a preborn child, an elderly person or a seriously disabled person.
But, as one disgruntled e-mailer told us, “These right wing people [meaning American Life League] are RACISTS in disguise who cannot ACCEPT that a black man is the President of USA. This gobbledygook on this video had already been denied and clarified.”
This fellow is under the Obama spell. It seems that Obama fans have no desire to learn what any piece of legislation actually says, as long as the president assures them that everything will be just fine. But here is a portion of the American Life League Report transcript that, perhaps, the e-mailer didn’t hear:
Let’s take a look at how section 1233 works.
Entitled “Advance Care Planning Consultation,” Section 1233 amends the Social Security Act to include a planning session every five years regarding “end-of-life care.”
Every five years, an “advance care planning” practitioner is going to sit Grandma down to tell her about her “end-of-life” options. He’ll tell her about things like living wills, the continuum of end-of-life services (including palliative care and hospice), and orders regarding life-sustaining treatment or “similar orders,” which all boil down to one question: “How do you want to die?”
Grandma will be told that, in the event she is without a detectable pulse or stops breathing, she can determine the intensity of medical intervention she wants, for things like CPR, ventilators, antibiotics, and even nutrition and hydration.
So, your grandma can now be dehydrated to death like Terry Schiavo was.
As you read these words, keep in mind that the relevant pages of the bill are shown on screen and the language spoken about is highlighted for the viewer. After reading this legislation, it is hardly beyond the pale to suggest that Grandma should indeed be worried, as should her children and grandchildren. We aren’t making this up.
President Obama may say whatever he will today, but the record is clear. It is easy to see where his sympathies lie, without making any assumptions or engaging in guesswork. While campaigning for president, he was asked about Oregon’s decriminalization of physician-assisted suicide. His response:
I am in favor of palliative medicine in circumstances where someone is terminally ill. ... I’m mindful of the legitimate interests of states to prevent a slide from palliative treatments into euthanasia. On the other hand, I think that the people of Oregon did a service for the country in recognizing that as the population gets older we’ve got to think about issues of end-of-life care. ... [emphasis added]
Excuse me? That sounds very much like an endorsement of physician-assisted suicide, and it reflects the attitude implicit in his comments at a town-hall meeting on health care reform in June:
President Obama suggested at a town hall event Wednesday night that one way to shave medical costs is to stop expensive and ultimately futile procedures performed on people who are about to die and don’t stand to gain from the extra care… He added: “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.”
Is he suggesting that, because surgery costs more than administering painkillers (also known as palliative care), the patient should opt for the cheaper route?
The most troubling aspect of the ongoing debate about government power, health care reform and the fate of a single human being, whether waiting to be born or living his or her last hours, is this crucially important historical fact, which was brought to my attention just recently by a fellow pro-life researcher:
For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated as early as 1925 that “Obviously, direct control of medical practice in the states is beyond the power of the federal government” (Linder v. United States). As recently as 2002, the Ninth Circuit reiterated that state lawmakers are “the primary regulators of professional [medical] conduct” (Conant v. Walters).
Not only do state governments have primary jurisdiction over medical practice and malpractice, but individual Americans have certain rights inherent in the very fact that their health care is their business. Dr. Nino Camardese, a well-known physician who has spoken out repeatedly against government control of various health care programs, wrote in 2000,
In my testimony before the Ohio State Committee of the Legislature on April 12, 2000, as a past president of AAPS [Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]… I stated, “All patients should have the right to contract privately with the doctor of his/her or their choice, including Medicare patients [emphasis added]." I cited Section 1801 of Medicare establishing a “prohibition against any Federal interference,” Section 1802 “Free choice by Patient guarantee,” and Section 1803 “Option to Individuals to obtain other health insurance protection.”
One reason I felt private contracting should be clearly delineated is because “when patients have control over their medical spending, they become more prudent consumers of medical care thereby reducing utilization and medical care costs.”
So, what happens to patient rights and a patient’s ability to select physicians and treatment if that same patient is getting pressure from the “advance care planning” consultants, whose advice is mandated in Obama-style health care “reform” proposals? Will an entire body of law have to be eradicated with the stroke of a pen? Is Big Brother knocking on the door, even though Obama assures us that those of us raising a warning signal are full of hooey?
While our president spews forth assurances that nobody needs to worry about “death panels” and the like, the facts present a different story. Even though Obama wants Americans to believe that the only way to eliminate health care abuses is for the federal government to take control of health insurance, health care and health reform, there is clearly reason to doubt not only his sincerity and his understanding of government’s proper role, but his arrogant proposition that everyone should accept whatever he says just because he said so.
Doth the president protest too much? Methinks perchance he doth indeed!
There is no question that abortion is wrong but to present the matter in the mean spirited, uncharitable manner in which you do is unacceptable. I have forbidden my family to read your hateful garbage. You condemn our bishops and our country and the Democratic party a little too much. Ignatius | September 16, 2009
House Republican Leader John Boehner is spelling out Pres. Obama's intention for abortion in the health care "reform", and independently being confirmed in his contention.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/11/john-boehner/boehner-says-abortion-access-was-always-key-goal-o/ David Volk | September 16, 2009
I am quite sure I am just howling at the moon here, but I have to say that your sign, "Bury Obamacare with Kennedy" is one of the most tasteless, disgraceful things I have ever seen. Simply dreadful, and I don't care what your politics are or how sanctimonious your "cause" is. That's just . . . . beyond words. Repulsive. John | September 17, 2009
your thoughts and opinions should be kept to yourself. i am pro-choice for i have no right to judge or say what people should do with their bodies; i do have a problem with organizations such as yourself. Why are there pro-life organizations? this is a personal matter and should never be influenced by others simply because of their beliefs. to the men: unless you are the father of a potential "unwanted fetus", WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO SAY WHAT A WOMAN SHOULD DO? We don't deter you away from getting a vasectomy or care if you require erectile dysf medication - STAY OUT OF THESE WOMENS BUSINESS Beth | September 17, 2009
As a roman catholic I strongly take exception to your writings. You cannot possibly be serious about your religion when you cast such stones at another human being. This is shameful--and I must believe (have faith) that you do not reflect the heart and soul of our faith. I can't waste my time--or your time--pointing out your distortions (you will not listen) but you, in your heart and others know that you are dishonest to your faith and your God. Susan Shaw | September 17, 2009
You are misrepresenting the truth--the health insurance corporations are killing people everyday by denying them coverage--the status quo is intolerable--how can you sleep at night counseling people to advocate their own deaths? You lie! joseph flavius | September 17, 2009
John
Senator Kennedy was a main architect of Obama's very sad, very deadly health care agenda. It might be tasteless to some to bring this to the forefront, but the truth is precisely as we have stated it.
Killing babies in the womb and targetting the elderly as a way of cost cutting is repulsive. But thank you for your comments.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | September 17, 2009
Dear Beth
If you are truly pro-choice, then you would not wish for any expectant mother to pay a third party to kill her preborn baby. Every human being should have the opportunity to experience life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
"Pro-choice" is a code word for pro-abortion. Let's be honest.
This is God's business and we are grateful to be involved.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | September 17, 2009
Dear Susan
Objectively examining a public record and taking a position against that record is not casting stones, it is being honest. To deny evil is to accept it.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | September 17, 2009
Dear Mr. Flavius
The status quo is indeed intolerable which is why we don't need alleged health care reform that will kill even more Americans, born and preborn.
Perhaps you should actually read the legislation prior to attacking me.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | September 17, 2009
Dear Ignatius
Clearly you do not see a difference between the objective examination of facts and the character assasination in which you dabble. We should pray for one another.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | September 17, 2009
Did anyone answer the question .....??? Is it safe to give to Catholic Charities or Catholic Relief Services or St. Vincent de Paul....and which is the most reliable? Elizabeth Schleicher | November 14, 2009
Elizabeth
From what we have learned since our investigations began, I would rate the 3 you mention in this order, with the most reliable being first of the three:
JAMES POUILLON: A GREAT MAN DIES BUT HIS HEROISM MUST LIVE ON IN YOU AND ME Posted: Tuesday September 15, 2009 at 1:31 pm EST by Judie Brown
I never met Jim Pouillon, but I have met several of his friends. Many of them have written poignant expressions of their sorrow. Among them is the one and only Cal Zastrow, whose heart was broken; and whose love for Pouillion and his family is sincere to the very depths of his being.
Before I could read Zastrow’s statement regarding Pouillon’s death, I received a message. Zastrow was calling to tell me that he was driving back to Michigan. He had been helping local leaders organize the Personhood Mississippi effort and was now heading back home to minister to Pouillon’s daughter and granddaughter. I can hear Zastrow’s voice as I read his statement:
This morning a violent man murdered a peaceful pro-life Christian, Jim Pouillon, my close friend. Jim was completely non-violent and never condoned using violence. I knew him very well and had prayed and ministered with him often.
He was praying and holding a poster of a newborn baby outside of Owosso High School. One of the students in the school was his granddaughter. His beating heart and measurable brainwaves are stopped. Also today, 4,000 American preborn children with beating hearts and measurable brainwaves are being murdered with suction "abortion" machines or drugs.
Their beating hearts and measurable brainwaves are stopped. We condemn both forms of murder. Don't shoot, stab, smack, slap or suck the arms and legs off of children with suction machines! Stop the violence!
The last time I talked to Jim was this week, Monday. I prayed with him over the phone as he was preparing to go talk about Jesus and show pro-life signs in front of Owosso High School, where he was martyred this morning.
Nobody who knows Cal Zastrow could read this without being deeply moved by what we know is true of all pro-life witnesses. Standing up for the dignity and sanctity of innocent human beings means being called to imitate Christ. Not a one of us is violent; as a matter of fact we abhor violence, which is why we have dedicated our lives to exposing the horror of aborting an innocent child.
Father Tom Euteneuer expressed his disdain for the hate-mongering that began almost immediately after Pouillon’s tragic death became known. His commentary, “Vicious, Venal and Violent,” goes to the heart of the public response of those who support killing the preborn:
The pro-choice movement has made murder just a casual pastime now, part of the general round of things that the news reports routinely. Yet, how surprised should we be at this when we stand back and see the unclean spirit that is behind the movement whose sole motivation is death? The fruits of this movement are universally demonic: a callous disregard for the sanctity of life, the insane promotion of death through lies, distortions and hate-filled propaganda. The nastiness of this movement is no longer able to be contained.
Father Euteneuer’s analysis turns next to the Flint Journal and its coverage of the Pouillon killing. I have examined many newspaper and Web news reports about Pouillon’s death as well, and have been utterly amazed, while not shocked, at the total lack of respect for this man’s true identity. The memory of a man — who, by any account, was merely a witness to truth and a remarkable lover of the Lord — is smeared with ugly words and innuendo.
Politics Today, for example, ran the headline, “Abortion Foe Gunned Down: A 'George Tiller' for Pro-Lifers?”
This is an unimaginable, if not grotesque, comparison. Tiller made his money killing people prior to or at their birth. James Pouillon defended human rights for the victims of Tiller’s racket. The audacity to even mention the two men in the same breath — let alone, headline — is an example of how twisted the thought process of many media types has become.
The M-Live Web site, which is also the internet outlet for the Flint Journal, took the opportunity in their report to provide a list of the times Pouillon had been arrested or charged by police. One gets the immediate impression that the list of dates and reasons for the various violations —including the many that were dismissed — somehow gives credence to the act of a maniacal killer whose brutality resulted in the deaths of two men.
Associated Press reporter Tim Martin wrote of Pouillon, “The retired autoworker was a well-known and polarizing personality in Owosso, a town of about 15,000 residents. His protests -- often staged outside the school, library, at car dealerships and even football games for several years -- rubbed some residents the wrong way and led to frequent court battles.”
Note, if you will, the subjective editorializing about the victim, including “polarizing personality” and how he “rubbed some residents the wrong way.” I may have missed something, but I do not recall such judgmental slurs about Senator Edward M. Kennedy upon the announcement of his death, but perhaps I wasn’t reading every word that was written.
Senator Kennedy polarized members of the Catholic Church, dividing those who believe in the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” from those who ignore God’s law when it comes to murdering the preborn! Yet few even referenced Kennedy’s embrace of killing, including, sadly, members of the hierarchy.
Why then would reporters characterize a loving father and grandfather who stood up for life in such negative terms? The answer is as plain as the nose on your face. As Father Euteneuer said, it’s “a callous disregard for the sanctity of life, the insane promotion of death through lies, distortions and hate-filled propaganda.”
Finally, in perhaps one of the most bizarre statements I have seen about Pouillon’s murder, the president of United States said, "Whichever side of a public debate you're on, violence is never the right answer."
At the very foundation of my being, I know and understand what President Obama has apparently overlooked. In fact, most Americans who take the time to think about the truth regarding abortion and its aftermath understand it as well. The hard truth, the inconvenient truth, is that the violence perpetrated against Pouillon and the second victim of their killer, Harlan Drake, is but another example of how far too many people view problems and troublesome events in their lives these days. For 36 years, this nation has sanctioned the direct murder of innocent babies prior to birth and defined that massacre of the innocents as a right, a decision to be made between a woman and her doctor. The truth about abortion has been rejected by millions. Even President Barack Obama doesn’t get it or refuses to see the grim reality of just how damning abortion advocacy in America has become.
Violence is, indeed, never the right answer! So why perpetuate it, Mr. President? You are in a position to condemn all forms of violence, beginning with the most horrific of all — the murder of the preborn.
It is my fervent prayer that many of our fellow citizens will take a moment to consider why Pouillon witnessed to the reality of who dies during an abortion. Pouillon did this not for any publicity that he might gain, not for a place in history and certainly not for the applause he would hear from the thousands who would line the streets to cheer him on in life and mourn the great loss of his contribution to society in his death. He did not seek fame or fortune; he sought to do the will of God.
James Pouillon did what he did because he knew the truth and he wanted to share it with young and old alike. This is why he prayed, this is why he peacefully protested, this is why he rubbed some people the wrong way and why he died. This is also why we now must pray — for our nation, for Pouillon’s surviving family and for the courage to carry on in his memory for the millions of little ones who have died. Let us never forget that thousands of little babies die each day as America’s conscience sinks slowly into the grim, evil abyss created by the culture of death.
For those who cannot attend the memorial service tomorrow at the Willman football stadium in Owosso, Michigan, cards, letters and donations may be sent to the family through Jim’s church:
Family of Jim Pouillon
c/o Abba House
P.O. Box 201
Owosso, MI 48867
Dear Judie: you need to write a correction to this article. Harlan Drake is the alleged murderer of 2 Owosso men: Jim Pouillon and Mike Fouss. Neither of these men deserved what was done to them any more than the murdered little ones do. Jim was trying to awaken the souls of the people of his town to the horror of abortion, and the kids he ministered to at the high school did not take offense at him. As far as I know, Mike Fouss was not involved in the either the pro- or anti-abortion movement.
Thanks, Carol Luscomb
Ypsilanti, MI (recently transplanted from Flint, MI) Carol Luscomb | September 16, 2009
I think Jimmy Carter has correctly identified what's really going on with all this anti-Obama "stuff." And the little poll you have on your homepage has me now convinved that you are part of the problem he's talking about. www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/15/carter.obama/index.html Patty | September 16, 2009
James Pouillon should not be remembered or martyr for his death as a poor Anti Abortion Activist. For those who know this man, know first hand that he was abusive to his wife and children. He carried explicit signs that you would not want your small children to see. He was not kind, nor did he care about abortion. It was his way exploiting women and terrorizing women in "the legal sense".
He will not be missed; he will not be mourned by anyone, except those who wish to make him something that in reality he was not. The fact that he was shot and killed is horrible, but it was not because he was an activist for ANTI ABORTION!!
Bd | September 16, 2009
If your mindset weren't so arrogantly ignorant and unenlightened it would almost be funny. I believe what Ghandi says about "Christians"s to be right on. I like your Christ but do not like your Christians. They are so unlike him. You offer yourself up as an example of what he is referring to. You are evil people in reality, who care not that 30,000 children starve to death in this world while you are trying to rescue sperm. There is something sick about it. and terribly unenlightened. You are also a coward who posts blogs that meet your own judgement and prevent discourse. I personally will fight this evil, by calling attention to you and doing my small part to rebutt your sinful, misguided lack of real humanity. sheila | September 16, 2009
Carol
What is it about the article that you find in need of correction?
Judie Brown Judie Brown | September 20, 2009
Dear Patty
Having a different view of what is going on in Washington, D.C. which apparently does not agree with your view does not make anyone a racist.
God bless you.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | September 20, 2009
Dear Bd
You should be ashamed of yourself. We will pray for you.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | September 20, 2009
Dear Sheila
While I have read your comment twice, I cannot see a valid or logical example of what it is you are irritated about other than the fact that you seem to enjoy name calling and character assassination. Is that Christian?
APPEASEMENT OR COURAGEOUS ENGAGEMENT? Posted: Monday September 14, 2009 at 5:26 pm EST by Judie Brown
By Phil Sevilla
On August 26, the theologically dissident (and therefore misnamed) National Catholic Reporter published an interview conducted on August 12 with Archbishop Michael Sheehan of Santa Fe. The National Catholic Reporter should not be confused with the National Catholic Register, where news and views more in keeping with Catholic thought and doctrine can be a legitimate source of information for faithful Catholics.
Why did Archbishop Sheehan choose to elaborate his views in a discredited and untrustworthy publication like the Reporter?
According to the Reporter, Archbishop Sheehan believes a majority of U.S. bishops disagree with the “loud tactics of some of their peers.” Who are these “peers” whose actions the archbishop deplores as a “hysterical reaction”? Highly respected American prelates who spoke up to oppose President Obama’s invitation to speak at the University of Notre Dame. Actually, over 80 bishops condemned the Obama-at-Notre Dame love fest that occurred in June. This number is hardly a small minority of bishops. Archbishop Sheehan disclosed that he spoke up strongly against the condemnation of Notre Dame at the last U.S. bishops’ meeting in San Antonio.
The archbishop is on the wrong side of history. In 1941, Bishop Clement-August von Galen was among the minority of German prelates who were speaking out against National Socialist (more commonly known as Nazi) policies. During the time of the Arian heresy in the fourth century, Saint Athanasius and a minority of Catholic bishops stood firm against the majority who went Arian. History shows being part of the majority doesn’t always mean you’re on the right side.
In his interview, Archbishop Sheehan spoke several times of differences on a “single issue,” defending Notre Dame and criticizing his fellow bishops who spoke out against Obama’s invitation. Let us be clear that the murder of countless preborn children is the “single issue” Archbishop Sheehan thinks we need to be more tolerant about in dealing with this newly elected president.
If anyone reading this article believes that making nice with Barack Obama, his senior appointees and nominees, including Kathleen Sebelius, Hillary Clinton, John Holdren, Janet Napolitano, Sonia Sotomayor and Eric Holder, as well as Democratic congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, will change hearts and minds and cause these administration, legislative and judicial officials to defend the traditional family, the consciences of pro-life and pro-family medical providers, the rights of pastors to speak publicly, and the sanctity of the human person from creation to natural death, please raise your right hand.
Cardinal Bernardin’s ‘seamless garment’
Father Michael Sheehan, previously bishop of Lubbock, Texas, learned at the feet of Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, who, the archbishop acknowledges, “taught me how to collaborate, how to consult.” Father Paul Marx, the great pro-life leader hailed by Pope John Paul II as the “apostle of life,” wrote that Cardinal Bernardin’s “seamless garment” philosophy, enunciated in his 1983 speech at Fordham University, when he suggested that abortion could be equated with poverty, capital punishment and many other social problems, greatly undermined the pro-life movement [Fr. Paul Marx, Faithful for Life, p. 162].
According to the June 2000 issue of the Roman Catholic Witness, “Bernardin gave Catholic pro-abortion politicians cover by suggesting to Catholic voters that they could weigh the candidate’s negative voting record on overturning Roe v. Wade with a positive vote on passing a minimum wage law or outlawing capital punishment.” Bernardin’s shadow today still clouds the hearts and minds of many American priests, some chosen over the past 25-plus years to be bishops in American dioceses.
According to the late Monsignor George Kelly, in his book chronicling the deep divide within the American episcopacy (Inside my Father’s House, 1989), as late as 1987, Cardinal Bernardin was rejecting political candidates' stance on child murder through abortion as a litmus test for voting.
Cardinal Bernardin was wrong on a lot of other issues as well.
In 1988, he approved The Many Faces of AIDS: A Gospel Response, a document issued by the U.S. bishops, which promoted the acceptability of condoms to counter AIDS. In 1985, during his watch as chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Pro-Life Activities Committee, the bishops sent an amicus curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledging that abortion was accepted constitutional law (Roe vs. Wade). Bernardin engineered this at the same time the Reagan administration was asking the Supreme Court to reverse itself.
Bernardin chaired a bishops’ committee that drafted a pastoral letter on the moral and religious dimensions of war. Its published document, The Challenge of Peace (1983) was skewed from the beginning towards pacifism and against American defense strategy. It was bad theology, according to Monsignor Kelly, and contradicted Pope John Paul II’s 1982 statements at the United Nations indicating that deterrence was morally acceptable "in current conditions."
Towards the end of his life, this Machiavellian prince of the Church attempted to provide cover to dissenting voices in the Church by starting a new project, “Catholic Common Ground.” His brother Cardinals derailed it quickly, stressing that the Church already has common ground found in Scripture and Tradition, guided by the Magisterium and that truth and dissent from truth are not equal partners in ecclesial dialogue. Dialogue as a way to mediate between truth and dissent is mutual deception.
Father Michael Sheehan was an aide to Cardinal Bernardin. The cardinal arrived in Washington to make the formidable bureaucracy of the U.S. bishops’ conference independent of the Vatican. Bernardin’s role in creating a crisis in authority between the American bishops and the pope is well known. It is interesting to note that the present occupant of the White House spoke glowingly of Bernardin in his speech at Notre Dame. Bernardin, the consummate Chicago wheeler-dealer, compromiser and fixer fits Obama’s vision of an American Catholic bishop. Is the flawed Bernardin model of ecclesiastical leadership the road Archbishop Sheehan and other American prelates hope to follow?
Archbishop Sheehan and Governor Richardson
Archbishop Sheehan gloated in the interview, “[W]e’ve gotten more done on the pro-life issue in New Mexico by talking to people that don’t agree with us on everything.” What did the New Mexico bishops do to help pass Senator William Sharer’s bill for parental notification (for abortion on minors)? It died in committee.
In his interview and recent radio program (September 2), the archbishop took full credit for a lot of work done by a coalition of Catholic and non-Catholic lay people, along with various Protestant churches and advocacy organizations such as Right to Life of New Mexico, to defeat the domestic partners and embryonic stem cell research bills. The gallery at the capitol was packed with individual Christians, both Catholics and Protestants, not by any presence organized by the archbishop and his lobbyists.
Archbishop Sheehan is especially proud of the abolition of the death penalty in his state. Perhaps the killing of preborn children and the statutory rape of minor girls were less urgent matters for the New Mexico bishops than abolishing the death penalty—a hollow victory, considering New Mexico is a state where capital punishment has been rarely enforced. There has only been one execution in New Mexico since 1977 and a total of nine since 1930, while 6,200 preborn children are executed by surgical abortions in the state annually. Governor Bill Richardson lost no political capital by going along, and he got a nice “atta boy” in Rome for it.
What did the archbishop say to Richardson in Rome when he stood behind the governor who, mugging for the cameras cheered, “Viva President Obama!”? The archbishop said nothing in front of the international press, when he had a golden opportunity to speak the truth courageously and admonish the governor, who is supposedly Catholic, to work within his party to abolish the executions of American babies in their mothers’ wombs and to defend the sanctity of marriage.
Church leaders must stand united and strong
Once not terribly long ago, there was a British leader who wanted to “build bridges” with another aggressive change agent who was flexing his military muscles in Europe. For the sake of keeping the peace, British prime minister Neville Chamberlain signed the Munich Pact in September 1938 with Adolf Hitler, to avoid confrontation with Germany over the Sudetenland. Chamberlain was hailed as a peacemaker at the time. His contemporary, Winston Churchill, was repudiated as a warmonger for warning England about the National Socialists. In March 1939, six months after he signed the pact, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia.
Thanks to advice from Catholic quislings such as Doug Kmiec, Obama was holding his tongue before the election, to avoid alienating values voters, and he focused instead on secular issues such as the economy, Iraq, health care, etc. But once he was elected, the mask came off as evidenced by his appointments, nominations and executive orders.
Archbishop Sheehan should reflect on the serious flaws inherent in a strategy of appeasement. “Collaboration” and building “common ground” with forces working to directly undermine and destroy the moral foundations of our society is sheer folly and the height of idiocy. “Building bridges” on loose and shaky ground with no firm foundation on bedrock moral principles is a prescription for disaster, and further weakens and erodes the Church’s standing in society. Many more innocent babies will die, parental rights and marriage will be further attacked and marginalized, and many of our freedoms taken away. These are the bitter fruits of appeasement and cowardice.
In his interview, Archbishop Sheehan claimed, “We’d be like the Amish, you know, kind of isolated from society, if we kept pulling back because of a single issue.” Rather than becoming isolated like the Amish, we Catholics are called to evangelize our fellow Americans, and engage and transform our culture with our indomitable faith.
What we need in America is an uncompromising, principled Church. We cannot negotiate with evil. Catholics must be countercultural, ready to engage and must stand united. We are not called to fit in and go with the flow. More than a few American bishops have stood up boldly and raised their voices this past year. May God bless their courage and tenacity. We should follow them.
Phil Sevilla is executive director of Project Defending Life, a nonprofit Catholic pro-life ministry in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and an American Life League Associate group. Project Defending Life’s ministry office and chapel are located next to Planned Parenthood of New Mexico, the state’s largest abortion mill. Phil is also president of the Catholic Coalition of New Mexico, a 501(c)(4) educational and lobbying organization, promoting pro-life and pro-family values in legislation and in Catholic communities around the state.
Thank you for sharing this story about the history with the Bishops from Phil Sevilla.
I have been baffled with the USCCB News Release on September 10, 2009
USCCB OFFICIALS WELCOME PRESIDENT OBAMA'S STATEMENTS ON ABORTION, CARE FOR THE POOR IN RESPONSE TO HEALTH CARE - (Washington)
Calling it an important contribution to a crucial national debate, officials speaking on behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops welcomed President Obama's September 9 address on health care reform, particularly his statements regarding abortion and the uninsured.
"We agree that no one should go broke because they get sick," said Kathy Salle, Director of Domestic Social Development at the USCCB. "That's why the U.S. Bishops have worked for decades for decent health care for all. The Catholic Church provides health care for millions, purchases health care picks up the pieces of a failing health system, and has a long tradition of teaching on ethics in health care. Health care reform that respects the life and dignity of all is a moral imperative and urgent national priority. We welcome the President's speech as an important contribution to this essential national debate and task." http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2009/09-178.shtml
Maybe I am wrong, but I sense the Bishops feel that health care reform is more important than the abortion issue. Especially, when you see all the amendments to, explicitly, exclude abortions from health care reform have been voted down in both the House and the Senate. Don't the Bishops know this? I am, also, perplexed about when the Bishops are insistent that health care reform be "abortion neutral"? http://www.usccb.org/healthcare/faqs.shtml What do they mean when they say that? Sister Keehan said the same thing about Catholic Health Assn. How can a Catholic be abortion neutral?
The health care reform bill is very flawed in not only the abortion issue.
Hopefully, the Bishops will see this and start speaking out more on all the issues of concern with the health care reform to be voted in the end of September. We need to pray for our Bishops. We need to pray for our Nation, our children and the generations to come. We are in the midst of a battle.
Lord make haste to help us. Patty Palmquist | September 14, 2009
Thank you for the informative article. How much of Cardinal Bernadin's troublesome track record was already in place when Pope John Paul II named him Archbishop of Chicago and elevated him to the Sacred College of Cardinals? If Cardinal Bernadin's legacy is recognized as flawed, then why are his proteges chosen as bishops, as Archbishop Sheehan has been? David Volk | September 15, 2009
Judy, What are your academic credentials, and by what warrent do you set yourself up as a spokesperson for how the Roman Catholic population should think and act? Ignatius | September 15, 2009
Judie, What is natural death? I would like to die at home surrounded by a loving family. Instead, so many folks die while hooked up to all kinds of tubes, monitors, ivies, masks, etc. Is that natural death or a medically induced profanation of a happy death? frank McGinty | September 15, 2009
You are clearly more Republican than Catholic. More and more prelates are finally speaking up to correct all the deliberate misinformation you and your ilk are spreading. You should work for the church, not against it.
http://cnsblog.wordpress.com/2009/09/15/cardinal-martino-applauds-universal-health-care-initiative/ patty | September 15, 2009
Dear Ignatius
As a practicing Catholic I know as well as you do that the teachings of the Catholic Church are the same for each and every one of us. Nobody is telling anybody how to think or act; those who separate themselves from the Church by exercising their free will to break the commandments of God or ignore Catholic teaching need our prayers. Regardless of one's credentials, every one of us can know what is true because God has written that truth on our hearts.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | September 15, 2009
Dear Frank
One of my parents died at home and it was not at odds with Catholic teaching. Death comes to each of us, and in order to understand from the Catholic position what extraordinary means of treatment are, which is what I think you are wondering about, I recommend reading the Vatican Declaration on Euthanasia.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | September 15, 2009
Dear Patty
The author of this article, Phil Sevilla, is a wonderful Catholic man. Why would you think that makes him a Republican? I am confused.
Cardinal Martino's opinions are at odds with Catholic teaching on the fundamental question of subsidiarity, which means that the government should not control health care but should enable each person to choose for themselves what sort of health care they wish to have. There is no right to government controlled health care and the Catholic Church makes that perfectly clear.
This site’s purpose is to encourage adults to be the “cool aunt” in a child’s life. The “cool aunt,” it says, is “someone who isn’t afraid to answer the hard, funny and perplexing questions about sex.”
To some, this may sound harmless or even helpful. But beware. If you dig deeper, you’ll find that this “cool aunt” is really someone who would undermine a child’s parents by teaching intimate sexual details and answering questions about sexual morality “when parents, teachers, ministers and other mentors couldn’t or wouldn’t deliver answers.”
Still, maybe you’re thinking this “cool aunt” figure could be a good supplementary guide for a child with questions about sex. Think again. The words and phrases used to describe people who teach their children traditional moral values and chastity reveal coolaunt.org’s true intent: to counter the “fear-mongering forces that stigmatize sex.”
Fearmongering? Really? According to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, a fearmonger (also known as “scaremonger”) is “one inclined to raise or excite alarms especially needlessly.” I’d say that when one in four people have a sexually transmitted disease, one-third of women get pregnant before age 20 and over 3,000 children are slaughtered daily (all of which is the result of unbridled sex), the alarm needs to be sounded. Children should have a healthy fear of premarital sex. To assuage these godly fears is irresponsible, unrealistic and just plain evil.
The web site continues its attack on righteousness by claiming that a “cool aunt” is needed to “confront abstinence-only education myths at a time when years of shaming young people about sex have led to a dramatic rise in the rates of STIs [sexually transmitted infections] and teen pregnancies.”
Confront abstinence-only “myths”? What myths? That abstinence is the only 100-percent effective way to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases? That’s an undeniable fact, not a myth. Come on!
And shaming has led to an increase in disease and pregnancy? What shame? Have these people watched TV lately? Sit through five minutes of a teen drama series and it’s obvious we have no shame! “You’re cute. I like you.” Cut to next scene: Teenager 1 and teenager 2 are rolling on a bed, removing clothing; it is implied that they have intercourse. And that’s a tame example.
Plus, there should be shame attached to sin. If the NSRC spent more time teaching sexual purity and less time fighting for a made-up right of “every person” to “healthy and pleasurable sexuality,” maybe then we’d see fewer disease-ridden, depressed and lonely kids.
Speaking of what the NSRC’s priorities are, one of the themes it emphasizes is teaching young people “sexual literacy.”
Sexual literacy? America’s public schools can’t even teach basic literacy, but the NSRC thinks sexual literacy should be a priority? Give me a break! Picture this: A teacher says to a classroom of children, “Since we couldn’t get you to master the traditional subjects of reading, writing and arithmetic, this year we are switching to sexual literacy, abortion rights and gender issues.”
Think this is far-fetched? Think the NSRC is a fringe group that has no impact on society as a whole? Wrong. Just read the United Nations’ recently released International Guidelines on Sexuality Education, which advocate teaching masturbation to five-year-olds.
As for being the “cool aunt,” you may not be viewed as “cool” any longer when the young person—whom you assured that sex is fun and no big deal—comes to you with herpes and a broken heart.
Telling a young person in this day and age to be chaste may result in rolling eyes and mockery, earning you labels such as “prude” or “goody-goody.” But is it such a bad thing? When I looked up the definition of “prude,” I found a description that I would wear proudly: “a person who is greatly concerned with seemly behavior and morality, especially regarding sexual matters.”
But Kortney, thinking kids aren’t going to have sex is unrealistic. Noooooo, thinking that giving kids so-called “comprehensive sex education” will protect them from the consequences of premarital sex is unrealistic. How many years of unaffected (or increasing) statistics will it take before we wake up? Teaching sexual purity and the life-altering consequences of the alternative is the only thing that works.
Kortney Blythe is the chapter and street teams coordinator for American Life League’s Rock for Life project, which brings the human personhood message to youth through music, education and human rights activism. This commentary originally appeared in the September 3, 2009 issue of the RFL Report.
Yikes...it seems that you're really afraid of sex. It's just a healthy human activity. If more "cool aunts" and cool, lukewarm, or cold parents were talking to their kids about sex, there would be a lot less to worry about. SIN, not likely. If so, then you as well as I are a product of SIN. Beth Houle | September 13, 2009
How could you possibly think it's better to lie to your children and let them discover some of the consequences of being sexually accident by themselves? I knew a lot kids that were raised this way when I was younger, and they all turned out to be the most promiscuous because of their lack of knowledge about the subject. Also, you are a heartless, undereducated know-it-all that needs to stop giving advice. Seriously. Aimee | September 13, 2009
I wonder why they didn't ask for men to be "cool uncles" in a child's life? Is sexual predation somehow acceptable when its promoted by a woman? Cathy Lemek | September 14, 2009
Dear Beth
Kortney is a lovely young woman who respects her sexuality and encourages all young people to do likewise. If that means being afraid of sex, then something is wrong with the vast majority of pro-life Americans, and I know that is not the case.
The "cool aunt" is in need of psychoanalysis.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | September 15, 2009
Aimee,
Kortney has not suggested that anyone "lie" to their children. Why would any good parent do that? What Kortney does encourage, as do most Christians who understand God's gift of sexuality, is that parents explain to their children the dangers of sexual relations outside of marriage such as disease, depression, and so forth. Not to mention, of course, that sex outside of marriage is a sin against God.
I think you are mistaken, Aimee. Where is a single shred of evidence to support your condemnation of our work? Why is that you have chosen name calling instead of setting forth facts?
We will remember you in our prayers.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | September 15, 2009
Cathy
If you examine the Planned Parenthood tactics of the past 40 years you will see that it is always a female who misleads, misrepresents and misadvises ... somewhat similar to the first woman who sinned against God and then talked her mate into it. We all remember Eve!
Pro-Life Story: Ghetto Nissi Posted By Ghetto Nissi on Mar, 8 2006 Here's my story. I have two friends that got pregnant while we were in high school. Alison became pregnant our junior year. Before that, she had been a good friend of mine but ... Read
