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!
HUMAN PERSONHOOD AND THE TACTICS OF THE DEVIL Posted: Wednesday October 7, 2009 at 4:53 pm EST by Judie Brown
Every time a pro-life organization sets out to gather signatures for a human personhood amendment, the boosters of blather are not far behind. Such was the case yesterday when Allyson Hagen of NARAL Pro-Choice Montana attempted to verbally deconstruct the facts regarding human personhood. Hagen’s arguments are part of an orchestrated crusade. While I have grown to expect such antics from abortion advocates, others may not be so jaded.
In fact, when it comes to our opponents’ erroneous assertions, the biggest stumbling block for many pro-lifers is the subject of contraception.
“Personhood” initiative supporters are working for a total ban on access to safe, legal abortion care in our state, with no exceptions. They also oppose most commonly used forms of hormonal birth control. …We must be very careful when amending our state constitution. We don’t know the effects rewriting our constitution would have on access to birth control, in vitro fertilization, stem cell research and the difficult medical decisions that women make every day in regards to their pregnancies.
It should not come as a shock to any genuinely pro-life American that such contentions resonate with men and women of every age bracket, especially those who are 35 years of age or younger. The ongoing fixation on sex without responsibility is nothing new.
For this reason, it makes perfect sense that abortion advocates would market deceit in order to create opposition to a proposal that has everything to do with valuing human dignity, restoring self-respect and eliminating the culture of fornication and adultery. After all, the culture of death’s embrace of sexual perversion, which it euphemistically define as “the right to privacy,” leaves behind it a train wreck of sadness, sickness, death and moral blindness.
There are two very important health reasons for our opposition to the so-called “birth control pill,” in addition to the moral reasons why we oppose it. The first is that, contrary to popular thought, the birth control pill does not cut down the number of abortions, and even those who support the pill admit to this. It is extremely dishonest to promote the theory that the pill curtails abortion per se when, in fact, the pill can and does work in at least three known different mechanisms of action, one of which is abortifacient. When the pill works by “thinning the lining of the uterus,” the embryonic child dies and this is known as an early chemical abortion. Therefore, to suggest that the pill “keeps abortions from happening” is not accurate, and in fact, is an act of mendacity.
In fact, because of the pill and other abortifacients on the market, we have conservatively estimated that we have four to five times more abortions annually than that which is reported in many media outlets, by pro-life, pro-abortion and drive-by secular media.
Further, the so-called “birth control pill” is known to be carcinogenic and can cause a series of health problems for women and their future children. It has been linked to cancer, heart conditions, thromboembolisms and more. The steroids in oral “contraceptives” has been listed as a Class I carcinogen, meaning the link between the chemical and cancers are well documented, strong and confirmed. Moreover, it has now been found to have negative effects on the environment, particularly oceans and rivers. Finally, at least 150 different known negative effects occur in the female body from the highly potent steroids found in the pill. …
The material that PFLI cites is of the same or higher quality and scientific rigor as material cited by pill community organizers. The difference being, our aim is to protect women’s health and save preborns from chemical or mechanical abortion. The other side’s objective is to have as many women as possible contracepting and aborting to abscond with both private and public funds for their aggrandizement, regardless of the human material and spiritual cost.
We have never believed it is compassionate to deceive people by only telling them what they want to hear, or withholding key information that would be full disclosure of how the Pill works and the negative effects it has both on the physical health of moms and babies, as well as the negative spiritual and psychological effects on people and society as a whole.
There are cruel facts about the birth control pill that rarely see the light of day. It is our responsibility to make sure we provide this information through our educational outreach, so that, regardless of one’s opinion, he or she has all the facts before making a decision one way or the other about the birth control pill. We opt in favor of full transparency and full disclosure.
These insights, particularly as they relate to cruel facts, apply equally to in vitro fertilization and, of course, surgical abortion. It is these specific truths that create serious tension between those who oppose human personhood proposals by using devious tactics to advance their claims and those who believe that only when the innocent human being’s human rights are protected by law from his biological beginning will we see an end to widespread cruelty, death and despair—the consequences of the culture of death.
This is also why the challenge before us is so great. There is a brick wall between us and those who wish to continue the status quo. That wall is best defined as denial.
Years ago, Father John Hardon, SJ (RIP) wrote that many Americans not only refuse to accept the facts about the immorality and deadly consequences of contraception, IVF and abortion, but deny that such practices are evil. He explained that the underlying attitude among such people is that “nothing that a man does is ever evil by itself. It is only the circumstances, or the motives, or the situation in which people do things which determine the morality of their conduct.”
If a person actually believes this to be true, anything goes. And the problem is serious because, in the case of contraception or in vitro fertilization or surgical abortion, even some ordained priests and ministers believe that these practices can be justified by circumstances. At that point, whether or not a form of contraception is actually a form of killing becomes irrelevant. Whether or not preborn children die in IVF labs becomes a moot point. And just as a child dies every time an abortion is performed, it is equally true that the pill can kill, IVF practitioners kill and the last thing the evil one wants is for those truths to get out.
That being said, those who have propagated the lies will do all they can to slap down efforts that will ultimately help people see why birth control itself is not only unhealthy, but deadly to the preborn and deadly to the soul. The father of lies has a huge investment in the culture of death, so as it always has been, truth is his enemy.
[T]he negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behavior as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. They do not leave room, in any morally acceptable way, for the “creativity” of any contrary determination whatsoever. Once the moral species of an action prohibited by a universal rule is concretely recognized, the only morally good act is that of obeying the moral law and of refraining from the action which it forbids. (Section 67)
Therefore, the practice of contraception, abortion or IVF, which is not morally good, is in fact intrinsically evil. This is the crux of why our opponents are so vehement, so dedicated to instilling fear and dread in the public psyche, and so willing to tell one lie after another if it means they can defeat those who stand for God’s truth. Driving back the proponents of human personhood is, I daresay, their number-one mission.
The human personhood campaign is not for wimps. It takes a lot of courage to stand up and tell the truth, explaining why IVF is wrong, why birth control is morally unacceptable and why abortion is an act of murder. People like Hagen are counting on cowardice; they are hoping for public statements by pro-lifers that will not engage the public in a discourse on moral rights versus moral wrongs. And they are banking on a public attitude that is so steeped in sexual saturation that it won’t hear of anything that would interfere with the status quo.
There is actually something wonderful and reassuring about this, once we who are personhood advocates understand it: The tactics of the devil bring sorrow and human degradation. They are based on dishonesty and decadence. The tactics of the Lord, the Author of life, bring consolation and joy. They are based on integrity and justice.
BURDENSOME: THE PATIENT OR THE TREATMENT? Posted: Tuesday October 6, 2009 at 4:03 pm EST by Judie Brown
Recently, a long-time supporter of American Life League mentioned her concern about the manner in which her state’s Catholic bishops were using the word “burdensome” to discuss what is and is not required for treating a patient whose life is nearing the end. I became intrigued and looked into this matter, taking the opportunity to compare a Florida Catholic Conference (FCC) “position paper,” titled “Issues in Care for the Dying,” with the Vatican’s Declaration on Euthanasia.
The truth that life is a precious gift from God has profound implications for the question of stewardship over human life. We are not the owners of our lives and, hence, do not have absolute power over life. We have a duty to preserve our life and to use it for the glory of God, but the duty to preserve life is not absolute, for we may reject life-prolonging procedures that are insufficiently beneficial or excessively burdensome. Suicide and euthanasia are never morally acceptable options.
The task of medicine is to care even when it cannot cure. Physicians and their patients must evaluate the use of the technology at their disposal. Reflection on the innate dignity of human life in all its dimensions and on the purpose of medical care is indispensable for formulating a true moral judgment about the use of technology to maintain life. The use of life-sustaining technology is judged in light of the Christian meaning of life, suffering, and death. Only in this way are two extremes avoided: on the one hand, an insistence on useless or burdensome technology even when a patient may legitimately wish to forgo it and, on the other hand, the withdrawal of technology with the intention of causing death. (emphasis added)
On the one hand, it is clear that the USCCB is not endorsing any act of passive or active euthanasia. By the same token, the first paragraph quoted above could be interpreted by the wrong person in a way that could lead to the premature death of a patient. When adverbs such as “insufficiently” or “excessively” are used, personal interpretation enters the picture. Such words, if construed improperly, can lead to some very bad outcomes.
By contrast, the second paragraph is quite clear in teaching that the patient can forego this or that technological intervention if he or she deems it to be too little too late. That is a completely different question than the previous one and engages the patient in a decision-making capacity.
It is also permissible to make do with the normal means that medicine can offer. Therefore one cannot impose on anyone the obligation to have recourse to a technique which is already in use but which carries a risk or is burdensome. Such a refusal is not the equivalent of suicide; on the contrary, it should be considered as an acceptance of the human condition, or a wish to avoid the application of a medical procedure disproportionate to the results that can be expected, or a desire not to impose excessive expense on the family or the community. - When inevitable death is imminent in spite of the means used, it is permitted in conscience to take the decision to refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life, so long as the normal care due to the sick person in similar cases is not interrupted. In such circumstances the doctor has no reason to reproach himself with failing to help the person in danger. (emphasis added)
The Vatican does not resort to adverbs that must be subjectively interpreted, but rather makes it clear that there is such a thing as a “technique” that cannot be forced on the patient because it is either risky or could be burdensome (by causing pain or in other ways) for the patient.
Further, as the Vatican unambiguously teaches, the onset of death does provide a patient with the ability to say “no thanks” to treatment. The Vatican wisely does not mention the provision of nutrition and/or hydration as a form of treatment.
Though it is popular in today’s culture to consider tube feeding and hydration as “treatment,” that is not at all what nutrition and hydration are. The word “treatment” cannot be confused with the provision of nutrition and hydration. However, there are situations wherein the provision of either by tube can cause agony or the body can reject it. If such is the case, the tube cannot be used.
Our Florida supporter’s concern regarding the use of the word burdensome and how that might be interpreted is valid. We reflect back to the FCC’s statements prior to Terri Schindler Schiavo’s death on March 31, 2005. Let us never forget that Terri was starved to death. When addressing the Schiavo case in February 2005, the FCC issued a public statement declaring,
The Catholic community begins discussions regarding the withdrawal and withholding of artificial nutrition and hydration with a presumption in favor of their provision. However, when the burdens exceed the benefits of providing them, they may be withdrawn or withheld. We note that what is too burdensome for one person may not be too burdensome for another. …We oppose euthanasia. While withdrawal of Terri Schiavo’s nutrition and hydration will lead to her death, if this is being done because its provision would be too burdensome for her, it could be acceptable. If it is being done to intentionally cause her death, this would be wrong. (emphasis added)
That word burdensome has a connotation in the FCC’s Schiavo statement that is, at best, confusing and, at worst, a literal suggestion that if Terri’s guardian, her husband, Michael Schiavo, claimed that tube feeding was a burden for Terri, then, indeed, starving her to death would not be defined as an act of killing. Remember, Terri could not explain to her caregivers what she felt about the tube feeding; she was unable to speak, so someone else had to make the decision. What disturbed me about this in February 2005 is even more disturbing now.
The FCC published its reprint of Section 5 of the USCCB document in January 2007, nearly two years after Terri’s death. Section 5 also states in part,
The USCCB Committee on Pro-Life Activities’ report, in addition, points out the necessary distinctions between questions already resolved by the magisterium and those requiring further reflection, as, for example, the morality of withdrawing medically assisted hydration and nutrition from a person who is in the condition that is recognized by physicians as the “persistent vegetative state” (PVS). (emphasis added)
Why did the FCC reprint this statement in 2007, when the magisterium had already addressed the question of withdrawing nutrition and hydration? In 2004, one year prior to Terri’s death, Pope John Paul II, speaking to participants in an international congress titled “Life-Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State,” declared,
I should like particularly to underline how the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act. Its use, furthermore, should be considered, in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory, insofar as and until it is seen to have attained its proper finality, which in the present case consists in providing nourishment to the patient and alleviation of his suffering.
The obligation to provide the “normal care due to the sick in such cases” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Iura et Bona, p. IV) includes, in fact, the use of nutrition and hydration (cf. Pontifical Council “Cor Unum,” Dans le Cadre, 2, 4, 4; Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance to Health Care Workers, Charter of Health Care Workers, n. 120). The evaluation of probabilities, founded on waning hopes for recovery when the vegetative state is prolonged beyond a year, cannot ethically justify the cessation or interruption of minimal care for the patient, including nutrition and hydration. Death by starvation or dehydration is, in fact, the only possible outcome as a result of their withdrawal. In this sense it ends up becoming, if done knowingly and willingly, true and proper euthanasia by omission.
Note, please, that Pope John Paul II is unambiguous in his pronouncement, reiterating fundamental Catholic teaching on a question that was soon to become the focus of a heated national debate, during which many grieved and wept as Terri died.
Then, in August 2007, the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith repeated this teaching when it issued its “Responses to Certain Questions of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Concerning Artificial Nutrition and Hydration”:
First question: Is the administration of food and water (whether by natural or artificial means) to a patient in a “vegetative state” morally obligatory except when they cannot be assimilated by the patient’s body or cannot be administered to the patient without causing significant physical discomfort?
Response: Yes. The administration of food and water even by artificial means is, in principle, an ordinary and proportionate means of preserving life. It is therefore obligatory to the extent to which, and for as long as, it is shown to accomplish its proper finality, which is the hydration and nourishment of the patient. In this way suffering and death by starvation and dehydration are prevented.
Second question: When nutrition and hydration are being supplied by artificial means to a patient in a “permanent vegetative state,” may they be discontinued when competent physicians judge with moral certainty that the patient will never recover consciousness?
Response: No. A patient in a “permanent vegetative state” is a person with fundamental human dignity and must, therefore, receive ordinary and proportionate care which includes, in principle, the administration of water and food even by artificial means.
Such statements exemplify the sort of clarity so desperately needed by today’s Catholic families, not to mention citizens of all faith persuasions. The Vatican has set the standard.
I wish to publicly assure our American Life League supporter that we agree with her concerns. This is why we encourage the FCC and, indeed, all state Catholic conferences, as well as the USCCB itself, to imitate this precision in the language they use in publications designed to help people understand the complexity of end-of-life care in today’s age of medical cost cutting and ethical word games.
Such publications must remove any ambiguity, clearly reflect Vatican teaching and use language that cannot be perverted to mean what is not intended: the premature death of a patient who is viewed by others as burdensome.
Judie.. I live in Florida and contacted my Bishop Galeone years ago about this situation, the wording that could be interpreted as withdrawing treatment or even food and water..it it becomes "burdensome" .. He told me to contact (McCarron) can't remember his name at the moment. I did meet with him and gave him my critique and he assured me that he would present this to the Bishops and they would probably change the wording.. It hasn't happened.
Thanks for exposing this.. Rose Mary | October 6, 2009
Dear Judy,
Thank you so much for your stalwart defense of human life from conception until natural death. You are truly a champion of life and one of my heroes.
I am a pro-life Catholic nurse, having trained at St. Clare's Hospital School of Nursing in NYC and a graduate of the class of 1960. We were well versed in the Divine/Natural Law. I am a traditional Roman Catholic in total alliance to the Magisterium.
I am, however, very concerned that the motive of the Obama Health Care Plan and the Baucus Plan is targeting Seniors as being what they consider burdesome and unworthy of health care and, indeed life. This is reflected in their determination to cut 400+ billion dollars from the Medicare fund that will lead to health care rationing and death. Their intent seems to be that they will determine who shall have what care and treatment,i.e., who shall live and who shall die. Amongst other cuts, they are severly cutting treatment to seniors in cardiac care and in oncology care....they are reducing reimbursement to cardiologists and oncologists. for senior care. The two main disease entities that seniors face are cardiac disease and cancer. I will focus on cardiac disaese from personal family experiences and from my experience as a nurse. I emphatically and unequivacally state that seniors MUST be allowed to continue being treated by a cardiologist when they have cardiovascualr problems and must not be restricted to having cardiovascular tests and/or treatment as deemed necessary by their personal cardiologist without the cardiologist being dictated by the government and/or insurance companies over the treatment and care that he, the personal cardiologist believes is in the best interest of his patient and that he and the patient agree upon. When I was a student nurse in the early 1960's we had many patients then who would stroke out, a sight that you never want to see or happen again. Back then, we did not have the diagnostic measure to assess and prevent strokes(CVA's) and or/heart attacks(Myocardial Infarctions) nor did we have the medications and/or treatment modalities that we do today. My father died of a sudden heart attack at my grandmother's home in 1950. A physician was summoned and came immediately and gave my dad an injection of epinephrine into his heart but to no avail. My Mom died in 2000 at the age of 89 of a cardiovascular problem that was treated medically under the care of a personal cardiologist. I have two brother's, my older brother who is 76 has had an angioplasty and my younger brother who is 69 had a quadruple coronary by pass about 17 years ago after suffering a sudden myocardial infarction. Both my brothers, unlike my dear father, may he rest in peace, are in the care of cardiologists and doing well, thanks be to God. I believe that under an Obamanation Health Care/Baucus plan my brothers care with their cardiologists would be severely compromised, if indeed, they or any other senior in a similar position would be able to continue unhindered care with their personal cardiologist.
Ezekiel Emmanuel, MD, appears to be calling the shots on most of what goes into the Obama Health Care Plan. Ezekiel Emmanuel is against the Hippocratic Oath and has a belief in what is called "comparative effectiveness" in which medical care is no longer given to benefit the patient but is determined by cost and whether they deem a person to be productive to society. Those they deem non productive would not be given treatment and this includes the baby in the womb, a child, senior citizens, the disabled and/or anyone they deem unworthy and not productive to society,i.e., burdesome.
These are absolutely contrary to the Sanctity of Life and that all human beings are made in the Image and Likeness of God and that life is precious from conception till Natural Death when God calls us home.
I am very concerned about the use of the word burdesome and that the following text "but the duty to preserve life is not absolute, for we may reject life-prolonging procedures that are insufficiently beneficial or excessively burdensome." (See entire text below from the FCC's document).I believe that this statement may be misinterpreted in todays Culture of Death climate and especially in the current Obama/Baucus Health Care proposals. We need to be very clear in our belief and statement that health care is not predicated by cost and is not rationed. Otherwise, we will have another holocaust, i.e., the killing of those that the powers to be deem unworhty of life including the continuing of killing the baby in the womb.
( in the The FCC???s document is, in fact, a reprint of Section 5 of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops??? Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, issued in 2001. Section 5, likewise titled ???Issues in Care for the Dying,??? states in part,) may be misinterpreted in today's Culture of Death climate
"The truth that life is a precious gift from God has profound implications for the question of stewardship over human life. We are not the owners of our lives and, hence, do not have absolute power over life. We have a duty to preserve our life and to use it for the glory of God, but the duty to preserve life is not absolute, for we may reject life-prolonging procedures that are insufficiently beneficial or excessively burdensome. Suicide and euthanasia are never morally acceptable options.
Judy, please keep up the great mission that you are doing to preserve the Sanctity of Life.
Please respond to my e-mail if there is something I'm in error on or did not express clearly. As a nurse and Catholic I can tell you that I have never been so concerned as I am at the present time about health care delivery, patient's well being, and our conscience clause as nurses, physicians, pharmacists and Catholic hospitals.
I pray that there is a total HALT in the Obama/Baucus Care plans. There motive is NOT GOOD and would be harmful. The old nursing adage for when we were giving a medication is applicable here..."When in doubt do without."
Thanks, Judey and God bless,
Sincerely and Gratefully,
JoAna
JoAna E. Livoti, R.N., B.S., M.S.
A pro-life Catholic Nurse
Joana E. Livoti, R.N., B.S., M.S. | October 7, 2009
Rose Mary
Take Heart! I hear that the Bishops are going to address this at their NOVEMBER meeting because of the most recent statement from the Sacred Congregation on the subject of food and water.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | October 7, 2009
Joana
THANK YOU so very much for these insights. God bless you!
Judie Brown Judie Brown | October 7, 2009
Judie,
I just got done watching the repaet of Fri nite World Over Live. I have to cheer at your last statement because that same thought has been running through my nind since a debate I had Tues nite with someone who is a big supporter of ObamaCare.
It strikes me that most Catholic Hospitals are run like businesses, not the charitable institutions they were ment to be.
Keep up the good work in speaking out & defending the Catholic Church's teachings. Al | October 10, 2009
Thank you, Al! God bless you and please pray for the Bishops.
THE CASUALTIES OF SELFISHNESS Posted: Monday October 5, 2009 at 1:16 pm EST by Judie Brown
Over the past 40 or so years, a desensitization of conscience has occurred. This tragic turn of events is often not recognized in those places of influence where public policies are forged. And younger individuals don’t realize that they are part of a growing trend in murderous solutions to otherwise pesky human problems.
Forty-four years ago, it became the law of the land. Based on the fancy footwork and political agenda of members of the United States Supreme Court, chemical pollution of the human body—the practice of birth control—became equated with a right to privacy. Establishing the stepping stones from contraception for married couples to contraception for the unmarried to abortion on demand wasn’t as clear at the time. Now it is painfully obvious.
The case that started it all was Griswold v. Connecticut. As professors Robert P. George and David L. Tubbs explained,
…the Supreme Court soon transformed the “right to privacy” (the reference to marriage quickly disappeared) into a powerful tool for making public policy. In Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972), the Court changed a right of spouses—justified in Griswold precisely by reference to the importance of marriage—into a right of unmarried adults to buy and use contraceptives. Then, in a move that plunged the United States into a “culture war,” the Court ruled in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton (1973) that this generalized “right to privacy” also encompassed a woman’s virtually unrestricted right to have an abortion.
The aftermath is obvious. Contraceptives became popular to entire generations of Americans. These chemicals and devices were easily marketed to the vulnerable and the ignorant under the guise of a mythical right to do whatever one wished sexually as long as some sort of “protection” was being used. Respect for self and loved ones went out the window in favor of one-night stands, illicit affairs and worse. “It’s all about me” became the slogan of choice.
The result was that a so-called unplanned pregnancy became synonymous with a health problem that required a quick fix. A couple, upon learning they had conceived a baby, were (and are) horrified. Sometimes the mother wants the baby and the father does not. Sometimes it’s the other way around. And sometimes it’s the grandparents who don’t want the baby to be born. Regardless of the situation, the preborn child, who should be welcomed and accepted into the human family, is rejected and must be eliminated.
In other words, the unquestionable respect due every human person, simply and only because the individual is a human being, slowly became nothing more than an arcane concept destined for the trash heap of the “with it” culture.
Lest we forget, the main players in the Griswold case were the never-to-be-trusted Planned Parenthood ideologues. Appellant Estelle Griswold was executive director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. She was joined by appellant C. Lee Buxton, M.D., a licensed physician and a professor at Yale Medical School who also served as medical director for the Planned Parenthood center in New Haven. The case began when Griswold and Buxton were arrested and found guilty of providing “illegal contraception.” It is my undocumented suspicion that the entire series of events was orchestrated by Planned Parenthood’s public policy masters of deceit, and perhaps even a Supreme Court clerk or two. That’s a personal theory, but it sure makes a lot of sense to me today.
Prior to that time, I am told, there were condom vending machines in gas stations and that sort of thing; but with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the birth control pill, coupled with the Supreme Court’s supercilious discovery of a mythical right to privacy in matters of human sexuality, a new era emerged. Americans became convinced that abstinence and purity were passé, while fornication and adultery were in vogue.
It didn’t take long after Griswold for all of the dominos to fall into place. By January of 1973, the Court’s backroom goals were achieved in spades. Abortion became nothing more than a simple “decision between a woman and her doctor.” What has happened during the years following Roe and Doe is not only tragic, but destructive to the fabric that holds a civilized society together. From that push in 1965, faith in God and His laws slowly became antiquated. In place of faith in a Supreme Being, we witnessed an escalating faith in man himself as the god of his personal world, regardless of the costs to others who might cross his self-centered path.
Sound harsh? Perhaps these recent news stories will put things into perspective:
In Los Angeles this past month, Antonia Gomez was accused of fatally slashing the throats of her two daughters. Though the woman has pled not guilty to the charges, it is of interest that she cut herself after allegedly killing her 11- and 17-year-old daughters.
In Thousand Oaks, California, a father killed his two sons and took his own life by taking an overdose of drugs.
In North Carolina, a 15-year-old pregnant teen was fatally shot. Her baby, 32 weeks of age, was delivered alive and later died. The perpetrator of this double homicide has not been identified, though a “person of interest” is under investigation.
In Arlington, Tennessee, a man is facing a double-murder charge after shooting his pregnant girlfriend, whose baby was due at any time. It is alleged that the couple had argued over an abortion and the father of the child intended to kill his baby and his baby’s mother.
The escalating violence in this country, particularly that of parents against their children, both born and preborn, should not be overlooked, even though examining it carefully might cause some discomfort. Perhaps the status quo really isn’t all that humane after all. Perhaps we, as a people, are becoming barbaric.
So let's begin to examine the relationship between a declining respect for the value of the human person and the increasing incidents of such horrific crimes. It could prove to be useful as we strive to raise public awareness of the actual humanity of this person whose identity has been relegated to a simple “reproductive health” issue.
To me, the bottom line is obvious. For as surely as contraception and abortion devalue human beings, by placing self-interest ahead of self-giving, so too does this very same attitude spill over into other areas of life, whether we wish to admit it or not.
One example of this is the work of the Elliot Institute. Dr. David C. Reardon studied the psychological effects of abortion, and he noted a relationship between abortion and violent behavior later in the woman’s life.
Another example was proffered by Jill Stanek, who addressed the violent killings on the Virginia Tech campus in Blacksburg, Virginia, a couple of years ago and made this insightful comment:
The practice of abortion—typically (and understandably) highest in cities and counties occupied by big state universities—argues powerfully to every participant that the taking of a tiny human life is just fine so long as it's accomplished quietly, antiseptically, and within the law.
Some might suggest that her correlation is a far stretch, but I would argue otherwise. The reason is this: It is difficult to step back and objectively examine what the culture of death and its terminology has done to the national psyche. We have been hearing phrases such as “It’s all about me,” “It’s my right to choose” and “reproductive rights” for such a long time that most Americans have stopped thinking about what such terms mean, including whether or not they affect our attitudes toward human dignity.
The phrases sound good and life goes on. But it really doesn’t; not for those children whose parents have killed them, not for those expectant young mothers whose boyfriends or husbands have killed them and not for those millions of preborn children who are indeed silently, antiseptically murdered.
We live in a culture that is increasingly fixated on instant solutions for every problem. Killing is clearly among the most popular options, though few would admit it in the vast majority of cases—those deaths that are caused by chemical, medical or surgical abortion. But the stain of their blood remains nonetheless. With each death, we as a people are dehumanizing each other just a little bit more.
It seems almost surreal that so many could be so blind to the casualties of selfishness.
"The result was that a so-called unplanned pregnancy became synonymous with a health problem that required a quick fix." A great lie (The great lie?) in this, which sends shudders to the bottom of my soul. David Volk | October 6, 2009
'SORT OF, KIND OF, MAYBE' AGAINST TAXPAYER-SUBSIDIZED ABORTION? Posted: Friday October 2, 2009 at 11:32 am EST by Judie Brown
Over the years I have tried on many occasions to understand the apparent disconnect between the bureaucrats at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the fundamental teaching of the Roman Catholic magisterium that the act of abortion is a heinous crime, frequently defined by the popes as murder.
We know, for example, that during the debate regarding health care reform, the USCCB coined the term “abortion neutral,” and most recently, according to the New York Times, explained their current dilemma in a rather odd way.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops which has lobbied for decades to persuade the government to provide universal health insurance, says it opposes the bill unless it bans the use of subsidies for plans that cover abortion.
“We have said to the White House and various Senate offices that we could be the best friends to this bill if our concerns are met," Richard M. Doerflinger, a spokesman for the bishops on abortion issues, said in an interview. "But the concerns are kind of intractable.”
This statement present the same challenges that many USCCB statements have over the years. The first is the suggestion that if a version of Obama’s health care reform proposal “bans the use of subsidies for plans that cover abortion,” the USCCB will be so happy it will apparently cozy up to the Obama forces and be “friends.” If that has not troubled your ulcer, perhaps this will.
What exactly does it mean to refer to a public policy in preborn child killing as “kind of intractable?” Is that in the same category as “a little bit pregnant?”
Merriam-Webster tells us that “intractable” is defined as “not easily governed, managed or directed.” So can we presume that the USCCB is “kind of” stubborn about this matter of abortion? Is the USCCB attempting to help the Obama administration understand that when it comes to aborting a child, they just want to make sure that taxpayers don’t have to pay for them, or at least not all of them.
Don’t forget, the USCCB is on record with an “abortion neutral” statement, explaining that it supports Hyde-type language, which means that in the cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother, abortion would be covered by tax dollars.
Where exactly is that permitted in Catholic teaching? Or are we witnessing a pattern of behavior that equates USCCB positions with political principles rather than Catholic principles? Albeit a “realistic” approach for a political organization, how can it be so for the organization that allegedly represents more than 200 men, ordained into the Catholic priesthood, and following in the footsteps of the Apostles?
A good friend and fellow Catholic, Tom Longua, a pro-life pioneer and apologist, sent an e-mail in which he provided his perspective. It is certainly worth repeating: “It's possible that Doerflinger himself may be ‘absolute’ about the principle of not accepting the funding of baby-killing, but having dealt with so many American bishops for so many years, he knows only too well that many of them are not absolute [on] any principle, so he inserted the words ‘kind of’ to hedge his bet here.”
Either way, it occurs to me that the USCCB spokesman and the ordained priests, each of whom has now been elevated to the office of bishop, archbishop or cardinal, should not be lobbying one way or the other for this sort of health care reform. The USCCB should be using its influence and platform in the public square to teach the principles of Catholic doctrine. Period. The preborn, the elderly and the infirm don’t need the same old, same old rhetoric that we have grown so accustomed to from the USCCB.
I must say though, before leaving this subject, that Mr. Doerflinger is no stranger to the controversy caused by strange comments made by the Catholic bishops he serves in his post as associate director of the USCCB Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities. Many of these comments are a bit off-key, if one listens to the harmonious teachings of the Catholic church versus the USCCB’s bishops and their individual rendition of those teachings.
Take, for example, the question of human personhood, a fundamental philosophical position of the Catholic Church that is also provable by science and logic. As Pope John Paul II explained in 1996 when speaking of the rights of human embryos, “a problem which directly concerns the discussion between biologists, moralists and jurists is that of the basic rights of the person, which must be recognized in every human subject throughout his life and, in particular, from his moment of origin.”
This is not a lofty ideal, but rather a fundamental truth regarding existence from the moment of his or her biological beginning. And yet, the bishops disagree, at least when devising statements to address the human personhood initiatives in the various states.
For example, the nine Catholic bishops of Florida signed a joint statement, issued by the Florida Catholic Conference, opposing the Personhood Florida effort. As LifeSiteNews.com reported,
The Conference, which serves as the official public policy voice of the Florida bishops, released an email alert Friday afternoon, alerting supporters that, "although the bishops of Florida clearly share the desire for our state laws to recognize all life from its very beginning to natural end, after careful consideration and deliberation with legal counsel, the bishops do not support this current amendment effort."
The same e-mail noted that signature collection would not take place in any parish or diocesan entity in the state.
The same correspondence included a link to a more thorough statement by the bishops, which may be accessed on the Conference web site. The statement, dated September 19, affirms the bishops' collective commitment to "the full legal recognition of the right to life of every unborn child and the defense of human life in all its stages, from conception to natural death."
However, the statement continues, "it is our opinion, and that of the legal experts with whom we have consulted, that passage of this amendment would not achieve the goal of overturning Roe v. Wade."
The bishops first note the unlikelihood of such an amendment passing, given Florida law's stipulation that constitutional amendments be approved by at least 60% of voters. Furthermore, the federal courts would almost certainly strike down such an amendment as unconstitutional, and the bishops express fear that, should the case be heard by the United States Supreme Court (which is presently dominated by pro-Roe justices) it might well "lead to a reaffirmation of Roe."
The bishops go on to reaffirm their view "that it will be more prudent to pursue incremental measures that add to existing protections in law and help change hearts and minds."
What sort of prudence is it that opposes an effort to teach citizens the humanity of the preborn? Catholic bishops have publicly opposed state personhood efforts in state after state for what I perceive to be purely political reasons. As American Life League Executive Director Shaun Kenney suggested, is such a statement a type of “false prudence?” Or is it that the political agenda of the USCCB, in concert with the various state Catholic conferences, is not well served by finally standing up and saying that Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton are evil decisions, in direct violation of the natural law and therefore invalid? Should the USCCB and its state equivalents make such a bold statement, only God knows what might happen, but it certainly would not be the fulfillment of a political agenda that appears to be leaving human personhood behind.
When I examine the facts, comparing the devastating blow various bishops have delivered to state personhood efforts with a national spokesman of the USCCB’s sort of, kind of, maybe policy on health care, I am left with a sick feeling in my extremely conservative Catholic heart. It is with the greatest sorrow that I witness this ongoing debacle being perpetrated by the Catholic apostles of our day. I fear that, perhaps, human respect has overtaken many of them. I worry that pollsters, lawyers and politicians may have distracted them from Christ’s ever timely reminder, uttered to His first apostles (Matthew 10:32-33):
Everyone who acknowledges me before others, I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.
In this year of the priest, I believe it is time for each of us to pray for the current day apostles of Christ, our Catholic bishops, and to entrust them to the patron saint of priests, Saint John Vianney, who once so very wisely wrote,
Do you know what the devil’s first temptation is to the person who wants to serve God with dedication? It is human respect.
It is SCANDALOUS beyond belief, in my estimation, for purported Bishops to REFUSE to support a State 'Human Life' Constitutional Amendment for the specious reason that a federal amendment would be better. Instead of listening to their legal advisers, who DO NOT HAVE A CATHOLIC CLUE about the matter, how about listening to GOD ALMIGHTY via the INFALLIBLE Teaching Magisterium of Holy Mother Church on faith and morals? "THOU SHALT NOT KILL!" Just how many more innocents have to die before our bishops get this right?
Why would ANY CATHOLIC, much less a bishop or a priest, NOT SUPPORT ANY effort to stop baby killing on ANY level, federal, state, or local, IMMEDIATELY? How Catholic bishops can take such an unprincipled public stand in discouraging a state from stopping baby killing makes a mockery of the aforementioned Catholic moral teaching, i.e., it cries out to Heaven for vengeance!
What the heck are these bishops waiting for? They have state representatives who are more Catholic than they are by orders-of-magnitude, and they will give them NO SUPPORT WHATSOEVER! That is a MORTAL SIN, since this is known grave matter via consistent Church teaching, the world knows it is grave matter, and yet our fraudulent bishops do the devil's work by DISCOURAGING those who are trying to do God's work. IT JUST DOES NOT GET ANY MORE SERIOUS THAN THIS, which is a prime example of why the institutional Church is NO LONGER CATHOLIC, and HAS NOT BEEN since the allowed built-in ambiguities of Vatican II, by those who would destroy the Church from within, did their nefarious work!
It is common knowledge that even if Roe v. Wade was overturned, that would not stop baby killing on the state level, which means that any state initiative to do the right thing on ANY MORAL ISSUE, e.g., abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia, stem cell research, et al, such as reported below in Georgia, DESERVES THE UNRESERVED SUPPORT of Catholic clergy and laity in this country!
Fraudulent pro-life candidates and some prominent judges tell us that the states should decide this serious issue in a democratic fashion via some type of popular vote, no doubt! It is NOT Catholic teaching that God's laws are subject to MOB RULE ON ANY LEVEL! When are Catholics, who are NOT supposed to check their faith at the door upon entering public life but rather to WITNESS to it for salvation's sake, per the end of Matthew's Gospel, going to get that right, especially Catholic clergy?
Man's laws are subsidiary to God's in the moral order, PERIOD! And if that seminal truth is not in federal and state constitutions, then it darn well should be; else, they are not worth interpreting!
I find it sad that, when God works through state legislators, high-ranking clergy, who should be excommunicated for their public sins, discourage His work.
Even Scalia cannot get the seminal Catholic truth right that the state deserves no say whatsoever on whether abortion is OK. The state is obliged to obey God's Law for promotion of the common good in leading ultimately to a supernatural good in accord with God's Divine Plan for His Creation. In the traditional Catholic view, the state derives its authority from God (although the people may from time to time decide who exercises that authority), and the state is subject to the law of God including the Natural Law. In the Enlightenment view, the state derives its authority horizontally, from the people. It is the people, rather than the Law of God, which defines in what way, if any, the power of the state will be limited. And, if the people give rights, the people can take them away. Just who or what is appealed to in the absence of universal moral absolutes as a function of God's Law? What do you do when your neighbor's personally created "universe of rights," as a function of his "autonomous unencumbered self" conflicts with yours? Easy answer - anarchy results!
To fallaciously argue, as Scalia does, in a strictly positive law sense, that the federal government has no constitutional right to allow abortion while there is no problem at all with deferring the killing of innocents to the individual states, i.e., let the people democratically decide, is pure a simply a violation of the fundamental philosophical principle of non-contradiction in that "Something cannot 'be' and 'not be' at the same time in the same respect." Killing innocents in their mothers' wombs is an abomination regardless of whether it is done on the federal, state, or local level, PERIOD!
To "Render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" does not exempt Caesar from rendering to God to Whom Caesar owes his existence! Someone needs to ask Scalia "How is the common good served by seeing no problem with baby killing on the state level if the mob decides that such barbaric behavior is acceptable? And just where, in the Constitution of this Country, Mr. Justice Scalia, does it say that we must check our faith at the door upon entering public life? Moreover, where, Mr. Justice Scalia, does Catholic teaching call us to do so when God trumps everything for the sake of man's eternity, i.e., where does the Church teach that unjust laws that are contradictory to God's in the moral order must be obeyed? Sed contra, Mr. Justice Scalia, we are called to witness to the eternal truths of the Catholic faith for the sake of the common good leading ultimately to the supernatural end intended for man by God, not the devil! For shame, Mr. Justice Scalia, that you cannot see the seminal Truth Who is a Someone, not a something!
Gary L. Morella | October 3, 2009
the actions of the Florida Bishops is so disheartening. It seems the Bishops are taking on too much responsiblity for any "political fallout." This is not food-stamp policy; it is about life itself. How else do we see the overturn of Roe, unless Personhood amendments are adopted, "incrementally" state by state? Kasandra Barker | October 3, 2009
Kasandra
As tragic as the decision by the Florida Catholic Conference is, I want you to know that an organization known as CATHOLICS FOR PERSONHOOD is now up and running in Florida. So we praise God for that!
You know that I agree with you and find the entire situation with so many Bishops simply awful. But God is in charge, praise HIM!
Judie Brown Judie Brown | October 4, 2009
Gary
Thank you. Your insights are spot on.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | October 4, 2009
Judie,
Maybe you need to educate me here a bit. I've been reading up on the subject of the Health Care debate. I know that the USCCB would be interested in helping out the medical system where as Catholic hospitals are a large part of all the hospitals in the U.S. All non-for -profit hospitals are hurting finanially. As Catholics we want to fulfill or obligation to help the poor and sick.
I don't understand how you can take the word of the New York Times as the truth. I haven't read anything from the USCCB that indicates that they are abortion-neutral. I didn't even find those words in the Times article.
I believe we are living in a time of misinformation and this doesn't help matters out.
Cardinal Ragili, Bishop Chaput, Bishop Murphy and the Bishop of Kansas City have been bold in their support for "Life". I you really want to know what the Bishops believe go to their website. Recently I heard Bishop Joseph F. Naumann and Bishop Robert Fin in an interview with Raymond Aryoa on EWTN. You need to listen to this interview, these men are real heroes for the cause of 'Life'. We need to left up our Bishops they are under a lot of stress and many close to the faith understand that they are a strong witness to Hope!
I have always believed in the work ALL but I'm hurt by your attach on the USCCB. I don't see how the blanket statement against all bishops is warranted. Ray | October 4, 2009
I am sorry to say these personhood amendments are just not going to work. Sure, the bishops should support them but not much time and energy should be put into them.
We are trying to achieve the hardest possible goal, total protection of all unborn children, not just after implantation but all the way back to conception. Then we propose to do it in the hardest way possible through a public referendum. We lost by a huge margin in Colorado (73-27) and will lose everywhere else we try this.
In Florida moreover, you need not 50% as in Colorado but 60% to pass a constitutional amendment. We will probably get 30% of the vote. Even a superhuman effort in that state will lead to defeat by a very wide margin. This strategy just will not stop the killing of unborn children.
We need to organize to elect a pro-life, pro-human President and a pro-life, pro-human House and Senate. We do not have this right now. After achieving this, we could then make pro-life, pro-human appointments to the Supreme Court, overturn Roe vs Wade and get a ruling that the rights of the unborn are protected by the 14th Amendment.
While waiting for Roe vs Wade to be eliminated, we should urge state governments to simply ignore the ruling and shut down the abortion crime industry in their states. There is an argument that states that Roe vs Wade is only a judicial opinion and is not binding on anyone but the parties to the case. Joe | October 5, 2009
Dear Ray
The USCCB has presented their "abortion neutral" position on their website, not in the NEW YORK TIMES. I am happy to educate you. Here is the link: http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/2009-07-17-bg-healthcare-abortion.pdf
Ray, I am not questioning the sincerity of the Catholic Bishops but rather challenging the record. What was reported in the New York Times has been reported elsewhere including the USCCB itself, so please don't hold it against American Life League for going to the source.
This is one of many such questions fraught with confusion because of the USCCB's statements. I am a huge fan of Bishops Naumann and Finn who contradict much of what the USCCB bureaucrats are spilling forth from their offices.
I would suggest you do some research; the USCCB statements are not FROM the Bishops but ON BEHALF of them and many times they are not consistent with what orthodox Bishops are saying.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | October 6, 2009
Dear Joe
You are totally incorrect to suggest that the personhood efforts in the states and at the federal level will not work. There is absolutely no evidence to support your weak argument, if in fact it is an argument.
We have had 36 years of failed political pro-life strategy; in the USA we kill more preborn children today, more efficiently than ever before. And the only way to turn the tide is to begin focusing on WHO is dying, not to mention the fact that the child is a human being, a person deserving human rights in the same way you and I expect to have our human rights respected.
Whether we are talking about Colorado, Florida, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, or any other state where personhood efforts are being pursued, the goal is to build MOMENTUM! So what if we lose on the first round! We keep going back until we get what we want, and that is exactly what we intend to do.
Joe, yes indeed. Let's shut down the for-profit abortion business, one location at a time, but let's not forget that our goal is personhood.
Politicians are not the answer, Joe, promoting personhood is the answer. Politics has failed the pro-life movement and more particularly, the babies. PERSONHOOD NOW!
Judie Brown Judie Brown | October 6, 2009
Sorry Judie,
Just this morning I was searching for information on the USCCB as it relates to their health care postion. I found the article about "abortion neutral", then I found your message back to me.
I can see how this article can be viewed as backing away from protecting ALL life, yet I believe with the control in congress and the moral state of our society it's an effort to regulate the continue exclusion of the funding of the murder of the innocent, young and old alike.
I do appreciate ALL's commitment to ending murder and educating the people. I also appreciate the commitments about concern of past past positions of the USCCB however I truely believe that through the Holy Spirit and our efforts of the Pope Benedict XVI as well as those of the Great Pope John Paul II their is a new leadership coming through our bishops. One that is pushing for the end to ALL injustice to the vunerable.
I work full time in the public school sector, belong to the Knights of Columbus, I'm the ProLife Director of my council and pressing for people to get active in this cause for Life. I witness in prayer and counseling outside abortion mills therefore I don't have the time to do a great deal of research but when I found your blog slamming the bishops it struck me in a demoralizing way.
Yes let's end the evil but we can also slow the progression at the same time. I believe this is at the heart of the USCCB's message.
Again, thank you for ALL you do!! Thank you for your response.
God Bless Ray | October 7, 2009
Dear Judie:
I am sorry but I think you are mistaken. I have nothing against personhood but we just will never win any of these referenda. The only way to stop the killing of our children is to do it the way we did it before when we passed laws against this crime. However, instead of relying on state laws, we also need a federal statute to prohibit criminal abortion nationwide, since the abortionists control so many state legislatures and governors that it would be difficult for us to win.
Personhood is a great idea, but we almost always lose voter referenda or initiatives. Our huge loss in Colorado told us that for the foreseeable future this cannot work. We only got 27% of the vote there. The best we can hope for in pro-life states might be 40%. I doubt we would win anywhere. We can spend years trying and failing. In the meantime, the children will continue to die.
In any case, were we to win, would that stop the killing? No. We will still need pro-life political leaders who will pass laws and aggressively enforce them to stop this crime. Otherwise, the criminal abortionists will continue to commit crimes against unborn children.
We must elect pro-life leaders to pass pro-life laws and appoint pro-life judges. Only way to do it. Our movement has failed because we blundered away every Supreme Court appointment and we have settled for weak and unprincipled politicians who won't fight for the unborn. We need to elect strong pro-life candidates who WILL fight for the unborn, WILL pas strong pro-life laws and WILL make strong pro-life judicial appointments. Joe | October 7, 2009
Dear Ray
I want to assure you that I am not attempting to nit-pick, but here's the problem. If the APOSTLES OF CHRIST, which is what Catholic Bishops are, make political statements in support of tax funding for abortion in the cases of rape, incest and life of the mother (Hyde language) what are they teaching?
Their primary role is not politicking, it is teaching.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | October 7, 2009
Dear Joe
I really don't want to disagree with you but I must. Personhood is the cornerstone of pro-life activity, not political activism of the sort that pro-life political strategists have been pursuing for the past 36 years. Today the political pro-life movement is weaker than it has ever been and the reason is compromise.
Give personhood a chance, Joe! It is a principle; it is a fact and it is winnable. Before God and all who read this blog space I swear that even when we lose we win because we are serving the babies, raising awareness and teaching truth to our fellow Americans.
In the final analysis, if we keep going back time after time until we have a majority, we will win. And after all, isn't that what we should be doing?
Judie Brown Judie Brown | October 9, 2009
Hi Judie,
I agree- personhood is the way to go.
Joe, the reason I am working for personhood, is because through reason, you open up the conversation to all Americans.
In the referendum process - the information for people is to see that conception is the beginning of life. It is scientifically proven. Then you can ask the question, why is one life worth preserving and another not? It is a hard question to avoid when you've been shown the truth.
It may be a long road to educate those who do not see the truth, but it is well worth the fight.
OPEN LETTER TO CATHOLICS AND CATHOLIC ORGANIZATIONS Posted: Thursday October 1, 2009 at 10:02 am EST by Judie Brown
September 21, 2009
Members of the Catholic Medical Association have been carefully monitoring the process and content of the health-care reform debate from our unique perspective as Catholic physicians. We are familiar with contributions made to the national debate by other Catholic organizations.
As efforts to enact health-care reform legislation intensify, we would like to share our perspective on some prudential aspects of health-care reform and work collaboratively with others to shape legislation in harmony with the Catholic faith. These thoughts reflect years of experience serving patients and families in medical practice while endeavoring to apply the full spectrum of Catholic medical-moral and social teaching.
We believe we are facing a crisis, not only in health-care financing and delivery, but in the health-care reform process itself. As is often noted, the word “crisis” can mean either danger or opportunity. The United States has the opportunity (and obligation) to craft effective, ethical responses to the crisis in health-care financing and delivery. But there also exists a real danger that misguided legislation could make our current problems even worse. This is a critical time for Catholics to work together to formulate solutions based upon authentic moral, social, and economic principles,
The failings of the U.S. health-care financing and delivery system are well-known. Many people lack consistent access to affordable health insurance and are unable to obtain appropriate health- care services in a timely manner. Health-care services are expensive and fragmented. These problems result largely from misguided incentives in tax, employment, and government policy. One unfortunate result of this has been increasing third-party payer intrusion into the patient-physician relationship, with significantly deleterious consequences.
All Catholics should agree on the fundamental ethical and social principles proposed by the Church. The question we are faced with, after decades of misguided policies, is how should we apply these teachings so as to provide universal access to quality health-care insurance and services in a cost-effective, ethical manner?
Bills passed out of committees in the House and Senate this summer rely heavily on the federal government to dictate solutions. They empower a small group of unelected government bureaucrats and committees to determine the composition and cost of health insurance policies, the reimbursement of providers, the approval of treatments, etc. We think this government-controlled approach is flawed in principle and ineffective, if not dangerous, in practice.
This approach clearly violates the principle of subsidiarity first articulated by Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo anno, n. 79, and recently reaffirmed by Pope John Paul II in Centesimus annus, n. 48 and Pope Benedict XVI in Caritas in veritate, n. 47.
This approach has been and will be ineffective. The federal government has a very poor track record of managing large programs in a cost-effective manner. Medicare will be insolvent by 2017 and faces a $37 trillion unfunded liability. Medicaid’s problems are well known. Costs have run out of control in most states, and 40 percent of physicians no longer accept Medicaid because low reimbursement rates do not even cover the overhead expense of providing care. Adding millions of people to this flawed government system (as proposed by the Senate H.E.L.P. Committee bill) is not meaningful health insurance reform.
This approach, moreover, is dangerous given the current Administration’s repeated failures to accord proper respect for the dignity of human life. Reversing the Mexico City Policy and providing federal funding for human embryonic stem-cell research are only the best known of a whole series of proposals denying respect for human life. In addition, the Administration seems intent upon institutionalizing such policies making it difficult, if not impossible, to overturn them in the future. While there have been some misunderstandings about provisions relating to end-of-life consultations; serious concerns remain regarding funding for care of the seriously ill and dying. All are aware that a significant percentage of health-care spending occurs in the last months of a person’s life, and we are facing a demographic tsunami of aging baby boomers. Giving the federal government the power, and primary responsibility, to contain medical expenditures could threaten the provision of medical care to the most vulnerable, the elderly and chronically ill.
We believe there are better approaches to achieving meaningful health-care reform and meeting our common goal of making health-care coverage truly universal and genuinely affordable.
We should advocate for legislation making it possible for individuals and families to purchase health insurance that meets their needs and also respects their values. This could be achieved by re-assigning the tax deduction for health insurance from employers to individuals. And bringing appropriate incentives from the market economy to health insurance companies will increase competition and correct the problem of regional insurance monopolies, thereby reducing costs of insurance and medical care. Such reforms would address the needs of the great majority of people. Congress can also tailor programs to assist those most in need, the working poor, the unemployed, and those currently uninsurable due to preexisting conditions.
We should encourage greater individual accountability in health-care spending. Since 70 percent of health-care spending is for conditions directly influenced by personal behavior, there is considerable potential for improved health and reduced spending by encouraging healthier lifestyles with appropriate financial incentives. In general, reforms encouraging individual ownership of health insurance and personal responsibility for spending on medical care are more likely to reduce costs in an ethically acceptable manner than are those increasing the power and control of third parties.
Before supporting the creation of another large government program, we should work to reform those already in existence and demonstrating serious difficulty in controlling costs. Medicaid needs an extensive overhaul to ensure quality care for the poor and just compensation for providers.
In conclusion, we call upon all Catholics and Catholic organizations to reaffirm their support for the foundational ethical and social teachings of the Church which provide a framework for authentic health care reform, and to unite as one in an uncompromising commitment to defend the sanctity of life and the conscience rights of all providers as essential parts of health-care reform. And we also respectfully urge all Catholics and Catholic organizations to place a greater emphasis on respecting the principle of subsidiarity across the spectrum of issues in health-care financing and delivery during the coming legislative debates. Experience indicates that medical decisions are best made within the personal context of the individual patient-physician relationship rather than within some remote, impersonal, and bureaucratic agency, whether governmental or corporate. We are convinced that if this important principle of Catholic social teaching is not correctly upheld, then short-term measures to defend the right to life and respect for conscience will ultimately fail and the patient-physician relationship will be irreparably compromised.
We noted above that we face not only a crisis in health-care financing and delivery, but a crisis in the current legislative process. We must ensure that well-intentioned efforts to bring about “change” are not exploited to create a federally controlled system that promises health care for all, but creates an oppressive bureaucracy hostile to human life and to the integrity of the patient-physician relationship. It would be better to forgo long-needed changes in health-care financing and delivery in the short-term if these would lead to a long-term, systemic policy regime that is inimical to respect for life, religious freedom, and the goods served by the principle of subsidiarity. Rather than accept such an outcome, we should take the time required to implement reform measures that are sound in both principled and practical terms.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Louis C. Breschi, M.D.
President
Dr. Breschi is president of the Catholic Medical Association and a board-certified urologist in part-time practice. The CMA upholds the principles of the Catholic faith in the science and practice of medicine. We thank it for permission to reprint this commentary.
The same Pope--Pius XI--who introduced the concept of subsidiarity into Catholic social teaching in sections 78-80 of the 1931 encyclical *Quadragesimo anno* also spoke favorably of public insurance for periods of illness and unemployment in section 52 of the 1937 encyclical *Divini Redemptoris*, the encyclical that condemned atheistic communism.
Subsidiarity applies chiefly to the autonomy of the individual, the family, and the Catholic Church in relation to the state, and should not be stretched to delegitimize national single-payer health insurance (provided that grave evils such as abortion and euthanasia are explicitly excluded from coverage). The Magisterium, while upholding subsidiarity, has never condemned in principle the health care systems of Britain, Canada, and France.
Stephen M. O'Brien | October 1, 2009
Stephen
When you state that the principle of subsidiarity "should not be stretched to delegitimize national single-payer health insurance" you are arguing in a moral sense, and what we are facing regarding the Obama administration and the Congress is a twisted perspective of what that term could mean in terms of the rights of patients, born and preborn. These doctors who drafted this statement understand that, and we need to recognize that the Congress, regardless of rhetoric, is a servant of the culture of death.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | October 2, 2009
Actually, Mr. O'Brien the principal of subsidiarity, even if not explicitly stated as such, is found in Rerum Novarum. It also is the principal, for example, of the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
You state that "Subsidiarity applies chiefly to the autonomy of the individual, the family, and the Catholic Church in relation to the state..." So? When you add up that "bundle" it includes about everyone and everything. Really, the "stretch" is to then conclude that this principle "should not be stretched to delegitimize national single-payer health insurance." The principal of subsidiarity is very much a consideration in this debate...precisely because it does apply to all you list!
You add that: "The Magisterium...has never condemned in principle the health care systems of Britain, Canada, and France." The "Magisterium" need not issue "anathema's" on every issue especially in matters of prudential judgment. And, perhaps, the models of health care systems you list can rejected by Americans not "on principle" but on the reasonable grounds that they have proven not to work, etc.
We all know that the health care "system" needs to be reformed. I am happy that the CMA has added their voice to this debate.
Perhaps, for example, part of the needed reform is reign in "ambulance chasers" by calling them to the same ethical principles we expect of the health professionals, insurance companies, or even Wall Street for that matter. Fr William J Kuchinsky | October 4, 2009
ACORN, CCHD AND THE PRINCIPLE OF SUBSIDIARITY Posted: Wednesday September 30, 2009 at 5:23 pm EST by Judie Brown
By Phil Sevilla
Last November, after the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now voter fraud and embezzlement scandals surfaced in the media before and during the 2008 election, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops cut off funding for the radical group, which had received community grants to the tune of $7,300,000 over the last 10 years from the Catholic Campaign for Human Development. The Campaign for Human Development was created in 1969 by the American bishops' conference to combat poverty. But where have the hundreds of millions of Catholic dollars gone? Did you know that Barack Obama was once Chicago ACORN’s attorney and worked to train ACORN leaders?
With egg on its face, the USCCB voted to stop further funding of ACORN late last year due to growing public outrage. Did you also know that the U.S. bishops' conference was alerted long ago about ACORN’s corruption, but refused to heed the warnings made in Wanderer Forum Foundation’s report on the CCHD, prepared for the bishops in the late 1990s, as well as those made by Catholic whistleblowers such as Paul Likoudis, of the Wanderer Press in his 1994 exposé, The Legacy of CHD; and Stephanie Block, a Catholic investigative journalist in New Mexico who has written extensively on this topic? Only when the egregious ACORN scandals made the national media headlines, conservative talk radio shows and internet blogs did they act.
Well, ACORN has not been the only problem. According to a recent article published by California Catholic Daily on the CCHD, it is apparent, despite the CCHD leadership’s assurances that the problem with grant funding scrutiny has been fixed, that the problem has definitely not been fixed. In California, investigations show CCHD funds for 2009-2010 have gone to two organizations, one of which promotes same-sex marriage and the other of which opposes parental notification for abortion on a minor.
Bellarmine Veritatis Ministry conducted an eye-popping, well-documented review of recent grants approved by CCHD for advocacy organizations that promote abortion, same-sex marriage and contraception.
Remember this next time your diocese starts promoting its annual CCHD fundraising campaign. It is time to just say no to CCHD. Shut it down. Enough! ¡Basta!
The Principle of Subsidiarity
According to a well-written exegesis by Charles Gernazian, director of the Catholic American Center on Law and Religion, the principle of subsidiarity
has been an integral part of Catholic social teaching for over a century, [and] states that only things that need to be done at the national or “federal” level should be done by a “federal” government; and allows for things that can be done at the local or smaller level to be done at the more local and smaller units of society. Where individuals, intermediary groups, or small private groups of persons can address the particular exigencies and realities of a given situation, it is best to defer to such smaller groups because human beings need some flexibility and autonomy in order to effectively address their particular circumstances.
Besides the scandal of the national organization of American Catholic bishops’ long-standing financial support of politically motivated, corrupt and morally bankrupt organizations, paid for by donations of average Catholics in the pews, I have a bone to pick with the bishops about their continual violation of the principle of subsidiarity within the area of Catholic social action.
Why are we delegating our duties and responsibilities as Christians to a national bureaucracy such as the CCHD, which has funded notoriously politically partisan organizations that promote the culture of death? What about Catholic Charities organizations that have accepted federal, state and local funding, and have paid the price for it? There are Catholic Charities organizations around the country that have been taken over by agents of immoral radical social change. Think about it. Christ taught in Matthew 25:45, “Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.” He did not say that we must donate to big national bureaucracies to carry out our charitable works. He called us to personally help feed, clothe, shelter and comfort our neighbor.
The application of Catholic social teaching has been corrupted by so-called social service organizations that have done great harm to the Church’s mission by giving up their financial independence and freedom in order to promote works of charity. Publicly funded Catholic Charities in Boston had to shut down its adoption services when the state dictated that it could not discriminate against homosexual couples seeking to adopt. Publicly funded Catholic Charities in San Francisco was forced by the city supervisors to provide benefits to same-sex partners of their employees or else lose its funding. (Why was Catholic Charities in San Francisco hiring active homosexuals in the first place? Because sexual orientation nondiscrimination ordinances, which violate the rights of nonprofit religious organizations, have not been challenged by the Church!)
Read this declaration on Catholic Charities USA’s web site: “President Barack Obama in his famous campaign speech dealing with racism challenges everyone to have faith in God and faith in the American people. Together, we can overcome centuries of racial division to form a more perfect union – in the words of the Declaration of Independence.” I would ask the author of this statement, what about the rights of the preborn and their exclusion from our “more perfect union”?
The Gift of Self
There is another aspect of the principle of subsidiarity that has been violated by social change agents within the Church. When speaking to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences in May 2008, Pope Benedict XVI summarized the Catholic principle of subsidiarity as the “coordination of society’s activities in a way that supports the internal life of the local communities.” Aren’t these bureaucratic organizations such as the CCHD and Catholic Charities USA in violation of this principle? Was the parable of the good Samaritan about delegating our good works to someone else or about a personal commitment to help our neighbor? How can we individual Catholics grow in the virtue of sacrificial charity and self-giving if all we’re asked to do is write checks?
In “A Catholic Solution to America’s Health Care Problem,” David Rusch, Ph.D. wrote,
A number of years ago I calculated the number of poor families in the U.S. and pondered how the Church might respond to their needs. I concluded that if each parish adopted two poor families, poverty in this nation would vanish. I suggested that the size of the parish or church determine how many families they would support, with an average of two per parish. The support would include all that was necessary for them to be a part of the community: food, job opportunities, education, and health care. Each parish voluntarily provides all these essentials, and poverty vanishes.
Wow! What a concept! Individual members of Catholic parishes adopting and supporting needy members of their parish or members of the community at large who have fallen on hard times. This, in a nutshell, is the essence of the Church’s teaching on subsidiarity.
What better way to promote Catholic social teaching is there than at the parish level and ultimately at the family level – where families or groups of families in the parish adopt those members of their local community who desperately need food, shelter, work, education and support for crisis pregnancies? In other words, rather than writing a check or dropping a few dollars in the second collection basket, you and I –and our families – become individual Saint Vincent de Paul societies, Legions of Mary and Gabriel Projects. A Gabriel Project ministry is a parish-based ministry that endeavors to provide parish-level first-responder assistance to mothers within their local community who are experiencing crisis pregnancies.
We give of ourselves, our time, talents and caritas, not just our treasure. Treasure by itself is always easier to give up, especially when there’s an abundance. Our time and talents are more difficult to offer and share in service to others.
Think about what our children can learn when, on Sundays or other days of the week, they spend time playing with or taking children less fortunate than they are to museums or other cultural activities, or going fishing, or throwing Frisbees or footballs together. We parents can pray and read the Bible together while preparing a meal for a family whose breadwinner has lost his job or may have a serious illness. We can help mothers facing crisis pregnancies with their housing, medical and prenatal needs; counseling; job training and job hunting; emotional and spiritual support; and, most importantly, our unconditional love and attention.
Something to think about.
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.
Judie, I remember writing Fr. Robert Vitillo about this way back in 2004, which you may have seen then from my dear Mother-in-Law Peggy Saindon. Fr. Vitillo was "deeply offended," and made reference to Catholic dollars going to Community Shares, under which ACORN (among others) were umbrella groups. I remember referencing the commingling of the water and wine at the Offertory of the Mass, and how similarly funds poured into the same repository cannot be distinguished in terms of their final distribution. Here we are nearly five years later. It's about time. God have mercy on our Nation.
And Judy - keep it up - and God bless you! Andrew Ellis | September 30, 2009
Hello,
Thank you for quoting and linking my article in your newsletter. I am awed by this.
God bless you,
Dave David Rusch | September 30, 2009
Judy, Thank you for your work and your words; we pray for you and your enterprises.
Why not call the baby-killers "pro-death-choice" and call ourselves "pro-life-choice"? We do not have to let them control the vocabulary with an unfinished sentence.
Maybe it would be useful to avoid the word "abortion" and always replace it with its definition, "the deliberate killing of innocent babies in the mother's womb." Saying all those words generates vivid pictures in listeners/readers' minds -- much more than the one Latin abstraction "abortion."
Keep up the good work; our prayers are with you and your enterprises. In Christo. Albert Baxley Albert Baxley | October 1, 2009
As the Respect Life Coordinator at my parish and also a sidewalk counselor I brought a familie's story that chose life at the last minute, to the Parish Council. At first they were thrilled to help out this poor family with a shower, after nine months of bulletin inserts. At the last minute they pulled the plug because the family were not a non-profit(I had to submit a proposal).Thankfully a local Maternity Home provided everything the family needed. This parish is the wealthiest in our Archdiocese. Maria Rugg | October 1, 2009
FORSYTHE'S DILEMMA: LEGAL POSITIVISM Posted: Tuesday September 29, 2009 at 4:11 pm EST by Judie Brown
The recent commentary by Clarke Forsythe, senior legal counsel at Americans United for Life, presents a challenge that must be met. Entitled “The Blackmun Myth” for the National Review Online and “Pro-Lifers Must be Realistic About How, When Roe Abortion Case Can be Reversed” for LifeNews.com, the article goes to great pains to rebut the fundamental arguments supporting the quest for state human personhood efforts. The fact that it never gets there is the point of this commentary.
Let’s begin with Forsythe’s first quip that those who pursue state human personhood efforts are “heading toward a brick wall.” While Forsythe alleges that pro-lifers are in error when they argue that state human personhood efforts will confront Roe v. Wade with a fundamental challenge regarding the humanity of the preborn child, his reasoning does not bring us to the conclusion he wishes the reader to draw.
To be honest, Mr. Forsythe is a well-known attorney of some note and he has done great work on state and federal legislation. In other words, he is no slouch! Yours truly is a pro-life leader without a legal background who has spent 40 years of her life studying, learning, sharing and struggling to restore legal personhood to preborn children.
However, it is obvious, even to me, that Forsythe is on very shaky ground when he maintains that Blackmun and his confreres on the Supreme Court did not know when a human being begins or chose not to address it. Further, nobody who has been focused on human personhood for the past 30 years has made that allegation.
What we did say, and what is factually accurate, is that the court refused to examine the scientific evidence and, in fact, said so in the Roe decision:
Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.
Blackmun, writing for the majority, makes it clear that either the Justices did not know the answer to the fundamental question or they chose for political reasons to hide behind the confused statements of those to whom they listened and deny culpability. Call it what you will, be it cowardice, shrewd politicking or downright stupidity, the Court did, in fact, admit ignorance on when a human being’s life begins. This is, according to attorneys at the Thomas More Law Center, among others, the central holding of Roe, and therefore the only question that will challenge and bring it down.
Forsythe explains that “no state can — by statute or constitutional amendment — change the meaning of the 14th Amendment to the federal [C]onstitution.” However, those of us guiding the human personhood struggle in various states and at the federal level have never said our goal was to “change” the meaning of the 14th Amendment. We just want to bring common sense back to what we know the authors of the Amendment intended when they wrote it in the first place.
One of the politicians debating the 14th Amendment at the time, Representative Joshua R. Giddings, as much as admitted this when he said,
Our fathers, recognizing God as the author of human life, proclaimed it a “self evident truth” that every human being holds from the Creator an inalienable right to live....
If this right be denied, no other can be acknowledged [emphasis added]. If there be exceptions to this central, this universal proposition, that all men, without respect to complexion or condition, hold from the Creator the right to live, who shall determine what portion of the community shall be slain? And who shall perpetrate the murders?
Clearly, it was never the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment to deny legal protection to an entire class of persons, be they African-American or preborn. That is the entire point of the personhood effort in our nation today: to reaffirm this assertion. Doing so does not in any way “change” the 14th Amendment, but rather brings sanity back to the public understanding of why this Amendment applies to every human being, including those not yet born.
Although Forsythe opines, “that (because of our system of federalism) it will not – it cannot – establish 14th Amendment personhood or set up a test case to overturn Roe,” there are other equally astute legal minds who take the opposite position. For example, in rendering his opinion on the question, Robert Muise of the Thomas More Law Center made the point:
It is a well established principle of law that States possess the right to adopt their own constitutions with rights more expansive than those conferred by the federal [C]onstitution. See Pruneyard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 81 (1980) (affirming “the authority of the State to exercise its police power [and] its sovereign right to adopt in its own Constitution individual liberties more expansive than those conferred by the Federal Constitution).
It, therefore, remains to be seen when one offers conjecture on the subject of whether or not a state human personhood amendment can or cannot challenge the central holding of Roe, regardless of the cold water Forsythe is throwing on the efforts. He is not a seer, he is not a fortune teller, and while his opinion has validity, it is one of many opinions on this question.
On a different point, I find it troublesome that Forsythe says, because the U.S. Supreme Court’s Webster decision found the preamble of a Missouri law “constitutional,” pro-lifers should be happy to protect threatened preborn babies in “non-abortion situations.” While we are indeed grateful that we can do this by law, this will never result in the recognition of the preborn human being as a person in every situation, and it will not bring us to a point in history where human rights are recognized for all including the not yet born. If our goal is to ultimately achieve equal rights for all human persons, then human personhood is the only road to travel, regardless of what the Court said or did not say in Webster. The Court is not, after all, a supreme being; it is merely a group of men and women who are sorely misguided on the question of human personhood.
Forsythe alleges that those who support human personhood are suffering from a “profound misunderstanding of why most of those justices support Roe.” He sets forth his analysis of why this is so, and, in the process, makes a grave error. He exposes the real reason why he has repeatedly articulated his opposition to human personhood efforts in the states. Without being at all unfair or confrontational, I would propose that perhaps Forsythe has fallen into the mentality that the Court is indeed the final word on the subject of abortion and all that it entails.
Professor Charles Rice made this point years ago, when he wrote about the problem of secular humanism in the law leading to what he called a type of legal positivism. He wrote,
When the Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, broke this necessary correspondence between humanity and legal personhood, it opened the door to unrestricted speculation as to the meaning of legal personhood. If human beings are not necessarily legal persons, well, then, who are? The Court, incidentally, was reflecting the growing dominance in American jurisprudence of legal positivism, the notion that since the mind is incapable of knowing the essences of things and since, in the words of Hans Kelsen, the leading legal positivist of this century, "justice" is merely an "irrational ideal," there is no inherent limit to what the law can do. Therefore, whatever decrees are handed down pursuant to prescribed legal forms by the ruling authorities must be accepted as valid law regardless of their content.”
Professor Rice is explaining something that is extremely vital to this current question of whether or not pursuing human personhood is the equivalent of running into a brick wall. I happen to believe that Rice is correct and that the Supreme Court and many lower courts, for that matter, have set themselves up as gods in their own right. They have denied that there is a Supreme Being who is God and have chosen to avoid, at all costs, formulating decisions based on the natural law. There has been a divorce, if you will, between reason and judicial opinion, and the results are everywhere, including the ongoing decriminalization of brutal acts of abortion.
With all due respect to Forsythe and his colleagues, it is my fervent belief that the pro-life movement is at a critical crossroads. It is imperative for each of us, upon examining our own attitudes and praying for guidance, to choose God’s way and stay the course; regardless of the barbs, the public insults and the efforts to undo what we are putting together in the various states and at the federal level in our quest for human personhood.
We are not at war against legal positivists and secular humanists; we are engaged in a battle with evil. Forsythe concludes by saying, “There are other goals that are more important — and more achievable in the current environment — than an illusory test case to ‘challenge Roe’ based on questions that the current justices simply aren’t asking.”
Contrary to that view, I would argue that it is not wise for us to base our efforts on paying attention to the “questions that the current justices” are asking, but rather to make absolutely certain we are faithful to God in our public witness to the questions He will be asking when we face Him, as each of us surely will, at the judgment.
I invite Forsythe to at least think about this, and to know that, even if he continues to take issue with human personhood efforts at the state level or elsewhere, we admire him, we praise him for all the good he has done and we look forward to working with him when possible, without ever surrendering our goal of equal rights for all, born and preborn.
Yes. I agree completely. Human life is a continuum from conception to death. Nothing is added to an embryo to make it human, it is from the beginning. It is human from the creation of DNA and combining of chromosomes. The only difference between conception and adulthood is time. Don't stop, I think this is the key. Great work. Gino Gaudio | September 29, 2009
My son responded to Blackmun!
See the
The Illegality of the Roe v. Wade Decision
link
on
http://www.personal.psu.edu/glm7/
Gary L. Morella | September 29, 2009
On another topic: SHouldn't the bishops of florida welcome and support ANY effort to overturn Roe??!! SOmethig smells rotten in Tallahassee, Judie! peter wilson | September 30, 2009
The State of Wisconsin passed laws in the 1850's mandating that Wisconsin ignore laws and decisions of Congress and the US Supreme Court in regard to slavery and the Fugitive Slave Laws.
Wisconsin and other pre-Civil War states are the precedent for today's states to estabish personhood for the pre-born.
Pro-Life Story: This is MY pro-life story Posted By Kendra LaRue on Apr, 9 2007 I've been raised in a Christian home all my life, and I've always been against abortion 100%. When i was 18, I found out I was pregnant by a guy, Ben, I'd dated for about 4 ... Read
