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!
PORNOGRAPHY, PILLS, PLANNED PARENTHOOD AND PRAYER Posted: Tuesday October 13, 2009 at 2:16 pm EST by Judie Brown
Planned Parenthood of New York City recently held a fundraising event at — surprise! — a pornography museum. Yes, that’s right. While this did not come as a shock to me, I was taken aback when a friend sent the following e-mail about it: “Planned Parenthood is evil and sick. With this, I think they just answered the question as to whether there is a link between pornography (objectification of women and men, but especially women) and abortion (murder of the most innocent). Both are evil and both are heavily connected to one another.”
Of course, our friend is correct. But the tangled web of grime and sludge, Planned Parenthood’s stock in trade, goes quite a bit deeper than that. Let’s start with the announcement of the event that was held in the Museum of Sex. I looked at the announcement from last year’s sold-out soiree, which is included in the organization’s 2008 annual report. Since this is the second year for the event, it was apparently worth repeating. And for New York City, it had all the right elements: a bar that stayed open all night, after-hours access to the exhibits, raffle prizes and live DJs. A regular party, Planned Parenthood style, complete with all the hoopla one would expect from an organization steeped in sleaze.
But upon further examination of its web site, I found out that this month, Planned Parenthood of New York City is hosting a far more egregious — and, I might suggest, deadly — activity. It is pursuing a project labeled “We’re Going To The Principal’s Office Because Real Sex Ed = Healthy Futures.”
Now that, my friends, will have a far more serious effect on the minds, hearts and souls of children than any event in a sex museum. In case we have forgotten why, let’s take a refresher course on Planned Parenthood philosophy.
At the top of the list is the money it makes by marketing birth control and assuring those who fail to use birth control properly that abortion is just around the corner, should they need it. Why, it’s as simple as using your phone to text a friend.
Then follow along and learn how PPNYC shares information with children. It sponsors a special MySpace page so teens can learn that “under NYS law a doctor can’t tell your parents or anyone else that you’ve had services such as a gynecologist exam or emergency contraception.”
It’s nice to know that PPNYC is working hard, in all the right places, to make sure youngsters are going to think twice about talking to their parents about serious problems and situations that could result in sexually transmitted disease or pregnancy. But today we would be frowned upon for calling people under the age of 17 “youngsters,” wouldn’t we? These young men and women have legally protected reproductive rights, so I guess that makes them mini-adults, even though few can even keep a room clean or finish their homework on time.
If denial of parental rights isn’t enough to get every parent out of their La-Z-Boy and into a mode of discussing daily events with their children, what is? Or could it be that parental apathy is the biggest reason why Planned Parenthood and its pals are gaining greater access to young people on a daily basis?
Parents appear to be signing their role as the first line of defense, discipline and discovery over to the school. And that, in far too many cases, means Planned Parenthood. This defies a simple explanation, but clearly, Planned Parenthood is more than happy to take over. All it needs is the opportunity. And state governments are much too willing to protect a minor’s rights to the point where parents need not apply, even if they want to be involved before there is a health crisis or a dead child.
Victor Medina, a columnist from Texas who is no stranger to controversy, has reported that there is a provision in the health care reform bill that would exacerbate this situation even more. Some argue that it would give Planned Parenthood another leg up on parents by putting school-based sex clinics in the schools. As Medina tells it:
According to the bill, a "sponsoring facility" is "a hospital, a public health department, a community health center, a nonprofit health care agency, (or) a local educational agency." Such broad wording outlining the qualifications for government funds and access to schoolchildren could open the door for groups like Planned Parenthood to operate the clinics in schools with no oversight and full federal government support. The organization currently operates over 850 clinics nationwide.
The clinics would be funded by federal grants awarded by the Obama administration, which has made it clear that they expect Planned Parenthood to play an active role in their proposed health care system. In the midst of the recent national debate this summer and during the Congressional recess over the health care plan, members of the Obama administration were meeting with Planned Parenthood staff and making strong overtures over their potential role in health care reform.
When members of Congress such as Minnesota’s Rep. Michele Bachmann, bring this sort of information to the public, the media jumps all over them. In Bachmann’s case, the left-leaning media is hard at work discrediting her comments, even though the information she described is contained in at least one of the legislative proposals.
Clearly, the problem is far greater than where PPNYC holds a fundraiser, though the choice of location says a lot about its level of decency. Or is that considered to be a bad word as well these days?
My sense is that we have not seen anything yet if, indeed, health care reform’s final version takes on the complexion of a “sex-ed-for-one-and-all” sort of law. In the meantime, there is a great deal that parents and our communities can do to stop Planned Parenthood’s bandwagon in its tracks.
To start, if you are a parent, pray for the insight needed to become a master communicator with your own children. Encourage parents of young people to learn more about properly communicating. I recommend picking up one of Dr. Ray Guarendi’s audiotapes or books.
Learn about the reasons why sex outside of marriage is a bad idea, regardless of who is selling it and the attractive packaging being presented.
And pray very hard for young parents, for their children and for an end to the madness that is currently defining our culture.
PEACE: WHAT DOES IT REALLY MEAN? Posted: Monday October 12, 2009 at 12:49 pm EST by Judie Brown
The announcement this past Friday that President Barack Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize created quite a stir in the media, within divergent political circles and around the pro-life movement as well.
It cheapens the award to the point that it means nothing, it's just a token. He hasn't done a thing except talk. ... So it demeans the prize to the point that it has no significance. And it's a shame because it belittles all those people that went before.
When I think of peace and Obama, two things stand out as being incongruous. I remember the words spoken by Mother Teresa upon receiving her Nobel Prize. In her acceptance speech, she said a great deal about genuine peace and those things that negate true peace. One memorable line was this: “...the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a direct war, a direct killing - direct murder by the mother herself."
The second was the disingenuous nature of the general discussion that ensued once the announcement became public. Perhaps the single most upsetting comment came from the head of the Vatican press office. According to Catholic News Service:
Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi told journalists October 9 that the news "was greeted with appreciation at the Vatican in light of the president's demonstrated commitment to promoting peace on an international level and, in particular, in recently promoting nuclear disarmament."
"It is hoped that this very important recognition would offer greater encouragement for such a difficult but fundamental dedication to the future of humanity so that it may bring about the desired results," he said in a written statement.
How could anyone at the Vatican be so fogged of brain as to allege that Obama is promoting peace at the same time the man is leading the pro-abortion charge in every corner and at every opportunity?
In addition, there were the remarks given by President Obama himself. The most transparent portion, in my opinion, being the following:
And even as we strive to seek a world in which conflicts are resolved peacefully and prosperity is widely shared, we have to confront the world as we know it today. I am the Commander-in-Chief of a country that's responsible for ending a war and working in another theater to confront a ruthless adversary that directly threatens the American people and our allies. I'm also aware that we are dealing with the impact of a global economic crisis that has left millions of Americans looking for work. These are concerns that I confront every day on behalf of the American people.
The Vatican spokesman talks about the “future of humanity” and Obama mentions a “ruthless adversary.” Neither man takes note of the millions of innocent preborn children who die in a sea full of self-absorption, self-adulation and false hyperbole designed to persuade the world that Mother Teresa must have been off her keel while men like Obama are the real peacemakers.
But it is exactly because of situations like this one that we strive to keep reminding the world — especially those whose heady positions have robbed them of their rational thought process — until we stop murdering innocent children for any reason or no reason, there will not be peace anywhere, from the family to the community to the state to the world. There cannot be peace until the war on the innocent ceases.
One Nobel Peace Prize recipient understood the quintessence of peace as it can only be, while the other disregards the worldwide war against preborn babies, as he claims that he is committed to confronting adversaries allegedly threatening America and her allies.
These two people are oceans apart in their perspectives on the true nature of peace. Mother Teresa knew well, as she said near the end of her Nobel lecture:
[W]e must live life beautifully, we have Jesus with us and He loves us. If we could only remember that God loves me, and I have an opportunity to love others as He loves me, not in big things, but in small things with great love...
Please note that it was not the platitudes that made Mother Teresa a champion of peace; it was her actions in caring for the poor, the dying and the mothers who turned to her instead of the abortionist, and in her clear, publicly enunciated devotion to Christ who is peace.
2304 Respect for and development of human life require peace. Peace is not merely the absence of war, and it is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers between adversaries. Peace cannot be attained on earth without safeguarding the goods of persons, free communication among men, respect for the dignity of persons and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is "the tranquility of order." Peace is the work of justice and the effect of charity.
2305 Earthly peace is the image and fruit of the peace of Christ, the messianic "Prince of Peace." By the blood of his Cross, "in his own person he killed the hostility," he reconciled men with God and made his Church the sacrament of the unity of the human race and of its union with God. "He is our peace." He has declared: "Blessed are the peacemakers."
Those words, “respect for the dignity of persons and peoples,” represent the nucleus, the very basis of true peace. The blood-soaked opposite of peace is what we are witnessing in this nation today under the guise of “freedom of choice.” The maiming, the killing, the dying continues even as the president basks in the glory of his latest achievement. True peace has eluded him, as has its very meaning, which is Christ who suffered and died to teach us that peace requires self-sacrifice and unconditional love.
What does peace really mean? Let us not look to Norway to discover the answer but to Christ, who is the only way to true peace.
I think the Vatican's father Lombardi
made a very gracious, correct statement. frank mcginty | October 12, 2009
Dear Judie, Mother Teresa is indeed one of the most outstanding representatives of peace in recent history. She embodied what the "Peace Prize" should be all about. I am embarrassed for our country that this prize has now been given to a president who does not represent most of us US citizens and supports a holocaust of monumental proportions. I pray that our grass roots pro-life efforts will prevail in Jesus' name.
Bob Ulicki, Cupertino, Calif. Bob Ulicki | October 13, 2009
Are there any Catholics left in the Vatican? Evidence would seem to be to the contrary as shock shown at Vatican spokesman appreciating the farce of Obama peace prize. We're talking about a man who wars on innocents not only inside but also outside of their mothers wombs given his incredible non-support of Born Alive Infant Protection Acts!
We're talking about a man whose warped idea of peace is disarming in the face of the enemy, thereby making the world a more dangerous place to live by orders-of-magnitude! We're talking about a man who shamelessly promotes the entirety of a culture-of-eternal-death under force of law!
Once again apostates masquerading as Catholics in the Vatican do the unthinkable in praising an antichrist! It is folly to encourage nuclear disarmament in a world ruled by the prince of darkness! Pacifism has NEVER been Catholic teaching. It is a bald-faced lie to suggest that it has, is, or ever will be given that the devil prowls the world for the ruin of souls until the end of time!
We are never going to have true peace in the world as long as the devil continues to work toward getting as many people to hell as he can. Our concupiscence (tendency toward sin) as a result of Original Sin due to The Fall will not go away until we meet our Maker in judgment with, hopefully, eternal salvation as our reward in the next life as a function of our actions in this life. That used to be a fundamental precept of our faith. That it is no longer because for many it has become an embarrassment is the root of the problem.
Wars of chastisement result when men mock God! This could very well be our fate with what is about to come. So, to say as the liberal peaceniks do, ???No more war, ever!??? ignores that sometimes wars are used by God to wake us up as to what our main priorities should be, which is of no concern to them given what their ???values??? are. We have seen their values many times nationally ??? the promotion of hedonism at all costs to include our immortal souls. It is ironic that the very individuals decrying ???no more war??? are those most responsible for wars occurring around the world.
God may be giving us another chance to get our priorities in order. But our chances are rapidly running out if we do not wake up because one day, the United States of America will no longer exist. It will be replaced by a regime as oppressive as were those under Hitler and Stalin. God will have finally withdrawn ALL of his protection for our country.
We are living that reality today in what is rapidly becoming the USSA under the tyrant Obama! Such is the fate of nations who gleefully "legally" kill their young in the tradition of Herod, and promote sexual perversion as a civil right in an affirmative action sense!
We either oppose Obama in the realization that he and his minions must be politically destroyed or our country will be! There are no other options as for too long we have mocked God Almighty and now we're feeling His wrath big time!
The fact is that many in the Church, clergy and laity alike, no longer believe that the devil exists. If they did, their priorities would not be ???peace and justice??? in the here-and-now but rather eternal salvation in the here-after. Ultimately non-belief in the devil equates to non-belief in God. I seem to recall that the devil is mentioned quite often by Christ in the New Testament in relation to the serious consequences of unrepentant mortal sin, more so than by any other New Testament figure.
The ???cities of the plain??? in the Bible would have been spared for the sake of ???ten good men.??? It is only through the infinite mercy of God that America to date has been similarly spared. However, the lessons of Genesis must not be forgotten because there are Angels ready to deal with America in the same manner as they did with Sodom and Gomorrah if America continues to mock God in the most barbarous of fashions. To whom much is given, much is expected in return!
What's the Vatican's priority these days, the natural when it should be the supernatural? What's worse, natural or supernatural death? It's getting harder to figure out the answer looking at some of the latest press releases from Rome.
If we are to believe the pacifists' radical reading of Sacred Scripture then if someone breaks into our homes, threatens our families with torture and death, we can do nothing because God does not allow it, which flies in the face of reason. And the God Who gave us faith also gave us reason. God being Omniscient, All-Good, and Perfect Truth cannot contradict Himself.
But beyond this, the Fifth Commandment, first and foremost, applies to those who have an arrogant disregard of the rights of others to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness leading ultimately to supernatural happiness. We are charged with acting responsibly pertaining to these rights, as rights without duty are no rights at all. How, for example, can we rightfully lament the deaths of innocents due to wars while allowing the killing of innocents in the womb? I wonder how many of the peace zealots are pro-life? Or is their idea of peace the aforementioned promotion of hedonism at all costs, the UN variety, to include their immortal souls? Some peace that is! And please remember that this is the same UN that the Vatican spokesmen would have us somehow believe has the moral authority to preach to the world about what it can or cannot do.
Would these same pacifist clergy have appeased Hitler, Stalin and Tojo? If so, if the world would have done nothing, the human misery today would be beyond comparison as the vast majority of the world will be living in assorted gulags with the remainder dying horrible tortured deaths.
There is much to be said for strong deterrents. The fact that the world still exists today given the closeness with which it has almost experienced nuclear destruction speaks to that success.
A judgment is made that the order of justice, to be established and maintained, may require the use of force or the threat of its use. This ???threat of its use??? has undeniably, since the advent of the atom bomb with its horrendous effects provided a deterrent to any country that would consider the use of such weapons of massive destruction in a first strike mode in the realization that such an attack would immediately invite its own destruction, which would eliminate not only the threat of potential enemies but also itself in the process, thereby making nuclear war nonsensical. What other explanation could there be for the prevention of such a holocaust given the lessons of history? When tyrannical totalitarian states have overwhelming force they are prone to use it to suit their nefarious ends. When those states fighting tyranny unilaterally disarm, they are inviting their own destruction and the world's.
We live in an imperfect world because of the Fall and the onset of Original Sin. This is something that has been forgotten by those who propose a ???world political society??? such as Jacques Maritain did in Man and the State. Maritain, despite his protestations to the contrary, proposed a political utopia by nuancing the differences between the state and the body politic. He seemed to feel compelled to do this because of the evolution of weapons of destruction making, in his mind, their use always morally unacceptable. He lays the foundation for what he calls a sound political philosophy leading to a world government. He makes it clear, that he???s not referring to the state as a world government, but rather the body politic, which the state serves.
Let me emphasize once again that the political reality is not the State, but the body politic with its multifarious institutions, the multiple communities which it involves, and the moral community which grows out of it. The body politic is the people organized under just laws. The State is the particular agency which specializes in matters dealing with the common good of the body politic, it is therefore the topmost political agency, but the State is a part, not a whole, and its functions are merely instrumental: it is for the body politic and for the people that it sees to the public order, enforces laws, possesses power; and being a part in the service of the people, it must be controlled by the people.
Maritain wants to transfer a misplaced absolute sovereignty of nation states that are incapable of living together peacefully to a world political body that would oversee these states to insure world stability. This would require a surrender of freedoms on the part of the states for a greater political order, the perfection of the body politic to a common good on a world level. He even goes so far as to propose a ???supra-national advisory council??? whose members, after surrendering their state allegiance, i.e., their citizenship, become world citizens beholding to no one and nothing other than the aforementioned perfection sought by him. For all his good intentions, Maritain???s argument is extremely flawed in that he???s forgotten a basic tenet of his faith, the spiritual battle for our souls until the end of time, which does not provide the guarantee that those whom Maritain would entrust membership to this elite world advisory panel would not turn from virtue to vice in the promotion of hedonism as a civil right. We???re witnessing this currently with the positions taken by the UN, and the European Union in regard to the promotion of the ???culture-of-death??? in all of its manifestations as a function of the contraceptive mentality of the age, i.e., abortion, homosexuality, and euthanasia, all of which are gleefully embraced by Comrade Obama.
Pre-Obama, what we used to see was just the opposite of what Maritain intended. It was the sovereign nation state, namely, the United States of America, due to the recognition of the necessity of authentic freedom being rooted in the Gospel by a significant portion of its citizenry, that stood up to the evil of the father-of-lies whose agents populate world governing bodies. One could counter Maritain that it appears that it is the nation state that is still the place where a sense of human education, national history, and destiny finds its fulfillment ??? albeit a nation state that has not lost its moral compass. Sadly, this is no longer true as America under the dictator Obama couldn't care less about a moral compass. It formerly trashed same the day of Obama's inauguration as the biggest agent of the father-of-lies now masquerades as our president!
We are in the battle for our eternal lives. That is the real war. We cannot fight that battle as referred to in Pope Leo XIII???s prayer to Saint Michael the Archangel if we're not here to fight it, letting the modern Neville Chamberlains tell us that doing nothing will allow for "peace in our time." History and the concupiscence due to Original Sin, which will exist to the end of time, prove otherwise. Do we honestly believe that our unilateral disarmament will make the world a Heaven on earth? If so, then our theology is flawed as that means that Original sin doesn't exist, and the devil does not prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls like a raging lion. Has history, in particular, has our faith taught us nothing?
We are working and perfecting ourselves to the real Heaven that can only be attained by abiding by God's laws, not an illusionary natural "heaven on earth" that exists only in the minds of those who have forgotten the supernatural reasons for their creation, their final end. This is why we have to be ever vigilant putting on the armor of God to fight the spiritual battle and its natural manifestation, as all wars have been, raging around us. To be successful we must be a country under God deserving of His blessing, not His condemnation!
Beware more of he who kills the soul than the body. The former has eternal consequences more horrible than anything that can happen in this life to include especially any and all forms of physical death. Evil came into the world as a result of the concupiscence due to Original Sin. Man caused that by disobeying God, not God. God has withdrawn His protection for our country because we've grievously sinned. If we don't become a country under God, instead of mocking Him by disobeying His laws, then what happened on September 11, 2001 will seem like nothing to what will happen. This is Biblical. How can a country that has sponsored the culture-of-death to the point of exporting it to the rest of the world expect anything else? Did we honestly think that Almighty God would allow Himself to be mocked indefinitely? If we persist in the manner that we have, leading to this tragedy, we're doomed. Thousands lost their lives in New York. Millions have lost their lives in what should have been their most secure haven, their mothers' wombs. And our country not only allowed that to happen but also encouraged and coerced the world to follow in lockstep. On Tuesday September 11, 2001, our country got a wakeup call! On the day of Obama's inauguration, it got its final warning from an angry God who said to us, "You want to live without Me, go ahead and try!"
Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, in the 1983 Templeton Address, prophetically warns that men have forgotten God and such is the origin of modern wars and oppression.
The material laws alone do not explain our life or give it direction. The laws of physics and physiology will never reveal the indisputable manner in which the Creator constantly day in and day out, participates in the life of each one of us, unfailingly granting us the energy of existence. ... To the ill-considered hopes of the last two centuries, which have brought us to the brink of nuclear and non-nuclear death, we can propose only a determined guest for the warm hand of God, which we have so rashly and self-confidently spurned.
Is the fact that on one coast thousands of people had their bodies killed, a physical manifestation of the spiritual warfare for our salvation, coupled with the other coast destroying our souls by erasing thousands of years of Judeo-Christian tradition via trashing the family in promoting homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle to the insane extreme of oxymoronic sodomite marriage as "proposed law" in California, "no big thing" to a God Whose mercy is meaningless without His justice? The gospel according to Obamunist liberal pundits answers, "Of course, it's no big thing. How can you be so stupid?" The Gospel according to Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the One, True, Triune God existing from eternity, says our souls are at grave risk of eternal perdition in the fires of hell with the devil and his angels!
Gary L. Morella | October 13, 2009
As a supporter of the massive evil of legalized abortion, which is a war against the unborn, President Barack Obama does not merit the Nobel Peace Prize. Still, it is justifiable for the Vatican to welcome President Obama's declaration that nuclear disarmament is the official policy of the United States, for this declaration is in line with the teaching of the Catholic Church on war and peace. In section 508 of *Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church*, the Church tells us that general disarmament is a crucial goal. As blogger Stephen Hand pointed out in a caption superimposed on a photo of an unborn child, "they need a world to be born into."
We should pray that the President's advocacy of the Church's objective of nuclear disarmament will be a stepping stone toward his conversion to the true Faith.
Stephen M. O'Brien | October 13, 2009
Dear Mr. McGinty
That's nice, but you do know, of course, that Obama is totally pro-war on the innocent which is certainly not a path to peace.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | October 13, 2009
It is pretty hard to ignore that this Nobel Peace Prize winner is warring against his own country's moral foundations, if not God Himself. He names Kevin Jennings as director of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools. He says, "You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman." He appoints as many pro-abortion "Catholics" as he can find. He says he will remove conscience protection for medical workers. He directs the health care "reform" measures defer restrictions to appointees, rather than spelling them out in the law. And he directs his Congressional leadership to disallow all amendments to explicitly protection conscience and ban abortion funding with Federal money. David Volk | October 13, 2009
Judie, God bless you in your untiring work of saving the babies. You have the beautiful words and heart to do this, and with God's blessings you continue to proclaim the truth! I am proud to be a contributor and faithful reader of your beautiful "Celebrate Life" and everything else you send me to read. Some day this great evil of the "culture of death" will be stopped, but it will take many people saying many prayers. More support is needed and I have spoken out many times for this with my friends. Keep up your beautiful work, Judie, and God bless you and your family. Marie Carlson | October 13, 2009
Thank you Judie Brown and Gary Morella for your insightful comments.
October 9, 2009 when I woke up to hear on the radio that the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to President Barack Obama, I felt sick.
I am sure many Catholics are perplexed when they hear beloved Bishops and priests extolling politicians whose agenda is in opposition of God's teachings and outright, attacks on the unborn and the family. Surely, these Bishops, Priests and Church leaders must know of the anti-life agenda of President Barack Obama?
October 13, 2009 the Senate Finance Committee passed their form of the health care reform, Baucus bill. Currently, all the health care reform bills that are being debated and rushed through Congress have abortion mandates in them despite attempts of amendments to exclude abortions.
How many Catholics are aware of the abortion mandates in the health care reform? And there is more than the abortions mandate which should cause people to be concerned and voice their disapproval to Congress.
http://www.healthreformscam.com is a good website to help sort out the truths from the many untruths in the health care reform. It would be wise to see what the pro-life organizations are saying about health care reform and the life issues as well.
Recently, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a "Hate Crimes" provision within the defense authorization bill. "By granting a special protection for a particular group, we diminish protections and thereby penalize everyone else . . . . This sets us on a slippery slope toward serious infringements of the freedom of speech and freedom of religion. 'Hate Crime' legislation will lay the legal foundation and framework for investigation, prosecuting and persecuting pastors, business owners, and anyone else whose actions reflect their faith," concluded Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council.
Family Research Council during the spring of 2009 was the first organization to highlight the radical record of Kevin Jennings, President Obama's choice for "safe schools czar." http://frc.org/
There were, also, false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will introduce destructive heresies and even deny the Master who ransomed them bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their licentious ways, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled. In their greed they will exploit you with fabrications, but from of old their condemnation has not been idle and their destruction does not sleep. 2Peter 2: 1
As Christ followers, we need to put on the whole armor of Christ. The devil still prowls for the ruin of souls.
Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception,
pray for us and the conversion of all souls.
A NURSE'S VIEW OF ETHICS AND HEALTH CARE LEGISLATION Posted: Friday October 9, 2009 at 11:09 am EST by Judie Brown
by Nancy Valko, RN
As a nurse for 40 years, I have long been very concerned about the direction our health system has been taking. Now, I am becoming truly frightened by the significant changes that government’s proposed health care reform would cause.
I’ve read much of HR 3200, [one of three] health care reform bill[s] currently being pushed by the Obama administration, and I agree with the critics who worry about potential taxpayer-funded abortion, rationing of care and promotion of the “right to die”. Like them, I am also concerned about a massive governmental overhaul of our health care at an exorbitant financial as well as moral cost.
Much of the bill’s language is murky legalese that is hard to understand. Much of the language is vague enough to allow all sorts of interpretations — and consequences. Worse yet, efforts to insert limits on such issues as taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand so far have been rebuffed — or concealed in various ways. Government officials who advocate the proposed health care reform legislation are furiously trying to allay the fears of the increasing number of citizens who oppose the bill — but we have only to look at the statements and philosophy of the people supporting this bill to recognize potential dangers. Here are some examples:
— Compassion and Choices (the newest name for the pro-euthanasia Hemlock Society) boasted that it “has worked tirelessly with supportive members of congress to include in proposed reform legislation a provision requiring Medicare to cover patient consultation with their doctors about end-of-life choice (section 1233 of House Bill 3200).”
— On abortion, President Barack Obama not only said “I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose” on the January 22, 2009 anniversary of Roe v. Wade, but he also moved to rescind the recently strengthened federal conscience-rights protections for doctors and nurses who object to participating in abortion.
— On rationing: Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, President Obama’s health care advisor, wrote in the January 2009 issue of the British medical journal Lancet about using a “complete lives system” to allocate “scarce medical interventions.” He wrote that, “When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.” Dr. Emanuel [co-]wrote a 2005 article on the Terri Schiavo case, bemoaning the low percentage of people signing “living wills” and other advance directives and stated, “Cases such as these also introduce economic issues, as the costs of keeping people alive — especially in the ICU — are substantial.”
End-of-Life Issues a Major Concern
Just recently, a judge in Montana, acting alone, declared assisted suicide legal, making Montana the third state with legalized assisted suicide. Last year, cancer patient Barbara Wagner received a letter from the state-run Oregon Health Plan that denied coverage for an expensive drug for her recurrent lung cancer, but agreed to cover drugs for assisted suicide as “palliative” or comfort care that would cost around 50 dollars. This past July, a New York nurse sued her hospital after she allegedly was pressured into participating in a late-term abortion.
Around the country there are instances where judges refuse to allow the implementation of state laws mandating parental notification, women’s right to know information and abortion clinic safety regulations.
Unfortunately, those of us who try to be ethical health-care professionals cannot turn to the mainstream national organizations like the American Medical Association and the American Nurses Association for help. I’ve been particularly alarmed that the ANA, like Planned Parenthood, is so vocal in its support of the newly proposed health-care-reform legislation.
Like most nurses, I do not belong to the ANA. Though I was formerly a member of ANA, and tried to work for change, I withdrew my membership when the ANA opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion. Since then, the ANA has also opposed strengthened conscience clause protections and supported the “right to die” in the Terri Schiavo case.
As a nurse, I believe that not participating in abortion is a moral and natural imperative, not a “choice.” And also as a nurse, I’ve seen the effects of the “right-to-die” movement on health-care providers and their education over the years. Personally, I have become sick of hearing that this or that patient “needs to die” when the patient or family chooses not to withdraw basic care or treatment. Unfortunately, there are a lot of medical people and prominent ethicists who don’t really believe in free choice when it comes to the “right to die” and who actually do think some patients are a drain on the health care system and society. Not surprisingly, many of them also support direct euthanasia.
President Obama said in an April interview, “The chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.”
The present context of the moral and ethical issues makes it particularly worrisome for the proposed health-care-reform legislation’s plan to mandate “end-of-life counseling”.
Mounting concern about what is really involved in the administration’s health care reform proposals has met with unexpected resistance. It’s been amazing to watch the throngs of people of all ages making their voices heard at town hall meetings. I’ve been especially impressed by the older citizens. It seems that seniors who may once have told their children that they didn’t want to ever be a burden have now awakened to the realization that soon government-appointed ethicists may decide when a person is “too burdensome” to be allowed to live.
Some of the criticism of HR 3200 now seems to be finding its mark. Dr. Emanuel, who at first maintained that critics were taking quotes from his writings out of context, now says that his views have “evolved”, and that he no longer supports health care rationing. And Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley now says, regarding the upcoming Senate version of health care reform, “We dropped end-of-life provisions from consideration entirely because of the way they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly.”
These are hopeful developments — much, much more is necessary. The architects of what is now often termed “Obamacare” are still determined to win passage of a comprehensive health care bill, and pro-abortion groups demand unlimited abortion coverage. Politicians’ continued reassurances are most often mere repackaging of bad ideas. Influential ethicists who support abortion and the “right to die” can be expected to resist opposition as vigorously as ever.
Good Health Care Reform
Of course, we must continue to be serious about making health care better, especially when it comes to the moral and ethical foundation of our health care system. It can be done.
A few years ago, I was privileged to serve on a Catholic Medical Association task force on health care reform. Many great ideas, such as health savings accounts, ways to help the uninsured poor, and better conscience-rights protections, were developed and published in a 2004 report entitled “Health Care in America: A Catholic Proposal for Renewal.” Some of these ideas already have support in Congress.
Many of our bishops have been addressing these crucial issues, as well. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has a health care reform web section to provide information, action alerts, statistics, statements and other resources.
As I write this in August 2009, the future of the government’s proposed reform of health care is still in dispute... What is indisputable is that all citizens need to be informed and especially to be heard on this crucial issue that affects all of us.
In early August, the National Association of Pro-life Nurses, of which I am a member, issued a statement of guiding principles necessary for any ethical health care reform:
Position Statement on Health Care Legislation of the National Association of Pro-life Nurses
Because proposed health-care legislation affects those of us in the nursing profession directly, the National Association of Pro-life Nurses issues the following guidelines to be included in any approved proposal.
• The bill must not include any mandate for abortion
• Abortion funding prohibitions must be included to reflect long-standing bans in place
• State laws regulating abortion must be upheld
• There must be protection of the conscience rights of health care workers, and
• Any plan adopted must include full prenatal and delivery care for all pregnancies.
In addition, we are opposed to mandating end-of-life consultation for anyone regardless of age or condition because of the message it sends that they are no longer of value to society. Such consults place pressure on the individual or guardian to opt for requests for measures to end their lives.
We believe those lives and ALL lives are valuable and to be respected and cared for to the best of our abilities. Care must be provided for any human being in need of care regardless of disability or level of function or dependence on others in accordance with the 1999 Supreme Court decision in the Olmstead v. L. C. Decision.
Adopted by the Board of Directors [on
] August 3, 2009.
Reprinted with permission from Voices online edition,
 Vol. XXIV, No. 3, 
Michaelmas 2009, which is published by Women for Faith & Family. Nancy Valko, a registered nurse from St. Louis, is president of Missouri Nurses for Life, a spokesperson for the National Association of Pro-Life Nurses and a Voices contributing editor.
HUMAN PERSONHOOD AND WOMEN Posted: Thursday October 8, 2009 at 2:31 pm EST by Judie Brown
In our pursuit of state and federal constitutional protection for all human persons from the beginning of their biological development, we frequently hear that “the right for women to make private medical decisions regarding their reproductive health” will be jeopardized once human personhood is recognized by law. Most recently, this claim was made by Allyson Hagen of NARAL Pro-Choice Montana. It must be addressed head-on because it is so false and misleading.
What exactly is “reproductive health” anyway? Well, as opposed to the all-inclusive whole health of a human being, it seems that “reproductive health” deals only with a certain mechanism in the female body that can, if used in a certain way at a particular time of the month, give a nod to a preborn child. In other words, “reproductive health” is all about the ability of a female to get pregnant. That alone raises some questions:
Is pregnancy a disease?
Does birth control treat an illness? Or is it a recreational drug?
Are women safer now that they can ingest chemicals to fool their bodies and pay for surgical procedures that kill their babies?
NARAL and their ilk don’t address these questions. Shouldn’t they?
The completely natural state of being pregnant, or “with child” as we like to say, is understood by most people to be a temporary state that will culminate in the birth of a child. Nothing harmful there, right?
Well, not according to the proponents of “reproductive rights.” However, we must understand that all of their voiced and inferred platitudes are based on lies, because abortion itself is a lie.
It is abundantly clear that the “reproductive rights” crowd failed to mention a few things about the female and her personhood.
Let’s start with the fact that every female human being has a right to know exactly what is at stake if she ingests a chemical to have sexual relations (theoretically, without consequences) or chooses to pay someone to abort her own child. She deserves respect, honesty and integrity from those she confides in when seeking information or asking questions about matters that will impact her for the rest of her life.
Organizations such as NARAL, Planned Parenthood Federation of America and National Organization for Women always fail to point out that there is a proven link between abortion and breast cancer. There is also a similar link between chemical contraception and various forms of cancer. The proof is available, but not shared, if a woman happens to encounter someone who advocates “reproductive health.”
The woman featured in Ignatius Productions’ YouTube video makes it clear that “the destruction of my health would have had to have begun the day I entered an abortion clinic 11 years ago.” This is a real person, a human being, whose choices were never defined for her in terms of what might happen to her body, her mind and her soul if she chose abortion or used birth control. Yet this woman’s story is not front page news; nor will “reproductive rights” advocates make it a priority on their let’s-talk-about-your-choices agenda.
A second video, from Ends of the Earth Productions, features the facts about breast cancer, abortion and contraception. All of the information is documented, but apparently not of much interest to those who claim to be concerned about women’s reproductive rights or health. It’s not a stretch to figure out why, but let’s move on.
What about the pain of abortion? Isn’t it a fact that mothers who abort their children suffer post traumatic stress disorder? According to “Hidden pain: Politics suppresses the problems of many post-abortive women,” a recent article by Matt Anderson, a Minnesota-based obstetrician/gynecologist, the tragedy of post-abortion suffering is enormous. He writes,
Published, peer-reviewed studies from New Zealand, Australia, and the United States show a link between abortion and alcoholism, substance abuse, depression, and anxiety, among other less common negative effects. Personally, I can attest to the despair, depression, what-ifs, and regrets women have after induced abortion.…
Since abortionists and pro-abortion researchers have access to abortion patients and therefore do most research on abortion complications, the results are predictable. My residency program in OB/GYN had a large abortion service. They would send out a questionnaire to women who underwent an abortion and the doctors doing their post-abortion visit, asking questions about complications. It came as no surprise to me that those wearing the "Keep Abortion Safe and Legal" buttons—the ones who collated the data—always found few complications.
When the fox guarding the hen house says all the hens are just fine, what do you think?
The politics of abortion advocacy has tainted medical research and medical researchers into claiming safety and no long-term adverse mental effects for a procedure that takes a pre-born human life. Excellent studies contradict their conclusions, conclusions that fundamentally lack the ring of truth. If you doubt that abortion causes long-term negative effects on women and think the APA is right, try asking a post-abortive woman, "How do you feel about your abortion?"
These mothers deserve our respect, consolation and the full truth. They do not deserve lies, half truths, innuendo and political gobbledygook. While that may occur when she visits her OB/GYN to talk about a discomfort she is experiencing or a problem she is having, it does not occur when she is getting guidance from a “reproductive rights” advocate.
On the one hand, these people claim that passage of a state or federal human personhood amendment will jeopardize women. On the other hand, they are jeopardizing women and their human personhood on a daily basis. Financial gain and political power mean more to these hypocrites than the human personhood of the woman they claim to care about so desperately, so passionately and yet so dishonestly. But let’s move on.
Think about the woman who is sexually violated by rape or incest and her baby, should she become pregnant. What of her human personhood and that of her child? Such a subject is never discussed in polite company. Yet as one woman’s story confirms, even on this subject, “reproductive rights” advocates are behind the eight ball.
Juda Myers is a lovely woman who was conceived in rape. Today, she has a ministry that reaches out to others who are suffering. As her web site states,
Forgiveness in any case is attainable! Destiny, filled with purpose and potential waits for each of us through the one who created us. Knowing Jesus Christ personally will guarantee that life of purpose and joy indescribable. If you're miserable and life isn't worth living, there is a solution.
Juda’s story, and her birth mother’s courage, are presented for one and all to see, hear and absorb. Yet those who advocate for abortion in these situations would dismiss Juda’s witness by ignoring the truth about the tragedy that can be avoided when one affirms human personhood for both mother and child.
There are myriad reasons why proponents of “reproductive rights” will not tell the truth. And it has nothing to do with good health. Even when dealing with underage females — human persons who are still developing emotionally, physically and intellectually — these harbingers of death are not honest. If they were, Planned Parenthood would not be running morning-after pill and birth control pill clinical trials involving 13-year-old girls, would they? If Planned Parenthood respected the human personhood of these young women, every effort would be made to affirm their self-respect rather than abuse their bodies with chemical assault weapons.
Clearly, the bottom line with “reproductive health/rights” advocates, who consistently call foul when human personhood is discussed, is money, political influence and public confusion. The actual facts and honest defense of human personhood, including that of their female client base, is the farthest thing from their minds.
It’s up to us to make sure we confidently and unapologetically affirm everyone’s human personhood, especially for the women in our midst who have become a meal ticket for far too many with a vested interest in death and human destruction.
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
Pro-Life Story: From Ugly to Beautiful Posted By Amy Lynne DeMarco on Jan, 22 2007 My name is Amy and I am 25. I am now married to the most wonderful man the Lord could ever bless me with. But when I was 17 I became pregnant with my daughter. I was scared, to ... Read
