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!
I'D RATHER HAVE WRINKLES THAN KILL BABIES, NEOCUTIS Posted: Wednesday November 4, 2009 at 1:14 pm EST by Judie Brown
(The following is a media release issued on November 3, 2009, by Debra Vinnedge, founder and executive director of Children of God for Life, an American Life League Associate group. It is reprinted here with her kind permission.)
Last week, the pro-life organization Children of God for Life made news when it issued a media release saying that Neocutis, a San Francisco-based cosmetics company, was using aborted fetal material to produce its anti-wrinkle skin cream. Since then, thousands of angry consumers have begun taking action. Many have called or written Neocutis to complain, and unfortunately, they are receiving jaded, if not patently false responses from the company president, Mark Lemko.
For starters, Neocutis responded to one inquiry by claiming there was only one abortion involved when, in fact, its own web site states, “The Laboratoire de Médecine Foetale at the Medical School of the University Hospital of Lausanne has worked extensively with fetal cells since 1995 and resulted in several patent applications.”
Neocutis further says it was formed in 2002 as a spin-off of the university’s medical school team and began working to protect “the intellectual property of their proprietary technology defining a business strategy, setting up a business plan and hiring the pioneers in order to establish the skin cell bank.”
Yet the abortion used to provide the fetal material for their products was done in 2004. Clearly, if they had to protect their "proprietary technology," multiple sources of aborted fetal material had to have been used for years, prior to perfecting the final cell line that they ultimately used in 2004.
In what can only be called suspect at best, Neocutis stated that the 2004 abortion was done because the “pregnancy could not come to term” and that “the mother’s life was in danger.” Yet what is reported in Experimental Gerontology (Vol. 44, Issue 3, March 2009, pp. 208-218) about its research makes no mention of this at all.
What the research paper states is that the fetal material was obtained from a 14-weeks gestation male baby “after pregnancy termination” in which they “obtained informed and written consent.” Considering that the report dedicated an entire section to the “ethical aspects of working with human fetal cells,” in which they attempted to sanitize what they were doing, it is certain that if the abortion was somehow classified as medically necessary, it would have been documented as such. And of course, Neocutis does not mention why all those other abortions were done prior to 2004. Apparently, that is something it was not counting on the public finding out.
And while Neocutis promises “no further fetal biopsies will be needed,” the University of Lausanne states, “We have seen that cells frozen in this manner are capable of being stored for at least 15 years in our laboratory.” So what happens after 15 years? The cells will eventually lose their capacity to replicate and will need to be replaced.
Neocutis has desperately tried to minimize its notorious activity by noting that only a four-centimeter section of skin was used to produce its cell line. But taken into perspective, based on the size of a baby at 14 weeks gestation, that’s about the size of the entire baby’s back.
Even more appalling was its attempt to justify using aborted fetal material. Mr. Lemko told another letter writer that he “felt comfortable with his decision” after studying the 2005 statement by the Pontifical Academy for Life, "Moral Reflection on Vaccines Prepared From Cells Derived from Aborted Human Foetuses." He cites this statement in his letter:
[A]s the same vaccines are prepared from viruses taken from the tissues of fetuses that had been infected and voluntarily aborted, and the viruses were subsequently attenuated and cultivated from human cell lines which come likewise from procured abortions, they do not cease to pose ethical problems. If someone rejects every form of voluntary abortion of human fetuses, would such a person not contradict himself/herself by allowing the use of these vaccines of live attenuated viruses on their children? Would it not be a matter of true (and illicit) cooperation in evil, a problem which arises every time that a moral agent perceives the existence of a link between his own acts and a morally evil action carried out by others?
It is unconscionable that Mr. Lemko would use the Vatican statement to defend his actions. Not only are we talking apples and oranges here—health vs. vanity—he must have missed the part of that document where it stated,
Therefore, whoever—regardless of the category to which he belongs—cooperates in some way, sharing its intention, to the performance of a voluntary abortion with the aim of producing the above-mentioned vaccines, participates, in actuality, in the same moral evil as the person who has performed that abortion.
The Pontifical Academy for Life rightly puts no weight on the intention of the mother, as it is inconsequential when multiple parties are involved in an act of evil. Neocutis is directly complicit because it was its intention to use aborted fetal material in order to produce its skin creams.
Interestingly, both the Pontifical Academy for Life in 2005 and Pope Benedict XVI in his December 2008 encyclical, Dignitas Personae, condemned the use of these "illicit biological materials," but Pope Benedict took it even further, stating,
Therefore, it needs to be stated that there is a duty to refuse to use such “biological material” even when there is no close connection between the researcher and the actions of those who performed the artificial fertilization or the abortion, or when there was no prior agreement with the centers in which the artificial fertilization took place. This duty springs from the necessity to remove oneself, within the area of one’s own research, from a gravely unjust legal situation and to affirm with clarity the value of human life (35).
Additionally, both Vatican statements commented on users of the end products from these aborted fetal cell lines, cautiously noting that parents could use the vaccines in question "on a temporary basis" and in situations of "grave inconvenience" or "considerable danger" to the health of their children and society.
Hmm. Now, what do you suppose the Vatican would say about using these cosmetic creams?
Children of God for Life is urging the public to take action by "sounding off" on its web site or by contacting Neocutis directly. It is also calling for a full boycott of all Neocutis products and any companies distributing them. Further information is available at the Children of God for Life web site.
Editor's note: Also see the story in yesterday’s Washington Times.
YOU DON’T SAY! Posted: Tuesday November 3, 2009 at 11:17 am EST by Judie Brown
Hyperactivity has taken on new meaning as many of those who pander to the abortion lobby are becoming apoplectic due to the growing strength of the pro-life personhood movement at the state and national levels. You can tell by simply reading the reports that flood the internet daily. Some of them are downright humorous, but we dare not laugh for these commentators are serious — dead serious.
Newsweek senior reporter Sarah Kliff penned a “web exclusive” titled “I Am Zygote, Hear Me Roar.” Kliff works hard at dehumanizing the earliest human person in our midst … the human individual. The problem is that she uses inaccurate language to achieve her goal. This is not really due to her ignorance but rather her zeal to convince the reader that preborn children are not really anywhere near as valuable or as human as those of us who survived the womb.
She writes that Colorado’s first personhood effort in 2008 “would have revised Colorado's state constitution to define a fertilized egg as a person, thereby outlawing abortion.” Kliff is wrong. We don’t say that. In fact, “fertilized egg” is a scientifically inaccurate term that is used by pro-abortion forces to relegate the preborn child during his first days of life to a non-human status. Average citizens who hear the term “fertilized egg” have a mental idea of the same sort of egg one finds in a chicken coop or the refrigerator and automatically, as the pro-aborts hope, the citizen is put off by such a silly idea, saying things such as “who would ever argue that an egg is a person!”
Kliff also tells the reader that the “idea” regarding when a human life begins has always been at the center of “anti-abortion-rights ideology.” In other words, she relegates the actual scientific facts regarding human development to nothing more than an “idea,” and the defense of those facts as theory. By carefully choosing her words, Kliff obfuscates, but that too is intended.
We don’t say “idea” and we don’t say “ideology” because both are inaccurate, which is precisely why our opponents do.
Freelance writer Wendy Norris recently created a blog entitled “Financial Issues Dog Second Colorado Egg-as-Person Campaign.” In case you missed it, she too cleverly gets that little old “egg” into her headline. Just a coincidence? I don’t think so.
Norris is a bit more jaundiced in her remarks, focusing on the absence of adequate funding for Personhood Colorado’s activities. She focuses on the most recent campaign finance report in terms of what she defines as the organizational leadership’s “vow of poverty.” By suggesting that the group has little funding, she avers that in their lack of income, one can see their downfall. In fact, Norris was so worried about where the group got the money to fund a mailing that might have cost a thousand dollars that she desperately tried to call the leadership for an explanation.
Claiming “The peculiarities on Personhood Colorado campaign's recent financial disclosure form may very well be an oversight by fledgling activists. Or it could point to a much more cynical attempt to thwart public accountability by a well-oiled theocratic political machine,” she misses the whole point. When grassroots pro-lifers are committed to a cause, they frequently use their own personal resources to finance a campaign until such time as there is a thriving fundraising effort. I have known people who worked a regular job and poured all their excess income into a pro-life program and, the last time I looked, that was not a crime!
Where has this woman been? Or is she simply making an attempt to destroy Personhood Colorado by tossing innuendo the way a Southerner tosses pancakes?
By using phrases such as “shadowy activities” and “reporting snafus” it would seem that Norris is hell-bent on doing whatever she can to bring down Personhood Colorado based on nothing but her personal opinion. Norris is apparently not adept at arguing articulately about her reasons why personhood is not necessary. Perhaps this is because she knows there are no intellectual, logical arguments to support her pro-death tendencies. So character assassination appears to be her main course.
We don’t say such things because we don’t have to; we have the facts which speak for themselves … if given a chance to be born, of course.
USA Today has joined this linguistic circus as well, recently blogging about the reasons why aborting a child prior to birth is really what health insurance reform should be about. In an opinion piece subtitled “It’s a legal medical procedure—and insurance should cover it,” the editors posit the dubious claim that aborting a child is in the same category as removing an infected tooth. But what is most egregious about this blather is the following:
Since the mid-1970s, abortion opponents have managed to cut off insurance coverage for the procedure for a larger and larger number of Americans. With exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother, federally funded abortions are banned for women covered by military insurance, Medicaid, the health benefits program for federal employees, and the Indian Health Service.
This is, of course, the result of deep religious conviction. For those who believe that life begins at conception, pursuing such policies is a moral obligation. But it is simultaneously an intrusion into the private lives of millions of American women of other beliefs in a nation where the government is supposed to be religiously neutral. Now, the same forces are pushing for more.
Note that the writer equates a “ban” with the funding of at least some, if not more than a few child killings. I never knew that banning something was the same as permitting it. I wonder where we find that definition.
The blogger further suggests that the reason for curtailing federal funding is some “deep religious conviction.” Well, pardon me, but again we are dealing with human embryology, which is a science, not a church. We are further dealing with logical analysis of scientific facts, which is not a dogma but a function of the intellect if one cares to use it. Apparently, in the world of abortion advocacy, there isn’t much desire for cerebral exercise these days. Overstatements and misstatements appear to be favored fare when writing about preborn human beings.
Finally, there is this idea that one’s position on abortion is based on a personal belief. Such assertions are loaded with deliberately inaccurate terminology designed to continue the grand scheme that has been in play for nearly forty years. The culture of death architects devised a long range plan which has always been to convince an unthinking public that abortion is not killing anyone but rather a surgery like any other. The tragedy of this strategy is that children die, mothers are wounded, families are destroyed and death persists unabated because ignorance rules.
This is why we don’t say “belief,” we say “fact.” We don’t say “I think,” we say “I know.” We don’t say “that’s my opinion,” we say “look at the truth,” the 4-D ultrasound, the images so beautifully presented by eminent photographers like Lennart Nilsson.
We don’t lie, we tell the truth.
For this very reason, every now and then, someone from the dark side’s inner sanctum sees the light. Abby Johnson of Bryan [Texas] Planned Parenthood just had her encounter with the truth and now she tells the media, "I feel so pure in heart (since leaving). I don't have this guilt, I don't have this burden on me anymore that's how I know this conversion was a spiritual conversion."
Judie, You're of course right that "fertilized egg is inaccurate terminology I don't speak of zygotes much, since that phase is evanescent. The second division starts immediately after fertilization is complete, and the with that the embryo is formed. So I say "human organism, human individual, human embryo, human being," etc.
Good idea regarding the word "belief", since that's not the language of embryological Science. Belief applies to the things we can't observe directly. Karen Brauer | November 4, 2009
ABSOLUTE OPPOSITION TO NATIONAL HEALTH CARE REFORM A MUST Posted: Monday November 2, 2009 at 10:49 am EST by Judie Brown
A couple of recent news items from South America have reminded me once again why the United States government — or any government, for that matter — must never be entrusted with the health care of its population. Political arrangements or authoritarian actions are always just the stroke of a pen away from oppression of religious liberty.
It is the rare country these days that can boast of a politician who actually stands up for truth, life and the ethics of honest government. When I first read of the actions of the president of the Constitutional Court of Peru, I was in total disbelief and had to immediately check sources to make sure that the news I had read was accurate. The president, Juan Vergara, has asked Peru’s minister of health, Oscar Ugarte, to prohibit the sale of the morning-after pill in pharmacies, due to the fact that the pill can cause an abortion.
This announcement came almost three years to the day after Chile’s feminist president, Michelle Bachelet, fought to liberalize the nation’s policies regarding the availability of contraception by making this very pill, the morning-after pill, available free at state-run hospitals.
The most recent news report on the court’s decision explains,
The court's ruling bans the free distribution of the morning-after pill in public health care facilities; however the drug can still be sold in pharmacies as long as consumers are provided with information on the drug’s potential abortifacient nature.
According to Carlos Polo, director of the Office for Latin America of the Population Research Institute, the court “has acted correctly because it put things into proper perspective. The promoters and sellers of the pill needed to show that the anti-implantation effect did not exist and they could not do so.”
Only time will tell whether or not the proponents of abortion will rise up and challenge the ruling by appealing to international courts, but the fact is that there is at least one judge in Peru whose confidence in scientific fact supersedes his desire for political popularity. A rarity indeed, as was recently confirmed by events in Colombia, where quite a different scenario is playing out.
Colombia’s Constitutional Court recently ruled against freedom of religion, freedom of conscience and freedom from oppressive, anti-life policies. In 2006, the Court ruled that there were certain circumstances in which an abortion could be performed. Thus, for the first time in Colombia’s history, abortion became available “when a pregnancy threatens a woman's life or health, in cases of rape, incest and in cases where the fetus has malformations incompatible with life outside the womb.”
In plain English, that would mean that surgical abortion is available in all cases. The word “health” is so elastic that it can apply in nearly any situation. All one need do is consult the U.S. Supreme Court’s Doe. v. Bolton ruling to discern just how meaningless the word “health” truly is these days.
As if that 2006 ruling were not bad enough, a few days ago that Colombian court extended its reach into the practice of medicine by ruling that all hospitals and/or health centers whether public or private, secular or religious, must provide training for staff to perform abortions. In essence, this decision forces Catholic hospitals to teach and practice murder. Thank God for Auxiliary Bishop Juan Cordoba Villota, who declared in response to this egregious ruling, “We Catholic educators are not going to teach this; we're going to teach respect for life. We emphatically reject this pronouncement. We will not disobey any orders, but... they cannot obligate us to do this."
The decision is now under examination because a formal request has been made that this recent court ruling be overturned. The decision to challenge this ruling has not pleased pro-abortion forces. In fact, one commentator wrote,
[I] understand that a majority of Colombians may well be inflexible anti-abortionists, who believe that a woman never has a right to end her pregnancy even under the most extreme of circumstances. After all, Colombia still is a parochial, largely conservative society: the first legal abortion in Colombia, performed on an 11 year-old who had been raped by her stepfather, did not fail to outrage many people. It is very likely that if Colombians were to decide this issue by referendum, the pro-choice side would lose miserably.
It is my opinion that these two events, which occurred in fundamentally Catholic countries with strong religious leadership from the bishops, should be of particular interest to American bishops right now. For contrary to what is happening in Peru and Colombia, the United States is not an overwhelmingly Catholic nation but one composed of people of many faiths. Further, as has been reported in survey after survey, a majority of American Catholics don’t object to abortion or contraception, even though the Church teaches that abortion is an act of murder and contraception is intrinsically evil.
Based on this fact alone, the Catholic bishops should be up in arms, sounding the alarm, running up the flag and telling the government, through the united activation of faithful American Catholics in America, that the Church will not tolerate any usurpation of its freedom to reject all anti-life aspects of health care reform in any form, under any guise, for any reason.
It is obvious that the debacle known as national health care reform is moving closer to becoming a reality. Many of us who have studied the various bills understand that what these proposals really represent is an imposed authoritarian government-controlled program that could have ominous overtones for Catholic health care facilities in the United States.
There could come a time in the not-too-distant future when the federal government will do what the court is attempting to do in Colombia, by imposing its anti-life will on the Church and her facilities. What then?
How effective will the current “abortion neutrality” statement from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops be when the U.S. government is in charge of health care?
A government that wishes to impose its will on one and all is a government that should not be interfering with the ethical practice of medicine. And yet by acquiescing to the idea of nationalized health care and stipulating only that such a program be “abortion neutral,” the USCCB is playing right into the hands of those in charge of alleged health care reform.
The U.S. government has a track record to prove the veracity of my statements. The history of our government’s involvement in abortion alone, not to mention contraception, human embryonic stem cell research and other practices that violate the dignity of the human person, provides ample documentation on this question.
If there is suspicion that the above statement is an overreaction to the current proposal that has just come from the House of Representatives, examine the facts as set forth in Michael Hichborn’s study of the bill.
Contrast the Hichborn study with the USCCB action alert, which does not address euthanasia, health care rationing, contraception, human embryonic stem cell research or sterilization. There is no question that these anti-life activities, in addition to sex education, special privileges for groups such as Planned Parenthood and more that were included in the House version, were included in the Senate version and so far have not gone anywhere. Even Senator Chuck Grassley, one of the Senate leaders in health care reform negotiations at the time, is concerned:
"I don't have any problem with things like living wills, but they ought to be done within the family," he said. "We should not have a government program that determines you're going to pull the plug on grandma."
While we are eternally grateful to the bishops for sounding an alarm, the current situation deserves stronger action on a much broader scale. We would hope that USCCB bureaucrats would be scouring these proposals for the very same dreadful indications of promoting the culture of death that we have found and shared.
Hichborn assured America,
American Life League will continue shining the spotlight on the culture of death’s attempt to promote its agenda and expand its reach through Obama-style "health care reform." As changes are made and provisions are introduced or removed from current federal legislation, you can count on American Life League to keep you updated on these developments.
We call on the USCCB to do likewise. There is too much at stake; the lives of far too many of our fellow human beings are at risk.
We are not living in a nation with a government or a judicial system that respects the natural law. We are not living in a Catholic country that puts Christ and His truth first.
On the contrary, we are living in a nation wherein a government has literally presided over the murders of millions of innocents as it denies that a human being exists prior to birth. Such a governing authority can never be entrusted with the health care of the people of this nation, regardless of their religious persuasion, immigration status, income or any other qualifier one might choose to list.
Thomas Jefferson once said, “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” I would suggest to the Catholic bishops, as individual shepherds and as a united force for good, that the price of preserving the integrity of all that the Church teaches regarding respect for the dignity of the human person is their absolute opposition to government-controlled health care reform.
It is undoubtedly right to call attention to the need for stronger leadership on the part of the American hierarchy in the debate on health care legislation. The bishops should be opposing, explicitly and vocally, not only the funding of abortion (both surgical and chemical), but also the funding of euthanasia, assisted suicide, *in vitro* fertilization, embryonic stem cell research, sterilization, and contraception. No national health system in any nation should pay for any of those, or any other, mortally sinful procedures.
It is *not* necessary, however, to maintain that the bishops must denounce government-sponsored medical care *per se*, even in a country such as the United States, where committed Catholics are only a minority, and where, largely owing to our own fault, we lack enough political influence to block many evils. Even in our nation, all people, including Catholics, have the right to health care--a right that logically flows from the very right to life--and there are strong arguments in favor of our country???s adopting a single-payer national health insurance system as the best practical means of providing that care. We should fight relentlessly for such a system as well as for its absolute exclusion of all sinful payments.
If Catholics who refuse to reject a government health plan *per se* are wrong, then they are in the good company of all the modern Popes who failed to condemn the national health systems that have arisen in Western Europe and Canada. Please note, too, that when Pope John Paul II advocated inexpensive or even free medical care for workers in section 19 of his encyclical *Laborem exercens*, it is a reasonable conclusion that he accepted state-run health care systems. Are we to say that John Paul II was mistaken about this?
Stephen M. O'Brien | November 3, 2009
Judie,
Where were the Catholic bishops at election time? Why were so few clergy (including my pastor) concerned enough to warn parishioners of the evil of President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic cronies. He was pro-abortion then and continues to be now, and if given the chance, he will gladly destroy the Catholic Church in the United States.
Now that our country has reached a crisis point, the bishops are finally willing to speak out. Shame on all of them for waiting so long. sharon w | November 4, 2009
Dear Mr. O'Brien
Thank you for your comments, but I think it is quite a stretch to suggest that pope John Paul II was approving government-controlled health care in his encyclical "Laboren exercens," #19, whih deals with the worker and his or her employer, not the government. In that section the Holy Father teaches
"Besides wages, various social benefits intended to ensure the life and health of workers and their families play a part here. The expenses involved in health care, especially in the case of accidents at work, demand that medical assistance should be easily available for workers, and that as far as possible it should be cheap or even free of charge."
At no point does the Holy Father reference a government controlled health care system.
Judie Brown
Judie Brown | November 5, 2009
Sharon
I hate to say it, but I must. The Bishops are clearly in the pocket of the Democratic party. Their actions (USCCB, et al)on health care reform are shameful.
HALLOWEEN: SPOOKY TALES OF A CATHOLIC KIND Posted: Friday October 30, 2009 at 11:26 am EST by Judie Brown
Sometimes the facts are scary enough to double for imaginary witches, goblins and monsters from Count Dracula’s basement all in one fell swoop. These past few days have proven that not all that is bloodcurdling is going to be trick or treating tomorrow, that’s for sure.
There’s the whole rigmarole with Notre Dame president Rev. John Jenkins. Even though he defied Catholic teaching, and never responded to the expressed concerns of more than 80 Catholic bishops, as he carried on with his plan to host pro-abortion U.S. president Barack Obama, he was still elected by the Notre Dame trustees to serve a second term as president of the prestigious University of Notre Dame.
As the Cardinal Newman Society pointed out in a press release, even though Jenkins abused the Catholic identity of Notre Dame by rolling out the red carpet for Obama, it didn’t seem to ruffle the feathers of the trustees one tiny bit. What a scary tale this is, as Patrick J. Reilly of CNS makes clear:
The Board of Trustees has once again neglected their responsibility to uphold Notre Dame’s Catholic mission by reelecting a president who has displayed public disrespect for the bishops and has permitted repeated scandals including the honors to President Obama and performances of The Vagina Monologues.
But then again, as Jill Stanek exposed during the original ruckus, there’s not a whole lot Catholic about that board of trustees anyway.
On top of this, we find that Jenkins announced publicly that he would be coming to the March for Life in 2010. Well, frankly, that should have been expected. So why is it newsworthy? Aren’t Catholic priests supposed to set a good example for their flock? Oops, I think that lets Jenkins off the hook after his shenanigans, which might be why his public announcement received coverage. The National Catholic Register reported in a huge story covering Jenkins’ namby-pamby announcement:
The controversy over the University of Notre Dame’s honors to pro-abortion President Obama at its May 17 commencement has led some pro-life advocates to question whether the university is pro-life — or even Catholic.
But it appears Notre Dame is trying to take the high ground.
Holy Cross Father John Jenkins, Notre Dame’s president, announced in a Sept. 16 e-mail to the university community that he plans to attend the March for Life in Washington next January and hopes to offer a Mass.
If that isn’t a tale from the crypt, I don’t know what is. First of all, Jenkins is not the University; he is the president and none of us question whether or not the “university is pro-life,” but rather why Bishop D’Arcy didn’t suspend Jenkins, whose pro-life credentials are questionable regardless of how many public pronouncements he makes about attending the March for Life.
Why any upstanding Catholic newspaper would give ink to Jenkins’ announcement after the debacles of these past months is a mystery. But then again, I have been known to see hobgoblins where others suggest there are daisies and buttercups.
So perhaps the next item is also a figment of my imagination. It seems that “Sister” Donna Quinn, a Dominican nun, is working as a volunteer at a local abortion mill in the Archdiocese of Chicago. No, she is not volunteering for the local pro-life pregnancy care center in an effort to prayerfully talk expectant mothers out of entering the place to pay someone to kill their own babies. Sr. Quinn is a death-scort. She escorts expectant mothers inside so they can kill their babies. Oh, and Sister has been doing this for at least six years according to one pro-lifer.
Horrors! And get this:
Sr. Patricia Mulcahey, OP, Quinn's Prioress at the Sinsinawa Dominican community, said in an e-mail response to LSN that the nun sees her volunteer activity as "accompanying women who are verbally abused by protestors. Her stance is that if the protestors were not abusive, she would not be there."
Though Sr. Mulcahey claimed that her sisters "support the teachings of the Catholic Church," she declined to comment on Quinn's public protest of Catholic Church teaching.
Finally, and perhaps the scariest tale of all, is that the latest Senate version of Obama’s health care reform package should have provoked some sort of comment from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. So far, that organization has been eerily silent.
Many, including yours truly, are convinced that Section 1803 of the Senate bill will make Planned Parenthood a quasi-government agency, as if they weren’t really one already. In a public statement, we explained:
The Senate version of America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009 may transform the nation’s largest abortion chain into a quasi-government entity for sex education.
Section 1803, page 503, creates a National Teen Pregnancy Prevention Resource Center and states:
The Secretary shall award a grant to a nationally recognized, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that meets the requirements described in clause (ii) to establish and operate a national teen pregnancy prevention resource center (in this subparagraph referred to as the ‘Resource Center’) to carry out the purpose and activities described in clause (iii). (emphasis added)
According to the requirements found in clause (ii):
The organization has demonstrated experience working with and providing assistance to a broad range of individuals and entities to reduce teen pregnancy. The organization is research-based and has comprehensive knowledge and data about teen pregnancy prevention strategies.
According to Rita Diller, national director for STOP Planned Parenthood, there is only one “nationally recognized” organization that fits the bill — Planned Parenthood.
“This dangerous provision to the Senate health care bill could give Planned Parenthood, already under investigation for tax fraud and concealing child rape, quasi-government status and even more influence over our kids,” Diller said.
Section 1803 also creates a “Personal Responsibility Education for Adulthood Training” program (i.e. sex education), which grants at least $250,000 to each state to educate adolescents on "both abstinence and contraception for the prevention of pregnancy and STDs."
We scoured the internet for some late-breaking news, hoping to find a united voice of absolute opposition to this provision from the USCCB, but, so far, such a statement has either been eaten by a ghost or it doesn’t exist. Either way, this too is more than a bit frightening when one considers the power that a forceful statement from the USCCB could have in a matter as egregious as this one.
Even if Planned Parenthood is not the organization the Senate has in mind (which we highly doubt), the sort of “tricks” and “treats” the government has in store for us should generate some sort of comment from the bishops, don’t you think?
All in all, these events add up to some pretty spooky stuff when one considers that, in every situation, the Catholic Church and her leadership should be standing tall, defending truth, exposing evil and dealing with those who make a mockery of her teachings. Until that happens, the treacherous tricks will commence unabated.
Also, yesterday, the USCCB Pro-Life Secretariat contacted the pro-life coordinator of every diocese, informing them of a bulletin insert/flyer campaign this weekend and next.
More information at: http://www.usccb.org/healthcare/
Also take a look at the following articles at the American Papist blog:
http://www.americanpapist.com/2009/10/how-many-bishops-support-current-health.html Stephen Pandolfo | October 31, 2009
Judie,
So many great points in this, but I have to comment on 1 in particular "Sister" Donna Quinn, her Superior & the way they are betraying Venerable Fr. Samuel Mazzuchelli who started the motherhouse.
Sadly, she is a good example of what almost all the "sisters" are like over there. (I live in DBQ across the river) Several of us are sounding the alarm arround here.
They are a prime example of the need for the Vatican visitation. Al | October 31, 2009
'AMERICA'S HEALTHY FUTURE ACT OF 2009' Posted: Thursday October 29, 2009 at 4:24 pm EST by Judie Brown
By Michael Hichborn
Ever since July 14, when the first version of Obamacare, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (H.R. 3200) was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives, American Life League has been carefully monitoring "health care reform” proponents’ efforts to promote abortion, contraception, sex education, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell therapy, health care rationing, violation of conscience rights and any other anti-life endeavors. By publishing several articles and producing two American Life League Report videos on Obamacare, American Life League is exposing so-called health care reform proposals for what they really are: the culture of death’s attempt to vastly expand its power and reach, through institutionalized population control.
The U.S. Senate’s version of Obamacare, ironically named America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009 (S. 1796, introduced in the Senate on October 19) is set to cost the American people over $829 billion. To put this amount in perspective, Defense Department spending for fiscal year 2009 was $651.2 billion, and the total amount of outstanding consumer credit card debt for 2008 was $927.73 billion.
But the most significant problems with this 1,504-page bill lie in its coverage of abortion; its redefining of euthanasia so as not to include starvation, dehydration and withholding or withdrawal of medical care; and its creation of a new resource center that would essentially establish Planned Parenthood as a quasi-government agency.
Page 73 establishes abortion as a component of “a State basic health program,” thereby fostering taxpayer-funded abortion in individual states. Paragraph 3 (“Assured Availability of Varied Coverage through Exchanges”) of section 2245, “Special Rules Relating to Coverage of Abortion Services” (pages 140–144), specifically stipulates that there would be at least one state-funded plan that would provide for abortion.
The “compromise” here seems to be that one can opt for a plan that does not cover abortion. Even though subsection (b), “Prohibition of Use of Federal Funds,” of section 2245 purports to prohibit the use of federal funds for abortion coverage, simply segregating funds so that specific individual dollars do not intermingle with abortion dollars is deceit of the highest order. The fact is that when money is granted to an entity that commits abortions, even if cannot be spent directly on abortion coverage, it frees up other funds to pay for abortions.
Part (c) of Paragraph (3) of the same section, titled “No Discrimination on the Basis of Provision of Abortion” (page 144), is especially insidious. Regardless of whether a particular health care plan covers abortion or birth control, the insurer may not discriminate against paying individual health care providers because they do or do not perform abortions or distribute birth control. So, a private Catholic health insurance company that does not cover abortion or birth control, but does cover STD testing and pap smears, may not deny payment to Planned Parenthood if a patient insured by such a company seeks either of those services there, even though PP is the nation’s largest promoter and provider of abortion.
Section 1202, “Application of State and Federal Laws Regarding Abortion” (pages 144–145), simply states that this Act supposedly does not affect standing state and federal laws regarding the practice, funding or coverage of abortion. It also states, “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to have any effect on Federal laws regarding conscience protection; willingness or refusal to provide abortion; and discrimination on the basis of the willingness or refusal to provide, pay for, cover, or refer for abortion or to provide or participate in training to provide abortion.”
Section 1639, “State Eligibility Option for Family Planning Services” (pages 371–380), allows for state plans to cover “family planning services and supplies … in a family planning setting” (page 373). It is well known that “family planning services” means contraception and abortion, and a “family planning setting” is a place like Planned Parenthood.
Section 1640, “Grants for School-Based Health Centers” (pages 380–381), states, “The Secretary shall establish a program to award grants to eligible entities to support the operation of school-based health centers.” It is very possible that Planned Parenthood, already heavily involved in school sex education programs and the peddling of contraception and abortion to minors under the guise of health care, could be among the “eligible entities.”
Section 1802, “Support, Education, and Research for Postpartum Depression” (pages 480–484), authorizes a federal study of all mental health aspects of “resolving a pregnancy,” including carrying to term, miscarriage and abortion. While any speculation on the purpose of such government-sponsored research is pure conjecture at this point, it should be noted that this section also includes plans for a national propaganda campaign regarding “postpartum conditions.”
Section 1921, “Protecting Americans and Ensuring Taxpayer Funds in Government Health Care Plans Do Not Support or Fund Physician-Assisted Suicide; Prohibition Against Discrimination on Assisted Suicide” (pages 581–583), creates a rather interesting dynamic. Subsection (a) states that federal funds “shall not pay for or reimburse for any health care entity to provide for any health care item or service furnished for the purpose of causing, or for the purpose of assisting in causing, the death of any individual, such as by assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing.“
However, subsection (c), “Construction and Treatment of Certain Services” (page 582) specifically states that this prohibition does not apply to abortion. While the statement itself is deplorable, it is highly noteworthy as an implicit recognition of the preborn baby as an “individual” and an acknowledgement that abortion causes the death of an “individual.”
Furthermore, it should also be noted that subsection (c) also stipulates that “the withholding or withdrawing of medical treatment or medical care” and “the withholding or withdrawing of nutrition or hydration” are not to be considered “assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing” and are thus not prohibited under subsection (a). This subsection is a direct slap in the face to those of us who denounced the withdrawal of Terry Schiavo’s feeding/hydration tube for what it was: murder. This subsection allows for physicians to intentionally starve and dehydrate patients to death by redefining what constitutes “assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing.”
The title of Section 1803, “Personal Responsibility Education for Adulthood Training” (pages 491–508) is a euphemism for new taxpayer-funded, massive sex education programs and stipulates grants of at least $250,000 to each state for this purpose.
In order for states to receive money for such programs, they must provide the following: current statistics on the pregnancy and birth rates of children age 10–19; goals for reducing pregnancy and birth rates for said children; and a description of how such funds will be used to reach these goals, especially for “youth populations that are the most high-risk or vulnerable for pregnancies or otherwise have special circumstances, including youth in foster care, homeless youth, youth with HIV/AIDS, pregnant youth who are under 21 years of age, mothers who are under 21 years of age, and youth residing in areas with high birth rates for youth.”
The allotted money may be granted to organizations that would operate such programs, i.e. organizations such as Planned Parenthood.
Personal Responsibility Education for Adulthood Programs are defined as those “designed to educate adolescents on both abstinence and contraception for the prevention of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections” (pages 498–499).
Requirements for these programs, found in subsection (B), include replicating “evidence-based effective programs … which means delaying sexual activity, increasing condom or contraceptive use for sexually active youth, or reducing pregnancy among youth.” Specifically, such a program must be “medically accurate and complete”; the program must include “activities to educate youth who are sexually active regarding responsible sexual behavior with respect to both abstinence and the use of contraception”; “the program places substantial emphasis on both abstinence and contraception … among youth”; and “the program provides age-appropriate information and activities.”
But the most dangerous aspect of this entire section is the creation of a “National Teen Pregnancy Prevention Resource Center” through Subsection (C) on page 503:
The Secretary shall award a grant to a nationally recognized, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that meets the requirements described in clause (ii) to establish and operate a national teen pregnancy prevention resource center (in this subparagraph referred to as the ‘Resource Center’) to carry out the purpose and activities described in clause (iii). (emphasis added)
According to the requirements set forth in clause (ii),
The organization has demonstrated experience working with and providing assistance to a broad range of individuals and entities to reduce teen pregnancy. The organization is research-based and has comprehensive knowledge and data about teen pregnancy prevention strategies.
There is no organization that better fits this description than Planned Parenthood. The language in this clause even includes PP’s preferred adjective for its explicit, promiscuity-promoting sex education: “comprehensive.” If this provision is allowed to remain in America’s Healthy Future Act, PP will assume the position of a quasi-government agency with quasi-governmental powers to engage the nation’s youth on matters of sex, birth control and abortion.
American Life League will continue shining the spotlight on the culture of death’s attempt to promote its agenda and expand its reach through Obama-style “health care reform.” As changes are made and provisions are introduced or removed from current federal legislation, you can count on American Life League to keep you updated on these developments.
FROM THE SICKO WORLD OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD Posted: Wednesday October 28, 2009 at 5:34 pm EST by Judie Brown
One never knows what might be posted as a YouTube video, readily available to anyone with an internet connection. Among the most recent is a shocker starring Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s vice president for medical affairs, Vanessa Cullins, M.D. In a recent Wednesday STOPP Report, Rita Diller, national director of Stop Planned Parenthood International (STOPP), described this video’s basic message quite simply as “Get sexually active and get your STDs.” In fact, Cullins makes it clear that you should “expect to have HPV [human papillomavirus] once you become sexually intimate; all of us get it” and that you should expect this because “most of us” are sexually active and just have to admit it.
Cullins’ hellishly brazen comments are not anything new, of course, and many who read my commentaries know that American Life League has been working for many years to expose Planned Parenthood’s true agenda. Through our STOPP project, we are constantly encouraging parents to get involved with their children, their school systems and their community, to get rid of this extremely harmful stain on the cultural environment. For just as surely as oil sludge can pollute a stream, Planned Parenthood is polluting the minds and souls of our children.
Any adult female such as Cullins who can, with a straight face, expound on the virtues of promiscuity is contributing to corruption in more ways than one. She tells young people that “whether you’re thinking this a relationship [that is] going to end up in marriage or one that’s gonna end up as a one-night stand,” you just need to “take precautions in order to stay healthy.”
This is evidence that Cullins is an adult female who has sold the virtue store down the river for a few measly dollars that will go into Planned Parenthood’s coffers. The problems with this mindset are myriad, but as long as that cash register is ringing out ka-ching, ka-ching, nobody at Planned Parenthood is going to blink an eye.
But what about the public? Aren’t parents concerned about this? Don’t they want their teens to be chaste until marriage, appreciate the authentic meaning of their sexuality and understand why it is important to save oneself for marriage? The sad answer to that question is, for the most part, no!
Cullins’ implication that if you are not sexually active, you are not “like most of us” rings true among not only young people but far too many young parents, many of whom are single parents, and even among married couples who have bought into the lies inherent in the prevailing contraceptive mentality. It is a sad testimony to the times in which we live, but all too true. If we bury our heads in the sand and pretend that such grossly misguided attitudes and distorted theories about human sexuality are normal, then we too are part of the problem. So the question is, how do you solve it?
Well, there are a growing number of young, vibrant experts who already have the answer and are teaching it in any venue they can find that that permits them to discuss sex from a Christian perspective. And some of them are using their public identity to foster wholesome values in the midst of all this bunkum.
For example, Jeff McLain, of American Life League’s Rock for Life project, recently blogged about the failure of school sex education programs. His insights are very useful in this age of “everybody’s doing it, so just admit it.” He writes,
There is an old saying: “When it rains, it pours.” A Chicago high school is now learning a new meaning to that saying. The principal of Paul Robeson High School discovered one out of every seven of his female students is pregnant.
Nowadays, it isn’t unusual to find a few pregnant girls in a school; however, this is certainly a high number. Principal Gerald Morrow told CBS2, in an interview, that he is aware of 115 young ladies, out of 800 female students, who are currently expecting or have recently given birth.
Perhaps the first question that comes to mind is the topic of sexual education. You’re probably assuming the school doesn’t teach it. Otherwise, it would be working, right? Wrong. Reporter Kristyn Hartman, from CBS2, says that the school has had “prevention talks” with the students. So what can we blame this high number on? Is sex education not working in our public school systems?
Principal Morrow is blaming the problem on a lot of issues, one of them being a lack of leadership and a lack of fathers at home. Another issue brought up is the fact that parents aren’t educating their kids.
In case it’s news to you that parents are delinquent in their duties, let’s remember that for the last 50 or more years, Planned Parenthood has been busy in our schools nationwide, brainwashing students, handing out birth control information and referring expectant young mothers to abortion practitioners.
So the parents of today’s kids in that high school are perhaps convinced that their kids are going to have sex, so why interfere? If that sounds crass, you really need to get in tune with the world out there. It is the rare parent who accepts responsibility for instilling values in their children and by doing so, preparing them to say no to sex outside of marriage. Such are the parents of college football great Tim Tebow, a Heisman Trophy winner.
As a matter of fact, it’s at times like these that I wish the nation had at least a million young men like Tebow. To understand why, read on.
One Florida sports reporter, Martin Fennelly, described his favorite moment at the Southeastern Conference’s Football Media Days:
[T]he moment, at least to me, was when some writer (not me) entered virgin territory - there, in front of hundreds of people, all those cameras, he popped the question to college football’s leading man.
“Tim, are you saving yourself for marriage?”
Heads turned, many with eyes rolling. Some groans, some breath being held.
Given Tebow’s faith and what it means to him, it might not have been out of line to ask this question. But here, in front of hundreds, to put him on the spot in front of hundreds and hundreds of ...
Uh, Tebow, laughing, interrupted:
“Yes, I am.”
Another reporter began to ask another question, but Tebow, still laughing, interrupted again.
“I think y’all are stunned, right now. Y’all can’t even ask a question. Wow. I was ready for that question. I don’t think y’all were, though.”
It was just another touch of class from a kid who has exuded it from the moment he set foot in Gainesville. It probably goes a lot further back than that.
Leave it to Tim Tebow to steer a rancid Gotcha moment onto the high road and stay there.
Obviously, Fennelly sees what a positive effect a young person with good character, faith and the ability to be honest can have. You see, Tebow is a heartthrob, not a guy with buck teeth and thick glasses. And yet Tebow knows what he’s about and is not ashamed to express it.
Whether the good news about how amazing it is to live according to God’s standards instead of Cullins’ is coming from Rock for Life, Tim Tebow or the purity ring-wearing Jonas Brothers, the message needs to be broadcast to young people and their parents over and over again. Real men such as McLain, Tebow and the Jonases need to be in the spotlight so that America can finally replace sicko with hero!
thank you for a great article. I have been thinking a lot lately about the need to promote chastity amongst our young, because abortion is simply the clean up for the sexual revolution. And our kids deserve much more than the license to be sexually promiscuous. Julie Culshaw | October 29, 2009
Catholics should think about the following quotation from Pope John Paul II's social encyclical *Laborem exercens*: "The expenses involved in health care, especially in the case of accidents at work, demand that medical assistance should be easily available for workers, and that as far as possible it should be cheap or even free of charge" (section 19).
In the health care debate, we should relentlessly fight funding for abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, contraception, and other grave evils, but we should not oppose the concept of government-insured health care *per se*. Stephen M. O'Brien | October 30, 2009
THE FINAL END OF ABORTION IN AMERICA WILL COME WHEN … Posted: Tuesday October 27, 2009 at 11:14 am EST by Judie Brown
Recently, I received a letter from a dear physician friend with whom American Life League had worked in the late 1990s. His name is Charles W. Norris and he is one of the world’s leading experts on naturally spacing children, commonly known as Natural Family Planning. His book, Know Your Body: A Family Guide to Sexuality and Fertility, is still one of the best available on the subject.
When he wrote me last week to catch up on old times, he expressed a serious concern. And it provoked me to recall that, while American Life League does not remain silent about what it will take to actually end abortion in America, we don’t emphasize positive alternatives with the enthusiasm we should. A culture that understands the reasons behind naturally spacing children within marriage is key to ending the death grip proponents of contraception, abortion and all manner of sexual perversion have on this nation at this moment.
In his letter to me, Dr. Norris said,
It seems that pro-lifers have used every weapon against the pro-aborts that they can think of: logic, the truth, the ballot box, the law, anecdotal abortion horror stories, trying to get pro-life judges elected and on the Supreme Court and etc., etc. Let me suggest to you that abortion will not stop until everyone takes the responsibility for the handling of their own fertility on their own shoulders in the practice of Natural Family Planning. Frankly, Judie, I fail to understand why pro-life organizations do not vocally and loudly promote NFP as the weapon to combat abortion.
Dr. Norris is fundamentally correct, though we might put his sentiment in a more critical light. It is, in fact, the contraceptive mentality that has driven couples away from a sincere desire to understand fertility and subsequently accept the fact that if a couple really wants to avoid procreating a child, there are natural ways of doing that. Further, should a child be conceived anyway, that same couple would welcome God’s gift, even though untimely, by realizing that God’s timing is perfect.
Imagine a world where teens were not being ravaged by sexually transmitted diseases nor carrying babies and aborting babies while they are still developing into adulthood. What sort of culture would it be if men and women respected each other as human beings gifted by God with blessings that are to be appreciated rather than savaged by date rape, promiscuity and all manner of sexual perversion? How many crimes of the flesh would go away if persons of both genders addressed the fundamental truth that life itself is a gift from God and the practice of virtue is the only road to physical, emotional and spiritual health? In a situation like that, nobody would even think of murdering his own child or pressuring an expectant mother to do so based on selfish reasons of economic gain.
This is exactly what Dr. Norris is getting at. In the spirit of reviving an old friendship and honoring a man who is still teaching us what it really means to respect human dignity, we remind readers of my blog that indeed American Life League does understand the fundamental facts about what it will take to end abortion in America. This is why, more than nine years ago, the American Life League Board of Directors approved the following statement of policy:
A married couple sincerely seeking the will of God makes a genuine commitment to always include His will in their marital relations. During this process their love for each other grows. The reason is clear: marriage and conjugal love are, by their very nature, ordained to procreation.
A question often arises in today’s society regarding the differences between spacing children according to nature’s calendar (natural family planning) and contraception. A further question is asked regarding the licit practice of such natural approaches. Let us be clear. First, the differences between respecting a woman’s natural rhythms and the practice of artificial family planning methods are stark. In fact these differences were once recognized by all Christian churches. Prior to 1930 no Christian church approved the practice of contraception.
We recognize that the practice of contraception violates the principles of Natural Law which are understandable by the use of reason alone. We endorse the consistent Catholic teachings on this subject and specifically cite Pope John Paul II’s definition of these differences, Familiaris Consortio, (Section 32):
When couples, by means of recourse to contraception, separate these two meanings [the unitive and procreative purposes of the marriage act] that God the creator has inscribed in the being of man and woman and in the dynamism of their sexual communion, they act as “arbiters” of the divine plan and they “manipulate” and degrade human sexuality and with it themselves and their married partner by altering its value of “total” self-giving. Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life, but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.
Regarding the licit practice of natural approaches to spacing children, which we have referred to as respecting a female’s natural rhythmic cycle, we understand that such practices may be employed for just reasons [Humanae Vitae, Section 10]. We understand that what one couple views as just reasons may not be viewed as such by another couple. It is clear, however, that in loving communion the couple can, during such times and with spiritual guidance, discern the will of God and grow in mutual respect, love and tenderness ever remembering that above all else, God is at the center of their union and the couple’s prayer is “Thy will be done.”
American Life League concurs with Pope John Paul II, who writes in Familiaris Consortio (Section 32),
In the light of the experience of many couples and of the data provided by the different human sciences, theological reflection is able to perceive and is called to study further the difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle: It is a difference which is much wider and deeper than is usually thought, one which involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality. The choice of the natural rhythms involves accepting the cycle of the person, that is, the woman, and thereby accepting dialogue, reciprocal respect, shared responsibility and self-control. To accept the cycle and to enter into dialogue means to recognize both the spiritual and corporal character of conjugal communion and to live personal love with its requirement of fidelity. In this context the couple comes to experience how conjugal communion is enriched with those values of tenderness and affection which constitute the inner soul of human sexuality in its physical dimension also. In this way sexuality is respected and promoted in its truly and fully human dimension and is never “used” as an “object” that, by breaking the personal unity of soul and body, strikes at God’s creation itself at the level of the deepest interaction of nature and person.
American Life League will never endorse any method of family planning designed to intentionally avoid one of the two meanings of the conjugal act within marriage which are to be open to the possibility of a child (procreative) and to nourish the love between the spouses (unitive). We do recognize the distinct differences, however, between artificial methods which are grievously sinful all of the time and the occasions when for just reasons a couple may ask God to postpone conception for a while. It must be clear that couples understand that when they ask God to not send them another child just now they are also saying, “If it is Your will to send us another child at this time, we praise You for Your divine providence.”
American Life League continues to insist that the contraceptive mentality is the root cause of abortion on demand, and we will persist in our efforts to make this truth known in every way that we can. It is because of the insistent teaching of physicians like Dr. Norris and ordained priests like Father Paul Marx, OSB and Father Thomas Euteneuer that we have grown not only in our understanding of how to teach these facts but in our desire to do all we can to spread the good news.
The final end of abortion in America will come when every human being begins to appreciate his own life as a gift from God and the lives of those entrusted to his care as the true blessings they are. A culture that affirms life will not practice contraception nor will it murder its progeny.
Judy,
I'm concerned that this post is misleading. On the one hand ALL is promoting NFP, which should only be used to GET pregnant, or in extreme cases and with spiritual guidance from a solidly Catholic priest, to avoid pregnancy for a time - but the reasons must be grave, and not frivolous, as is often the case.
Your article seems to be promoting NFP as a method of contraception, yet turns right around and says that if one practicing NFP (supposedly with the intention of NOT getting pregnant, i.e. as contraception) DOES get pregnant, then said pregnancy should be seen as a gift from God. Why not just leave it all up to God and let Him decide EVERY time when pregnancy is right for a couple? My husband and I are doing that, and the spacing between our children so far is 13 months and 14 months. Not much time, but then God won't give us something we can't handle, right? I realize NFP has been "approved" by the Church, but it is abused FAR too often - being used for reasons such as mere child spacing. That's not a grave enough reason in my book.
Sincerely,
Bernadine C. Bernadine | October 27, 2009
Agree entirely that "The final end of abortion in America will come when every human being begins to appreciate his own life as a gift from God and the lives of those entrusted to his care as the true blessings ...", BUT this requires a huge cultural shift and is not the most expedient way to end or at least minimize abortion. It is highly unlikely that attitudes even within Christian Churchs will go back to those prior to 1930. Judy, you know that the vast majority of women are not going to change their attitude toward sexual activity in the foreseeable future. In the meanwhile abortions continue to take place every day. In my discussions with other women, they are very receptive to the message that abortion is murder, but not that contraception is wrong. Start with that message and they just tune me out. The difficult question is: in the society and situation we now have (neither likely to change soon) is not one of the ways to reduce and potentially end abortion the use of barrier contraception? Quite frankly, I care much less about the sexual sins of adults than the murder of children. Although the sin of non-marital relations remains, non-abortive contraception eliminates the killing of a created human. There is an urgent need for a solution non-believers can accept. That would make a real difference. Petra Spahr | October 28, 2009
A "Catholic" sister escorting at an abortion clinic, and apparently has been for years! Canon law allows her superior, or one of three bishops to take action. Apparently, none of them have.
http://www.canonlaw.info/2009/10/canonical-options-in-sr-donna-quinn.html David Volk | October 28, 2009
Dear Bernardine
The fact is that naturally spacing children is not the practice of contraception. NFP recognizes the body's mechanisms and respect's God's intentions by entrusting all to His wisdom and will; contraception says no to God. Period.
The fact that human beings abuse natural family planning does not make NFP bad; it means that sinful human beings will choose to abuse a good and use it for evil purposes. And as you suggest, child spacing is not a just, grave or serious reason as the Church makes perfectly clear.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | October 28, 2009
Petra
Sexual sins and denial of God's will lead to abortion, whether we care to admit it or not.
Pro-Life Story: Doctors are not GOD! Posted By Tiffany Gonzalez on Feb, 27 2008 When I was pregnant with my daughter, I was told during an ultrasound that something was wrong with the size of her brain. The doctors showed me right on the screen what was ... Read
