http://www.all.org/rss_jblog.php Judie Brown, American Life League Blog RSS Feed en-us Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:09:29 EST Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:09:29 EST http://www.all.org webmaster@all.org webmaster@all.org http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2850 2009-11-19 17:50:00 By Michael Hichborn Every year, the Catholic Campaign for Human Development sponsors a nationwide appeal for the stated purpose of helping the impoverished. Publicity for the appeal is reminiscent of the 1980s Sally Struthers television spots showing poor children in far-off lands, in which she made pleas along the lines of “For the price of a cup of coffee a day, you can feed this little one.” But the fact is that the CCHD does not give one dime to organizations involved in direct service to the poor, such as soup kitchens or homeless shelters. Instead, it grants money to radical community organizers more interested in political lobbying, voter registration drives and ballot initiatives than buying groceries for starving families. To hear the speech delivered by Bishop Roger Morin, the CCHD’s chairman, at the semi-annual USCCB meeting this week, one would think that such a claim is completely out of line and that any criticism of the CCHD or call to boycott its collection will somehow deny much needed blankets to homeless people who might freeze to death this winter. But the CCHD’s own funding criteria proves the point. The CCHD has two grant programs: one for “community organizing” and another for “economic development.” With regard to community organizing grants, the CCHD stipulates, “Organizations with primary focus on direct service (e.g., daycare centers, recreation programs, community centers, scholarships, subsidies, counseling programs, referral services, cultural enrichment programs, direct clinical services, emergency shelters and other services, refugee resettlement programs, etc.)” are not eligible for funding. With regard to economic development grants, the CCHD stipulates, “[Economic Development Institutions] whose primary focus is direct service (e.g. job training, business consulting, financial literacy, savings programs, or homeownership education programs…)” are not eligible for funding.  But aside from organizations the CCHD refuses to fund, its most egregious offense is its justification for funding organizations that directly violate Catholic moral and social teaching. Last weekend, the CCHD issued a fact sheet titled “For the Record – The Truth about CCHD Funding.” This document presents “allegations” followed by the CCHD’s “facts.” Not only do these “facts” not address the fundamental problem we have been exposing, but in some cases, they directly conflict with truth. What follows is a point-by-point analysis of the CCHD’s fact sheet. 1. "ALLEGATION: CCHD persistently funds organizations closely associated with the pro-abortion movement.” Rather than address the allegation that CCHD grantees are closely associated with pro-abortion organizations, the CCHD merely points to its grant writing process, guidelines and funding criteria. It is well and good that it affirms the sanctity of human life and claims that “CCHD funds will not be used to support any application which is sponsored or promoted by an organization whose primary or substantial thrust in contrary to Catholic teaching,” but the fact remains that Catholic funds have been used and are still used to support such organizations. Here is a perfect example of the CCHD ignoring its own policies. Under this allegation, it says, CCHD funds will not be used to support any application which is sponsored or promoted by an organization whose primary or substantial thrust is contrary to Catholic teaching, even if the application itself is in accord with Catholic teaching. (emphasis added) If that was the case, then not only should the organizations we have profiled on www.all.org/cchd be immediately defunded, but so should every organization that has ever received funding from pro-abortion organizations, been promoted by Planned Parenthood or been involved with Marxist socialism (as many grantees are). Moving on to the second allegation: 2. “ALLEGATION: CCHD project funds are ‘fungible’: They free up monies for organizations to spend on other activities at variance with Catholic teaching.” The CCHD’s response to this allegation is inadequate and inaccurate. Rather than addressing the problems involved in donating money to an organization engaged in evil as well as good projects, the response focuses on funding procedures, guidelines and monitoring. But this doesn’t answer the concern about fungibility. Every organization has a general fund, and some of the money from the general fund goes toward the organization’s projects. If one project is well funded, then money in the general fund is freed up for other projects. This fact has nothing to do with whether or not the financing of a particular project is monitored. Suppose Planned Parenthood launched a project to distribute free pregnancy tests to women. Would the CCHD consider this project worthy of funding?  According to the response the CCHD gives to this allegation, it appears that this might be acceptable, even though its response to the preceding allegation indicates otherwise. The bottom line is this: There are organizations that are worthy and those that are unworthy of financial support from faithful Catholics. If an evil organization is running a good project, a faithful Catholic, in good conscience, cannot donate to that project for two reasons: 1) It lends credibility to the evil organization as a whole, while causing scandal to the laity; and 2) such a donation frees up the organization’s general fund for other projects, including the organization’s evil projects. 3. “ALLEGATION: The Catholic Campaign for Human Development does not fund direct service to the poor, and is therefore not worthy of designation as a Catholic charity.”   The CCHD response to this doesn’t even address the allegation itself; it simply affirms the charge, and though no organization’s names are mentioned, it justifies granting money to community organizing groups such as ACORN, which the CCHD defunded in 2008 due to “questions that arose about financial management, fiscal transparency and organizational accountability,” not because it was engaging in immoral activities. With regard to these first three allegations, we did a little digging and discovered that the CCHD addressed the exact same allegations 12 years ago, using similar fact sheets. In the CCHD’s 1998 fact sheets, following these three general allegations are allegations concerning specific CCHD-funded groups whose activities were in direct conflict with Church teaching. Similarly, after it addresses the first three general allegations, the CCHD’s 2009 fact sheet addresses allegations concerning specific organizations it has recently funded. These striking similarities between the CCHD’s 1998 and 2009 fact sheets are very telling, because they reveal that these problems have persisted for at least 12 years, were explained away in the exact same manner in 1998 as they are being explained away now and that the granting process in 2009 is just as flawed (or complicit) now as in 1998. But in the CCHD’s 2009 fact sheet, perhaps the most outrageous statement is made in response to the following allegation: ALLEGATION: The Catholic Campaign for Human Development funded LA CAN and the San Francisco Organizing Project, which promoted activity contrary to Church teaching. FACT: The Archdiocese of Los Angeles has reviewed the activity of LA CAN and determined the organization does not engage in any activity contrary to Church teaching, and has recommended continued funding for the organization. The Archdiocese of San Francisco strongly supports the work of the San Francisco Organizing Project (SFOP) to expand access to health care to children. Both Archbishop Levada and Archbishop Niederauer have spoken at SFOP events; SFOP has met regularly with Archdiocesan staff to coordinate work on health care access and other issues that affect the poor and immigrant families. This is an absolute indictment of the Los Angeles and San Francisco archdioceses for their complicity in supporting immoral organizations. What the LA archdiocese is telling us is that promoting homosexual “marriage,” contraception and family planning are activities not contrary to Church teaching! Click here for the proof. And there is even less excuse for the Archdiocese of San Francisco, including Archbishops Levada and Niederauer. Given that they cleared SFOP for funding after a reinvestigation and, in fact, have admitted that they strongly support SFOP, have met with SFOP regularly and have spoken at its events, then obviously the archdiocese has found no fault with the fact that SFOP won a $200,000 grant for Mission Neighborhood Health Center, which offers free family planning (read contraception) counseling and emergency contraception for teens. Of course, as is the CCHD’s general modus operandi, none of the rest of the “For the Record” document addresses the multitude of other problematic organizations receiving Catholic funds. So when Bishop Morin told his brother bishops at the USCCB’s semi-annual meeting this week, “We do not ever grant funds to any group that is specifically involved in any activity contrary to Church teaching,” he was making an indefensible false statement. Apparently, he believes (as the LA archdiocese seems to believe) that LA CAN’s promotion of homosexual marriage, the Chicago Workers Collaborative’s involvement in international Marxism, Voces de la Frontera’s promotion of GayNeighbor.org, Massachusetts Community Labor United’s membership in a coalition to expand access to condoms and the Southwest Organizing Project’s promotion of birth control through “comprehensive” sex education are all in line with Catholic moral teaching, or he is completely unaware of these organizations' activities, or he is lying. There is no other possibility. Whatever the case, there is no way a faithful Catholic can, in good conscience, give a single penny to the CCHD collection this Sunday, November 22. Be sure to download American Life League’s “No thank you!” cards  to drop in the collection basket and tell the CCHD that you are instead donating to an authentically Catholic organization. For more information, visit www.all.org/cchd.   Michael Hichborn is American Life League's lead researcher on the Catholic Campaign for Human Development and host of the American Life League Report.   http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2848 2009-11-18 17:09:00 In the aftermath of the Stupak flimflam on abortion funding, it would be a good idea to revisit the problem of inviting the Pelosi-Reid-Obama team into the hospital room. Lately, Congress seems to be full of people who zealously adhere to principles dictating life-and-death control over the vulnerable. Yet they appear to have no understanding of the principle that matters most in health care: upholding the dignity of the human person. Anyone who saw the YouTube video of Rep. Bart Stupak (whose amendment enabled Pelosicare to pass), in which he admits that—win or lose on abortion funding—he would support an Obamacare bill, knows exactly what I mean. The “majority” means more to these politicians than whether or not taxpayers pay for murder—at least according to Stupak. So what about the defenseless among us who are already born? What might be in store for the severely disabled, the terminally ill and the “better off dead”? Will decisions be made by an ethical medical professional or a bioethics panel? What should we expect if the Obama administration gets its way? The stark difference between ethical decision making and applied bioethics could provide a hint. Professor Dianne Irving explained in Crisis magazine,“Traditional medical ethics focuses on the physician’s duty to the individual patient, whose life and welfare are always sacrosanct. The focus of bioethics is fundamentally utilitarian, centered, like other utilitarian disciplines, around maximizing total human happiness.” Bioethicist Arthur Caplan defines the role of the bioethicist as a “moral diagnostician.” However, Caplan defends Ezekiel Emanuel's approach to caring for the dying, telling reporters that Emanuel is an “outspoken critic of euthanasia” at the same time he attacks Governor Sarah Palin’s comments on the reality of “death panel” proposals in various health care reform bills. It is troubling when a self-described moral diagnostician sides with an avowed supporter of allocating “scarce medical interventions.” Emanuel is on record opining, “For indivisible goods, benefiting people equally entails providing equal chances at the scarce intervention—equality of opportunity, rather than equal amounts of it” (page 6). The Caplan/Emmanuel utilitarian approach confirms Irving’s definition. So let’s move on, because clearly it is the bioethicists, not the traditional medical ethicists, who are influencing Congress these days. This is one of the primary reasons why direct government involvement in the extremely delicate question of defining who is dying versus who is not could be treacherous. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops walks a fine line in this area and has articulated the reasons why.   In a paper entitled “Killing the Pain, Not the Patient: Palliative Care vs. Assisted Suicide,” Richard M. Doerflinger and Carlos F. Gomez, M.D., Ph.D., discuss the use of morphine as a pain reliever and the question of “terminal sedation”: Very rarely it may be necessary to induce sleep to relieve pain and other distress in the final stage of dying. Euthanasia advocates call this “terminal sedation,” but it is the same kind of sedation that is sometimes needed to calm distressed or restless patients with non-terminal conditions. While some terminally ill patients may die under such sedation, this is generally because they were imminently dying already. In competent medical hands, sedation for imminently dying patients is a humane, appropriate and medically established approach to what is often called “intractable suffering.” It does not kill the patient, but it can make his or her suffering bearable. It may also allow a physician the time to re-assess a patient’s pain needs: The terminally ill sedated patient may later be withdrawn from the sedatives and brought back to consciousness, with his or her pain under control. This may sound tricky, so what if a bioethics panel, approved under Obama-style “health care reform,” is making these decisions and recommending terminal sedation as a cost-saving measure? Who would you trust if the patient in that bed was a member of your immediate family? As Wesley J. Smith articulated in his analysis of the health care situation in the United Kingdom,  [T]he U.K.’s notorious rationing board, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), urged hospitals, nursing homes, and hospices to follow an end-of-life protocol known as the Liverpool Care Pathway. The Pathway’s guidelines instruct doctors to put patients thought to be near death into a drug-induced coma, after which all food and fluids, as well as medical treatments such as antibiotics, are withdrawn until death. … Chillingly, current Obamacare plans call for the creation of many cost/benefit/best-practices boards, the full power of which won’t be fully known until the bureaucrats promulgate tens of thousands of pages of regulations between now and 2013, when the law would go into effect. Making matters more alarming, these boards would not only govern treatment provided in any public-option health plan, but would also be empowered to set the standards of care paid for by private insurance. Unless the final version of Obamacare is amended explicitly to prohibit such centralized health planning, don’t be surprised if an American version of the Liverpool Care Pathway comes soon to a hospital or nursing home near you. Under Obamacare, cost-benefit ratios could become a bioethicist’s mantra. Actually, this is part of what bioethicists do: attempt to balance cost against compassion. Think about it. Peter J. Smith (no relation to Wesley J. Smith) analyzed the reasons why “death panels” continue to be a major concern:  [I]ncentivizing doctors to offer “end-of-life planning consultations” could lead to senior citizens, the terminally ill, or disabled, being pressured into accepting lower quality care from a doctor who figures he can receive higher reimbursement rates for talking with a patient about when or how he can refuse treatment. Indeed, as American Life League documented recently, section 240 of the Pelosicare bill (page 130) contains the sort of language that could easily be interpreted as a free pass to making life-and-death decisions. It is noteworthy that when the editor of the American Journal of Bioethics, Summer Johnson, Ph.D., discussed Obamacare spending proposals, she devoted over half of her commentary to pointing fingers and tossing barbs.  She described the current U.S. health care system as “under-performing, over-priced, and inequitable,” whereas she had high praises for the notorious health care rationing programs of the United Kingdom and Canada. Johnson also took a shot at Governor Palin (apparently fair game for everyone), saying, “I would happily put Harvard’s Atul Gawande MD and the National Institutes of Health’s Ezekiel Emanuel MD, PhD in a room with former Governor and vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin and let them duke it out over health reform any day and let the chips fall where they may. They have two MDs and one PhD on their side; she has rhetoric and a moose gun.” Fortunately, there is a counterpoint to Johnson’s silliness. It was written by long-time traditional medical ethics expert Nancy Valko, a registered nurse.Unlike Johnson, Valko focused on actual statements from organizations for and against health care rationing, analyzing them fairly and expressing hope that common sense will soon emerge in the health care reform discussions. She makes it clear that some of the travesties in the various Obamacare proposals are already occurring and efficiently ending lives: Today we have ethics committees developing futility guidelines to overrule patients and/or their families even when they want treatment continued. We have three states with legal assisted suicide. We have even non-brain dead organ donation policies (called non-heart beating organ donation or donation after cardiac death). Some ethicists even argue that we should drop the dead donor rule.  We see living wills and other advance directives with check-offs for even basic medical care and for incapacitated conditions like being unable to regularly recognize relatives. We are willing to sacrifice living human beings at the earliest stages of development to fund research for cures for conditions like Parkinson’s rather than promote research on ethical and effective adult stem cell therapies. So we should pay attention when Valko warns, Death panels are not the overwrought fantasy of right-wing nut cases. Real “death panels” are already at work. They have been created by apathy, misplaced sympathy, a skewed view of tolerance and an inordinate fear of a less than perfect life. Death panels? In the famous words of the comic strip character Pogo, “We have met the enemy and he is us.” Let us not be complacent or fearful when it comes to expressing our concerns about Obamacare. We must not be intimidated into silence by those who label us as politically incorrect, ill-informed or crazy for daring to oppose it. Pelosi, Reid, Obama and their ilk want to drown out our voices as they aggressively promote the agenda that helps them make their way into that hospital room. By their actions, these ideologues are literally telling America, “Trust us; we know what’s good for you. But please, don’t ask us for any facts to support our position and the policies we want to foist upon you with your own money.” As I have told people with ever increasing frequency, the only reason our opposition wants to shout us down is that they have taken the indefensible position that they have the authority to choose who lives and who dies. These are the people who have trashed traditional medical ethics in favor of bioethics. You decide: Will you entrust your life to congressional fiat or common sense? They are not synonymous. http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2845 2009-11-17 14:10:00 By Erik Whittington As personhood advocates, it is critically important that we use the correct terminology to describe preborn babies, their mothers, the very act of abortion and even the facilities in which abortions are committed. It doesn’t matter if you are a full time pro-life advocate or a “normal” person who works, goes to school, takes care of your family, etc. We must all watch what we say in daily life—even in casual conversation. So, the words we use are very powerful and can make the difference between life and death. You might be surprised to realize that even we pro-lifers often use terms and phrases that can be dehumanizing to the very people we are trying to save. That can cause confusion and can hamper our efforts to obtain recognition of the human rights of all human persons. As we educate the public and advocate for the rights of all human persons, born and preborn, we must seriously examine the language we use and make some changes, if necessary. With that in mind, I am going to share with you this short list of terms and phrases that we should drop from our pro-life vocabulary: 1. Fetus, embryo—These terms are generally used by abortion supporters, but I also notice pro-lifers using these terms often. Fetus and embryo are actually terms referring to stages of development. Their use begs the question, which animal species, during its embryonic or fetal development, are you referring to? For human beings, embryo describes human development from the very beginning of a human being’s life through their eighth week of development. Fetus describes a human being’s biological development from the beginning of their ninth week of development until birth. We should replace these terms with “human embryo,” “human fetus” or “human being during their embryonic (or fetal) development.” 2. Fertilized egg—This is a dehumanizing term used as a form of pro-abortion propaganda. It is not a legitimate term, since it isn’t scientifically accurate. Women don’t carry eggs; they have oocytes. Upon first contact of a human sperm and a human oocyte, a newly created human person now exists who is in his/her first embryonic stage of development. This term has become popular with abortion advocates these days, in response to the state personhood initiatives cropping up around the country. We need to correct this whenever we see or hear it. Use correct terminology in its place, such as “human embryo.” 3. Mistake, accident, unwanted, unplanned— These terms have very negative connotations and are very demeaning, especially for the child who happens to overhear some mention of the circumstances in which he or she came into being. Every child is wanted by someone and no one is an accident. God creates every single person with a special purpose in life. A positive-sounding term such as “surprise” should be used instead of terms or phrases that imply that God’s creation of a baby is an unfortunate event. 4. Pro-choice—This term was developed by a marketing firm employed by the abortion lobby before abortion became decriminalized on January 22, 1973. It has been and still is a very effective term, but is very misleading. It begs the question, what is the choice? The child has no choice when threatened with an abortionist’s suction device, knives and forceps. Replace this term with “pro-abortion” or “abortion advocate.” 5. Pregnant woman—This term takes the child out of the equation and can make pregnancy sound like a disease. Abortion is often referred to as “terminating a pregnancy.” Instead, use terms such as “mother,” “pregnant mom” or “expectant mother.” 6. Health clinic/abortion clinic—“Health” gives the impression that health is being restored to an individual. Similarly, “clinic” normally denotes a respectable, morally legitimate health care facility. Abortion is murder, not health care, so we should not dignify it with such terms. Replace such terms with “abortion business,” “abortion mill,” “abortion facility,” “abortion center” and so forth. 7. The abortion issue—Taxes are an issue. Paying for education is an issue. Abortion is not an issue; it’s a tragedy. Abortion is a violent crime that kills a human person and leaves his/her mother scarred for life. You can also replace issue with terms such as “question,” “matter,” etc. 8. It—A baby boy or baby girl is not an it. Yet that is how many of us refer to children in utero or even at the moment of their birth. I hear this so often: “It’s a (boy/girl)!” Instead, say, “He is a boy” or “She is a girl” or “My/our/their/his/her/the baby is a (boy/girl).” 9. I’m going to be a ___!—This phrase usually ends with “mother,” “father,” “grandparent,” “aunt,” “uncle,” etc., But it’s inaccurate and dehumanizes the baby, because actually, it’s a done deal! The person speaking is already a mother (or father, grandparent, etc.). If you catch someone (or yourself) saying this, quickly correct it by reminding them (or yourself) that the child already exists, so they (or you) are already a mother (or father, grandparent, etc.). This is in no way an exhaustive list. It has been compiled to get you thinking and to start a conversation that will hopefully result in pro-life advocates being more effective in changing minds and hearts, which will eventually result in legal recognition of human personhood for all, born and preborn. Let me know what you think! Erik Whittington is director of Rock for Life, a project of American Life League. RFL is a network of bands, musicians, artists (over 800!) and their fans, who use their talents to provide life-affirming solutions to counter assaults on the right to life. RFL works to educate, activate, mobilize and unite pro-life youth to fight against the attacks made against the most innocent of all human beings. This commentary was originally published as a Rock for Life blog on November 4, 2009. http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2844 2009-11-16 16:59:00 American Life League’s “faceless bureaucrat” ad, which will run this week in USA Today, clearly explains what’s wrong with the political posturing that is currently the rage in Washington D.C. Simple statements like these are far superior to the mumbo jumbo the United States Conferences of Catholic Bishops’  bureaucracy is dishing out at this week’s Catholic bishops’ meeting in Baltimore. (Since you may not be able to read the wording in the above image, here is the text of the ad:  Why are these people speaking for the Catholic bishops? Payment for some abortions, euthanasia, “family planning services,” promiscuity-promoting sex education, and lack of consistent and comprehensive conscience protection guarantees—these are all provisions left untouched by the Stupak Amendment; yet the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops applauded it. Without the USCCB’s involvement, the fatally flawed Pelosicare bill would have failed. While the small army of lawyers, staffers and lobbyists working for our Catholic bishops may deny these things, the facts speak for themselves. Consider what remains in the Pelosi health care bill after the Stupak Amendment’s passage:  • Section 240 permits killing of the elderly and infirm. • Sections 258 and 259 contain contradictory language regarding conscience protection. • Section 265 (the Stupak Amendment) pays for some abortions. • Section 304 explicitly forces insurers to cover abortion. • Section 1714 funds groups such as Planned Parenthood. • Section 2526 also funds groups such as Planned Parenthood, for providing sex education programs that “improve rates of contraceptive use.” Where is the “victory” for the culture of life? Does the USCCB’s apparent support for these provisions send a mixed message to faithful Catholics?  Yes! This is what the Stupak Amendment allowed Speaker Nancy Pelosi to pass—a further entrenchment of the culture of death. This is what was done in the name of the Catholic bishops by the USCCB. We are concerned. We hope you are too. It’s time to stop the politics of the faceless bureaucrats. We encourage each of our Catholic bishops to ask why these bureaucrats are acting as their voice. It’s not a question of political access; it’s a question of life and death.) In this age of sound bites, no-spin zones and other telltale signs of words without meaning, it’s time for pro-life Americans of every age and state in life to be crystal-clear when it comes to addressing the personhood of every human being, at all stages, and the reasons why we dare not compromise on this principle. To help in that process, we offer the following talking points on the Pelosi-Obama-shamelessly compromised-anti-some surgical abortions Stupak Amendment to H.R. 3962, the House version of the health care reform debacle, also known as Pelosicare. Q: What is the Stupak Amendment? The key provision of the Stupak Amendment is as follows: SEC. 265. LIMITATION ON ABORTION FUNDING. (a) IN GENERAL—No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest. What the Stupak Amendment specifically prohibits is abortion funding (with exceptions) for the public option within the Pelosi health care bill. What the Stupak Amendment failed to prohibit are the remaining provisions for abortion, contraception, medical “care” that allows euthanasia, promiscuity-promoting sex education, “family planning services” provided by organizations such as Planned Parenthood, contradictory and inconsistent language regarding conscience protection and other loopholes still included in the bill. Q: Would the Pelosi health care bill have passed if the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) had not intervened in the legislative process? No. As widely reported in the media, the Stupak Amendment gave cover for approximately 40 supposedly pro-life representatives to seemingly support the pro-life cause while also supporting all of the Pelosi bill’s major components. Without the NRLC’s and USCCB’s lobbying efforts on behalf of the Stupak Amendment, it is altogether probable that the Pelosi health care bill would not have passed the House. Had the Pelosi health care bill failed, none of the alarming provisions included in its current version would have been carried to the U.S. Senate. By enabling the passage of the Pelosi health care bill while failing to address most of the aggressive anti-life and downright life-threatening provisions it contains, the NRLC and the USCCB are, in fact, furthering the abortion and euthanasia agenda. Q: What is anti-life about this bill? Here are highlights of some of the anti-life provisions in the Pelosi health care bill, all of which were untouched by the last-minute Stupak deal brokered by the NRLC and the USCCB: Section 240 permits euthanasia by withholding/withdrawal of medical treatment/medical care and/or nutrition/hydration, by redefining certain terms. SEC. 240. DISSEMINATION OF ADVANCE CARE PLANNING INFORMATION. … (d) PROHIBITION ON THE PROMOTION OF ASSISTED SUICIDE.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (3), information provided to meet the requirements of subsection (a)(2) shall not include advanced directives or other planning tools that list or describe as an option suicide, assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing, regardless of legality. [So far, so good, right? But keep reading!] (2) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be construed to apply to or affect any option to— (A) withhold or withdraw of medical treatment or medical care; (B) withhold or withdraw of nutrition or hydration; … Sections 258 and 259 contradict each other regarding conscience protection (reading section 259 first makes this clearer). Moreover, section 259 only addresses abortion. What about conscience protection for persons who object to contraception, sterilization, euthanasia or any other actions that violate their conscience? SEC. 259. NONDISCRIMINATION ON ABORTION AND RESPECT FOR RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE. (a) NONDISCRIMINATION.—A Federal agency or program, and any State or local government that receives Federal financial assistance under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), may not— (1) subject any individual or institutional health care entity to discrimination; or (2) require any health plan created or regulated under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) to subject any individual or institutional health care entity to discrimination, on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions. This sounds like a clear guarantee of conscience protection for those who object to abortion. But what about the potential impact of Section 258, which stipulates that state and federal laws regarding conscience protection and requirements to provide abortion override anything in this bill? Therefore, this bill provides no ironclad conscience protection. In fact, you will see that section 304 violates the conscience rights of insurers. SEC. 258. APPLICATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS REGARDING ABORTION. (a) NO PREEMPTION OF STATE LAWS REGARDING ABORTION.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to preempt or otherwise have any effect on State laws regarding the prohibition of (or requirement of) coverage, funding, or procedural requirements on abortions, including parental notification or consent for the performance of an abortion on a minor. (b) NO EFFECT ON FEDERAL LAWS REGARDING ABORTION.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to have any effect on Federal laws regarding— (A) conscience protection; (B) willingness or refusal to provide abortion; and (C) 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 265 (the Stupak Amendment itself) provides exceptions that allow the killing of preborn children in several circumstances. SEC. 265. LIMITATION ON ABORTION FUNDING (a) In General.—No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest. Section 304 forces insurance firms to pay for abortion, which violates the conscience rights of pro-life insurance firms and pro-life insurance firm employees. SEC. 304. CONTRACTS FOR THE OFFERING OF EXCHANGE-PARTICIPATING HEALTH BENEFITS PLANS. … (d) NO DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF PROVISION OF ABORTION.—No Exchange participating health benefits plan may discriminate against any individual health care provider or health care facility because of its willingness or unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions. Section 1714 provides “family planning services” through programs administered by state governments, which would, in turn, subsidize organizations that push contraception and abortion, such as Planned Parenthood. SEC. 1714. STATE ELIGIBILITY OPTION FOR FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES…. … (a) STATE OPTION.—State plan approved under section 1902 may provide for making medical assistance available to an individual described in section 1902(hh) (relating to individuals who meet certain income eligibility standard) during a presumptive eligibility period. In the case of an individual described in section 1902(hh), such medical assistance shall be limited to family planning services and supplies described in 1905(a)(4)(C) and, at the State’s option, medical diagnosis and treatment services that are provided in conjunction with a family planning service in a family planning setting. Section 2526 funds organizations such as Planned Parenthood for the provision of permissive sex education programs for minors. SEC. 2526. HEALTHY TEEN INITIATIVE TO PREVENT TEEN PREGNANCY . … (a) PROGRAM.—To the extent and in the amount of appropriations made in advance in appropriations Acts, the Secretary, acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shall establish a program consisting of making grants, in amounts determined under subsection (c), to each State that submits an application in accordance with subsection (d) for an evidence-based education program described in subsection (b). (b) USE OF FUNDS.—Amounts received by a State under this section shall be used to conduct or support evidence-based education programs (directly or through grants or contracts to public or private nonprofit entities, including schools and community-based and faith-based organizations) to reduce teen pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases. … (i) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term “evidence-based” means based on a model that has been found …. (1) to delay initiation of sex; (2) to decrease number of partners; (3) to reduce teen pregnancy; (4) to reduce sexually transmitted infection rate (5) to improve rates of contraceptive use. Q: What tactics did the NRLC and the USCCB use to help obtain the passage of the Pelosi health care bill? Working in tandem, the NRLC threatened to include Stupak votes on congressional scorecards, and the USCCB made it possible for Catholic Democrats in the House to pay lip service to Church teaching on abortion while voting for a bill that violates Church teachings in several ways, including abortion. Q: Was the Stupak Amendment a victory for the pro-life movement? No! In fact, it hurt us by allowing several anti-life provisions to remain in the Pelosi bill and enabled it to move on to the U.S. Senate. Q: Is opposing the Stupak Amendment divisive to the pro-life movement? The NRLC has a long history of compromising where there need not be compromise and misleading millions of sincere pro-lifers into believing that abortion-accommodating strategies are necessary to combat abortion. The grassroots pro-life movement remains united; whether the NRLC remains united to the grassroots is debatable. Q: Is this uncharitable? Fifty-one million children have died during 36 years of pro-life leadership failures. Now that’s uncharitable!  http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2843 2009-11-13 16:31:00 Recently, a powerful letter from a grassroots Catholic pro-lifer, Gregory Gollnick, came to my personal attention. I reviewed what he opined in his letter and asked for his permission to share it in this commentary. I have added information here and there to flesh out Gollnick’s message. By and large, however, he has really put into proper perspective the entire matter of how we have reached this crisis in America. He wrote, The abortion debate has been going on for many years now. Unfortunately, I believe the Catholic Church in America inadvertently had a great deal to do with setting the stage for the passing of Roe v. Wade/Doe v. Bolton and also has been guilty of actions that have made the repeal of this law so difficult. When Pope Paul VI signed Humanae Vitae, the reaction by a great number of Catholic priests and theologians was signed protests that appeared in prominent newspapers the following day.  Here it is incumbent upon me to add to Gollnick’s analysis, because of the fact that James Cardinal Stafford knows the facts about this firestorm from the inside. In his remarkable reflection on how the  dissent affected holy priests and the Church (“In 1968, something terrible happened in the Church”), Cardinal Stafford pulls no punches. One of the most powerful portions of his article concerns his own ecclesial superior at the time, Lawrence Cardinal Shehan, the sixth archbishop of Baltimore. As Cardinal Stafford relates it, Cardinal Shehan, in his memoirs, recalled, [A]fter receiving the first news of the publication of the encyclical, the Rev. Charles E. Curran, instructor of moral theology of the Catholic University of America, flew back to Washington from the West where he had been staying. Late [on the afternoon of July 29], he and nine other professors of theology of the Catholic University met, by evident prearrangement, in Caldwell Hall to receive, again by prearrangement with the Washington Post, the encyclical, part by part, as it came from the press. The story further indicated that by nine o’clock that night, they had received the whole encyclical, had read it, had analyzed it, criticized it, and had composed their six-hundred-word “Statement of Dissent.” Then they began that long series of telephone calls to “theologians” throughout the East, which went on, according to the Post, until 3:30 a.m., seeking authorization to attach their names as endorsers (signers was the term used) of the statement, although those to whom they had telephoned could not have had an opportunity to see either the encyclical or their statement. Meanwhile, they had arranged through one of the local television stations to have the statement broadcast that night. …The first thing that we have to note about the whole performance is this: so far as I have been able to discern, never in the recorded history of the Church has a solemn proclamation of a pope been received by any group of Catholic people with so much disrespect and contempt. In his article, Cardinal Stafford affirms Gollnick’s premise. Gollnick continues, I believe this sign of revolt by many in the American Church was one of the signals that paved the way for the passing of Roe v. Wade/Doe v. Bolton shortly afterwards. This catastrophic mistake was never acknowledged or regretted by the signers, with the exception of one lone voice who wrote to Father Tom Euteneuer, sharing his sorrow over what he had done.  Later, the Catholic Church was involved in a sex scandal that went on for years before it was even acknowledged by Church authorities. Then, a painful and hurtful charade was carried on before our eyes that tried to minimize the massive extent of this scandal to the Church and deny the homosexual nature of the scandal, which was exposed in the bishops’ own report.  Over two billion dollars later, the pathetic attempt to deny the truth to the nation and to its own embarrassed laity has failed. The result of this is that no amount of protest by the official Catholic Church will convince anyone, because the credibility the Church once had was completely destroyed. Still, many Catholics continue to protest against abortion and are the heart of the anti-abortion movement, even though they have the albatross of their Church’s scandal around their necks. Since the practice of abortion has gone on for so long now, I believe a shift or change in some of the language we use might help to make points that will be useful at this time. I have included three points for your thoughts. Racism is one of the main results of abortion. In the United States, at least 30 to 40 percent of abortions are committed on Black babies. This is from a population that comprises 13 to 15 percent of the U.S. female population aged 15–44, and it means that the rate of abortion in the Black community is two to three times greater than its percentage of the population would suggest. Now President Obama has extended the reach of U.S. involvement in abortion to the entire world with one of his first acts upon becoming president. Africa is, of course, one of the prime targets. The irony is intense, as President Obama has become the most dangerous man in the world for the Black community.     Sexism is another of the most dangerous results of the abortion industry. Especially in the Far East, boys are preferred to girls as the child of choice. This is because of cultural preferences and governmental policies that intrude into the private decisions of families. As a result, there are tens of millions more babies in China and India that are male than female, and the countries either deny it is happening or say they can’t understand why this would occur. This male preference is starting to spread to other parts of the world, and the imbalance between living baby boys and living baby girls is growing. A science fiction book is begging to be written.   Cruelty is becoming even more commonplace in the world. What could be crueler than murdering a helpless and innocent person in a place that should be the safest place in the world for a preborn baby, a mother’s womb? Yet the abortion clinics are readily available in Western cultures and are being promoted vigorously throughout the world by United Nations agencies and with U.S. money. And cruelty and horror slip into our world, in the culture and lives of all citizens, and people wonder why. In closing, I ask where are the protests that one should expect from those organizations that seem to catch every word that has racist or sexist connotations? And what about the uproar caused by every incident of discrimination that occurs in the workplace or in public? I guess that murder doesn’t seem to measure up to these types of occurrences. And why don’t people seem to notice the horror of over one million surgical abortions every year in the United States? I believe our capacity to judge ourselves as civilized people has been impaired by the concessions we have made to the truth and to our language, as we have tried to come to grips with the awful facts and implications of the regularization of abortion in our land. And we are not going to get better until the truth is recognized and abortion is acknowledged as the evil it is and banned once again, by an informed conscience, from our land. Mr. Gollnick has written one of the most thought-provoking commentaries we have seen in quite some time. We hope it spurs you to rethink the status quo and challenge it daily. Each of us is putty in the hands of God, and each of us has the potential, with His grace, to make a difference. Mr. Gollnick did that for me today. What are his words going to inspire you to do? Every human being’s life is precious, so let’s act like it, today and every day. Thank you, Mr. Gollnick! http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2840 2009-11-12 14:12:00 I have been detailing the problematic nature of the Stupak Amendment, the politicization of killing the preborn, the architects of this compromise in so-called health care reform legislation and what it has done to undermine genuine pro-life principle. When I wrote “The Case of the Missing Moral Authority,”  facts regarding the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ bureaucrats calling the shots were presented. Like it or not, the facts are there. My subsequent commentary dealt with the National Right to Life Committee’s contribution to the current confusion.   But in case there is some doubt about what Stupak’s exception-filled, compromising language does to effectively continue the abortion status quo, I would like to give you a few examples of the status quo. The first is Texas abortionist Curtis Boyd:  Now, the doctor has made a jarring admission. “Am I killing?” Boyd said. “Yes, I am. I know that.” Boyd said he is an ordained Baptist minister who has now turned Unitarian. He said he prays often. “I’ll ask that the spirit of this pregnancy be returned to God with love and understanding,” he said. Note that this man is numb to the very idea of the preborn child as a person, describing him or her as “the spirit of this pregnancy.” What sort of man talks like that? A man who has, for more than 36 years, plied a trade that results in bloody death while he gets paid to do it and is protected by our nation’s laws. Boyd exemplifies the status quo. Next, we have ex-policeman Bobby Cutts in Ohio, who was convicted of a double murder last year after he brutally murdered his nine-months-pregnant girlfriend. This man aborted two people out of his life, just as Boyd aborts a single human being. The difference is that Cutts was found guilty of a crime, but in a culture that condones some murder as acceptable, couldn’t we argue that escalating violence against born human beings is one of the inevitable by-products? In my view, we certainly could and Cutts is but one example. Actions such as his and those of numerous others represent what happens when abortion and its progeny are defined in political terms: regulated but never condemned as the direct acts of violence that they are. Violence exemplifies the status quo. In a stunningly insightful commentary, Dr. Mark Hendrickson takes note of this trend as well. Citing the Ohio case as one of many, he opined,   Apparently, this particular crime is not rare. One expert interviewed for the report I saw averred that homicide is the second-most common cause of death for pregnant women in America. … The increasing incidence of men killing their pregnant lovers coincides over the last 36 years with abortion having received legal sanction as a legitimate form of birth control. Legalizing the killing of unwanted babies was our first repudiation of the principle of the sanctity of life, a rejection of God’s plan. “Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the Lord” (Isaiah, 66:9). A next step after abortion on the slippery slope toward death is the killing of women bearing unwanted babies. (A quick aside here: The pro-abortion assertion that a fetus is just a growth inside a woman’s body, not a life, receives a strong rebuke when our laws treat the murder of a pregnant woman as a double homicide.) Roughly coinciding with the period of legalized abortion has been the insidious error, propagated by pagan environmentalism, that there are too many people, that having children is irresponsible, that a human being is just another mouth to feed, rather than an intelligent, creative, productive being whose life can glorify the Creator of the universe. God’s first command to man—”be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis. 1:28)—was contradicted by green theologians who proclaimed procreation a sin against mother earth. Also feeding an anti-life culture has been the common “baby boomer” desire to remain young and carefree for as long as possible. Raising kids is hard work and ties one down, right? True, but millions of us who have opted for parenthood have found raising children to be the greatest joy in this world. But the fact remains that many boomers have preferred consumption to investment, immediate gratification to long-term, greater rewards. We’d rather partake of the pleasures of this world (exotic vacations, fancy cars, luxury goods) than sacrifice some of our immediate wants for the long-run benefit of our familial and societal posterity. Another powerful anti-life undertow was generated by the “sexual revolution.” For many, the Judeo-Christian concept of sex for procreation was eclipsed by the philosophy of sex as recreation. Procreation or recreation: Is sex about creating life or having fun? Is it about giving life and love, or is it about taking pleasure—a self-indulgence so devoid of love that in extreme cases it culminates in murder. Is it life-affirming or life-destroying? To the extent that sex as fun has eclipsed sex for life, we have trivialized sex and devalued life. The result: Soaring divorce rates, the emotional trauma of broken families, and even men murdering their lovers and unborn children. Clearly, being “liberated” from traditional sexual mores isn’t as progressive—individually or socially—as the proponents of sexual “liberation” promised. … Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of a more demoralized society and one riper for the loss of self-government than one in which men choose to kill their pregnant lovers and wives. As is always the case with life’s great issues, the Bible provides the best guidance: “Lo, children are a heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward” (Psalm 127:3) and “choose life that both thou and thy seed may live” (Deuteronomy 30:19). What Dr. Henderson describes are the ultimate consequences of maintaining the status quo, what eventually happens when political machinations replace the principle that no human being's human rights should be denied, including those of the most silent among us: the preborn. When a woman wrote me yesterday and asked why it was that American Life League has been nearly a voice in the wilderness, decrying our peers’ shameful support for the Stupak Amendment, it took no time at all for me to reply, Young pro-lifers, and that’s most of our staff and supporters, are simply sick of being told to wait to end abortion, wait for the right time to fight for human rights. They want personhood now. To them, the personhood movement is a positive; it’s about fulfilling John Paul II’s dream of a culture of life. They’ve grown up hearing about abortion, birth control, embryonic stem cell research, etc., and that can be so overwhelming. But personhood ignites their passion by cutting at the very root of all of these offenses against the dignity of the human person, using the positive sword of truth: Every human being is a human person, from the beginning of their biological development. So many in the older generation of the pro-life movement have succumbed to defeatism. We hear about “abortion neutrality” and “regulation of abortion.” The young people driving the personhood movement don’t see “abortion neutrality” as the goal. They see respect for the human rights of all human beings, from their biological beginning, as the goal. The beauty of the personhood movement is that it is both a legislative and a cultural movement. Anyone who has had a serious debate about abortion knows that the issue isn’t whether the child in the womb is alive, but whether the child in the womb has the same intrinsic value as you or me. ... Personhood very simply recognizes that all human beings are persons and deserve equal protection under the law. It is, literally, the fulfillment of the civil rights movement. There are several substantive actions pro-life Americans can take right now to assure that a final federal health care reform bill either respects the dignity of every human person—without exception—or dies in Congress due to its moral duplicity: 1.  Contact your Catholic bishop and ask him to get personally involved in further negotiations, rather than merely allowing USCCB bureaucrats to speak for him. You can find contact information for every Catholic bishop by clicking here. 2.  Contact the National Right to Life Committee and ask it to step away from Stupak-type compromises and press for personhood principles in health care reform:  3.  Contact your members of Congress and inform each of them that you are not willing to compromise on a single human being’s right to life for the sake of reaching a consensus on health care reform. Explain that if they vote for such a deal, you will work for their defeat in the next election. 4.  Pray for the courage to defend what you know is right, regardless of the consequences. Take these profound words to heart: Be constant in practicing every virtue and especially in imitating the patience of our dear Jesus, for this is the summit of pure love. Live in such a way that all may know that you bear outwardly as well as inwardly the image of Christ crucified, the model of all gentleness and mercy. For if a man is united inwardly with the Son of the living God, he also bears His likeness outwardly by his continual practice of heroic goodness, and especially through a patience reinforced by courage, which does not complain either secretly or in public. Conceal yourselves in Jesus crucified, and hope for nothing except that all men be thoroughly converted to His will. (Saint Paul of the Cross,1694–1775) http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2839 2009-11-11 14:01:00 The problematic nature of pandering to politicians with half-measures while announcing to pro-life troops that a victory has been achieved is not a new malady. It has been a relatively consistent pattern woven into National Right to Life Committee politics for many years now.  Having said that, the problem with what is currently being said about the Stupak Amendment to the Pelosicare bill is the most egregious I have seen in my 40 years of pro-life activism. For starters, on Saturday, November 7, NRLC sent a letter to each member of Congress in which the following statement was made:  “As NRLC’s congressional scorecard for the 111th Congress will clearly explain, a vote against the Stupak-Pitts Amendment only be construed as a position-defining vote in favor of establishing a federal government program that will directly fund abortion on demand, with federal funds, and a second federal program that will provide government subsidies to private insurance plans that cover abortion on demand. NRLC regards this as the most important House roll call on federal funding of abortion since the House last voted directly on the Hyde Amendment in 1997. If you do not wish to go on record in support of creating major new federal programs that will both fund abortions directly and subsidize private abortion coverage, please vote for the Stupak-Pitts Amendment. NRLC will regard a “present” vote as equivalent to a negative vote on the Stupak-Pitts Amendment.” While it could appear that NRLC is threatening members of Congress with a bad score if they vote against the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, the fact is that the amendment itself is halfhearted and fraught with problems. And if one examines the actual text of H. R. 3962, the Pelosicare bill, one finds the following:     This should make it obvious to anyone with a heart for the principles upon which the pro-life movement was founded to see right through the smoke and mirrors that NRLC is now using to deflect criticism from its political misjudgment. To make matters worse, as if they could get worse, Lifenews.com published an article entitled “Pro-Life Movement Must Unify After Strategy Difference on Stupak Abortion Amendment.” Its simply unbelievable observations, pitting Congressman John Shadegg of Arizona’s strategy against that of the Stupak supporters, defy logic. Steven Ertelt describes what Shadegg attempted to do to ensure the abominable Pelosicare bill’s failure and then defends the Stupak strategy, claiming that with or without the Stupak Amendment, the bill would have passed. Interesting how he defends the NRLC strategy as the only real game in town. But the most troubling comments come toward the end of the article, where we find these Ertelt insights:  The aftermath of the Stupak amendment vote hasn’t been pretty. I’ve read countless comments on Twitter and Facebook from pro-life people who are livid at one side or the other. But attacking pro-life groups, lawmakers or people for supporting one strategy or the other is not productive. We have so many battles ahead that a divided pro-life movement only leads to losing the battles on abortion funding and stopping this pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia health care bill. Even with Stupak added, every pro-life group admits that rationing and conscience issues remain and that the bill still has concerns or the pro-life movement. No pro-life group -- and even the bishops despite some mis-reporting in the mainstream media -- are supporting the House bill as approved. Let’s cease the attacks on one another. This is only a strategic debate between people who wholeheartedly want to see abortion end immediately if not sooner and not a matter of one side or the other abandoning pro-life principles. We all want to get the ball in the end zone and some of us want to pass and some to run the ball. There are too many unborn children and elderly and disabled at risk in the health care bill to let this one inning (excuse the mixed sports metaphors) define where we go as a pro-life community. There is an entire game to be played and adopting Stupak has riled and motivated the pro-abortion forces. Divided, they win, but united we can stop abortion funding and defeat this pro-abortion, pro-rationing bill. Ertelt’s description of the pro-abortion forces is, of course, correct. NARAL Pro-Choice America has described the Stupak Amendment as “extreme anti-choice politics.” Of course it’s riled; not a single baby should be protected by law, according to its strategic plan. And it’s united with its fellow pro-deathers, including Planned Parenthood, which claims the Stupak Amendment is an “unacceptable addition to the health care reform bill that, if enacted, would result in women losing health benefits they have today.” In fact, Planned Parenthood is so upset it even forgot to mention that if this bill passes, with or without the Stupak language, Planned Parenthood’s already-huge government subsidies will increase dramatically. Gee whiz! How could it have been so absentminded? I hope my point has been made. Regardless of who is riled, who is playing politics with babies’ lives or who is running for cover as they try to make lemonade out of the lemons they’ve tossed at principle, nobody should be pleased at the prospect of government-run health care. In case we have forgotten, dear friends at NRLC, this is the very government that thirsts for the blood of the innocent in unimaginable quantities! Obama supporters’ “health care reform” bills, regardless of their title or bill number, are so fatally flawed that wise pro-life strategists would have withheld any 11th-hour efforts, including the back-room meeting orchestrated by the USCCB and NRLC that led to the Stupak fiasco. The concerns that Ertelt now mentions about rationing and conscience protections were a concern before Stupak and still are. And, of course (though curiously absent from his analysis), increased funding for PP, abortive birth control and the like, which have been included in every version of this “health care reform” effort and are equally disquieting. All of these provisions should have been sufficient for pro-life activists of every stripe to simply walk away, continue to preach the full pro-life message and let the bill go down in flames. Instead, we have this silly argument about how we all have to go along, now that the Stupak language is in the bill, and do our best, tra la, tra la, tra la la la. Well, sorry, but I don’t buy it! When people fail to be honest in their interpretations of pro-life philosophy before a major political effort, what will they do afterward? Now we know. They will spin a tale, whether valid or not, about uniting forces and pressing on. Agreed. Now that the water is over the dam and the damage is done, we all must do one simple thing! We must demand that the following be included in any health care reform proposal: Respect for human personhood, respect for human personhood and respect for human personhood. If this single principle were the cornerstone of reasonable health care reform—a reform based on justice for all—there would be no anti-life provisions in at all. As of this writing and regardless of which bill we read, none measure up to this standard, and thus all should be opposed. But this is probably why American Life League does not get invited to those closed-door, 11th-hour meetings wherein some individuals negotiate away principle in order to rush out celebrating a fictitious success. Frankly, we at American Life League get on our knees and thank God that we are not invited to such events, as we would prefer to serve the best interest of the human person—who deserves equal protection under the law at all stages of life—rather than serve the special interests of Democrats and/or Republicans who are convinced that playing games with human lives is acceptable practice. NRLC has exposed its agenda. While it’s surely no surprise, it is also deplorable. The good news is that this is not the final act in the “health care reform” drama. So … now that the wayward have weighed in, the rest of us better get busy focusing on human personhood. http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2838 2009-11-10 17:08:00 These past few days of haggling and heckling over H.R. 3962, the Pelosi version of  Obama-style  “health care reform,” have left me with a rather sick feeling. What I have learned about the levers of power and how corrupting they can be, even to those in positions of moral leadership such as the Catholic bishops of this nation, is a sobering lesson indeed. I first surmised that something was amiss when Justin Cardinal Rigali, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre, New York, chairman of the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, sent a letter on Saturday, November 7 to each member of the U.S. House of Representatives.  The letter urged the representatives to vote in favor of the “Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitts-Kaptur-Dahlkemper-Lipinski-Smith Amendment,” commonly referred to as the Stupak Amendment. The USCCB asserted that this amendment would provide consistent protection for the rights of conscience and maintain the current law on abortion funding. It should be noted that, tragically, current law still allows taxpayer funding of abortion in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother. The letter further states, The Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitts-Kaptur-Dahlkemper-Lipinski-Smith Amendment will not affect coverage of abortion in non-subsidized health plans, and will not bar anyone from purchasing a supplemental abortion policy with their own funds. Thus far, H.R. 3962 does not meet President Obama’s commitment of barring use of federal dollars for abortion and maintaining current conscience laws. In the days following the passage of the Stupak Amendment, which led directly to the passage of the Pelosi bill, it has been argued that the amendment’s passage is a victory for pro-life Americans. We are sorry to have to throw cold water on the celebration, but frankly, this is false, for the following reasons. First, there is the undeniable fact that whatever the seriously deficient Stupak Amendment may or may not do, its language could fall out of any bill ultimately voted on in President Obama’s quest to pass a “health care reform” bill. Second, the Stupak Amendment only addresses abortion funding (and only partially at that). The Pelosi bill (H.R. 3962) includes the following provisions: • Expanded access to and funding of abortifacient contraception  (section 1714) • Federal funding of Planned Parenthood-style permissive sex education programs “to prevent teen pregnancy” (section 2526), similar to that stipulated in the Senate version of Obamacare • Deceptive definitions that, in fact, allow euthanasia through withholding or withdrawing “medical treatment or medical care” and withholding or withdrawing of  “nutrition or hydration” (section 240) • Vaguely worded references to conscience rights and only partial protection of the same (sections 258 and 259) • Language that forces a “participating health benefits plan” to not “discriminate” against any facilities that “provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.” (section 304) Of course, the first two provisions would result in massive new federal subsidies for organizations such as Planned Parenthood, which peddle contraceptives, abortion and sexual promiscuity, especially to our youth. The bottom line is that the intent to restore full protection of the human person and his inalienable right to life does not appear to be high on the USCCB’s list of priorities. Instead, it appears content with maintaining the sordid, deadly status quo. This leads one to presume that the USCCB wants mandatory health care coverage for one and all more than it desires the protection of all vulnerable human beings’ right to life. Catholic News Service reports, “[T]he successful battle to include strict language prohibiting funding for abortions, led by pro-life congressional Democrats with the strong support of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, is what made the difference in the Nov. 7 House vote to pass a sweeping health care reform bill.” The article then explains that the USCCB is not happy that the final House bill “would bar people who are in the country illegally from receiving any government assistance to get health coverage.”  However, CNS fails to mention that there are other classes of human beings whose right to life is simply ignored in the bill. Perhaps the most telling portion of the CNS report is this: Patrick Whelan, president of Catholic Democrats, said the vote signaled “a day for celebration among Catholics and all Americans who believe that life’s greatest test is how deeply we care for one another.” That, my friends, is what the brouhaha is all about, after all. We care deeply for one another as long as we are not thinking of our brothers and sisters in nursing homes, critical care centers, in vitro fertilization clinics, embryonic stem cell research facilities, Planned Parenthood offices where abortive chemicals are dispensed and abortions are committed on someone else’s dime; or those unfortunate people who would be denied care altogether because of the immense, bankrupting burden this legislation would eventually impose on all U.S. taxpayers. How deeply do we care for one another? Not very deeply at all, it would seem. The passage of this bill with the USCCB's assistance is but another confirmation that the USCCB’s agenda is far different than what one might hope for from the entity representing the shepherds of the nation’s largest religious body—the men who are the Twelve Apostles' direct successors and called to walk in their footsteps. Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media commented, “Contrary to some media reports, the U.S. Catholics Bishops never opposed a national health care scheme. In fact, their main objection was to a provision for federal funding of abortion. Once that provision was eliminated, the Catholic Bishops embraced the bill.” So what is one to make of this little game? After all, we are not playing Clue with Grandma in the kitchen; we are negotiating over a piece of legislation that would drastically change the face of this nation, not to mention her bank account. What could the bishops and the bureaucrats who represent them be thinking? “Was it Colonel Mustard in the Conservatory with the Revolver? Or did Miss Scarlet commit the crime in the Library with the Candlestick?” the Hasbro web site asks.  No, it’s really not as exciting or as challenging as the game of Clue. In fact, this game could result in a disaster so large that nobody can imagine the consequences. You see, in this game, there are no dice to roll, just the politics of accommodation. In this game, the cost to play has been so great that the USCCB has gambled its moral authority by politicking with the wayward instead of instructing them. There was a time when Catholic bishops wisely invested themselves in teaching their flock, preparing them to be the men and women of faith who could remold a nation and her politics by standing up for God and His truth. Currently, the USCCB’s leaders themselves appear to be all about politics.  And that is very sad indeed. Upon learning of the USCCB’s letter to Congress this past weekend and the subsequent vote, American Life League issued this statement, which pained me greatly, but which had to be made:  Our Catholic bishops should be fearlessly leading the way towards a culture of life. Fighting to maintain a status quo that has led to the destruction of 51 million preborn children is wrong and confusing to 65 million Catholics united in the defense of life. What Cardinal Rigali has permitted, by way of political maneuvering, is to allow an amendment to be heard and, we fear, later watch it be defeated. While our Catholic bishops will scramble to define their opposition to abortion in the aftermath, Pelosi will wave Cardinal Rigali’s support for health care reform as evidence that lay Catholics would somehow be wrong in opposing her bill. In endorsing Pelosicare, our Catholic bishops have risked making themselves political pawns in advancing a culture of death that treats human beings as disposable. Once again, this incrementalist approach to abortion will serve to enshrine in law grave injustices condemned unequivocally by the Catholic Church. Among these are rationed health care, in vitro fertilization, embryonic stem cell research, human experimentation, euthanasia and birth control. Faithful Catholics have a responsibility to vigorously oppose all acts of killing in health care, not negotiate for the status quo. Our Catholic bishops, when they negotiate for anything less than the full protection all human beings deserve, undermine the very principles of the Catholic faith and destroy the confidence of faithful Catholics across America. Our Catholic bishops should point to the unchanging principles and doctrines of the Catholic faith, not negotiate for a status quo that ends the lives of human beings. Today’s letter abrogates those principles. Americans should know that a truly Catholic position on health care protects the right to life of all human beings, at all stages and at all times. Negotiation of truth is never a Catholic principle. Truth alone should inform the consciences of faithful Catholics, and truth demands the full protection of all human beings.” As one astute commentator wrote in the Wall Street Journal,  Mrs. Pelosi’s craftiest political turn was a last-minute compromise to strip federal funds from insurance plans that cover abortions. The deal—negotiated by Stupak and supported by the National Right to Life Committee—gave cover to 40-some Democrats to support the larger bill. However, as subsidized costs soar, government will have no choice but to ration medical care, starting with the aged and grievously ill. Is pre-natal life more valuable than the elderly? We’re reminded of the way pro-lifers supported Kennedy over Laurence for SCOTUS in1987 merely because Mr. Kennedy was a Catholic who claimed to personally oppose abortion. Mr. Stupak played the right-to-lifers like a Stradivarius. Though not specifically noted in the WSJ commentary, the USCCB willingly played the same tune. Now you know the answer. The case of the missing moral authority is solved. http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2836 2009-11-09 16:40:00  By Mary Ann Kreitzer   On November 22, in Catholic churches around the country, ushers will pass collection baskets for the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD). Millions of trusting Catholics will contribute “to help the poor.” What many don’t know is that their hard-earned dollars will pour into the coffers of liberal organizations promoting causes they oppose and which often hurt the poor.   In 1969, the U.S. bishops established CCHD “to fund low-income controlled empowerment projects and to educate Catholics about the root causes of poverty.”  Since then, the campaign has spent $300 million funding community and parish organizing. According to the grant application criteria on the CCHD web site, groups offering direct services, e.g., soup kitchens, day care centers, homeless shelters, etc. are ineligible. So scrap the Missionaries of Charity, your local free clinic or crisis pregnancy center; they are banned by definition. Not a single one appears on the 2007 summary of CCHD grantees.     To be eligible, groups must organize the poor “to enact institutional change.”  That means working for “modification of existing laws and/or policies” and “establishment of participatory and just social structures and/or redistribution of decision-making powers so that people living in poverty can be involved in policy-making that affects their lives.” (There is also an “economic development” category of funding for businesses run by and creating jobs for low-income people, but it’s a small percentage of the pie – useful, however, for CCHD public relations.)   The bottom line is that CCHD primarily funds community organizers who go into neighborhoods and agitate for change using local people led by trained organizers, the real decision makers. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing, depending on the change and the tactics used, but CCHD has a shaky history of funding groups that promote radical left socialism rather than Catholicism. CCHD policy is modeled more on the failed strategies of secular poverty programs than on Catholic social justice philosophy.   In 1994, the Wanderer, a national Catholic weekly, ran a series of articles by Paul Likoudis about what was then called the Campaign for Human Development. (The word Catholic was added later.) The group was celebrating 25 years and the more than $200 million donated, ostensibly to aid the poor. Likoudis wrote that the anniversary “brought [many U.S. Catholics] to plead with the… bishops for an investigation of and an audit into what kinds of programs the ecclesiastical apparat has funded.” He exposed a broad range of serious problems. They included financing organizations that support abortion and contraception, funneling money into leftist groups working for socialistic political goals and organizing voter drives to elect radical politicians. (In 1996, leading pro-life Congressman Bob Dornan was targeted by CCHD-funded groups that worked to elect pro-abortion playgirl Loretta Sanchez.)   Likoudis exposed the intimate connection between atheist Saul Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) and CCHD. Alinsky, the granddaddy of a new type of community organizing, promoted radical and immoral means. Some of the tactics used by those trained in his method will be described later in this article. No longer were Catholics to follow the Church’s long history of Catholic Action, which addresses both body and soul through the corporal and spiritual works of mercy. The new paradigm would educate the poor in their neighborhoods and middle-class Catholics in their parishes to acquire power using whatever tactics were necessary, then use that power to bring about systemic change.    Organization strategies came from Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, dedicated to Lucifer, and works based on it, like Dean Brackley’s Organize: A Manual for Leaders. Organize (copyrighted by the Jesuits and published by liberal Paulist Press) calls for tactics “from banners and posters to public service announcements, picketing, threatening lawsuits…’destruction of your own property,’ protests, teach-ins, walkouts, registering voters, strikes, boycotts, sit-ins, ‘overloading the system’ (for example ‘100 people ask for medical help in the emergency room or clinic’) … to the most important thing: controlling a meeting with public officials.”   While some of the strategies are perfectly fine, presuming a moral end and charitably carried out (think of the rescue movement at abortion mills), the Alinsky model encourages lying, manipulation, stirring up class antagonisms and mob action. Manipulating power to coerce both government and private business is a primary strategy of both IAF and ACORN (Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now), two of the organizations receiving a generous portion of CCHD funds over the years. Likoudis described ACORN’s 1992 efforts to organize the Shaw area of Washington, D.C. (a depressed neighborhood where I student-taught in 1967). When local Korean small businesses refused to financially support ACORN’s efforts, they organized a shakedown, picketing outside shops. As one merchant said, “This is something the Mafia would do.”   Likoudis noted a study by the Capital Research Center in Washington that called CCHD’s 25- year legacy “a dreadful failure.” He summarized CCHD’s efforts saying, “What [C]CHD has actually done is offer the poor ‘a false faith in the power of government,’ and 25 years and $200 million later, the worsening misery index of Americans can be measured by dramatic rises in homicide and suicide rates, abortion and illegitimate births, divorce and huge increases in the numbers of people living in poverty – all accompanied by exponential increases in government spending on ‘poverty programs.’”   Have things changed since Likoudis’ 1994 report? Yes and no. In 1998, the campaign changed its name by adding the word Catholic and, the next year, issued new guidelines supposedly assuring that CCHD grants would comply with Catholic moral doctrine. “But since these changes were made, CCHD seems to have plodded along the same weary course…. stuck in, as one observer called it, a ‘60s time warp’ happy to fund leftwing, big-government political mobilization and ‘anti-poverty’ groups,” Human Events reported in 2000. That description still applies today. CCHD primarily supports groups committed to government solutions. If they worked, of course, Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society would have solved the problem of poverty decades ago. As it is, CCHD pours good money after bad.   So who does CCHD fund and how do these groups use the money? According to Stephanie Block, a researcher with extensive files on CCHD’s links to community organizing, Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) rakes in about 16% of all grants annually. ACORN, a group that is separate from but similar to IAF, receives about 5%. And there are others. A third to one-half of all funded organizations are Alinskyite groups with philosophies antithetical to Catholic teaching on social justice.   Since ACORN is easy to identify on the CCHD grant list, it’s a good group to target for analysis. The 2007 grant summary, a 24-page rundown of groups receiving between $25,000 and $50,000 each, shows that about three dozen ACORN affiliates received over a million dollars. That’s quite a chunk of Catholic change. So what exactly are the faithful (and the poor) getting for the money?   In 2006, the Employment Policies Institute released a study called Rotten ACORN: America’s Bad Seed. It describes ACORN as a “vast web of groups run by long-time anti-corporate activist Wade Rathke and a handful of his closest allies…[with] more than 75 organizations run … out of one office … in New Orleans” (page 2). The 30-page report with 140 footnotes goes on to describe what essentially is the “Rathke family business” (p. 3) which is up to its neck in voter fraud, shaking down banks and private businesses, funneling massive amounts of money into the pockets of family members through its spiderweb of networks and mistreating its employees. Rathke was forced out in 2008 after his brother, Dale, embezzled almost a million dollars, and he covered it up keeping his brother on the payroll for eight years after the 2000 crime.    Rathke’s agenda was not about promoting the well-being of ACORN members but building his own power. “An internal ACORN manual instructed organizers to sign up as many residents as possible because ‘this is a mass organization directed at political power where might makes right’” (p. 16).   Consumer Rights League’s chief public advocate, James Terry, testified on September 24, 2008  at a joint House Administration Subcommittee and House Judiciary Subcommittee oversight hearing concerning “Federal State and Local Efforts to Prepare for the General 2008 Election.” Terry described ACORN’s “decade-long history of voter fraud, embezzlement, and misuses of taxpayer funds…We know about the thousands of potentially fraudulent voter registration cards turned in by ACORN and caught by officials…how many more fraudulent registrations have not been discovered…we believe it is fair to question how many fraudulent registrations may lead to fraudulent votes or what other activities they are willing to undertake to influence the election…We respectfully submit that our nations’ election system is facing a concerted campaign that raises serious issues” (pp. 12-13).   Terry wasn’t talking through his hat. In July 2007, ACORN was involved in the largest case of voter fraud in Washington State history.  Similar schemes occurred in at least a dozen other states including Virginia, Ohio, Florida, Minnesota, and Colorado among others (Employment Policies Institute, pp. 18-20). Investigations of ACORN were instigated in numerous states, including Missouri, where during the 2006 midterm elections, “St. Louis election officials were … inundated with bogus Acorn-generated voter registrants…. over 1,000 addresses listed on its registrations don’t exist.” In 2006 in Kansas City, the Republican head of the Board of Elections said 40% of the 35,000 ACORN registrations appeared to be fakes. ACORN has also used federal grants illegally to engage in political activity.   And who are the primary recipients of ACORN’s hard work? Democrats. In 2004, ACORN internal documents disclosed its strategy to use a minimum wage campaign in Florida to “increase voter turnout of working class, mainly Democratic voters without increasing opposition turnout.” ACORN pumped nearly $20 million dollars into the contested 2004 presidential election (Employment Policies Institute,  p. 18).   Democratic partisan politics is ACORN’s legacy. In 2005, Gary Delgado, founding ACORN organizer, shared a story at a conference on the group’s history. “ACORN was early on interested in registering voters….We did not register a single Republican in that election [1970 Arkansas governor’s race]” (Employment Policies Institute,  p. 16). In 1980, ACORN was actively promoting a Democrat for president “urging its members to register and vote in primary elections and caucuses. In certain states it had considerable influence. In Michigan, for example, ACORN delegates proved important in Senator Edward Kennedy’s [primary] campaign” (Employment Policies Institute, p. 17) and worked for Jesse Jackson in 1984 (Employment Policies Institute,   p. 17). The Wall Street Journal reported April 29, 2008 that “ACORN’s national political arm has endorsed Mr. Obama. And its ‘nonpartisan’ voter registration affiliate has announced plans to register hundreds of thousands of voters before the November election.”  Nonpartisan?   Not surprisingly ACORN opposes voter identification laws. In 1995, Illinois Gov. Jim Edgar refused to implement the “Motor Voter” law, which allowed postcard registration, which he felt invited fraud. The young lawyer who sued on behalf of ACORN and won was Barack Obama. Obama was no stranger to ACORN. According to Block, “Obama ran [its] 1992 voter-registration drive, Project Vote, and in turn received ACORN’s endorsement for Illinois senator.”  ACORN has challenged many state efforts to limit voter fraud by requiring identification at the polls. It’s no wonder, in view of its history, which includes padding voter rolls with the names of underage, dead and nonexistent persons.    ACORN’s immoral actions are not limited to voter fraud. According to Stanley Kurtz, writing in the New York Post September 29, 2008, “intimidation tactics, public charges of racism and threats…have enabled ACORN to extract hundreds of millions of dollars in loans and contributions from America’s financial institutions.”     With aid from CCHD grants, ACORN helped force passage of President Bill Clinton’s changes to the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) in 1995. Those changes required banks to get satisfactory CRA ratings (necessary for mergers) by demonstrating that they were providing a significant number of loans to poor, middle class and minority home buyers. Unfortunately, that meant a lot of bad loans to people who couldn’t afford them (including illegal aliens), a problem which contributed to the current economic crisis.    A key player in what’s been described as the “housing shakedown,” ACORN used typical Alinskyite tactics to pressure banks to meet its demands. For example, in 1992 Madeline Talbott, Chicago head of ACORN, “announced plans to conduct demonstrations in the lobbies of area banks…. She insisted that banks show a commitment to minority lending by lowering their standards on down payments and underwriting – for example by overlooking bad credit histories. By September 1992, [t]he Chicago Tribune was describing Talbott’s program as ‘affirmative-action lending’ and ACORN was issuing fact sheets bragging about relaxations of credit standards that it had won on behalf of minorities.”   Talbott pressured five Chicago financial institutions, two of whom had experienced her direct action bullying, to participate in a pilot program to give mortgages to individuals with bad credit histories. “What made this program different…was the participation of Fannie Mae – which agreed to buy up the [bad] loans.”   ACORN frequently serves as an “adviser” to banks seeking mergers. When J.P. Morgan wanted to merge with Chase Manhattan, ACORN became the beneficiary of hundreds of thousands in donations from both Morgan and Chase. (ACORN Housing Corporation’s 2000 tax return shows grants from Bank of America, Fleet Services Corp., Fannie Mae, Chase Manhattan, and Wells Fargo totaling $4,752,198 [Employment Policies Institute, p. 26].)    “The banks that ACORN has shaken down refuse to discuss their contributions to a political organization that, to put it mildly, is hostile to free enterprise,” wrote Sol Stern, of the Manhattan Institute, in 2003. Talbott’s pressure tactics are typical of ACORN organizers in every state because they all come from the Alinsky game book. They were the same tactics used by top ACORN activist, Mitch Klein, in the early 2000s. He “injected a new aggressiveness into the Baltimore chapter. Underlings piled garbage in front of City Hall to protest lack of services in poor neighborhoods, wielded huge inflated rubber sharks to disrupt a bankers’ dinner, and – most controversially – staged a profanity-laced protest in front of [the mayor’s] home…. (Despite – or perhaps because of – the intimidation, ACORN still gets $50,000 a year from the city of Baltimore to provide housing counseling to the poor.)”     An even more egregious example of intimidation happened in New York City when Mayor Rudy Giuliani proposed the takeover of five of NYC’s worst schools by Edison Schools, Inc., a for-profit educational group. ACORN opposed the move [by] distributing flyers (printed at public expense) lying about Edison’s record. Using school lists extorted from city officials, they bombarded parents with letters and phone calls and stacked public forums in Harlem with ACORN activists who shouted down the Edison representatives. The plan was abandoned.    Failing inner city schools are one of the most serious problems for the poor. One might think a group concerned about their welfare would support the option of school choice, but ACORN has consistently resisted any effort to allow the poor to escape the public school monopoly. As Stern said, “[ACORN] promotes a 1960s-bred agenda of anti-capitalism, central planning, victimology, and government handouts to the poor. As a result, not only does it harm the poor it claims to serve; it is also a serious threat to the urban future.” So why does it receive millions of dollars from CCHD?   But there’s another ugly aspect to ACORN that makes Catholic funding for its activities baffling. While the organization bullies others to pay minimum wage and treat employees justly, a growing cadre of ACORN whistle-blowers describe the awful treatment of the group’s own employees. A blog called “The Real ACORN” describes how workers have been lied to, not paid, refused benefits, etc. In Florida, dozens of unpaid employees “turned a Miami campaign office upside down in anger…. Elizabeth Andrades, who heads the Hialeah office of [ACORN] , said a boisterous crowd took over the Miami office …. One woman carried a bat. The kitchenette was set on fire, she said.” It’s hard to empathize as ACORN feels the sting of its own mob tactics used against it.    Mistreatment of these employees was not an isolated case. In 2006, Bruce Bartlett writing in Human Events, described how ACORN sued California for exemption to the minimum wage law. Its brief argued, “A person paid limited sums of money will be in a better position to empathize with and relate to the low and moderate membership and constituency of ACORN.”  Maybe paying nothing would be even more effective! The hypocrisy staggers the imagination. ACORN has denied workers the right to organize, something they demand from private businesses. In 2001, the Seattle office attempted to unionize. ACORN management retaliated by locking workers out. They settled later for $20,000. In Dallas, in the same year, workers who threatened to organize were fired, an act the National Labor Relations Board ruled in 2003 violated the law.     In view of all the information readily available about ACORN, why does CCHD continue to fund it year after year to the tune of multimillions of dollars? One must conclude that promoting the liberal Democratic agenda is what the campaign is all about, a fact Likoudis documented in 1994 that remains unchanged today.    But do the bishops know? Block’s opinion: “A few bishops understand exactly what the [CCHD] is and approve what it funds. Most, however, swallow the concept of its ‘helping the poor’ and have probed no deeper.” But what about CCHD staffers? Who’s minding the store? Everything in this article is easily available on the internet. If all the organizations funded by CCHD receive as little scrutiny as ACORN, the faithful should keep a tight grip on their wallets. Considering that 40% of ACORN’s budget comes from tax revenue, Catholic citizens’ pockets are being picked twice!   In conclusion, when the ushers pass the basket on November 22, faithful Catholics should drop in a note saying why they will never put a penny in the CCHD collection until it follows Catholic social justice teachings, instead of serving as a conduit for left-wing liberal extortionists. Then write a check to a local charity that truly serves the poor. What else can you do? Give this report to your bishop and your pastor. Telling people CCHD helps the poor while funding groups like ACORN borders on fraud.      Mary Ann Kreitzer is president of the Catholic Media Coalition, as well as president of Les Femmes (a lay Catholic media apostolate in the Diocese of Arlington, Virginia), and editor of its quarterly newsletter, the Truth.  The CMC is a nationwide organization of Catholic writers, webmasters, editors and others whose mission is to report truthfully about the Catholic Church and to defend, foster and spread authentic Catholic faith and culture. This article is adapted from an article originally published by the CMC (which includes endnotes) and featured here with its kind permission. For more information on the Catholic Campaign for Human Development and to participate in American Life League’s “No thank you!” card campaign, in response to the CCHD’s annual collection (Sunday, November 22 in parishes nationwide), visit www.all.org/cchd.  http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2834 2009-11-06 17:40:00 Once upon a time, there were professionals in the medical, scientific, research, legal and education fields who examined questions and practices based on a standard ethical framework, which is explained by Professor Dianne Irving in her article “Which Medical Ethics for the 21st Century?”: The first ethical principle of the natural law, from which several other principles are drawn, is familiar to us all: “Do good and avoid evil.” Natural law also includes three (not one) general norms against which we determine what is right or wrong: (1) the subjective norm — not just “conscience,” but a well-formed conscience; (2) the objective proximate norm — right reason, a very rich understanding of reason which embraces the harmony, interrelationship and good within any single individual, as well as among individuals within a society. Here the “common goods” must flow back upon the backs of each and every member of that society, and the institutions are there to ensure that; and, (3) the ultimate norm — the Divine Nature itself, the ultimate measure of right and wrong, and of goodness. Of course, the Divine Nature is not the subject matter of natural law philosophical ethics, but of theology (which I will address in a moment). In applying these general norms to concrete situations we decide what particular actions are right or wrong based on three (not one) conditions: the kind of action, the intention for doing the action and the circumstances under which the action is done. It’s very helpful to keep this fundamentally rational principle in mind when considering what is happening currently in the areas of science and medicine that impact the question of when a human being exists and how that individual should be treated. For example, the State of California, which is, for all intents and purposes, bankrupt, has just awarded grants to entities claiming to be able to develop therapies for serious diseases by using technologies not involving human embryonic stem cell research (HESCR).  The $230 million went to 14 projects, but news reports confirm that at least four of these will use HESCR, which means that preborn children will be killed, even though the grants are touted as supporting “projects in nonembryonic stem cells.” The California grants also include a grant for research employing induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells, which are allegedly cells produced from a patient’s own cells and touted as having the same properties as HESCR. The problem with this is that such iPS cells are produced by unethical means. Theresa Deisher, Ph.D. has made this point many times.  The ability to transform adult cells into embryonic stem cells could be moral, however, a close inspection of the two published papers revealed that cells from an electively aborted fetus were used in the work, and therefore it cannot be considered moral.   In order to transform adult cells into embryonic cells, the researchers (Yamanaka, et al) introduced four genes essential for "embryonic stem cell character" into the adult cells. First, the researchers had to make the genes and virus materials needed to transform the adult cells. Both researchers used versions of the HEK 293 cell to do this. This is a cell, the Human Embryonic Kidney 293 cell, used commonly in biomedical research for DNA (gene) and virus production. I was informed quite recently that the 293 cells were produced from an electively aborted fetus. I was able to verify that easily. The term embryonic in the name is misleading. Such projects fail to meet the natural law ethical criteria as defined above. It is apparent that those involved with such research—not to mention abortion, in vitro fertilization and political deconstruction of objective truth—have developed a new set of “ethics” which have no similarity whatsoever to natural law standards. This is why we are witnessing practices that totally violate the obligation to respect the integrity of the individual human person. In another incident, scientists recently announced that they had developed a process for creating progenitor cells [fundamental cells] of human sperm and human ova by using material from HESCR.  Some claim that this latest discovery could lead to the creation of human beings without men, women or sexual relations. This sounds a bit far-fetched, and one would have thought at least a quip would have been heard from the major media, but no such comment was reported. According to Hilary White of LifeSiteNews.com,  The report, published in the journal Nature by Stanford University researchers, says that the primary aims of the researchers were to unlock the secrets of genetic malformation of ova and sperm by creating germ cells and eventually to treat infertility and genetic defects that are common in in vitro fertilization treatments. In the experiments, embryonic stem cells taken from “spare” IVF embryos were treated with proteins to stimulate the growth of germ cells…. [Renee] Reijo Pera of Stanford’s Center for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research and the senior author of the new study, said, “Figuring out the genetic ‘recipe’ needed to develop human germ cells in the laboratory will give us the tools we need to trace what’s going wrong” for infertile couples. The center’s research focuses on experimentation involving human embryos, germ cell development, gene manipulation and human cloning. A quick study of Pera’s background provokes the question of precisely how far this research will have to go before someone pays attention to its destructive ramifications.  In this age of science divorced from reason, perhaps it simply has not occurred to most people that such things are even possible. And perhaps this is exactly what some scientists are hoping. Here, as in other such studies, the lives of preborn children are being taken for the purpose of experimentation in areas where, once upon a time, no ethical scientist would have dared to go. What can possibly be gained from such research and why pursue it? Clearly, the guiding principle, do good and avoid evil, has not only fallen into disuse, but has been buried once and for all by many scientists entrusted with research that should have, as its primary goal, service to the human person. According to Fiona Macrae, of the UK’s Daily Mail, who wrote the original report on Pera's work,“The science also raises the possibility of ‘male eggs’ made from men’s skin and ‘female sperm’ from women’s skin. This would allow gay couples to have children genetically their own, although many scientists are skeptical about whether it is possible to create sperm from female cells, which lack the male Y chromosome.” As noted in yesterday’s commentary, Dr. Irving reminds us that there are no depths too steeped in questionable practices for those involved in clinical research and reproductive technology these days. Whether it’s “pre-embryo splitting,” human cloning or the practice I have just described, nothing is taboo. Once the fundamental language has been destroyed and recreated to suit the agendas of those bent on replacing God with themselves, there is nothing that cannot be attempted. Sadly, this applies even to some in Congress who claim to have pro-life concerns at the center of their efforts. In the proposed Stupak-Wamp human cloning “ban,” for example, not all methods of human cloning are addressed, and therefore, just as was the case eight years ago with the Brownback-Weldon “ban,” there actually is no ban. In fact, the bill is not worth the paper it is written on at the moment. The wide variety of human cloning techniques currently of interest to researchers, including the creation of a human embryo without male/female involvement, is not even addressed! This in itself is shocking. Are Stupak and Wamp misinformed? I cannot attest to that, one way or the other, but either or both of them could assign someone to do thorough investigation of current scientific practices and ask tough questions before authoring a bill that is allegedly addressing the abuses I have outlined in this article. Or perhaps for political reasons, such essential research is not in their best interests. If that’s the case, then they are guilty of misleading their peers and the public. In today’s upside-down culture, anybody can define a word to mean what they want it to mean. And that includes the simple word “ban,” which used to mean forbid, period. Given that the average American’s attention span seems to be growing ever shorter, who is going to check up on these things? This is why it is imperative to go back to basics. Each of us needs to understand the factual definition of words, whether we are talking about a ban or a banana. If we do that, we won’t get it wrong. But if we fail, all hell will break loose and these damning practices will continue to go unchecked. http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2833 2009-11-05 15:45:00 Over the past nearly 16 years, I have learned an awful lot about certain subjects that were never high on my hit parade before getting involved in the pro-life movement. But since wonders never cease, this process of being educated and immediately horrified continues. To put this in the proper perspective, let’s just say that when I first learned that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had lied about how the birth control pill worked, way back in the mid-1970s, I was incredulous. It never occurred to me that a public official or government agency would deny the facts by simply not mentioning them. Boy, was I naïve! At that time, the subject was the birth control pill and the fact, proven scientifically and repeatedly, that the chemical can and does kill preborn babies during their first week of life. The government never identified those chemicals as having the potential to abort a preborn baby early, and the government has stuck to its monstrous tale for all these years. Not only that, but some national pro-life groups have adhered to the same bogus position. Why, you might ask? To my mind, these organizations have done so in order to excuse themselves from demanding the whole truth and nothing but the truth from their political friends who sit in positions of power and welcome them to the table, as long as they remain politically acceptable. Now there is something else that is beginning to irritate me on a number of levels and for the same reasons. There is a flurry of news regarding the possibility that reprogrammed cells, from umbilical cord blood, could be an ethical replacement for the research currently being done using human embryonic stem cells. Since a human embryo must die in order for his or her stem cells to be used, the use of those cells is totally unethical and immoral. So could the news about the reprogrammed cord blood cells be positive or simply another sham? Based on the evidence from various scientific journals, published articles and analysis, we would have to conclude that a reprogrammed cord blood cell, which is really just an induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cell, is no more ethical than the previous “discoveries” reported by the mainstream media. For example, much earlier this year “stem cell pioneer” James Thomson claimed that his crew had used the “reprogramming method,” first pioneered by Shinya Yamanaka to take his research to a safer level, or so he claimed. As reported, Thomson accomplished this by “delivering the special genes with a plasmid, a small, very stable circle of DNA. The problematic genes were eventually diluted and what remained [was] cells that are like embryonic stem cells but that don’t require the destruction of human embryos to obtain.” This sounded so good, but then the original report in Science was reviewed, and a different story emerged. As reported by Debi Vinnedge,  “While Thomson hailed the process as much safer than past experiments (which is still highly debatable) in which he used lentiviruses to deliver the genes, what was not reported was his use of embryonic stem cells and aborted fetal cell lines as sources for the genes. ” In other words, the very basis for the reprogrammed cells would not have been available if not for the killing of preborn children. Thomson has never admitted this publicly and insists that his work is ethical. That would be my definition of fraud, but the picture gets worse.  The American Medical Association is persisting in its advocacy of human embryo destruction for scientific research. The latest venture is “pre-embryo-splitting.” The “pre-embryo” concept was debunked by real scientists long ago; yet the AMA persists in using this highly deceptive term. In an “Opinion” recently added to its Code of Medical Ethics, the AMA stated,  The technique of splitting in vitro fertilized pre-embryos may result in multiple genetically identical siblings. The procedure of pre-embryo splitting should be available so long as both gamete providers agree. This procedure may greatly increase the chances of conception for an infertile couple or for a couple whose future reproductive capacity will likely be diminished. Pre-embryo splitting also can reduce the number of invasive procedures necessary for egg retrieval and the necessity for hormonal stimulants to generate multiple eggs. The use and disposition of any pre-embryos that are frozen for future use should be consistent with the Council’s opinion on frozen pre-embryos (Opinion 2.141, “Frozen Pre-embryos”). In essence, the aforementioned quote is telling the reader is that there is nothing unethical about taking a preborn human being and splitting his body in two so that research can be conducted for the purpose of manufacturing more than one human being in a laboratory setting, even at the cost of killing the original human being. And as long as the AMA is pleased with itself for denying the facts set forth in the Carnegie Stages of Human Development and basic human embryology by insisting that there really is no human embryo there, just something called a pre-embryo, all is considered well in the conference rooms occupied by AMA medical ethics professionals. The language of death and destruction is clearly taking center stage and betrays the fact that there are no actual ethics involved any longer in the development of medical or clinical research policies, but rather a brand of lunacy that one should only use when developing a circus or a comedy routine. This is the fundamental reason why Professor Dianne Irving, in her article entitled “American Medical Association’s ‘Narrow Definitions,’ Legal ‘Redefinitions’ … and Reproductive Cloning” made the following astute observation in her introduction: Aside from the serious ethical issues of artificial reproductive technologies in general, not to mention the serious ethical issue of the destruction of living human embryos used in this and related research, isn’t a woman legally entitled to be provided with the truth, all the facts, including the accurate scientific facts, of such infertility treatments before giving her legally valid “informed consent”? Isn’t that her choice? Or are informed consent forms just supposed to be rather “selective” with their “information”, and leave out all that messy “science”?   But with all the “fudging” of critical scientific facts, how can a woman really be certain of exactly what is being implanted into her womb, and therefore exercise her choice? Is it “just a bunch of cells,” just a “pre-embryo,” maybe a frog? And how did it get here - by “fertilization,” or genetic engineering, or maybe magic? If it is “genetic engineering,” shouldn’t they call this “therapeutic research” in “reproductive genetic engineering” rather than just infertility “treatments”? If this is really research, rather than standard medical treatment, then how are these IVF and ART facilities conforming to the international ethical imperatives such as the Nuremberg Code, the Declaration of Helsinki, etc.? To whom are they accountable? Where’s the regulation of such medical procedures? ....... Well, lots of dumb questions. Besides, if the good doctors at the American Medical Association tell me that what they are implanting in my body is just a “pre-embryo” and that it was simply reproduced by just a silly kind of “splitting,” then why shouldn’t I trust and believe them? And besides, they assure me that it definitely isn’t “reproductive cloning.” Wishful thinking? How comforting. Indeed, but that is where we are at the moment. Reproductive technology has opened wide the door to all sorts of deadly procedures, tests, experiments and research. And as Professor Irving suggests, the patients are merely part of the experiment. They are not told the facts; they are only given superficial promises and insincere assurances. Sounds like politicians, not doctors and respected clinical researchers, right? Well, think again. We are living in the age of pseudo-science, in which money is god and the federal grant the apple on the tree of good and evil. As Dr. Irving points out in her latest, very well researched analysis, there is really nothing accurate, honest or respectable about what is going on in this milieu. Mankind is in for a very rude awakening one of these days, because for too long, those in charge of policy and public opinion have been aligned with perfidious duplicity, which does indeed have consequences. I plan to deal with Dr. Irving’s findings in a second commentary because there is just too much information there to digest at a single sitting. But before we close, let us take our hats off to the good professor for providing us with a sage quote from C.S. Lewis, right at the start, to whet our appetite for the wisdom she imparts: “If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth, only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair.”—C.S. Lewis  http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2829 2009-11-04 13:14:00 (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. http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2828 2009-11-03 11:17:00 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!” Those of us who understand the biological development of the human being know that the correct words to say are “human being” or “human zygote.” 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." We do say, thank God! http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2827 2009-11-02 10:49:00 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. http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2826 2009-10-30 11:26:00 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.