http://www.all.org/rss_jblog.php Judie Brown, American Life League Blog RSS Feed en-us Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:34:00 EDT Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:34:00 EDT http://www.all.org webmaster@all.org webmaster@all.org http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2978 2010-03-19 11:40:00 Guest commentary by Kortney Blythe I recently visited the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. Of course, as an abortion abolitionist, I thought of the subject often as I viewed each display. But certain areas of the museum sparked stronger parallels to the abortion battle. Many Hollywood movies have been made chronicling the stories of Holocaust survivors. Some have even documented the rescuers and heroes during this time (Schindler’s List, Defiance). A scarce few, however, highlighted the impact that the church—both Protestant and Catholic—had on the rescue efforts. As I perused the “Rescue and Resistance” section of the museum, I couldn’t help but notice a pattern. Many of the prominent rescuers were priests, pastors, nuns and religious people with strong convictions for the sanctity of human life. If you’ve never heard of Sophie Scholl and The White Rose, look it up or rent the movie Sophie Scholl: The Final Days. Sophie and her brother, Hans, were college students compelled by their Christian faith to speak out against Hitler and the Nazi agenda through non-violent means. Their leaflets influenced thousands, and they were martyred for their courage. They quoted extensively from The Bible and unequivocally challenged people to wake up from their indifferent slumber. When I visited the Holocaust museum’s web site, I found further evidence of the church’s impact during the Holocaust (emphasis mine):   Some European churches, orphanages, and families provided hiding places for Jews, and in some cases, individuals aided Jews already in hiding … In France, the Protestant population of the small village of Le Chambon-sur-Lignon sheltered between 3,000 and 5,000 refugees, most of them Jews. In France, Belgium and Italy, underground networks run by Catholic clergy and lay Catholics saved thousands of Jews.   Two ministers led the residents of Le Chambon-sur-Lignon in the effort to hide Jews, provide forged I.D. cards and help them escape to safety, even though some residents were arrested and one murdered by the Gestapo. The Yad Vashem, a Holocaust remembrance organization, recognized the town with the title, “Righteous Among the Nations.” The gratitude Yad Vashem feels towards recipients of this award is best summed up this way: Attitudes towards the Jews during the Holocaust mostly ranged from indifference to hostility. The mainstream watched as their former neighbors were rounded up and killed; some collaborated with the perpetrators; many benefited from the expropriation of the Jews property. But in this world of moral collapse there was a small minority who mustered extraordinary courage to uphold human values. At the end of the museum tour is a section called "From Memory to Action: Meeting the Challenge of Genocide." Its purpose is to direct the righteous anger and indignation (elicited from viewing the horrors of the Holocaust throughout the museum) from emotions to action. Thus, the display encourages visitors to fight modern genocides in the world. As you might’ve guessed, abortion is never mentioned. In the feedback notebook provided for guests, I implored the museum to include abortion in its genocide display. In my note, I referenced Deuteronomy 30:19, which is prominently displayed on a wall in the museum. It reads, “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.” Choose life that your offspring may live. As I exited the museum, the heroes section lingered in my mind; specifically, the overwhelming presence of the church in the rescue efforts. I thought of the slavery abolitionist movement. It was Christians who ran underground railroads, preached anti-slavery sermons that shifted the culture and infiltrated the government with pro-personhood legislation.  I said to my mom, “If the churches in America stood united against abortion, we would see an end to it.” Instead, the Episcopal, Presbyterian (USA) and United Methodist denominations have official  pro-abortion stances. The Catholic Campaign for Human Development undermines Catholic teaching by supporting pro-abortion organizations. Groups such as the YWCA and the Salvation Army have distanced themselves from their Christian heritage and shifted their positions on the plight of the preborn. As for the majority of American churches, abortion is a taboo subject. There may be one or two pro-life activists in a congregation, but they are just the token radicals. Many Christians have become apathetic and indifferent, letting a few passionate individuals do the work that all Christians should be doing. Jesus is supposed to be our example, and he was radical. His message of caring for the “least of these” is for all Christians. He didn’t proclaim ear-tickling messages. He made people uncomfortable in their complacency. He never backed down from the Truth, and eventually, he was crucified. William Wilberforce, one of the most influential slavery abolitionists in England, whose story was captured in the film Amazing Grace, said, "If to be feelingly alive to the sufferings of my fellow-creatures is to be a fanatic, I am one of the most incurable fanatics ever permitted to be at large." Most church leaders do not hesitate when asked to collect food for the homeless or fill shoeboxes for Christmas. But when they’re asked to pray outside an abortion mill or allow a pro-life speaker to make a presentation, it’s a whole different story. No one gets upset when a church collects a special offering for Haiti, but bring up abortion and you may very well have controversy. So be it. The 50 million children dead from abortion deserve our passion. In the past, when the body of Christ, the Church, rose up in opposition to an injustice, earth-shaking things happened. Slaves were freed, rights were restored and killings ended.   The first leaflet of the White Rose asked something that Christians in a country with decriminalized abortion should ask themselves every day: "Who among us has any conception of the dimensions of shame that will befall us and our children when one day the veil has fallen from our eyes and the most horrible of crimes—crimes that infinitely outdistance every human measure—reach the light of day?” May the Christian churches remove the veil from its eyes and expose the horrible crime against humanity that is abortion. Only then will it end.  Kortney Blythe is the chapter and street team coordinator for American Life League’s Rock for Life project,  which brings the human personhood message to youth through music, education and human rights activism. http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2977 2010-03-18 11:04:00 Guest Commentary By Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D. Most issues in medical ethics require a sound understanding of “human personhood.” While the issue of personhood itself is a philosophical question and cannot be determined empirically, it is possible to determine with empirical and scientific accuracy when the material aspect of a human being begins to exist. Scientifically, for over 100 years, it has been documented empirically that, in human sexual reproduction, the material aspect of a human being begins to exist when the sperm makes first contact with the oocyte at the beginning of the process of fertilization. In human asexual reproduction, a human being begins to exist when the DNA in a cell and its other cell constituents are “appropriately reorganized,” i.e., are “reorganized” within the cell in such a way that the cell becomes a new human organism—a new human being. Philosophically, a human person is defined properly as a human being who possesses a rational soul, and that rational soul must always include all three powers of the soul simultaneously—i.e., the sensitive, vegetative and rational powers of the soul cannot be separated. No power of the soul can exist alone, and no whole soul can exist alone without the human body.  There is no “soul/soul” split and no “soul/body” split. Therefore, there is no delay between when a human being and when a human person begin to exist. The human being and the human person refer to the same being and must always exist simultaneously. Since we can know empirically when the material aspect of a human being begins to exist, we can therefore reason back to when that human person begins to exist. Thus, the human person must begin to exist immediately when the human being begins to exist. When discussing medical ethics questions that involve when a human being begins to exist, it is crucial that the starting point of our inquiry is empirically based, i.e., based on the accurate scientific facts of human embryology. The need for scientific accuracy becomes particularly clear when addressing the legal protection of the right to life of all human beings. However, there are some—including some Catholics—who do not understand the need for accurate language. And yet Catholics should understand this need more than anyone else, for the following reason: To make a scientific error at the beginning, in determining when a human being begins to exist, will automatically cause an error in determining philosophically when a human person begins to exist—which, in turn, will destroy our understanding of the foundation of the natural law and the moral law. And that will ultimately bring to an end the moral authority of the Catholic Church and her teachings on the value and dignity of the human person. Don’t believe it? Consider this: 1. If the scientific definition of a “human being” and when he/she begins to exist is scientifically false, then the philosophical definition of a “human person” and when he/she begins to exist is automatically false and therefore invalid. This is especially a problem when false scientific “facts” are used as false empirical starting points for the purpose of falsely claiming that there is a delay or “split” between the human being and the human person. Erroneous definitions of a human person can be (and already have been) applied to virtually every bioethical question.  Instead of understanding that there is only one human soul that possesses three different powers—the vegetative, sensitive and rational powers—many bioethicists claim that there are three human souls—the vegetative, sensitive and rational souls— and that they are added to the human body one at a time.  That is, they claim that first the human body possesses the vegetative soul, then later the sensitive soul is added, and even later the rational soul is added.  It is the rational soul, they claim, that confers personhood on that human being.  So, in the view of these bioethicists, before the rational soul is present, certain actions are ethically justified because there is no person there—e.g., abortion, the use of abortifacients, infanticide, destructive human embryo and fetal research, human cloning, human genetic engineering, etc.  They also apply those erroneous bioethical concepts of the soul to the end of life. Thus, they claim, first the rational soul leaves the body (and thus personhood is lost), then the sensitive soul leaves the body, and finally there is nothing left there but a human vegetative soul—the very basis of their claim that there is a “vegetative state.”  This erroneous belief allows them to justify withholding/ withdrawing food, hydration and oxygen; withholding /withdrawing medical care and other forms of euthanasia; physician-assisted suicide; erroneous definitions of death; illicit organ transplantation, etc. 2. If the philosophical definition of a human person and when he/she begins to exist is automatically false and therefore invalid, then the definition of “human nature” is also automatically false and therefore invalid. This will necessarily have a deleterious effect not just on medical ethics, but also on related fields such as philosophy, theology, law, social theory, etc., since human nature is synonymous with human personhood. 3. If the definition of human nature is automatically false and therefore invalid, then the definition of the “natural law” is automatically false and therefore invalid. The natural law is a philosophical concept derived through the use of reason alone. It is based on an empirically derived concept of human nature—i.e., what we observe is common among all human persons as human persons.  All human persons possess the same kind of human nature. Among the many things common to their human natures is when and how they begin to exist. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (section 1954), “The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin … [T]his command of human reason … [is] the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted.” Section 1956 explains that the natural law “expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties.” 4. If the definition of the natural law is automatically false and therefore invalid, then the definition of “moral law” in Catholic theology is also automatically false and therefore invalid.  The moral law is grounded in the natural law, but perfected through divine revelation and the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority). The Catechism (section 1950) tells us, “The moral law is the work of divine Wisdom…. It prescribes for man the ways, the rules of conduct that lead to the promised beatitude; it proscribes the ways of evil which turn him away from God.” The Catechism (section 1959) also explains the moral law’s relationship to the natural law: “The natural law, the Creator’s very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community.” 5. If the definition of the moral law is automatically false and therefore invalid, then the Catholic Church’s teachings based on the moral law are automatically false and therefore invalid. Among the Church’s moral teachings is its prohibition of all forms of murder, at all stages of life: “From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person—among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life” (CCC, section 2270, emphasis added). 6. If the Church’s moral teachings are automatically false and therefore invalid, then the Church’s moral authority is automatically false and therefore invalid. “To the Church belongs the right always and everywhere to announce moral principles … and to make judgments on any human affairs to the extent that they are required by the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls” (CCC, section 2032). The Catholic Church has always done more to protect human beings from harm than any other institution. But such protection gets in the way of evil agendas. Thus, how to overcome the positive and life-affirming influence of the most powerful institution in the world? Destroy it, one level at a time. Do you now see how all the levels fall, one after the other—like dominoes—when you start with a false definition of a human being and when he/she begins to exist? For a more detailed explanation of the numerous and far-reaching ramifications of scientifically inaccurate definitions and language, visit www.lifeissues.net to see Dr. Irving’s comments on “Pennsylvania Researchers Turn Stem Cells to Egg Cells” by Nicholas Wade, published in the May 2, 2003 New York Times (http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irvi/irvi_02comment001.html). Dr. Irving is a professor of the history of philosophy and medical ethics and former career-appointed bench research biochemist/biologist for the National Institutes of Health and National Cancer Institute. She earned an M.A. and Ph.D. in philosophy from Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. Copies of this commentary are available in brochure form by calling our resources department at 1-866-538-5483. http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2974 2010-03-17 12:01:00 Guest commentary by ALL's Michael Hichborn Today is St. Patrick’s Day, a day filled with drinking, parades, lots of green, corned beef and cabbage, and too many karaoke versions of “Oh Danny Boy.” Like a shamrock shake, these are all good things, and such a celebration at the halfway point of Lent is a welcome reprieve from the fasting we impose upon ourselves in anticipation of the Passion and Resurrection of Our Blessed Lord. But lost in the revelries of the day that recalls so many legends about this great saint is the real life Patrick lived, which led to his salvation and won the love of an entire nation. So humble and giving was Patrick that he likely would be horrified to learn of the excesses celebrated in his name. And were he present for comment on the celebrations and the politicians leading them, I can imagine that what he would say would not be much different from the words he had for a Celtic prince named Coroticus. There are only two documents in existence today that were written by Patrick: Confessio and his letter to Coroticus. Coroticus was a bloodthirsty warlord who preyed upon the weak. He sent his soldiers to slaughter Christian converts, take their possessions and sell the survivors into slavery. Patrick described the situation this way: The day after the newly baptized, anointed with chrism, in white garments (had been slain) — the fragrance was still on their foreheads when they were butchered and slaughtered with the sword by the [soldiers] — I sent a letter with a holy presbyter whom I had taught from his childhood, clerics accompanying him, asking them to let us have some of the booty, and of the baptized they had made captives. They only jeered at them. Hence I do not know what to lament more: those who have been slain, or those whom they have taken captive, or those whom the devil has mightily ensnared. Together with him they will be slaves in Hell in an eternal punishment; for who commits sin is a slave and will be called a son of the devil. The letter identifies three categories of people easily identified today as we continue to fight for full protection of preborn children. Patrick speaks of the innocent who were slaughtered in their white baptismal garments. These innocent people are no less than the same innocent we know are slaughtered by the thousands every day in this country, violently torn from their mothers’ wombs. Patrick also spoke of those taken captive and sold into slavery. Millions of women in this country have been sold into the slavery of sin, held captive by the lies of Planned Parenthood. And the third group Patrick refers to is “those whom the devil has mightily ensnared.” These poor souls are the abortion doctors, abortion lobbyists and pro-abortion politicians who make sure their multi-million dollar industry continues to receive government protection. The words Patrick had for Coroticus and his soldiers ring ever true: Wherefore let every God-fearing man know that they are enemies of me and of Christ my God, for whom I am an ambassador. Parricide! Fratricide! Ravening wolves that "eat the people of the Lord as they eat bread!" As is said, "the wicked, O Lord, have destroyed Thy law," which but recently He had excellently and kindly planted in Ireland, and which had established itself by the grace of God. These strong words can only emanate from a man deeply in love with Christ and His Holy Church. The courage it takes to send such a harsh condemnation to a man wielding great earthly power is so hard to find today, especially among many of the successors to the apostles.  Patrick spoke with strength, authority and near-reckless abandonment to Divine Truth and justice. He poured himself out on the feet of a tyrant the way Mary Magdalene poured out the precious oils on the feet of Our Divine Lord. There was no careful calculation about the number of innocents to be saved. There was no strategy consultant or review of poll numbers. There was no concern for the preservation of his position or even his own life. He gave it all up in the name of Christ for all those in need of His mercy. Patrick’s letter was addressed to Coroticus, but he was speaking to all of us. Carrying the analogy to today’s fight against abortion, pay close attention to Patrick’s words: I make no false claim. I share in the work of those whom He called and predestinated to preach the Gospel amidst grave persecutions unto the end of the earth, even if the enemy shows his jealousy through the tyranny of Coroticus, a man who has no respect for God nor for His priests whom He chose, giving them the highest, divine and sublime power, that whom "they should bind upon earth should be bound also in Heaven." Do our bishops think that pro-abortion politicians have any respect for them or for God? The following words from Patrick’s letter are no less applicable today than they were when he wrote them: Wherefore, then, I plead with you earnestly, ye holy and humble of heart, it is not permissible to court the favor of such people, nor to take food or drink with them, nor even to accept their alms, until they make reparation to God in hardships, through penance, with shedding of tears, and set free the baptized servants of God and handmaids of Christ, for whom He died and was crucified. "The Most High disapproves the gifts of the wicked ... He that offers sacrifice of the goods of the poor, is as one that sacrifices the son in the presence of his father. The riches, it is written, which he has gathered unjustly, shall be vomited up from his belly; the angel of death drags him away, by the fury of dragons he shall be tormented, the viper's tongue shall kill him, unquenchable fire devours him." And so — "woe to those who fill themselves with what is not their own;" or, "What does it profit a man that he gains the whole world, and suffers the loss of his own soul?” It would be too tedious to discuss and set forth everything in detail, to gather from the whole Law testimonies against such greed. Avarice is a deadly sin. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods." "Thou shalt not kill." A murderer cannot be with Christ. "Whosoever hates his brother is accounted a murderer." Or, "he that loves not his brother abides in death." How much more guilty is he that has stained his hands with blood of the sons of God whom He has of late purchased in the utmost part of the earth through the call of our littleness! Today’s politicians court the favor and contributions of organizations like Planned Parenthood. They receive their honors, speak at their banquets and defend their terrible arts. Patrick was clear; it is impermissible to participate with them in such a way. And yet, there are Catholics who do these very things for the murderers of children, and they continue to receive the sacraments uninhibited and undeterred. Today, join with St. Patrick in the prayer of petition he offered 1,600 years ago. As he prayed for the release of captive women, held in bondage by the designs of Coroticus, we should pray for the women held in the chains of slavery to sin by the designs of Planned Parenthood and its cohorts. St. Patrick closed his letter with these words: Where, then, will Coroticus with his criminals, rebels against Christ, where will they see themselves, they who distribute baptized women as prizes — for a miserable temporal kingdom, which will pass away in a moment? As a cloud or smoke that is dispersed by the wind, so shall the deceitful wicked perish at the presence of the Lord; but the just shall feast with great constancy with Christ, they shall judge nations, and rule over wicked kings forever and ever. Amen.... I ask earnestly that whoever is a willing servant of God be a carrier of this letter, so that on no account it be suppressed or hidden by anyone, but rather be read before all the people, and in the presence of Coroticus himself. May God inspire them sometime to recover their senses for God, repenting, however late, their heinous deeds — murderers of the brethren of the Lord! — and to set free the baptized women whom they took captive, in order that they may deserve to live to God, and be made whole, here and in eternity! Be peace to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. Amen. In the 18th chapter of Luke, Our Blessed Lord told His disciples a parable about an old widow and an unjust judge. In speaking of faith and the answer to prayer, Jesus said, “Will not God then secure the rights of his chosen ones who call out to Him day and night? Will He be slow to answer them? I tell you, He will see to it that justice is done for them speedily. But when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on earth?” Patrick knew this and truly lived as His missionary. But now, after nearly 40 years of abortion, it seems that faith is all but gone. With renewed vigor and inspiration from the man whose courage and faith transformed all of Ireland, may we follow his example and fight to defend the innocent as Patrick did. Michael Hichborn is director of ALL's Canon 915 project. Learn more by visiting www.canon915.org. http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2973 2010-03-16 14:13:00 We frequently forget about the impact that young people can have on the world, on the Church and on those deeply involved in defending the most vulnerable in our midst. Among them was a very dedicated, prayerful college student named Angela Baird. Known as the “Princess of the Unborn,” Angela died after a hiking accident in November 1997. I knew about her through a staff member of American Life League, Kate Fitzgerald. Kate was engaged to Angela’s brother, Bryan. I never had the good fortune of meeting Angela, but her inspiration was immense. It was difficult to ignore the impact she had made on her peers, not to mention the rest of the pro-life community. Over the past 13 years, I didn’t think of her as frequently as I did in the days following her untimely death. This fact saddens me now, for I should have. Individuals like Angela don’t come along that often, and we should never forget them. Recently, a good friend in Wisconsin sent a poem my way that rekindled my thoughts of Angela, not to mention my prayers for her family. As the family web site dedicated to Angela tells us: As she lie waiting and dying, Angela prayed for two intentions specifically; aborted babies and her dad. She did not complain of the pain, she merely prayed the rosary and to her guardian angel. The students, rescue workers, and medical staff who were with Angela in her last hours all were amazed at her courage and peaceful demeanor, despite the pain from a broken back, pelvis, arm, two legs and massive internal injuries and bleeding. As rumors came down from the mountain that a student had fallen, students quickly filled up the school chapel in prayer. John Finley and Mark Kretschmer, upon hearing of the accident, climbed up the trail to Angela, bringing what medical supplies that were on hand at the campus. The paramedics carried her out of the ravine to a place where she could be lifted to the helicopter and flown to nearby Ventura County Hospital. Angela was still alert, with Jon's rosary still in her hand. At the hospital, Father Bartholomew de la Torre, a TAC chaplain, administered the Last Sacraments, and she was wheeled into surgery. Her heart stopped on the operating table and could not be revived. It was 1:00 a.m. on November 6th. LifeSiteNews recalled Angela’s inspiring pro-life spirit on the sixth anniversary of her death, November 6, 2003, reporting, Apart from her studies and a ministry to female prison inmates with whom she shared the Good News, Angela was a pro-life leader at the college. She went weekly to the local abortion clinic, Family Planning Associates, to offer sidewalk counselling to women seeking abortions. Angela loved the unborn greatly and always asked other students to go with her. On the Thursday that she died, over 100 students went to her usual spot outside of the abortion clinic and prayed. So, today I want to share this poem with you as a unique way of reminding each and every one of us that there could well be an angel in our midst at any moment. Sometimes, we don’t take the time to look around and marvel at the good works of one of our coworkers, our neighbors or perhaps a sibling in our own family. And, after all, it occurs to me that with all the doom and gloom engulfing this world today, it sure wouldn’t hurt to consider a bit of sunshine and blessedness once in a while. It is never out of season to remind the world of a single human being’s life that inspired so many and continues to do so amidst all the anger, suffering and pain that occurs daily. So, I present to you a beautiful tribute to a remarkable young woman whose legacy lives on and whose life should be an inspiration to us all. It was written by William Dunn. He knew Angela when she attended Aquinas College. I would never be so bold as to suggest that there is another as strong, as dedicated or as fervent in her love for the preborn child as Angela. But I would suggest that in our midst are many angels. It is my hope that each of us will not be in such a hurry or so busy that we overlook someone as special, as loving, as Christ-like as Angela Baird. With sincere gratitude, it is my privilege to present this poem of love, admiration and praise: Angela Baird, Defender of the Unborn The name that God had given her Foretold she was His messenger; She left us when her life began— Too soon can end time’s running sand. Her college life had just begun When autumn days more quickly run, When students wander by the sea At night when waves break tenderly. One night we formed upon the shore, And gathering wood far waters bore, We built a fire upon the sand And weighed with words the worth of man.   Her voice beside the flickering light Began to speak within the night; It blended with the ocean’s sound Which filled the darkness all around: Onetime there was eternal night With nothing, till God’s lovely Light First formed the seas and stars above Forever destined through His love. Before the world its birth received Within God’s mind we were conceived; We walk an hour beside the shore, Our place here sees us nevermore. For when our earthly moorings fail To distant shores our souls shall sail— For even those whom prison scars Were made for Light beyond the stars. Life’s grief may dim life’s mystery— Will we still hold its sanctity? The Ocean listens by the shore And holds our answers evermore. She then was silent, as were we Upon these sands beside the sea; She soon would leave our thoughtful band— Too soon can end time’s running sand. When wandering far one fated night To camp upon the mountain’s height She slipped upon a rocky ledge All covered by a leafy hedge. Then far below she sadly fell Upon the rocks where sorrows dwell. Her friends nearby soon ran to her To help her as her end drew near. Though many went to comfort her She was to be their comforter; In greatest pain she ne’er complained But on her face compassion reigned. For those unborn, not for herself She prayed in perfect death of self. She prayed then for her father dear Whose courage all men now revere. She prayed to Her whose prayer saves— The Starlight of the ocean waves— The gentle Mother meek and mild Who prays for every wounded child. She prayed that all young mother’s wombs Might ne’er become untimely tombs; That children here might savor time, That all be spared King Herod’s crime. Though rocks could then her body break Her soul was kept for God to take; Life’s greatest trial her heart withstood— She bravely bore her Cross of wood. In life she had stood up for life Enduring opposition’s strife; In death for life she still had stood— Her death declared all life is good. And now she waits beyond the grave The children whom her prayers will save: True handmaid of that Mother mild Who bore for us God’s saving Child. Now with her voice may earth unite, For children’s lives may all men fight, And Mary’s prayers each day employ Till Rachel’s tears are turned to joy. We knew she was God’s messenger— An Angel all remember her; She left us when her life began— Too soon can end time’s running sand. Poem reprinted with permission of Saint Austin Review.   http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2972 2010-03-15 14:18:00 On January 25, we reported on the case of baby Isaiah James May. He was born oxygen-deprived, because the umbilical cord was wrapped around his neck, and he suffered brain damage as a result. A legal battle ensued, pitting his parents, Isaac and Rebecka May, against the hospital, after they were informed that his ventilator would be removed. The Mays went to court and obtained two rulings that permitted Isaiah to remain on the ventilator until March 12, while they sought an independent medical assessment of Isaiah’s chances of recovery. As it happened, Isaiah died on March 11, in his parents’ arms and surrounded by aunts, uncles and grandparents. Alberta-based disability advocate Mark Pickup commented in his blog, The Mays wanted to give Isaiah 90 more days to see if he would improve but the hospital wouldn’t budge. ... [With the help of the justice system,] Isaac and Rebecka sought an independent second, third and fourth medical opinion of baby Isaiah's prognosis. They overturn[ed] every stone of possibility to give their baby a chance. It was only when Isaiah's hopeless situation became clearly evident, with independent medical input kindly presented to them, did they finally agree to let Isaiah's respirator be turned off. And then, this past Friday, LifeSiteNews reported the following from the Mays:  “We held out hope that there would come a time when we might see [Isaiah's] smile and hear his laugh,” the Mays related in a statement, read yesterday by their lawyer, Rosanna Saccomani. “Over these last four months, we have cherished every moment with our son. We have marvelled at the perfection of his hands and feet and face... at the color of his eyes and the shade of his hair. We have wondered who he most resembled.” “All along it was our hope that Isaiah's condition would brighten and improve. It has not,” they continued.  “The decision that has now been made may be incomprehensible. But it has been made knowing that we did everything possible to find meaningful answers to our questions and that all reasonable alternatives were fully explored and carefully considered.” “We very much believe that life is a gift from God and that our son's inherent value and worth as a human being is not diminished by the number of days recorded in this world,” they added.  “Isaiah has reminded all of us once again that life is very precious and fragile.” “We have set our tiny miracle free and he is now home in the arms of the angels.” Dr. Paul Byrne, a Catholic neonatologist, past-president of the Catholic Medical Association, author and expert in the subject of brain death, had been advising the Mays. He told LSN that he believes the hospital did not provide appropriate care for baby Isaiah, and it is for reasons we should all be made aware: The Mays were told shortly after arriving at Stollery, he said, that Isaiah was “brain dead,” and that he would no longer be treated. Dr. Byrne pointed out, as one example, that despite the standard practice of performing a tracheostomy when a patient is intubated for more than a week or so, the hospital had refused the Mays' request for the procedure. Dr. Byrne also observed that the diagnosis of “brain death” often “is made, first of all, to get organs.” “The diagnosis of brain death is made to stop treatment, and the parents continued to say that they wanted their baby treated,” he said. “I think that the culture is such that the parents had to be strong, and they have to be loving parents to be strong in the culture of death in which we live.”   A Facebook page that the family set up to share their experience now relays heartbreak, but also a deep faith in God. On Saturday, a post from a family friend read, I spoke with Becky [Rebecka May] this morning as they prepared to go to Isaiah's funeral. Becky and Isaac are both being so strong. Becky had prepared a letter to read at the funeral, and we thought it would be nice to share it with everyone who had shared this experience with them, from family and friends to complete strangers (who have since become like family). So many people opened up their hearts to Isaiah, Becky and Isaac, offering support and prayers. It is truly overwhelming. So here it is, in Becky's words: When Isaiah passed and we started planning the funeral arrangements I knew that I wanted to write something to say at the service. But what? What do you say at your baby's funeral? What can you say? So I'm writing from my heart to say how much I love him.
Isaiah, from the moment I knew that you were inside of me I cherished you. And as you grew and I got to feel every little move, every hiccup and stretch, it all meant so much. ... I never thought that I would lose you, and even if I knew, I wouldn't change having you, knowing you and loving you. I will miss you so much, my angel. You took a piece of my heart, but I know that I have a piece of yours. Will you wait for me at the gates? Will you tell God that I loved you and still do? Will you ask Him questions about me? ... Know that I love you so much, and I will miss you forever. I will miss your chubby cheeks and tiny toes, your little round chin and button nose. Isaiah James, you were named after your father, and he loves you so much. He sends a kiss and a hug to you from his heart. Isaiah, you only lived a little while, but wow, what you did. Your name means Gatherer of People, God's Helper, Salvation, and that you did ....   Please send e-mail notes of sympathy to prayersforbabyisaiah@gmail.com.   http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2970 2010-03-12 16:14:00 By Kortney Blythe While watching American Idol recently, a commercial came on that caught my attention. An amateurish-looking home video showed two giddy, laughing teenage girls jumping on a trampoline, acting goofy. Then a voiceover said, “I love my life. I’m not gonna mess it up with a pregnancy.”  And a web site address flashed on the screen: StayTeen.org. Being the abortion abolitionist that I am, I immediately opened my laptop to check it out. At first, I was pleasantly surprised. The web site, which is funded by a grant from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families, strongly advised waiting to have sex. Among the various messages were myths about sex, lists of compelling reasons why abstinence is best and even a mention of how TV and movies portray sex as having no repercussions. In addition, I was impressed by the fact that the site differentiated between lust and love, and recognized the physical and emotional consequences attached to sex. According to the site’s bullet points, “not everybody is doing it” [having sex]. Nearly 70 percent of teens wish they had waited to have sex and 94 percent want a strong abstinence message. But, as I expected, that was the end of the good news. After leaving the “abstinence” section and perusing the rest of the site, I came upon the “help and advice” section. What took the top spot, among the first three resources listed for three separate topics? Planned Parenthood. Yes, that bastion of abortion, libertine sex (for the young and old) and the undermining of parents and purity. To appease parents and the general public, Planned Parenthood occasionally uses the word “abstinence” in its propaganda. But it is almost always followed with a “but” and some nonsense about the need to realize how unrealistic abstinence is, thus undermining the whole purpose of promoting it.  It’s disturbingly contradictory for a web site that claims to want to prevent teen pregnancy and promote abstinence to send young people to Planned Parenthood for questions about “sex, protection, contraception …STDs … [and] emergency contraception.” Once again, our government (and whoever else was involved in this site) fails to grasp the mixed messages they are sending to kids who view such a web site. A show like American Idol is watched by families with kids of varying ages. Many of them will visit StayTeen.org because of the captivating commercial. Unfortunately, the site perpetuates the false message that “abstinence is good, but since it’s probably not realistic, use contraception.” Until parents start consistently teaching their children and teens the importance of lifelong chastity, the rates of teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases and premarital sex at increasingly younger ages will continue to rise. And no amount of confusing web sites, such as StayTeen.org, will change those statistics.  Kortney Blythe is the chapter and street team coordinator for American Life League’s Rock for Life project,  which brings the human personhood message to youth through music, education and human rights activism. This commentary appeared in the March 5, 2010 issue of the RFL e-newsletter. You can also view it on RFL's blog page. http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2969 2010-03-11 14:34:00 Since so many Catholic politicians are currently supporting the Obama administration’s pro-culture of death agenda, and more and more bishops are backing away from enforcing Canon 915, it is probably a good idea to address this subject anew. A fundamental truth of Catholic teaching is that Christ is truly present in the Holy Eucharist.  Thus it is the obligation of those who administer this sacrament to protect Christ from sacrilege. When it comes to this truth, I am a take-no-prisoners sort of woman. How anybody—including a lot of bishops— “feels” about this obligation is irrelevant; what matters is whether the obligation is fulfilled. What is the Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law? And what does it say regarding this matter? In his introduction to the revised Code of Canon Law, issued in 1983, Pope John Paul II described the Code this way:  As the Church’s principal legislative document founded on the juridical legislative heritage of revelation and tradition, the Code is to be regarded as an indispensable instrument to ensure order both in individual and social life, and also in the Church’s own activity. … As a matter of fact, the Code of Canon Law is extremely necessary for the Church. Since the Church is organized as a social and visible structure, it must also have norms: in order that its hierarchical and organic structure be visible; in order that the exercise of the functions divinely entrusted to it, especially that of sacred power and of the administration of the sacraments, may be adequately organized; in order that the mutual relations of the faithful may be regulated according to justice based upon charity, with the rights of individuals guaranteed and well-defined; in order, finally, that common initiatives undertaken to live a Christian life ever more perfectly may be sustained, strengthened and fostered by canonical norms. Finally, by their very nature canonical laws are to be observed. The greatest care has therefore been taken to ensure that in the lengthy preparation of the Code the wording of the norms should be accurate, and that they should be based on a solid juridical, canonical and theological foundation. Contained within this seven-volume set of the laws governing the Catholic Church (in Book IV, Part 1, Title III, Chapter 1, Article 2)  is Canon 915, which states, “Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.” (emphasis added) There is nothing confusing about this language. And it applies to any Catholic who, based on his or her public record, is known to be publicly persevering in manifest grave sin such as the promotion, encouragement, approval or performance of abortion. Such public figures should not be admitted to Holy Communion. Certain individuals who fall into this category and come immediately to mind are House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Vice President Joseph Biden and MSNBC commentator Chris Matthews, among others. Since the language of this particular canon is not confusing, one wonders why so many Catholic prelates refuse to enforce it. One of my favorite commentators, who writes under the pen name of Diogenes, may have hit on the answer to this question when he wrote,  Two more American archbishops have joined the list of prelates who would prefer to try gentle persuasion on pro-abortion Catholic politicians rather than impose canonical discipline. Leaving aside the obligation that canon law imposes on Eucharistic ministers, let’s ask a cold practical question. We’ve been working this moral-suasion angle for 37 years now. Can anyone point to one success? One case in which a bishop has persuaded a politician to abandon the “pro-choice” rhetoric and embrace the pro-life cause? One? There’s more. Archbishop Dolan says that he doesn’t know just where Andrew Cuomo stands on abortion. Funny; nearly everyone else in New York knows. Meanwhile Archbishop Listecki says: “It’s very difficult for me to see how somebody can be pro-choice knowing the teachings of the Church.” Perhaps it follows, then, that a politician who espouses the “pro-choice” philosophy must be ignorant of Church teaching. The politicians are the only ones who don’t know what the Church teaches about abortion, and the bishops are the only ones who don’t know what the politicians are saying. What a coincidence! Diogenes’ comments on the lengths to which so many Catholic bishops will go to avoid enforcing Canon 915 are heartbreaking, but also true.  Even though Archbishop Dolan told a television news commentator  that he prefers to follow the lead of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, who, he claims, said it was better to try to persuade public sinners than to impose sanctions, he doesn’t seem to remember the rest of what the Holy Fathers have said. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now known as Pope Benedict XVI, sent a memorandum to the American bishops regarding the enforcement of Canon 915. In this memorandum, titled “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion—General Principles,” he did not suggest that gentle persuasion was a remedy, but rather one step within the enforcement process . He wrote,  5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist. 6. When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin. Are we to believe that Cardinal Ratzinger, then prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued this memo without the concurrence of his immediate superior, who was none other than Pope John Paul II? Of course not! Are we to believe that, now that Cardinal Ratzinger has become Pope Benedict XVI, he has changed his mind? Of course not! So what is it about the Ratzinger memo that so many American Catholic bishops seem to find confusing? Archbishop Raymond Burke, now prefect of the Vatican’s Apostolic Signatura, the Church’s highest ecclesiastical court (the Church's equivalent of chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court) understands the import of Canon 915 and the requirement that all deacons, priests and extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion obey Church law. And so should every Catholic bishop, but I think there is something else afoot in these matters. If we take Archbishop Listecki at his word, and if we accept what Archbishop Dolan has said about “Catholic” pro-abortion zealots such as Cuomo, then we can conclude that one of two things has happened in the U.S. Catholic Church. Either the Code of Canon Law has become nothing more than a set of books collecting dust on a shelf, or the politics of empowerment has seduced many Catholic bishops into believing that it is more important for them to be liked and be kindly toward those who advocate child killing than it is for them to be heroic white martyrs for the faith. I have pondered this for some time while watching numerous Catholic prelates dismiss their solemn obligation to protect Christ from sacrilege, and to deny Christ’s body and blood in Holy Communion to Catholics who refuse to repent for their public support of heinous sins such as abortion. Indeed, what we need are more white martyrs such as Archbishop Raymond Burke; we need men of faith who put Christ first and foremost in their lives. While it is obvious that a red martyr is someone who dies for the faith, in today’s world, perhaps it is sometimes even more challenging to be a white martyr. White martyrdom is a total offering to God, a “dying” to the world and its allurements. A white martyr willingly gives up worldly concerns and makes his or her life a perpetual pilgrimage. A white martyr lives a life of heroic devotion for Him alone, eagerly uniting that devotion with Christ’s sufferings. During this Lenten season, we are confronting the culture of death’s masterpiece, so-called health care reform, and the arrogance of more and more public figures who claim to be Catholic but do all they can to advance evil. I believe, with all my heart, we should be praying for our bishops, and asking God to give each bishop, along with his priests and deacons, the courage to be white martyrs for Christ. The “gentle persuasion” and persistent cajoling are failing. There is no justice for the preborn or for Christ Himself in the Holy Eucharist when flagrant violators of Church teaching continue to scandalize the faithful and commit sacrilege by receiving the sacrament unworthily.  While some might disagree with me by arguing that we must be charitable toward our enemies, it can also be argued that, as Pope Benedict XVI has said, “Charity without justice is not charity, but a counterfeit.” http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2967 2010-03-10 12:28:00 Things are really heating up in California as Pastor Walter Hoye continues his grassroots campaign to help assure that human personhood makes the ballot in the state. The California Human Rights Amendment makes a simple statement that everyone can agree is logical and should indeed have already been part of the state’s constitution. The language reads, The term "person" applies to all living human organisms from the beginning of their biological development, regardless of the means by which they were procreated, method of reproduction, age, race, sex, gender, physical well-being, function, or condition of physical or mental dependency and/or disability. Further, harkening back to the struggle over slavery in the nineteenth century, the CHRA web site quotes the illustrious Joshua R. Giddings, who commented on the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution regarding the fact that human personhood is absolute: Our fathers, recognizing God as the author of human life, proclaimed it a “self evident truth” that every human being holds from the Creator an inalienable right to live … If this right be denied, no other can be acknowledged. If there be exceptions to this central, this universal proposition, that all men, without respect to complexion or condition, hold from the Creator the right to live, who shall determine what portion of the community shall be slain? And who shall perpetrate the murders? What is perhaps most stunning however is not that Giddings was focused on protecting every single individual, but that he made his statement based on the facts about the founding fathers of this nation and their perspective on the Creator and moral absolutes. Rev. Edward J. Melvin, C.M., in analyzing the problematic nature of a secularist Supreme Court, has written, “The Founders placed belief in God and acceptance of natural moral law (derived from reason and corroborated in Judeo-Christian revelation) as the foundation of the American system.” In fact, Melvin quotes George Washington himself: Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports ... In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness—these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens ... And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is this very point that makes the case for the current struggle to achieve protection for the least in our midst by constitutionally clarifying through human personhood amendments the identity and the rights of the preborn. There is no question that the fact of human personhood is grounded in those very principles that Washington so brilliantly enunciated, that our founding fathers so artfully included in the United States Constitution and which Giddings reiterated during the 14th Amendment debates. The California Human Rights Amendment proponents are doing nothing less than carrying on with the agenda George Washington and his peers put in place for this nation and her laws. This is why so many individuals and organizations of national repute have joined Pastor Hoye and his colleagues in this effort. Dr. Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; leaders of BlackGenocide.org; the Family Research Council; Frederick Douglass Foundation; Theology of the Body Institute and others endorse CHRA. These leaders and organizations represent the majority position of Americans. This is why they are lining up to endorse an initiative that is currently reigniting the pro-life movement. By focusing on the human rights and civil rights of every human person, these efforts embrace a different way of looking at abortion and other threats against human beings' lives. That’s the message of the personhood movement and the California Human Rights Amendment lead by black pastor and civil rights icon, Walter Hoye. Hoye knows what is at stake and writes in an essay entitled “The Unarmed Truth”:  When accepting the Nobel Peace Prize on December 10th, 1964, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said, “I believe that ‘unarmed truth’ and ‘unconditional love’ will have the final word in reality. This is why “right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil “triumphant.” Today, the “unarmed truth” is that the preborn child is a person not property. I believe personhood is God-given and not government-granted. It is not offered to the elite and denied to the “least of these.” I believe personhood, addresses the most important RIGHT of all … the RIGHT to LIVE, without which all other rights are meaningless. I believe personhood is RIGHT. The “unconditional love” for the preborn child in my heart, is rooted in the love Christ has for all. While the current conditions may have “temporarily defeated” the personhood of the preborn child I believe the “righteousness of personhood” is stronger than the “evil of prenatal murder” and will ultimately prove triumphant. I believe personhood is the final word in reality of the pro-life movement. Hoye is joined by such California luminaries as Dr. Jim Garlow, Proposition 8 leader and founding director of the California Pastors Rapid Response Team. In his endorsement of CHRA, Garlow said, Is it not amazing that we are forced, in our so-called advanced society, to defend the notion of personhood? Is it not shocking that supposedly bright people will not protect the most innocent and helpless person, the one in the womb? Have we not learned from slavery how to properly define a person? Have we learned nothing from Hitler's Reich regarding the definition of personhood? Not only that, but the president of the Family Research Council, Tony Perkins, stated in his endorsement: “Other states should draw inspiration from the commitment and perseverance of those behind the California Human Rights Amendment. This is not about party affiliation or ideology. This is about recognizing the sanctity of human life and citizens’ obligation to enact laws to protect it.” Likewise, Fr. Thomas Euteneuer, president of Human Life International, applauded the California initiative: “Let’s start healing this national shame by affirming the personhood of every human being – in law – and start living as if we meant it.” “Even as Dred Scott was considered less than fully human, such is the case for the preborn babies in the womb,” said Dr. Alveda King in her endorsement of the CHRA. Dr. Clenard Childress of BlackGenocide.org pointed out that human personhood is the crux of the nation’s struggle against racism. “Our prayer is that personhood would be restored to its proper place in the minds, hearts and legislation of America,” Childress said. Other endorsers of the CHRA include La Verne Tolbert, PhD, former Planned Parenthood board member, Georgia; Rebecca Kiessling, family law attorney, Michigan; Kurt Ramspott, founder, Guys For Life, Inc.; Dana Cody, president and executive director, Life Legal Defense Foundation; Kristen L. Chestnut, RN, JD, member, board of directors, California Nurses for Ethical Standards; Dean Nelson, executive director, Network of Politically Active Christians and vice chairman, Frederick Douglass Foundation; Jennifer Roback Morse, PhD, founder and president, The Ruth Institute; David Bereit, national director, 40 Days for Life and the California Republican Assembly. It is a blessing for American Life League to be part of this remarkable drive that is moving throughout the state of California like a whirlwind. All who have endorsed this project are of the same mind: PERSONHOOD NOW! To learn more, to get involved or, if you reside elsewhere, to donate to CHRA, please visit http://www.californiahumanrights.com/content/get-involved. The time is now, the cause is just. http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2966 2010-03-09 14:20:00 An interesting little column in Politics Daily got me thinking once again about the power of words and ideas. “Pregnancy is not the public’s business” takes a very dislikable but absolutely politically correct attitude toward pregnancy, motherhood and “choice.” PD’s bio for the writer, Lizzie Skurnick, describes her as “the author of Shelf Discovery,  a memoir of teen reading that Publishers Weekly called ‘wildly entertaining.’” She also writes for Jezebel.com’s Fine Lines and is the author of 10 teen books. But she still seems to be missing something in her philosophy about pregnancy, adolescence and motherhood. I am quite amazed at her penchant for dismissing with an irreverent attitude the very idea that pregnancy is a blessing and that the act of begetting is above all else a miracle to be experienced. Oh, I realize that my take on procreation is not the same as that of an avowed militant feminist. That is beyond argument. But some articles still astound me. In her column, Skurnick tells us, “Despite the perennial political football Roe v. Wade, the majority of Americans irritatingly persist in thinking other people’s child-bearing and child-rearing choices are basically their own.” One might suppose that her view results from the “comfort zone” mentality of those who believe Roe v. Wade and its companion ruling, Doe v. Bolton, resolved the difficult question of abortion years ago. But alas, the nagging question of why we are still discussing abortion is not answered but rather avoided by such thinking. After all, pregnancy is a topic only if pregnancy exists, and if pregnancy exists, then we are actually considering a mother and her baby, and it’s really that fact that some would like to avoid acknowledging at all costs. I could be wrong, but I happen to think this is why Skurnick writes about a whole series of cable television shows that focus on various aspects of family life, from the Jon & Kate plus Eight saga to the Duggar family of 19 children. In the Duggars’ case, Skurnick does not overlook the fact that it is the Duggar family that prompted People magazine to ask, “How many kids are too many?” She also takes note of  I’m Pregnant And …, a TLC show about dysfunctional people with problems that create quandaries for them because they are pregnant. Expectant mothers with a host of problems such as bipolar disorder, eating disorders and imprisonment are among the subjects for this reality television show. While this writer has not actually watched any of these shows with intense interest, in one sense, I do see the reason why someone like Skurnick finds it troubling that pregnancy has become a hot television topic. It is after all, anything but a talking-heads subject, nor should it be fodder for reality television. Pregnancy is a personal matter that used to be kept between a husband and a wife, who celebrated the news that they were parents nurturing a new human being’s life for the nine months it would take for them to actually meet their newest family member. Today, of course, this is frequently not the case. Skurnick wraps up her overview by telling her readers, In our reach-across-the-aisle era, it’s very easy to make the argument that putting pregnancy under the spotlight helps us open up the discussion about choice. But as these portrayals grow like their own little breed of Duggars, I’d like to have a conversation about why we have to have one. After all, if you’ve got to expose your choice to an audience to have the right to make it, you’ve already lost the battle. This statement exposes the wrinkle in Skurnick’s logic. Her viewpoint comes from her perspective that the question of “choice” —that is choosing to continue a pregnancy or end it— has already been resolved. And in her world view, any sort of reality television program about any situation involving family or pregnancy is designed to continue a cultural conversation she believes should be over. I, on the other hand, believe that regardless of the numerous reality shows dealing with families and/or single parenting, there is nothing to be gained from avoiding the real question, which is not whether the Duggars should have more children or whether Octomom is a problematic figure or whether so- and-so has zits because she’s pregnant. No, the question that all of these programs and Skurnick’s assessment of them avoid is simple: Why is abortion not ever exposed for the act of murder that it is? Why do these programs, commentators, lawmakers, judges and others feel compelled to discuss and carry on forever about other people’s situations and what could be wrong with their lives, without even the slightest consideration that it isn’t about pregnancy, it’s about human persons who are affected by a pregnancy in a way that changes their lives forever?  That is everybody’s business, but, of course, folks like Skurnick don’t see that. Do these programs dig a deeper hole in the public consciousness that makes it more and more difficult to respect the dignity of the human person? Is invading the lives and personal secrets of others driving a wedge between what is true and what is fiction? Is it fashionable to parade one’s personal horror story or family problems within the context of a reality show so that one can achieve what artist Andy Warhol defined as 15 minutes of fame? Is the public so sadly divorced from moral principles and life’s beauty that it is now preferable to be absorbed by someone else’s life so as to avoid confronting one’s own personal demons? I don’t have the answer to any of these questions, but there is one fundamental fact of life that I do know. Abortion kills people. It is not an issue; it is not a decriminalized right, regardless of what the law says. Abortion is an act that results in death. Despite the devices, productions, political maneuvering or bouts of denial that would suggest otherwise, sooner or later, one has to come to the unavoidable conclusion that pregnancy means motherhood, fatherhood and preborn childhood. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be discussing it. Yes, it is now acceptable to kill that baby, but that baby is not a fiction, not a reality television show or a programming concept, but a real live person. Maybe that’s why Skurnick is so perplexed. Perhaps she simply has not chosen to sit down and reflect on why so much attention is being paid to pregnancy and “choice” by reality television programmers and so little attention to that baby whose mother is  confronted not with a "choice," but a life-or-death decision. Pregnancy by itself is indeed not the public’s business, but defending and protecting the human rights of innocent babies who are currently being dismissed from their lives without regret, recognition or sorrow is everybody’s business, and nobody should buzz off! It might be the current fashion to exploit the personal lives of others (with their permission, of course) in order to ignore reality, but that does not change what abortion is doing to the national psyche. Why? Because as the wise poet John Donne once wrote, “[A]ny man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.” Ultimately, the power of Donne’s words and the tragic toll abortion has taken on our world will become all too real. At that point, let us hope there are at least some in our midst who can restore what is left of a society suffering from a terminal case of moral confusion and personal delusion.  http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2965 2010-03-08 14:07:00 For the past couple of days, we have heard rumblings from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, starting with a very curious article in Politico.  David Rogers interviewed Richard Doerflinger, the USCCB’s associate director of pro-life activities, who apparently made the comment that if the House of Representatives agrees to what Stupak is asking for in the Obamacare bill, then the USCCB will work on the U. S. Senate to go along with the same language. The report does not say that the USCCB will generate advocacy from the Catholic laity, but rather that the organization itself will throw its weight around, which sounds a whole lot like lobbying and not much like holding the line for truly Catholic principles in health care reform. The story continues,  “With a large network of Catholic hospitals and the [C]hurch’s gospel of social justice, the bishops have long called for expanded health coverage. As Kathy Saile, director of domestic policy for the conference, said last fall, ‘The bishops see it as a moral imperative and national priority.’ “But abortion has been a stubborn dividing point with the two sides fighting over how tight to make the ban on federal funding.” It is of the utmost importance to clarify for the unsuspecting or uncatechized  that the Catholic Church does not teach that the killing of a child prior to birth by an act of abortion is the only intrinsically evil way to rob a person of  his or her life. There is also human embryonic stem cell research, many types of contraceptives, euthanasia and infanticide … each of which is equally evil, equally deadly and equally unmentioned by the USCCB in connection with Obamacare. That is perhaps troubling enough, but there is more. We cannot help but think that the politics of so-called progressivism has become more important at the USCCB than the wishes of the Catholic faithful, who like the majority of Americans, don’t want Obamanomics shoved down their throats. Why is there such a rush to sate the liberal elements of the Democratic political machine and so little time to consider what is (as one Catholic cardinal explained to me) the job of the laity, not the hierarchy? As I recall, he told me that bishops are charged with preaching truth, and it is the people in the pew who are supposed to do the political work. However, apparently he, like so many of his peers, does not really believe that for a second. What a shame. Oh, but let us not overlook the engagement with the laity that the USCCB did invite just this past weekend. At every door of my Catholic parish this weekend, after every Mass, we were invited to sign postcards that the parish would then mail, on our behalf, to our two U.S. senators and our congressman. The postcards, however, were not about the unprincipled “health care reform” proposals that are being discussed night and day. No, the postcards dealt with immigration … Justice for Immigrants is a USCCB-sponsored web site on which one can find the same postcard that was distributed in my parish on Sunday, March 7. The text of the postcard reads, I am a concerned constituent and agree with the U.S. Catholic bishops that the U.S. immigration system is broken and is in need of repair. I ask that this year you support immigration reform legislation that keeps immigrant families together, adopts smart and humane enforcement policies, and ensures that immigrants without legal status register with the government and begin a path toward citizenship. Our families and communities cannot wait! What occurred to me as I listened to the announcement about these postcards was not that there was anything wrong with such a lobbying campaign, but the question of why the focus had moved away from getting the “health care reform” mess clarified first. It should also be pointed out that, in every one of their pastoral letters to elected officials, the bishops have placed the future standing of immigrants on the same level as the murder of preborn persons. And why is the USCCB focusing on immigration reform now, at such a critical point in this nation’s legislative history? Well, maybe my new favorite, the “pugilist priest” has the right idea. Opining on his personal blog on the very same article in Politico that troubled me so much, he expresses his frustration like this:  There are a plethora of reasons why a Catholic citizen may choose not to support a government reform of health care. He might consider it a statist provision which robs him of his self-determination and chips away at his individual liberties. He may believe that it’s financially irresponsible. Maybe he’s lived for a time in a country that has government administered health care and knows, first hand, the disaster it is. He may be a small business owner who knows how it will destroy what he’s spent his life building. He may even have his own moral reasons for fearing it: the marginalization of the handicapped and elderly; government bureaucrats deciding what is or is not appropriate medical care, etc. All concerns that the bishops—God alone knows how—have determined don’t matter to them, and which they have decided that we, as Catholic citizens, don’t have a right to be concerned about ourselves as they decree otherwise. And what’s wrong with that, you ask? Simply put, it is none of the bishops’ business to support or oppose a piece of legislation. Oppose abortion? Certainly. Point out the dangers in some proposed legislation if it does violence to the moral teaching of the Church and has the potential to compel Catholic citizens to violate the prescriptions of the Gospel? Without a doubt. But to embrace a particular political point of view because they have concluded that it, somehow, expresses in secular terms what they believe? Not on your life! The Second Vatican Council is clear: the duty of injecting the Gospel of Jesus Christ into secular society is the job of the laity, not the clergy. The bishops are right to object to language in the bill which would direct our tax dollars into paying for the murders of the innocent; but to press the resources of the Catholic Church into assisting in the passage of other provisions of the bill in some kind of back-room deal to achieve that goal is meddling in matters in which they have no purview. To be fair, I’m reasonably sure that no Catholic bishop—except for the most strident of bleeding heart liberals (and there are some)—would tell me that they have a right to compel me to support legislation simply because they support it. What they don’t seem to understand is that, in supporting it themselves, they not only violate their [d]ivine mandate, but also trivialize their moral authority. A bishop does not belong in politics, even when he thinks being political serves the cause of Christ. And if the USCCB is going to use the money that it collects from Catholic lay people to support the agenda of a political party...well, what’s the difference between that and a labor union using the dues it collects to donate to a candidate for whom some of its members do not intend to vote? So, the bishops believe that, aside from abortion, health care reform is compatible with the social teaching of the Church. That’s nice, but so what? It’s none of their business. It’s the laity’s business. It’s just another example of the hierarchy’s selective reading of Vatican II. Wow! Though this priest and his fellow priests choose to remain anonymous, and thank God they do, what he has to say is extremely insightful and, to my mind, on the mark. Every Catholic bishop does indeed have a charism that, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is not only rich in grace but imbued with holiness, which he has a solemn duty to use to sanctify the Church:  893 The bishop is “the steward of the grace of the supreme priesthood,” especially in the Eucharist which he offers personally or whose offering he assures through the priests, his co-workers. The Eucharist is the center of the life of the particular Church. The bishop and priests sanctify the Church by their prayer and work, by their ministry of the word and of the sacraments. They sanctify her by their example, “not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock.” Thus, “together with the flock entrusted to them, they may attain to eternal life.” And the Catechism says this about the special grace that comes from the Holy Spirit:  1586 For the bishop, this is first of all a grace of strength … the grace to guide and defend his Church with strength and prudence as a father and pastor, with gratuitous love for all and a preferential love for the poor, the sick, and the needy. This grace impels him to proclaim the Gospel to all, to be the model for his flock, to go before it on the way of sanctification by identifying himself in the Eucharist with Christ the priest and victim, not fearing to give his life for his sheep. What America’s Catholics, not to mention her entire citizenry, need right now is the united voice of “stewards of grace,” not political lobbyists. In the coming weeks, this nation will witness either the collapse of the most treacherous, deadly proposal ever to come out of the U.S. government or the passage of a dastardly program. One or the other will occur.  I would hate to think that, at a crucial moment, it was the bureaucrats supposedly representing the U.S. bishops who gave the winning edge to the most pro-abortion, pro-culture-of-death administration in this nation’s history. That is not a legacy I would want to bestow on this nation, and it is my hope that the Catholic bishops feel the same way. Please let your bishop know you are praying for him, and hoping that he stands in the gap for the babies, the elderly and the infirm—and for justice. Please click here for contact information for each bishop.  http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2964 2010-03-05 11:04:00 Linda Gibbons, a 62-year-old Canadian woman, has been in and out of jail for the last 15 years of her life, having spent more than seven of those behind bars as a common criminal. Her crime, which is defined as “trespassing,” is really that of praying and witnessing outside various local abortion mills in Cabbagetown, Ontario, and elsewhere. On September 30, 2008, Canada’s National Post gave its readers a glimpse into Gibbons’ struggles:  A 60-year-old Toronto grandmother who has been arrested more than a dozen times for silently protesting in front of a Cabbagetown abortion clinic was acquitted today of her latest charges. Over the last 14 years, Linda Gibbons estimates she has spent a total of about 75 months in jail. It’s because she continues to violate a 1994 court order that prohibits counseling and pro-life outreach within 60 feet of The Scott Clinic on Gerrard Street. She was charged with obstructing a police officer after she was arrested on July 31. This afternoon, Justice S. Ford Clements said simply disobeying a court order does not constitute obstructing justice. “The defendant was peaceful and silent,” the judge said, though she stepped away when the officer took her elbow to persuade her to move beyond 60 feet of the clinic. Ms. Gibbons left the prisoner’s box and walked out of the courtroom wearing her prison-issued forest green sweatshirt and pants. Several of her supporters, many pro-life advocates, hugged her outside. One man put money in her hand to help with her cause. Someone offered to drive her back to the Toronto West Detention Centre to pick up her clothing and hundreds of letters from sympathizers. She has only been acquitted twice. But that matters little to her. “Picketing on a sidewalk is a constitutional right,” she said today. She uses the same sign each time she protests, a placard with a photo of a crying baby which reads, “Why mom, when I have so much love to give?” She says she just stands mute on the sidewalk holding pamphlets and a model of a “baby fetus” that fits in her palm. What I found most interesting about this woman is her tenacity. Pro-life advocate Mark Pickup recently paid tribute to her: “If the pro-life stalwarts like Linda Gibbons were prepared to endure harassment, mockery and even years in jail because she witnessed for the right to life of every unborn child, who will dare to take her place?” Indeed, I would have to agree. I recall knowing and speaking on a podium with one such hero right here in the USA. His name was John Arena and his “crimes” were of the same sort. Though pro-aborts would suggest that John was an extortionist, John said at one point: "I've been a peaceful anti-abortion activist for 31 years. Not one person has ever needed a Band-Aid or an aspirin for anything that I did, yet I was sent to prison because I was considered a terrorist."  Other pro-life activists who lost their homes for nothing more than participating in an Operation Rescue event are numbered among my pro-life friends as well. There was a time when Operation Rescue events were extremely popular, back in the 1980s. During those years, even football greats like Mark Bavaro participated.  But over time, with the advent of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE), the popularity of such demonstrations withered. Pro-life activists became fearful of lawsuits, doing jail time and otherwise being punished for standing up for life. This is understandable, of course, when one considers that pro-life activists are people with families and obligations who are called to first and foremost to protect their loved ones and refrain from participating in activities that might render them unable to meet their primary obligations as spouses and parents. This is why when a story like the Gibbons story comes along, we take notice and acknowledge the heroic nature of this woman’s actions, not to mention discuss what actions the rest of us might take to help her plead her case and hopefully be freed from jail.  What brought Gibbons to my attention most recently was a wonderfully constructed e-mail plea from Pickup entitled "Linda Gibbons: Pro-life Prisoner of Conscience in Canadian Jail." The cause of his consternation and call to action is the very same reason each of us would have if the same sort of injustices were perpetrated against a single one of us for merely witnessing, silently and prayerfully to the truth: The right to think and act and share one’s opinion freely without threat of incarceration. But rather than belabor the point, I present Pickup’s masterfully constructed letter: Re: Linda Gibbons, prisoner of conscience Linda Gibbons, 62, has spent much of the last 16 years in jail for her silent pro-life witness in front of Toronto abortion clinics. She rightfully does not recognize the punitive, repressive and arbitrary nature of “bubble zones” that strip her, and others, of fundamental freedoms guaranteed under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms: 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association. The bubble zones around abortion facilities not only deny these Fundamental Rights, but deny the Legal Rights to the “right to life” (7) to the youngest members of Canada’s society. Linda Gibbons is a prisoner of conscience who must be released immediately in accordance with legitimate principles of fundamental justice. Successive provincial governments have persecuted her for the peaceful expression of her beliefs and protected unjust bubble zones, which are designed to repress such freedoms. A free and open society cannot preserve only opinions they agree with and suppress the rights of people with whom they disagree. It is repressive governments that do what you are doing. I call upon the government of Ontario to release Linda Gibbon, who has been prisoner of conscience in your jails for much of the last 16 years. It’s hard to believe this injustice is happening in Canada. We are quick to point out human rights violations of other countries but are blind to our own. Even though this situation involves a Canadian citizen, it is my opinion that, as we are all Americans, we can participate as well. It is my fervent hope that those who value the fundamental right of freedom of thought and opinion and the peaceful expression thereof will contact the Hon. Chris Bentley, Attorney General of Ontario and demand Gibbons’ release. Additionally, ask him to stop Gibbons’ further imprisonment for exercising her belief in the universal human right to life of every preborn child. Send letters via regular mail: The Hon. Chris Bentley Attorney General of Ontario McMurtry-Scott Building 720 Bay Street, 11th Floor Toronto, ON. M5G 2K1 Or FAX: 1-416-326-4007 We are inspired to act in defense of innocent preborn persons and to support those who sacrifice for the babies by the profound words of Blessed Mother Teresa: "Any country that accepts abortion, is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what it wants." http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2961 2010-03-04 10:30:00 Current discussions on health care reform appear to be focused on the strategy of why paying for abortion with our tax dollars is fundamental to the bill’s passage by way of the reconciliation process. No, I am not kidding. I am dead serious. In an effort to gain support, not from Republicans per se, but from wavering Democrats who still believe that “bipartisan” myth that hangs around the White House, we learn,  In a letter to congressional leaders Tuesday, Obama said he would consider four ideas floated by Republican lawmakers: sending investigators disguised as patients to uncover fraud and waste in Medicare and Medicaid; expanding pilot programs to bring more predictability to medical malpractice lawsuits; increasing payments to Medicaid providers; and expanding the use of health savings accounts. "I said throughout this process that I'd continue to draw on the best ideas from both parties, and I'm open to these proposals in that spirit," Obama wrote. What Obama did not say is that he would assure all members of Congress that not a single abortion would be subsidized. He could not say that, of course, because he believes in abortion, supports it as a right and intends to increase its availability, regardless of what Americans are being fed by the White House press office. It’s an old Saul Alinsky practice: Overwhelm the folks with crisis after crisis and then push on with the real agenda. Obviously joining Obama in this masquerade is the ever-scandalous Catholic House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, who has discussed several compromises between what the House wants in health care reform and what is in the Senate bill. But as National Public Radio reports, [A]s House Speaker Nancy Pelosi acknowledged Tuesday, those compromises probably won't include a change in abortion language. "In order to be in part of the budget bill, it has to be central to the budget. That's the rule. And it's a very strict rule," she said. Which means anti-abortion House Democrats who originally voted for the House health bill will likely face this choice: Vote for a Senate bill that's more lenient on abortion or vote against [this] health overhaul. And it will make it that much harder for House leaders to get the majority they need to pass the bill. This, of course, is not a problem for the Speaker whose Catholicism has become part of her media personality, due to the fact that not a single Catholic bishop will explain to her that until she repents of her support for the killing of the preborn, she may not receive the body of Christ in Holy Eucharist. That is—in case you wonder—a shame on the bishops, not on Pelosi. It is not her fault that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is literally permitting her to get away with murder. But I digress. The USCCB has publicly stated that it won’t support health care reform that contains abortion. In the most recent action alert, they repeat,   Passage of a health care reform bill is uncertain, but the need for reform remains a national priority and moral imperative. Health care is a basic human right. Yet, there are nearly 50 million Americans who do not have access to health care. “Now is not the time to abandon this task, but rather to set aside partisan divisions and special interest pressures to find ways to enact genuine reform.” On January 26, the USCCB sent a letter to members of Congress in which they stipulate that conscience protections must be in the bill and that the political status quo on abortion funding must be maintained as well, which means no federal funding for abortion except in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother. It should further be noted that the USCCB is lobbying not only for conscience protection for health care workers and abortion funding restrictions but for “accessible health care for everyone,” meaning health care coverage for all immigrants, including those who are undocumented, as long as they use their own funds to access the services available to all Americans. USCCB spokesman Richard Doerflinger spoke with LifeSiteNews.com after Pelosi apparently told the press that she had talked with the bishops about what was going on:  “We do not know how anyone who has spoken to the bishops could conclude that the Senate health care bill does not fund abortions,” said Doerflinger.   “As the bishops have said in their letters to Congress, abortion problems in the Senate bill are so serious that, despite our strong support for expanding access to health care, we will have to oppose the bill unless they are resolved." And here is the frosting on the cake: According to a National Right to Life Committee memorandum, the Senate bill—which is what the House is proposing to reconcile with—contains new language directly appropriating funds to Community Health Centers (CHCs). And as the memo makes perfectly clear: There is already an organized effort underway by the Reproductive Health Access Project to encourage Community Health Centers to perform abortions, “as an integrated part of primary health care.” For evidence, see “Frequently Asked Questions About Integrating Abortion into Community Health Centers, Potential Obstacles and Possible Solutions” at http://www.reproductiveaccess.org/getting_started/faq.htm. Now let’s step back and ask ourselves a couple of questions.  If health care reform passes by way of reconciliation, and it contains abortion funding in whatever form the final version provides, what will the Catholic hospitals of this nation have to do to conform to the new law? Will they have to shut down if they do not agree to referral, at the very least, for abortion? Will they be forced to provide assurances that they will participate in health care rationing, which by all accounts, will mean euthanasia? Yes, according to substantiated reports, the Senate version of health care reform—which concurs with the Obama proposal—imposes premium price controls on all insurance plans, not just those for Medicare-eligible senior citizens. This sort of power residing in the hands of the federal government cannot only advance the “reproductive health” agendas of the culture of death, but at the other end of the spectrum of life, it can fundamentally require denial of care.  Michael Tanner provided an astute analysis of this problem in the New York Post. The scenario plays out this way: If insurance providers are unable to charge more money for an increasingly higher priced treatment, they will have to cut their losses with this either/or choice: • They can drop their most expensive customers—in this case, the sickest, who consume the most health care. Many companies are already doing this, a major source of dissatisfaction with the health care system. In fact, the president wants to prohibit companies from doing this. • They can cut back on their reimbursement rates to hospitals and physicians. But neither doctors nor hospitals, any more than insurance companies, are willing to operate at a loss. If payments fall below their costs, they'll simply stop taking patients. One only has to look at government programs like Medicare and Medicaid to see how this works. Tanner continues, Medicare already reimburses at roughly 80 cents on every dollar of actual costs. Medicaid pays even less. As a result, more than a third of physicians have closed their practices to Medicaid patients; 12 percent no longer accept Medicare patients. If private insurers begin similarly to cut back their reimbursements, some hospitals may go out of business, and some doctors may close their practices. Retirement in Florida may begin to look a lot better than another snowy New York winter. Others will stop accepting insurance or set up "concierge" practices in which they see only a small number of privately paying patients. Thus, price controls on insurers will ultimately lead to rationing—the lack of available health care goods and services. Tanner’s observations are based on his study of the various health care reform proposals. He accurately sets forth a very logical assessment of the situation:  In 301 AD, the Roman emperor Diocletian imposed price controls on most commodities and professions in the empire. The penalty for raising prices was death. Yet the controls failed utterly, leading to shortages, more inflation and the near collapse of the imperial economy. Now, nearly two millennia later, President Obama seems determined to demonstrate how little we've learned. Clearly there is an enormous problem facing this nation and her people. The vultures are circling and they are dedicated to sending a message of assurance with the right wing while slapping down the costly and the unwanted among us with the left wing. What’s the cure? Stop the madness and get back to doing what the government was designed to do: defend and protect the citizens.  Why? Because health care reform that is fundamentally dedicated to abortion and euthanasia is health care reform with which we cannot live. Contact your members of Congress today: http://www.contactingthecongress.org/ Pray for the decision makers, that they be guided by wisdom and respect for life instead of Obamanomics. Inform others in your sphere of influence.  And remember: Obamanomics is totally unacceptable as government policy! http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2958 2010-03-03 12:37:00 A serious drought in California’s agricultural areas has sent fruit and vegetable prices soaring, but people probably don’t know much else about the situation. Well, there’s a bit of a fish story behind it. The delta smelt fish, described by one reporter as “the canary in the coal mine,” is a fish that resides at the bottom of the fish food chain. Due to environmentalists’ concerns that if the delta smelt became extinct, other species that feed on it might also disappear, a court action was taken to protect the fish.  The evolving story of this little fish goes like this: The delta smelt is endemic to the Sacramento Delta. The fish, which measures about 3 inches in length, makes its home in the same place from which a large portion of the state draws its water supply, said Dan Masnada, Castaic Lake Water Agency general manager…. Besides being a major food source for other fish, the smelt also provide a measure of the health of the ecosystem, said John Beuttler, Conservation Director for the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance.  The smelt’s place in the food chain and its status as a metric for ecosystem’s health prompted U.S. District Court Judge Oliver Wanger to protect the smelt in 2008 by further reducing the already diminished allocation of delta water pumped by the State Water Project to Southern California, Masnada said. Wanger’s decision protected the smelt from being sucked into the pumps drawing water from the delta, a common occurrence prior to the new pumping regulations, Beuttler said. Today, entire farms are simply shut down because there is no water for the fields, but that little fish lives on because, according to a U.S. District Court judge, that fish has a right to be protected. And to this very day, those protections continue, even though farmers, their families and their livelihood are threatened beyond belief.  Then there’s the case of the dolphin. The dolphin also appears to be on the brink of gaining legal protection, which could result in the dolphin obtaining a few rights of its own. According to Margaret Somerville, the apparent brutality and cruel treatment being imposed on the dolphin population in Japan is of such a magnitude that ethicists, philosophers and scientists are joining ranks to put an end to it. She reports that one proposed remedy “would be to confer personhood on at least some animal species for the purpose of protecting them through ethics and law, including attributing rights to them.” Her perspective on this is really quite interesting in view of the ongoing struggle that pro-human-personhood activists are facing all across this nation. Somerville tells the reader: Currently, we use the word "person" as a synonym for human. This communicates the concept that humans are different from other animals. It can no longer fulfill that function if it does not refer exclusively to humans. In other words, if animals become persons, human persons become animals. The line between humans and other animals is blurred and the idea that humans deserve "special respect" is eliminated. In case you think this is some sort of peculiar perspective that only a few in our midst have about the value of a delta smelt or a dolphin, you might be shocked to read what Margi Prideaux of the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society writes for the Open Democracy web site in her article, “Dolphins as Persons?” Our inability to articulate the moral importance of individual animals’ lives within the sustainability paradigm impedes our consideration of the effects of our actions on other animals; animals that society may well regard as having moral significance. Acknowledging that at least some animals are ‘beyond use’ brings forward implications spanning across philosophy, law, science and policy. However, the evidence suggests that a challenge to the status quo of the sustainability paradigm is the next logical step. As she so boldly explains, No one in this emerging field is suggesting that dolphins be granted a right to vote, to hold a drivers license, or to receive a free and fair education. Such knee jerk arguments simply reveal a poor understanding of the core meaning of a ‘right’. The moral rights thesis simply speaks to the concept of equality—a right to equal treatment despite difference. We are simply discussing a basic right to life, the protection of individual liberty and the prohibition of torture (and possibly a right to redress for harm caused). We should not discount or dismiss the tension this discussion creates. Such tensions propel humankind to explore additional layers to our existing worldview. Profound—yes. Preposterous—I don't think so. One would hope that such discussions trouble thinking human beings. After all, each of us is a person capable of comprehending the value and the dignity of our status as special creatures blessed by God with gifts beyond our imagination. But in a world that waxes cold to the entire idea that God actually exists, people like Prideaux and her ilk are having a dramatic effect on the way the average American views particular animals versus the preborn child, the special needs child, the elderly, the infirm and so on. Human beings who require the sacrifices and love of others always seem to be “burdensome” to the very people who would go out of their way to defend an animal or a fish. I do not suggest by any stretch of the imagination that animals are not valuable, but surely and according to Scripture, it is man who has dominion over the earth. And yet, we can compare the commentaries of people like Sommerville and Prideaux with other reports that bring into stark contrast the world view with which Christians have to deal in this age of moral relativism.  For example, the authors of a medical journal article entitled “An ethically justified practical approach to offering, recommending, performing, and referring for induced abortion and feticide” opine, The ethical concept of the fetus as a patient is essential to obstetric clinical judgment and therefore to the informed consent process for induced abortion and feticide. Being a patient means that one is presented to the physician and there exist clinical interventions that are reliably expected to result in a greater balance of clinical benefits over harms. The ethical principle that directs physicians to seek such clinical outcomes is beneficence. [Emphasis added.] Because of the immaturity of the fetal central nervous system, the fetus lacks the capacity to generate a perspective on its interests. The ethical principle of respect for autonomy and the concept of autonomy-based rights therefore do not apply to the fetus. The ethical concept of the fetus as a patient does not require appeal to the discourse of fetal rights.  This is 1 of the concept's main advantages because it prevents ethical analysis of induced abortion and feticide in medical ethics from being paralyzed by divisive debates about a fetal right to life that have been going on for decades, indeed centuries, without any basis for resolution. In other words, the preborn child may be identified as a patient in certain circumstances but remains, when it comes to abortion, a non-entity; a non-person whose rights should not be considered because he or she cannot converse with the physician regarding his fate. Tragically, this same set of standards does not apply to the delta smelt or the dolphin. Further, you may note that the authors refer to beneficence as a principle to be considered when discussing aborting a preborn child, which is not unexpected. In fact, beneficence, as it is currently being applied and written about, is a creation of the very same secular bioethicists who would defend the personhood of a dolphin or the right of a delta smelt to be protected while never defending the rights of preborn children to be protected from murder. The foundation of this secular principle of beneficence is, as Professor Dianne Irving so carefully sets forth in her article, “The Bioethics Mess,” to provide a basis for deciding “who qualifies for certain medical treatments, and even who lives, who dies, and who makes those decisions.” Such definitions never existed prior to 1978, when a group of commissioners appointed by then-Secretary of Health and Human Services Casper Weinberger issued what has come to be known as the Belmont Report.  As Irving tells the reader,  “[W]hile the Belmont Report gave a nod to the traditional Hippocratic understanding of beneficence as doing good for the patient, it also included a second definition of beneficence that was essentially utilitarian: doing “good for society at large.” This skewed definition of the principle of beneficence comes into play now more than ever as researchers seek ways to further dehumanize human beings at the same time they are “humanizing” dolphins, fish and other life forms. It is not a farfetched idea to imagine that a time could come when the rights and privileges once thought to be accorded only to human beings will become the rights and privileges of animals, fish and so on.  As these whacked-out principles of secular bioethics evolve, it is of the utmost importance for all pro-life Americans to step up the drive toward human personhood. The distinction of who is and who is not a human person has never been so important.   http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2955 2010-03-02 11:54:00 By Nicholas Moore Black clouds cover the stars and moon, and the quiet Chinese city is damp with yesterday’s rain. A point of light, small but brilliant, creeps along a misty alleyway. Soft footsteps can be heard, scurrying like a rat across the broken cobblestone streets of the old village. A furtive figure extinguishes his light and ducks into a barely visible opening in the wall. He quickly tiptoes down a winding staircase, leaps over a rotten board and inches towards a wooden door. Knock, knock, knock-knock-knock. Rusty hinges creak as he hurriedly squeezes through the barely open door, gently closing it behind him. Now joining with other Christians for worship of their God, he longs for the day they can do so freely. All over the world, there are people who cry out for freedom. Men and women are willing to risk everything to come to this country. But here in America, the Land of the Free, we sometimes take things for granted. Where do our freedoms come from? Is it true autonomy to be able to do whatever we choose? Or does liberty carry a responsibility to do what is right? What duty do we have to insure that the ability to make our own choices remains intact? If America is to remain free, we need to understand that our freedoms have to be protected and understood. We often mistakenly assume that our freedoms come from our government. They do not. As the Declaration of Independence so clearly states, “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights…” Our Founding Fathers formed this republic with the understanding that we have rights that come straight from God. We know these truths through natural law. Thomas Aquinas writes, “The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God. Through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at creation.” Because natural law comes from God, it cannot be abolished or changed. It is the same everywhere and throughout all time. It is the standard that all other laws must be based upon in order to maintain a civil society. When we recognize that the freedoms we enjoy are God- given, we understand that a government does not have the authority to take them away. As Christians, we must understand that the rights we were endowed with carry a responsibility. Because our freedoms allow us to prosper, we should balance that with an understanding that we have a duty to care for those less fortunate. It requires vigilance in order to ensure that our elected officials are upholding the dignity of every human person with each law that is passed. And we must be willing to take the criticism that comes from standing up for what is right. Our self-determination is given to us in order for us to choose what is right and good. In the Garden of Eden, God gave free will to Adam and Eve. He allowed this so that they could choose to love and not be slaves to God. But they preferred their own will and put themselves above their Creator. In doing so, they lost their perfect union with their Lord and became slaves to sin. When we misuse our freedom in order to do what we like, even though it goes against God’s precepts, we undermine what gives our country its strength. Thomas Jefferson once said, “An enlightened citizenry is indispensable for the proper functioning of a republic. Self-government is not possible unless citizens are educated sufficiently to enable them to exercise oversight.” We must be educated about our history, our faith and our government. What inspired our Founding Fathers to create this system wherein the people rule? Their study of ancient civilizations and philosophers, as well as the Old and New Testament, is evident in their writings. They knew that this new arrangement would only work if the people were moral and virtuous. Many quotes demonstrate how this country was formed by men that were led by God. George Washington said in his first inaugural address, “No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.” God’s teachings should be the basis for whatever we believe, say, or do. Our education should include his law so that our actions as voters and citizens of this nation will create a God-centered society. A man who claims to be a Christian must understand that God calls us to respect the dignity of each human life. Each vote he casts must be a statement of his faith. Only when God’s teachings are our motivation can a nation truly thrive and freedoms be safeguarded. The burning in the heart for freedom that the young Chinese Christian harbors inside him comes from his God. Do we still have that fire or has it grown cold? Within each person created in His image is a desire to know Him and to live within His guidelines, all the while making this world a better place. We who enjoy that freedom so easily here in America could find it ripped away if we do not stay true to Benjamin Franklin’s call: “A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins.” Nicholas Moore is a 13-year-old homeschooler. His passion for his faith and country have led him to create a web site for youth who want to get more involved with their nation and make a difference. You can visit his site at http://www.kidzhaveavoice.com.  This article was originally published in February 2010 by WTL Texas, is posted on Nicholas' site and is featured as a guest commentary with the kind permission of his parents, Bob and Barbara Moore. http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2954 2010-03-01 13:57:00 On February 18, Virginia Delegate Robert G. Marshall delivered remarks at a press conference held in the state capital in Richmond. The purpose of the press conference was to focus attention on the reasons why Planned Parenthood should not receive any state taxpayer funding. As you will hear from a subsequent statement Marshall delivered on the floor of the state house, all of the major Washington, D.C.-area media attended and not a single one of them arrived at the same comments attributed to Marshall three days later by the student-run Capital News Service. However, four days after Marshall’s press conference, Newsleader.com ran with this headline: “Legislator: Disabled kids are God’s punishment.” The student reporter then goes on to quote Marshall verbatim: “The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children," said Marshall, a Republican. "In the Old Testament, the first born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. There's a special punishment Christians would suggest." At no time did Marshall insinuate, suggest or otherwise note that the children born after a mother’s abortion who happen to be disabled are a punishment from God. One blogger, apparently concerned about the tragic misrepresentation created by the student reporter, quoted Marshall directly from his floor statement to the Virginia House of Delegates, which he was forced to make due to the publicity given to the false headline:  "If some want to make their own inference, that is their prerogative. However, they should acknowledge that is what they are doing," Marshall said. "It is no one's prerogative to claim I spoke words which never came from my mouth, have never been in my heart and have never been in my public record." Marshall went on to say that of all the major media attending that press conference on February 18, not a single one quoted that horrendous statement because it was a statement never made!  So what in the world is going on? Well, it should be obvious. When a man stands up to the culture of death, it will do all it can to cause him suffering of every kind. On February 24, two days after the false headline had surfaced and been quoted ad nauseum, NBC News finally set the record straight. Its report details what occurred: The February 20 report by Virginia Commonwealth University’s Capital News Service put those horrifically inappropriate words into Delegate Marshall’s mouth, causing a firestorm of criticism that rained down on Marshall in a way similar to the stoning of sinners one reads about in the Bible!  The rush to judgment—immediately assuming that, in fact, the counterfeit quote was actually what Marshall said—resulted in several imprudent statements, including one by Virginia’s governor:  Gov. Bob McDonnell criticized Del. Robert G. Marshall, R-Prince William, for comments in which Marshall suggested that disabled children were a form of punishment for women who had abortions. "They were wrong and offensive comments, and we should do everything we can for young children who are disabled and provide the best safety net we can," McDonnell said in an appearance on WTOP radio in Washington. And just yesterday, even though the record has now been set straight and the facts have been reported, the tirades clearly aimed at destroying Marshall’s credibility continued. A News and Messenger editorial opined, While one may argue that Del. Bob Marshall has been misrepresented in media accounts of remarks he made about abortion, it can't be disputed that he has put his foot in his mouth. The hubbub is about whether Marshall said that children with disabilities were a punishment from God on women who abort their first child. The original journalist who reported this as being the case stands by the reporting. Others have jumped on Marshall and harangued him for such a statement. However, Marshall himself insists that what he said was misunderstood. The delegate said he was simply trying to point out statistics that indicate women who get abortions have "significant problems in their subsequent pregnancies." Regardless, one thing is certain, Marshall has, once again, revealed how his religious views shape his legislative heart. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Marshall has never really hidden his religious convictions and, given the fact that he is elected over and over again, we must imagine that his beliefs reflect those of his constituents, or at least don't present a problem for them. And this brouhaha makes another thing clear: When a legislator reveals his religious beliefs on a political subject, people get mad, perhaps rightfully so. After all, should religious belief underpin all the actions taken by our government?  Some say yes, but others say no and complain that religion and governance should be separated by a thick wall. Needless to say, it is controversial. In the end though, Marshall should be taken at face value. If he says he is being misunderstood, then he is. The audacious editorial concludes,  [T]he real focus of this situation shouldn't be, "Did he or didn't he?" Rather, whether you believe what he said or what he meant to say, it's another example of him getting involved in some dispute that does nothing to improve the lives of his constituents. And for that, we hold him completely responsible. The blatant deception concerning words that did not come from Delegate Marshall has taken on a life of its own, which is indeed sad. One wonders how it is possible to put your foot in your mouth when it’s someone else’s foot entirely. Since when is that foot-in-mouth disease? What it is instead is a lie, pure and simple. But, due to the fact that Marshall has faith in God, strives always for what is good and just, and is one of this nation’s leading experts on the sordid nature of Planned Parenthood’s efforts, he is maligned in yet another snide editorial, which was written by those who believe fiction rather than truth. When will it all end? How much longer will the cock-and-bull story carry on as though it were fact? God knows, I sure don’t. But there are a few things I do know: Anyone who reads this commentary and wants to assure Delegate Marshall and his family of their prayers and best wishes can do so simply by visiting his web site and leaving comments:  http://delegatebob.com/contact You are invited to post a comment to the editorial that perpetuates the myth by visiting its accompanying message board. It would be appreciated if you would send a message to Governor Bob McDonnell asking him to review the evidence and issue a public apology to Marshall for believing the fabrication created by college student Kelsey Radcliffe. Contact: https://www.governor.virginia.gov/Contact.cfm What disturbs me the most about this entire fiasco is that, in the process of a concerted effort to distort an elected official’s public statements and fabricate innuendo out of thin air, the full impact of what Delegate Marshall did say has been lost.  His message was and is that there is a link between abortion and increased risk of disabilities in the children of mothers who have aborted one of their children prior to carrying a child to term. The link between abortion and preterm birth for future pregnancies has been documented countless times yet seldom reported on. In September 2009, Dr. Prakesh Shah released a meta-analysis in BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology using data from 37 published studies. The Shah meta-analysis found that one induced abortion increases the risk for preterm birth in a subsequent pregnancy by 36 percent. Two or more induced abortions increase that risk by 93 percent. One induced abortion increases the risk of low birth weight by 35 percent, and more than one induced abortion increases that risk to 72 percent. The Mayo Clinic web site reports that complications of preterm birth may include: Difficulty breathing Episodes of stopped breathing (apnea) Bleeding in the brain (intracranial hemorrhage) Fluid accumulation in the brain (hydrocephalus) Cerebral palsy and other neurological problems Vision problems Intestinal problems Developmental delays Learning disabilities Hearing problems The fact of the matter is that abortion has major, undeniable consequences—one of which is the danger it poses to the future brothers and sisters of children killed by abortion. That is the only fact Marshall was attempting to set forth in the statement he presented to the media on February 18, four days before the fabricated statement even made its way to a web site or news report. God forgive those who detest the truth so rapaciously that they will stoop to lying, putting words in the mouths of others and otherwise manifesting such a disdain for their fellow man that one must pity them in their agony.