http://www.all.org/rss_jblog.php Judie Brown, American Life League Blog RSS Feed en-us Sat, 04 Jul 2009 13:00:03 PDT Sat, 04 Jul 2009 13:00:03 PDT http://www.all.org webmaster@all.org webmaster@all.org http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2665 2009-07-02 09:32:00 Having just returned from a 16-day tour of national parks in the western states, from Glacier  to Zion,  I was overwhelmed by a feeling of tranquility upon realizing that God’s handiwork undoubtedly outshines man’s foibles and fumbles, day in and day out. And then when I arrived in my office yesterday, what do I see but American Life League’s latest ALL Report: “Tiller, Terror and TV Tilt.”  It’s painful to focus away from the majesty, wonder and serenity of Zion National Park toward a cultural decline that is clearly exacerbated by a bloodthirsty media that stops at nothing to make it appear that respect for life is the equivalent of being henchmen for Osama bin Laden!  Oh, I kid you not. Within this five-minute-and-17-second ALL Report, you are going to see and hear images and language that belong in a trash bin, not in a civil discussion about the continuation of a “mainstream” cultural attitude that thrives on death and deception. The establishment media has made a career out of doing all it can to downplay the effectiveness of pro-life activity, and as the video points out, it has done so at the expense of truth and civility. For example, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow used her June 5 television program  to report on American Life League’s Protest the Pill Day as an example of how pro-life Americans abuse language because we tell the truth about how the birth control pill works. She rants on and on about how events like this lead deranged criminals like Scott Roeder to gun down abortion doctors. Maddow does this with impunity while displaying an American Life League “The Pill Kills” sign, claiming that we should have cancelled Protest the Pill events across this nation because they were scheduled for the same day that George Tiller was laid to rest. Never mind that the events had been scheduled for months in advance. A commentator such as Maddow, lacking any semblance of objectivity and with MSNBC cameras at her disposal, is not a good thing for life-affirming, compassionate pro-life Americans. However, as you watch our All Report, you will also note that Maddow is not alone in her vigilante attitude toward those who respect life. We are reminded of the harsh words CNN’s Keith Olbermann had when talking about Jill Stanek and giving her the “wold;s worst person” award. And why did Mr. Olbermann suggest such a thing? Well, Stanek, who can defend herself with one arm tied behind her back, thank you, tells us the truth:   My award comes for supposedly making the supposedly last 2 late-term abortionists in the free world sitting ducks for Tiller copycat killers by posting their addresses and photos of their mills. Never mind that I didn't actually post the addresses of LeRoy Carhart and Warren Hern… had I done so it would have been akin to posting the address of President Obama and being accused of making him a target for nutcases. Libs, get a brain. These guys both advertise on the web. They want people to know where they operate, pardon the pun. Lest you are still not curious about viewing American Life League’s remarkable news report, take a moment to consider this as the final straw that broke the arrogant, venomous camel’s back. In his blog, Alan Colmes, no respecter of factual evidence, wrote this about Jenn Giroux, one of the most adorable women in the pro-life movement,  under the title “Are groups that actively pursued Tiller culpable in his murder?” Giroux, who runs ChargeTiller.com, spent two years pursuing criminal charges against Tiller, and referred to him as “Tiller the Killer,” and falsely charged that he performed illegal abortions. Giroux also accused Tiller of bribing government officials on a page that was taken down after his killing. The accused assassin posted this on her site. It seems as though what is happening in Kansas could be compared to the ‘lawlessness’ which is spoken of in the Bible,” it said. “Tiller is the concentration camp ‘Mengele’ of our day and needs to be stopped before he and those who protect him bring judgment upon our nation. I’m not sure that you can claim causality when some whack-job does something insane. You never know just what sets people off. This post by Colmes, a very well-known pro-abortion extremist, has never been corrected, annotated or in any way updated to reflect how Jenn actually explains the position of her organization, Women Influencing the Nation (WIN). She wrote this on the ChargeTiller.com web site itself: WIN presented the petition of signatures and comments from ChargeTiller.com at Kansas legislative committee hearing on late term abortions in September 2007, which were entered into the record. This website condemns the May 31, 2009, murder of George Tiller. Following is WIN’s public statement, released that same day: "Women Influencing the Nation condemns all form of murder. The murder of George Tiller is in direct contradiction with the beliefs and morals embraced by those of us who believe that every life is precious in the eyes of God and no individual has the right to take the life of another. We encourage everyone to pray for the repose of Dr. Tiller's soul." Due to the highly charged comments ChargeTiller.com began receiving upon the announcement of George Tiller’s tragic death, often profanity laden and menacing, WIN determined to disable the site for two weeks, until June 15, 2009. ChargeTiller.com provides an excellent example of peaceful, law-abiding, respectful expression as ordained by our First Amendment. Citizens from across the nation continue to seek justice from their elected officials and law enforcement agencies to expose what happens inside the Tiller-owned Women’s Health Care Services as well as the devastating effects that his illegal practice had upon women and their families. The site's primary focus has always been to return the rule of law to Kansas. We have yet to achieve that goal. As someone who knows and admires Jenn Giroux, Jill Stanek and American Life League staffers, who work tirelessly to tell the truth and expose the fact that the act of abortion is a crime against humanity, and who unfailingly do so with total respect for our fellow human beings, I am grieved by such arrogance, but I am not at all surprised. We are dealing with absolute denial of evil in this nation today, and this is why the report that I have recommended to you is so important. Yes, there are facts to back up the statements that the people such as Giroux, Stanek and “The Pill Kills” coordinator, Marie Hahnenberg, have made, and yes, abortion does exactly what we said it does. Preborn human beings with individual identities, who will never know the glory of hosting a television program or reaching millions with their voices, die by acts of abortion, be they chemical, medical or surgical. These people will never have the chance to become leading spokespeople for any cause or ideology … They are dead! Preborn babies, not to mention all Americans, owe a debt of gratitude to these fine women and men who continue to fight on valiantly, even when the attack-dog media would love nothing better than to shut us all up by creating an image of terrorism where, in fact, there is a genuine image of Christ’s love for our fellow human beings. We are Christians; we are not perfect; but we do affirm the life of every human being. Please watch the ALL Report and spread the word. We need the opportunity to get the facts out, and it really is up to us. For ALL Report host Michael Hichborn says, “In a world that believes violence is the answer to suffering, the only solution is promoting a culture of life.” http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2662 2009-07-01 14:14:00 By Marion Amberg   Pro-life lawyers, doctors, politicians and journalists are crucial in the ongoing fight to halt abortion and other crimes against innocent human beings, but there is one weapon even mightier. And it’s a weapon that all of us—from first graders to great-grandpas—can carry: our rosary beads. “When Our Lady appeared at Fatima, she told the children that wars will be stopped by praying the Rosary,” said Mary Therese Weyrich, 55, who helped found Cenacles of Life, a national Rosary campaign to end the culture of death. “We have a war going on against the innocents—the little babies in the womb, the handicapped and the elderly. If you go back in history, there have been tremendous victories when a nation fasts and prays the Rosary with the same intention.” Vanquished by the Rosary Just how powerful is the Rosary? It won the Battle of Lepanto in 1571! When Pope Saint Pius V learned the mighty Muslim navy was preparing to invade Italy, ultimately aiming to conquer Europe and annihilate the Christian faith, he asked Christians to pray the Rosary. Just before a decisive battle at sea, the winds shifted, and the ragtag Christian fleet decimated the much larger and more powerful Muslim fleet. The Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary on October 7 commemorates the very date that Our Lady’s intercession brought about the victory. In more recent history, the Rosary is credited with saving Brazil, Portugal and Austria from the evils of Communism. In early 1964, Brazil was within days of falling to Communism when the archbishop of Rio de Janeiro, Cardinal Jaime de Barros Camara, broadcast radio appeals for prayer and penance. “The response of Brazilians rose and rose until it culminated in a vast march of 600,000 Rosary-praying women in Sao Paulo on March 19,” according to Our Lady of Fatima’s Peace Plan from Heaven. On April 1, the Communists fled the country, many of them bound for Cuba. And when Communism came to power in Portugal in April 1974, a national Rosary crusade reportedly yielded pledges for a million Rosaries! About 18 months later, in November 1975, the Communist government relinquished control. The battle of the beads in post-World War II Austria, however, was especially long and hard-fought. As they had done in Germany, the Allies divided Austria into four occupied zones, with the Soviet Union having jurisdiction over Lower Austria. Its oil fields, farming and factories made it the nation’s wealthiest area. The Austrians soon realized the Soviet Union had plans for a permanent takeover. Recognizing the correlation between prayer and freedom, and between godlessness and war, Austrian priest Father Petrus Pavlicek, OFM Cap., launched the Crusade of Reparation of the Holy Rosary in 1947. Catholics flocked to the confessional, and by 1955, an estimated 500,000 Austrians—about 10 percent of the population—had pledged to pray the Rosary daily. Later that year, in the Marian month of May, the Soviet Union suddenly agreed to pull out. It’s reported that not one shot was fired! Praying in His presence If the Rosary can drive out Communism, it can end the abortion holocaust, said Mary Therese. She explained the two-fold meaning of Cenacles of Life: “First, a cenacle is a place, the Upper Room where Jesus gathered His disciples for the Last Supper. Second, a cenacle is a prayer group. A Cenacle of Life meets in a Catholic church, where Jesus is truly present in the Blessed Sacrament, and prays two Rosaries (10 mysteries).” Cenacle warriors also fast one day per week to convert the hearts and minds of anti-life Supreme Court justices, as well as other anti-life forces, so that “all may work for the protection of the unborn, elderly, sick and unwanted.” “Prayer and fasting are the things that drive away Satan, and scripture says this in Mark 9:29,” explained the Reverend Andrew Apostoli, CFR, spiritual director for Cenacles of Life. He is also a popular speaker and author, and the vice-postulator of Archbishop Fulton Sheen’s cause for canonization. Father Apostoli related a disturbing story revealing that even Satanists employ spiritual principles (although for evil purposes): About 10 years ago, two of his fellow Franciscan Friars of the Renewal encountered a woman on an airplane who refused lunch because she was fasting to destroy Christian marriages. “Jesus said the children of this world are more enlightened than the children of light, that they’re more dedicated to their causes,” Father Apostoli stated. “The Cenacles of Life are taking Mary’s message at Fatima—live a good Christian life, pray the Rosary daily and offer [spiritual] sacrifices for the conversion of sinners—and bringing that spiritual energy into this battle.” The Cenacles’ logo—a rosary leading to a monstrance inside a church—recalls Our Lady of Fatima’s first apparition on May 13, the Feast of Our Lady of the Blessed Sacrament. Unstoppable graces Founded in the spring of 2007, the Cenacles’ goal is to have at least one group praying and fasting in every U.S. diocese. “When that happens, the graces will be unstoppable to end abortion,” Mary Therese said emphatically. “We must have firm faith that the weapons heaven has given us will work!” As of March, more than 113 Cenacle groups were meeting in 60 dioceses, which is almost one-third of the nation’s 195 archdioceses and dioceses. The holy war is being waged in basilicas, parish churches, a convent and even a nursing-home chapel. No town is too small for a Cenacle—Cass Lake, Minnesota, has a population of 833. On the other hand, Holy Child Church in Staten Island, New York, a parish with 4,800 registered families, storms heaven with seven Cenacles every week! And when the world is thinking “Let’s party!” on Friday night, prayer warriors at Saint Rose of Lima Church in Paso Robles, California, are contemplating the special Cenacle meditations written for each mystery of the Rosary. As Jesus carries the Cross in the Fourth Sorrowful Mystery, the meditation asks, “Do we carry our cross so we can unite it with Jesus at Calvary? Or do we throw our cross down and claim sin is not sin? Do we seek the viewpoint of the world instead of the faith of the Lord’s?” “It’s an unusual time to meet,” observed Mary Therese, about her home parish. “Most people do not think about going to church on Friday night, but we go because we want to! Can you imagine what Jesus endures watching His precious little innocent babies being killed—50 million since abortion was legalized in 1973?” Unusual time or not, 87-year-old Mary Demaris wouldn’t skip a Cenacle at Saint Rose. Come rain or come heat, as long as Mary has life, she takes up her rosary weapon and begs heaven for the gift of life for all of the preborn and for spiritual renewal throughout America. Practical wisdom for the battle “The culture of death versus the culture of life is a spiritual battle,” continued Mary Therese, adding that political solutions alone won’t win the war. “If we do what the Blessed Mother asks—fast and pray the Rosary—we will be given the wisdom to do the practical in the legislative field, in the political field, in helping those in need.” Mary Therese and her husband, David, who are the parents of eight and grandparents of six, are long-time advocates of pro-life causes. Through collaboration with the outdoor advertising industry and the generosity of the Florence Martin Campaign of Compassion, they have helped both Care Net and Heartbeat International (nationwide pregnancy support networks) erect thousands of pro-life billboards across the country. These billboards advertise Option Line, a 24/7 bilingual hotline (800-395-HELP) for pregnant women, and post-abortion women and men who need counseling or other help. “It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness,” said Father Apostoli, about the horrific proliferation of abortion, infanticide and euthanasia bills rearing up in state and national legislatures. “If we just apathetically walk away, evil will continue to spread. God is not ignoring all the prayers and sacrifices that are being offered. When the Mother of God is ready to crush the head of the serpent, she’s going to crush it. It’s going to be a tremendous spiritual victory!” For information on starting a Cenacle of Life, visit www.cenaclesoflife.org or write to Cenacles of Life, P.O. Box 7003, Paso Robles, CA 93447.   Marion Amberg is a freelance writer from Santa Fe, New Mexico. She frequently writes on topics of religious interest. This article was published in the May-June 2009 issue of Celebrate Life, American Life League's bimonthly magazine. http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2657 2009-06-30 12:54:00 By Rev. Seamus Griesbach (Father Griesbach delivered this homily at St. John’s Church in Bangor, Maine on Respect Life Sunday, October 5, 2008.) I have been working on a homily for this Sunday, Respect Life Sunday, all week. And I wrote and wrote. After countless pages, I began to be overwhelmed by the task at hand, and it became clear to me that it’s just not possible to adequately address this subject in a homily. First of all, this area of the Church’s teaching is very delicate because so many of us are affected by what John Paul II called a culture of death. Some of us have suffered the effects of abortion; some of us persist in using birth control or have undergone sterilization procedures. Some of us have watched loved ones suffer and prematurely recommended that they be put out of their misery. To speak flippantly about such matters would be foolish. To make matters worse, many of the areas the Church’s teaching on life issues have become almost entirely politicized. Slogan slogging has become the norm. In taking a stance on a life issue during an election year, many could quickly jump to the conclusion that I am siding with one particular party or another. Politics quickly colors a discussion that should be about the truth of human life and human dignity, not about who is up in the polls. And so I admit that it is tempting to flee into the celestial heights of religious hyperbole and give you some vague words about loving one another. But I cannot. As much as I cannot do justice to the Gospel of life placed before me, I must try. The bitter fruits of rebellion The readings [Isa.5: 1-7; Ps. 80: 9, 12, 13-14, 15-16, 19-20; Phil. 4:6-9; Matt.21:33-43] before us talk about what happens when a vineyard is taken over by forces opposed to God, when a culture refuses to serve the Author and Master of life, and tries to make itself its own master: Death. A society that is not grounded in a sovereign respect for God as the Author and Judge of all life dies. John Paul II recognized that we live in a society that is faltering, that is losing its grounding. He writes,  We are facing an enormous and dramatic clash between good and evil, death and life, the “culture of death” and the “culture of life.” We find ourselves not only “faced with” but necessarily “in the midst of” this conflict: we are all involved and we all share in it, with the inescapable responsibility of choosing to be unconditionally pro-life. (Evangelium Vitae [1995], section 28) We are all aware, I think, that we live in decisive times. Everyone keeps saying it. We all know that something is not right. We look at the climate; we look at the war; we look at the economy; we look at the state of the family, the state of education and the drastic rise in mental illness. Something is not right. We know it. But isn’t there the sense, deep down, that these problems are all symptoms of something larger? The truth is that we are dealing with a profound crisis of faith in the West. And because we no longer understand God, we no longer understand who we are. And that has led us to live in a way that is increasingly deadly. The reality of our situation is stark: Until this culture comes to terms with its lack of faith, we will find no peace, no solace, no comfort and, ultimately, no life. Until we begin to believe once more that it is not in experts, not in big government, not in big corporations and not in our own private speculations that the answers to life’s biggest questions are found, but only here—in the Church of Jesus Christ, our Savior and Redeemer—we will flounder. Wisdom and love We seem to have forgotten that the Church exists for our salvation and for the salvation of the whole world. She does not exist to be a crutch, to make us feel better, to be nice or to appease us. She exists to save us, because without the saving mission of Christ in our midst, we will die. That is our faith. Perhaps it seems to some that the Church’s teachings are in place to manipulate, to berate or to demean us. Far from it! Her teachings guide us along the way to salvation. They come from her wisdom and love for us, her dear children. You and I can try to pick and choose which things we might like to believe or not believe, which things appeal to us or don’t appeal to us. But we don’t do that with medical decisions; we don’t do that with investment decisions; we don’t even do that when we are trying to figure out what the weather will be like tomorrow. So why are we so willing to place our own judgment above that of the Church, who we know has been guided by the Holy Spirit so strongly that she has stood firm in her teaching for over 2,000 years? In life and death matters, we trust experts. Why don’t we trust the Church? Pro-life from the inside out The Church’s teaching on life is not simplistic or one-dimensional. Nor is it abstract. Rather, the Church teaches us a comprehensive way of life that will allow us to flourish as God’s children. And we shouldn’t be misguided; there is more to being pro-life than bumper stickers and posters. The Church tells us, if you want to be truly pro-life, serve the lives of those around you. Turn off the television and the internet, and spend time with your children. Spend time serving your spouses. Show the members of your families how important their lives are to you. And reach out to your neighbors, to those here at church and those who live in our community. Support young couples and families. Support those who have lost spouses and those who are living alone. Reach out to broken families, to teens who are in trouble. Go and meet them, and spend time with them. Let them know that you are open to the life that dwells within them, that you are a true servant of life. There are all kinds of important legislative measures and political actions that must be undertaken in the defense of life. But let us not be misled. If we do not give ourselves over to the service of the life that God has placed right in front of us, we will have absolutely no credibility in the public square. We must be pro-life from the inside out. And that means that each day we must start by asking the Lord, “Lord, where do you want me to serve the life that you place before me today?” Because you never know who the Lord may put in front of you. Thirty years ago, doctors told my mother that I was going to be born badly deformed: deaf, blind, mentally disabled. They recommended an abortion. I am glad that her mother convinced her to trust the Church, despite the fears and anxieties of her life at that time. Perhaps you can see why, for me, the Church’s insistence on proclaiming the Gospel of life is a matter of life and death.   Rev. Seamus Griesbach is a priest of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, Maine. He was ordained in 2007 and currently serves as a parochial vicar for the parishes of St. Gabriel, St. Mary, St. Matthew, St. John, St. Joseph and St. Teresa, in the greater Bangor area.  This article was published in the March–April 2009 issue of Celebrate Life, American Life League’s bimonthly publication. http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2655 2009-06-29 14:03:00 By Erik Whittington When talking about post-abortion experiences, one hears a lot about women hurting from abortion. At pro-life events, women usually make up the majority of those holding “I Regret My Abortion”  signs. Occasionally, a middle-aged man testifies as to how abortion affected him and holds an “I Regret Lost Fatherhood” sign. Rarely, however, do you hear from young men about how abortion has affected them. Statistically, 56 percent of women having abortions are in their twenties and 17 percent are teenagers, so it follows that roughly the same percentage (73 percent) of men involved in abortion are under 30 years old. Why don’t we hear their stories? This year, at Ichthus Festival, (a huge Christian music event held June 10-13 in Wilmar, Kentucky), when two young men told me their stories, I got a very close look at this mostly unrecognized pain. The first young man told me that his now-ex-girlfriend informed him that she was pregnant and getting an abortion. He pleaded with her to not kill their child. He told her he would take care of the child. He called lawyers, judges, politicians—anyone who would listen and might be able to help. All of them told him the same thing: You are a man and thus have no say in this matter. She went through with the abortion, and he was devastated! He told me, through tears, that he still has nightmares about his child being aborted. The next day, another young man told me a similar story. His girlfriend had already made up her mind to abort when she first told him she was pregnant. He, too, had no say. He also cried as he told me about his nightmares and the year of depression, alcohol and drug abuse he endured after the abortion.  I was given the opportunity to record this young man’s testimony in audio form, which we featured in a recent Rock for Life Netcast. Young men are generally less prone to showing their emotions, especially to a complete stranger. Nonetheless, these two couldn’t hold back their sorrow over their lost fatherhood.  I was able to listen to both men and pray for their continued recovery. The trauma both young men have experienced has fired them up about joining the pro-life movement. One of them asked about starting a Rock for Life chapter in his community. The other told me that as a college freshman, he started a campus pro-life club and would now like to associate it with Rock for Life. You can see God working in their lives as they work through their abortion experience and give of themselves at the same time. Keeping in mind that we recently celebrated Father's Day, if you wonder why so many men seem disinterested in caring for their children … consider this: Maybe it’s because they have absolutely no voice in a life-or-death decision when those same kids are in the womb. Don’t let the abortion advocates fool you! Abortion is not just "a women’s issue." Abortion deeply wounds men too—young and old. For more information on post-abortion healing for men, check out American Life League's Celebrate Life article "Men and abortion: Reclaiming lost fatherhood" (January–February 2009).    Erik Whittington is director of Rock for Life, American Life League’s youth outreach, which educates, actives and equips young people to put an end to the culture of death. For more information, visit www.RockforLife.org.  http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2654 2009-06-26 14:50:00 By Katie Walker Who let Planned Parenthood speak for women? I’m a 23-year-old woman and a product of my generation – a generation that, statistically speaking, supports the family, increasingly opposes abortion, gives and works for those less fortunate, and is willing to fight for human rights at home and abroad. We appear to be at the beginning of the anti-“me generation,” if you will. I like to think of us as Joan of Arcs with laptops. Make mine a Mac! And judging from anecdotal evidence of women I see out and about (drum roll, please!), we increasingly like dresses. Was that a gasp I heard from the Gloria Steinem crowd? Calm down, ladies. Now I consider myself a fairly normal, well-adjusted woman of my generation, so you can imagine my confusion when this commercial from Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion chain, began heating up the airwaves earlier this month in the Washington, D.C. area – where I live.“More than 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does is provide preventive and primary care to keep women healthy,” the soft voice-over tells me. Primary, preventive care? Now isn’t that sweet of them? And all this time I thought Planned Parenthood was about abortion and contraception! Silly me.Let’s just mosey over to their 2007-2008 Annual Report, shall we? And we’ll read all about their primary "health care" for women of my generation. Stop the presses! According to their own data, primary care accounts for less than one percent of Planned Parenthood’s business—0.7 percent, to be exact. So much for truth in advertising. It appears the operative word here is “preventive.” So what are they preventing? Breast cancer, heart disease, maybe? Those two frightening killers of women? Hmmm … Not exactly. Abortion accounts for one-third of Planned Parenthood’s clinic income of $374 million in 2008. Planned Parenthood saw 2,360,796 women for “contraceptive services” in 2008. To Planned Parenthood, “preventive” refers to prevention of both pregnancy and birth – and always has. Margaret Sanger, in her 1915 book, What Every Girl Should Know, said this about motherhood: "I cannot refrain from saying that women must come to recognize there is some function of womanhood other than being a child-bearing machine." In her 1922 book, Woman and the New Race, Margaret Sanger said this about the purpose of sex: "[Our objective is] unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children.” And don’t even get her started on marriage! From the same book: "The marriage bed is the most degenerative influence in the social order." (If you think this is scary stuff, do a Google search of Sanger and check out what she had to say on eugenics, “feeble-minded” people and African Americans.) Margaret Sanger founded the American Birth Control League in 1921. The organization changed its name to Planned Parenthood Federation of America in 1942. Today, Planned Parenthood considers itself a leader in the fields of women’s rights and women’s health. Sanger’s organization, from 1921 to this very day, has always considered pregnancy and birth a form of parasitic physical and social illness – something we need “health care” to fix. Now we can compare Planned Parenthood’s clearly outmoded concept of femininity and womanhood with the perspective of modern American philosopher Alice Von Hildebrand, one of my favorite authors, in this 2003 interview on her book The Privilege of Being a Woman (2002): “A woman by her very nature is maternal -- for every woman, whether married or unmarried, is called upon to be a biological, psychological or spiritual mother -- she knows intuitively that to give, to nurture, to care for others, to suffer with and for them -- for maternity implies suffering -- is infinitely more valuable in God's sight than to conquer nations and fly to the moon.” The choice offered to young women these days is to accept their bodies and their womanhood as gifts: the unique and beautiful ability to give life, hope and nurturing to others. Or women can accept the Planned Parenthood philosophy that our bodies are meant for self-satisfaction, self-actualization, i.e. the self. Women can choose between a culture of selflessness or selfishness.I know which one I aspire to and I know which one the stats show an increasing number of my fellow young women aspire to. Get with the times, Planned Parenthood! This boat is leaving without you.    Katie Walker is American Life League’s director of communications. http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2651 2009-06-25 12:49:00 By Michael Hichborn Since 2003, American Life League has taken out a full-page ad in USA Today, to send a message to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops at its annual spring three-day conference. The ads call on the bishops to obey Canon 915 by denying Holy Communion to pro-abortion “Catholic” politicians and other public figures. This year’s ad, titled “A Message of Salvation for the Shepherds of the Catholic Church,” displays a 3-D ultrasound image of a preborn baby next to a quote from the Gospel of Matthew: “Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.” The ad can be viewed here: http://www.all.org/pdf/LeastOfTheseAdUSAtoday.pdf. ALL places these ads in USA Today because most hotels deliver it to their guests’ rooms. The ad is timed for delivery to the bishops on the first morning of the conference. On the first day of the conference, however, we were rather shocked to learn that the bishops had not seen the ad because USA Today was never delivered to the bishops’ rooms. While the situation is somewhat complicated, the odd circumstances and strange responses to our questions cause us to ask, “Did the USCCB’s leadership deliberately prevent the attending bishops from seeing ALL’s ad on the first day of the conference?” An American Life League employee was on the ground in San Antonio, Texas, where the conference took place, and reported what could have been an attempt to prevent the ad from reaching the bishops’ rooms: On Wed. morning, I woke up to find the New York Times at my door. I called the desk asking where USA Today was, and they said they had some at the desk and would send one up to me. I explained that it was our understanding from talking with hotel personnel that USA Today would be delivered to all the rooms. The person at the desk stated that they had stopped delivering USA Today a couple of weeks ago, but that they keep a small bundle for those who request it. She was surprised that I had received the New York Times, as that is not the paper they normally distribute. I checked my copy of USA Today that was sent up to my room and found that the ad was indeed in it. I called the desk again and asked for a member of management. The person who answered was eager to please and said that it was no problem; he could run a list of the bishops and have USA Today delivered to their rooms. [American Life League offered to pay, if there was a fee for this service.] He thought he had enough copies, but if not, he would let me know.   Some time passed and I did not hear back from them, so I called again. This time, he had backed down, saying that the drop would have to be approved by the USCCB contact person. He referred me to Lisa, the event supervisor for the hotel, who was coordinating with the USCCB. Lisa called me and said that we would not be able to make any drops of USA Today, due to security issues and because the bishops had approved only of having the New York Times dropped during their stay. When an offer to pay for the hotel to distribute a newspaper they already have stocked is first accepted and then refused because the bishops stated that they only wanted the New York Times (one of the most liberal papers in the country), we can only conclude that the USCCB’s leadership wished to prevent the attending bishops from seeing our ad during the conference. And given that this is the first time—in six years of placing such ads—that something like this has happened, we can’t help but think that this was a deliberate dodge. However, upon their return to their own diocese, each bishop who attended the conference will find a copy of the ad waiting for them in the mail. The sad conclusion to be drawn from all of this is that the ads we place must be tugging at the consciences of the bishops who see them. And with hardened hearts, the USCCB’s leadership apparently wishes to altogether remove our reminder of the duty that most of the U.S. bishops still ignore. But we still have hope that, through persistence, the U.S. bishops, as a whole, will finally realize their obligation to deny Holy Communion to pro-abortion “Catholic” politicians. In Luke’s Gospel, Jesus tells a parable about a poor widow and an unjust judge. The judge "did not fear God, neither did he care for people." Nevertheless, he eventually agreed to do justice to a poor widow because she was so persistent in her pursuit of justice. And inspired by our Blessed Lord’s own words, American Life League will continue to remind the bishops of their just duty, so that we will see eventually the day when all  of the Church’s shepherds have made it abundantly clear that you can’t be both Catholic and pro-abortion. Michael Hichborn is the director of American Life League’s Canon 915 project, which encourages Catholic bishops and priests to protect the Holy Eucharist from sacrilege. http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2650 2009-06-24 15:39:00 (Today’s guest commentary was written by Dr. Dianne Irving on June 8 and posted on www.lifeissues.net. It is reprinted here with her kind permission. Dr. Irving is a former career-appointed bench research biochemist/biologist (NIH, NCI, Bethesda, Maryland), an M.A. and Ph.D. philosopher (Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.), and professor of the History of Philosophy, and of Medical Ethics.) 1. Introduction How difficult it has been to “safeguard human life” from “the very beginning.” Indeed, especially over the last 40 years or so, the value of human life has diminished steadily and rapidly – especially with regard to its “beginning.” Yet even aside from the important and significant “personhood” debates, the Church has consistently taught that the mere fact that there is a living innocent human being before us is sufficient to safeguard the life of that human being even at its very beginning. Pope John Paul II often addressed this tragic trajectory of the loss of respect for human life, as in his encyclical Evangelium vitae: Even if the presence of a spiritual soul cannot be ascertained by empirical data, the results themselves of scientific research on the human embryo provide "a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of the first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person?" ... Furthermore, what is at stake is so important that, from the standpoint of moral obligation, the mere probability that a human person is involved would suffice to justify an absolutely clear prohibition of any intervention aimed at killing a human embryo. Precisely for this reason, over and above all scientific debates and those philosophical affirmations to which the Magisterium has not expressly committed itself, the Church has always taught and continues to teach that the result of human procreation, from the first moment of its existence, must be guaranteed that unconditional respect which is morally due to the human being in his or her totality and unity as body and spirit ... [Pope John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 60, On the Value and Inviolability of Human Life (Encyclical, March 25, 1995)] (emphases added) But precisely when is “the first moment of its existence”?! Without doubt, the abuse of language, especially scientific “language,” has shrouded clear facts about precisely when the “first moment of its existence is,” and has hastened this drastic decline in the respect for human life. This linguistic abuse has been both purposeful as well as naively equivocal.  That is, it is not just because of the willful and devious use of language by ardent supporters of IVF and other ARTs, abortion, the use of abortifacients, human embryo and human fetal research, human cloning, and genetic engineering, etc., but also because even many of those who are dedicated to this “safeguarding” themselves fall victim to the use of erroneous “scientific” terms. The result is an amazingly long list over the decades of what I have often referred to as “pre-embryo substitutes.” Given that this linguistic phenomenon continues unabated as we speak, it might be of help to remind ourselves of how very subtly these linguistic twists can come about so that we can be more sensitive to identifying them. Generally speaking, there are a number of ways that the misuse of simple scientific “language” can slip into our rhetoric and our thinking processes without notice. 2. The ‘Pre-Embryo’ First, it is to be noted historically that the authors of the now officially rejected false scientific term “pre-embryo,” which term has caused almost 30 years worth of a deluge of horrific and unethical medical policies and destructive research, were a Catholic Jesuit priest and a Catholic frog biologist – Fr. Richard McCormick and Clifford Grobstein. According to them, there is an important scientific and moral distinction to be made between a “human being” and a “human person.” That is, they agreed that the immediate product of fertilization was a human being (a "genetic individual"), but before 14-days it was not yet a human person (a "developmental individual") with a rational soul, and thus with the same ethical and legal rights and protections as all other human persons. Before 14-days there was just a “pre-embryo,” a “non-person” – and although it should be “respected,” it is still ethical to kill this “pre-embryo” for proportionate reasons. Of course, this “distinction” of McCormick and Grobstein between a “human being” and a “human person” – as with so many other similar “distinctions” ripe in the bioethics literature over the years – is a false distinction, a “distinction” without a real difference. This false pseudo-scientific term “pre-embryo,” and its accompanying false term “individuality,” was finally formally rejected by the international nomenclature committee in human embryology. That committee made it clear that at fertilization (sexual human reproduction), the “embryo” begins to exist immediately. Thus, scientifically, there is no such thing as a “pre-embryo” that exists after fertilization and before 14-days. There is, rather, an already existing embryo. As famous Swiss human embryologist, as a member of that international nomenclature committee, and as major contributor to the Carnegie Stages of Early Human Embryonic Development themselves, stated bluntly in his human embryology textbooks years ago: The term 'pre-embryo' is not used here for the following reasons: (1) it is ill-defined because it is said to end with the appearance of the primitive streak or to include neurulation; (2) it is inaccurate because purely embryonic cells can already be distinguished after a few days, as can also the embryonic (not pre-embryonic!) disc; (3) it is unjustified because the accepted meaning of the word embryo includes all of the first 8 weeks; (4) it is equivocal because it may convey the erroneous idea that a new human organism is formed at only some considerable time after fertilization; and (5) it was introduced in 1986 'largely for public policy reasons' (Biggers). ... Just as postnatal age begins at birth, prenatal age begins at fertilization." [Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Muller, Human Embryology & Teratology (New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001), (p. 88)] (emphases added) Of import too is that the Carnegie Stages are professionally required to be used by all authors in their human embryology textbooks. (You will also notice the full chart of the Carnegie Stages included in these same professional scientific textbooks, as well as the Carnegie Stage numerical superscripts above the less technical renditions of them used by these authors in textbooks meant for unsophisticated students to indicate for the reader where to go to find out more detailed and refined scientific descriptions of these stages). However, the “pre-embryo” had already been institutionalized by then (even around the world), and many on both sides of the aisle were not happy with this formal scientific refutation of their supra-useful linguistic invention. For those who wanted to pursue IVF, abortion, research, etc., they would have to come up with some other false scientific terms to scientifically “justify” what they wanted to do. And for many on the other side of the aisle the “pre-embryo” had allowed them to be perceived as more “pastoral,” more “empathetic,” more “scientifically current,” more “modern” and more popular, enabling them to “have a seat at the table.” They too would turn a blind eye at the easily accessible accurate empirical facts of human embryology known and continuously internationally documented and updated for over a hundred years – and found in libraries all over the world, even now on the internet. The temptations were overwhelming. 3. ‘Pre-embryo Substitutes’ And thus began “stage two” of this sort of verbal deception required to “scientifically” justify all manner of projects with the early human embryo. This “stage” I have often referred to as consisting of “pre-embryo substitutes.” That is, the term “pre-embryo” must now necessarily be dropped, but the same agenda could be accomplished by substituting other false “science” in its place, or simply leaving out legitimate early phases of human embryonic development as if they didn’t exist. One example of this is to claim that the “zygote” is the beginning of when a human being begins to exist. But this would render the human being already existing before the formation of the “zygote” non-existent – neither a human being nor a human person – and thus it could be used simply as “biological material,” especially in human genetic engineering research, etc. This “biological entity” is often referred to in the literature as a “pre-zygote” – that is, what is there from the beginning of fertilization up to the formation of the zygote is not a human embryo or a human being. It is just a human “cell.” However, the Carnegie Stages of Early Human Embryonic Development make it clear that the “zygote” formed at the end of the process of fertilization is not when a new human being begins to exist. Before that, the developing embryo in Stage 1 of the Carnegie Stages begins with “first contact” of the sperm with the oocyte, followed by, respectively, the phases of development referred to as “the penetrated oocyte” and the “ootid.” In other words, the new human embryo begins to exist at first contact, at the beginning of the process of fertilization: Fertilization, which takes place normally in the ampulla of the uterine tube [[fallopian tube]], includes (a) contact of spermatozoa with the zona pellucida of an oocyte, penetration of one or more spermatozoa through the zona pellucida and the ooplasm, swelling of the spermatozoal head and extrusion of the second polar body, (b) the formation of the male and female pronuclei, and (c) the beginning of the first mitotic division, or cleavage, of the zygote. ... The three phases (a, b, and c) referred to above will be included here under stage 1, the characteristic feature of which is unicellularity. (Carnegie Stages of Early Human Embryonic Development, p. 9) ) (emphases added) Note especially that “first contact” is included in, but precedes, the “penetrated oocyte” of phase (a). Given the spectacular biochemical events that are tripped at the moment of first contact of the sperm with the oocyte – events that could definitely not and do not take place in either a sperm or an oocyte alone – it is clear that a new substantial change has taken place. (It is interesting that in both biology and in classic realist philosophies, the identification of a new substance is marked in the relevant texts as “function follows form,” or “action follows being! That is, radically new functions or actions follow the formation of a radically new form – which radically new form causes those new functions and actions). Another example of leaving out specific stages of early human embryonic development can be found in several definitions in laws and regulations. A classic example is the formal definitions of “fetus” and “pregnancy” in the federal OPRR/OHRP guidelines for the use of human subjects in research as both “beginning at implantation.” (In fact, the “fetal” period does not begin until the beginning of the 9th week of development). In this example, then, there is no embryo at all – through 8 weeks, in vivo or in vitro, sexually or asexually reproduced – gone! And all women (rather than just those undergoing IVF or ART) become pregnant only at implantation; before that they are not “pregnant” (and therefore, the use of abortifacients, embryo flushing, prenatal genetic diagnosis, as well as all manner of human embryo research, are “ethical”). Or, one can add to specific stages of early human embryonic development. In a more recent example, the order of scientific terms that should inclusively mean the embryo at all of its various early stages is shifted. Listing the term “embryo” after them, as if what came before was not an embryo, makes the embryo during those earliest of phases of development essentially disappear. Thus we have this following subtle but spurious “pre-embryo substitute” which for all the world sounds very pro-life: Embryos are no different in their essential humanity from a fetus in the womb, a 10-year old boy, or a 100-year old woman. At every stage of development, human beings (whether  zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, infant, adolescent or adult) retain their identity as an enduring being that grows toward its subsequent stage(s); embryos are integral beings structured for maturation along their proper time line. So, to the casual observer, by adding the term “embryo” after the terms “zygote” and “blastocyst” – followed by “fetus,” “infant,” etc. – it would appear that the “zygote” and the “blastocyst” are something other than an “embryo” – i.e., not yet an embryo, not yet a human being (much less a human person). (Not to mention that the embryo formed at first contact, the “penetrated oocyte” and the “ootid” are not even listed). And importantly also, it would seem then that only embryos (which apparently doesn’t include the embryo at its earliest phases of development) “are integral beings structured for maturation along their proper time line,” etc. – and not also “zygotes” and “blastocysts.” Again, one can make a “pre-embryo substitute” by articulating only one kind of human reproduction. For example, one can claim that all human beings begin to exist at “fertilization” or at “conception.” But by definition, that makes all human beings reproduced asexually disappear (which would include one of every set of naturally occurring human monozygotic twins in vivo, and all human embryo reproduced asexually using the various cloning techniques, genetic engineering, etc.). Perhaps the most daring, and most successful, “pre-embryo substitute” was concocted by human cloning and human embryonic stem cell researchers Irving Weissman, Michael West, et al. While the McCormick/Grobstein “pre-embryo” at least acknowledged that the immediate product of fertilization is a human being (it is just not a human person), for these researchers the immediate product of both sexual and asexual human reproduction is “just a cell” – not a human being, not a human organism, not a human embryo. And the “blastocyst” from which “stem cells” are derived is simply “a ball of cells.” These researchers also concocted another way to get rid of the human embryo – in fact, they got rid of the human embryo and the human fetus – by making a false distinction between “therapeutic” and “reproductive” cloning. They claimed that the product of “therapeutic cloning” was just a bunch of cells; the product of “reproductive cloning” was a human being – but not until it was born! They also enjoyed defining “cloning” only in terms of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) – thus making all of the other dozens of kinds of human cloning techniques disappear. Or, one can make other kinds of cloning techniques “disappear” linguistically by including in one definition what is really part of another cloning technique that they want to divert attention from. For example, it has been claimed that the product of SCNT is an “identical twin” of the donor (which is erroneous because of the “foreign” mitochondrial DNA left over in the enucleated oocyte used). But the real product of SCNT or GLNT (germ line nuclear transfer) is thus genetically unique (which has serious implications for patients when injecting them with “stem cells” from such cloned embryos – even if the donor cell is from the same patient). But by using the term “identical twin,” the writers thus conflate the SCNT cloning technique with the “twinning” technique (i.e., blastomere separation, blastocyst splitting, embryo multiplication, etc.) – used now for many years in IVF/ART as “infertility treatments.” Thus to the “average” reader, SCNT and “twinning” are the same. Indeed, such “pre-embryos” and “pre-embryo substitutes” as noted above are particularly useful in laws and regulations involving the early human embryo, because often such innovative and imaginative but false scientific terms used in legal definitions are legally “exclusionary” – and thus create useful legal loopholes. It’s enough to make our collective heads spin! Yet very few on either side of the aisles have been paying attention – for several decades now. 4. Correct Formation of Conscience As noted, this linguistic abuse of language concerning the early human embryo is an on-going concern, and ever new, inventive and imaginative “pre-embryo substitutes” appear almost on a daily basis. This is why it is important to be aware of and acknowledge the long-established and documented empirical facts of human embryology, for before long we will not even be able to define scientifically that point in time when we should start “safeguarding life from its very beginning.” The scientific terms or concepts that we use will have lost all meaning and relationship to reality. And as Pope John Paul II has also warned, these linguistic twists of scientific terms and concepts have already had a devastating effect on the correct formation of conscience: The end result of this is tragic: not only is the fact of the destruction of so many human lives still to be born or in their final stage extremely grave and disturbing, but no less grave and disturbing is the fact that conscience itself, darkened as it were by such widespread conditioning, is finding it increasingly difficult to distinguish between good and evil in what concerns the basic value of human life. ... [W]e need now more than ever to have the courage to look the truth in the eye and to call things by their proper name, without yielding to convenient compromises or to the temptation of self-deception. ... Perhaps this linguistic phenomenon is itself a symptom of an uneasiness of conscience. But no word has the power to change the reality of things. (Pope John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 1995, pars. 4 and 58) Hopefully the long-known, long-documented and continuously updated accurate empirical starting point for determining when a human being begins to exist – such as those found in the Carnegie Stages and incorporated in professionally responsible human embryology and related scientific textbooks – will not be abandoned by professionals in the field of human embryology. Nothing but utter chaos would ensue. But perhaps that is the goal. [For more detailed references, see Irving: -- “Human Embryology and Church Teachings” (September 15, 2008) -- “The Carnegie Stages of Early Human Embryonic Development: Chart of all 23 Stages, and Detailed Descriptions of Carnegie Stages 1 – 6” (April 22, 2006) -- “Framing the Debates on Human Cloning and Human Embryonic Stem Cells: Pluripotent vs. TOTIPOTENT” (July 23, 2005) -- “Definitions of a “human organism” and a “human cell” (Oct. 3, 2004) -- “What Human Embryo? Funniest Mental Gymnastics from Medicine and Research” (Oct. 14, 2004) -- “Analysis of Legislative and Regulatory Chaos in the U.S.: Asexual Human Reproduction and Genetic Engineering” (Oct. 20, 2004), -- "The Impact of 'Scientific Misinformation' on Other Fields: Philosophy, Theology, Biomedical Ethics, Public Policy,” Accountability in Research, April 1993, 2(4):243-272]   http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2648 2009-06-23 13:07:00 By Debi Vinnedge In November 2007, two scientists Dr. Shinya Yamanaka and Dr. James Thomson published their studies describing a new stem cell technique that produced embryonic-like stem cells by simply reprogramming adult skin cells.[1]  Immediately, several bioethicists and pro-life leaders touted the iPS – or “induced pluripotent stem” cells to be an ethical alternative to embryonic stem cell research and human cloning.  For if one could produce embryonic stem cells without destroying innocent human beings that would end the ethics debates once and for all. Or would it? Some have noted that the reprogramming methods were quite simple, but in reality the science is fairly complicated for the average reader to understand.  Perhaps that is just what some of the pundits were counting on, because unless one is skilled at recognizing the red flags raised in this research, they would never discover the dark secrets no one wants the pro-lifer community or politicians to know.  And so we will take you through this gently, in layman’s terms. Both studies involved introducing genes into adult stem cells through what is known as a “lentivirus”.  A lentivirus in and of itself is a serious safety quagmire since by definition it is a slow moving virus that persistently infects the target cells, often causing fatal diseases years after the initial infection. The HIV virus is an example of a well-known lentivirus that may take several years to progress into AIDS.  However, since the lentivirus, was a highly effective method of delivering the needed DNA to the target adult skin cells for reprogramming them to an embryonic state, scientists figured they would tackle the safety hazards in latter experiments. So just how did this lentivirus produce the miraculous effect of turning an adult stem cell into an embryonic one?  Now think about it – this isn’t magic, folks: How could a cell that is taken from a 20 year old suddenly return to an embryonic state?  In order to do that, the host adult skin cell would have to receive a huge influx of younger DNA that would cause the aged cells to regress in age.  Sort of like injecting a veritable “fountain of youth” into the cells, because this DNA is normally only active in embryonic or fetal cells.  So, literally, a 20 year-old skin cell was coerced into activating genes not used since fetal life, and it became embryonic again, but not without the same host of problems inherent with all embryonic stem cells as you will shortly discover. And just where did researchers obtain that DNA?  Why, from embryonic and aborted fetal cell lines of course!  Scientists used a technique known as PCR, or Polymerase Chain Reaction.  PCR is technique that allows production of large quantities of specific DNA using a simple enzyme reaction. The embryonic and/or aborted fetal DNA was "spliced" or added into the lentivirus DNA, which then delivered it to the adult skin cells.  As the aged cells’ DNA mingled with the new DNA and continued to replicate in petri dishes in the lab, they literally reversed their aging process to the embryonic state.  And voila!  Embryonic stem cells developed from the modified adult stem cells. Researchers then claimed that these newly transformed cells would be genetically identical to the patient whose adult skin cell was modified, thereby eliminating problems with immune rejection.  This was in fact, the main purpose of so-called “therapeutic” cloning, whereby scientists claimed to produce genetically identical embryos for the purpose of harvesting patient specific stem cells. However, nothing could be further from the truth in either method. In human cloning, the nucleus of a donor egg is replaced with the nucleus of an adult stem cell through a method called “somatic cell nuclear transfer.”  But, since only the nucleus of the egg is removed, residual mitochondrial DNA from the donor egg is still present in the newly formed embryo. With the reprogramming method, foreign DNA from both the lentivirus and embryonic or fetal cells are also present in the newly formed iPS cells.  So, not only are there still immune rejection problems, scientists noted that just like embryonic stem cells, the iPS cells formed teratomas and cancerous tumors, another “little” annoyance they promised to deal with later. So exactly where did the researchers get those aborted fetal and embryonic stem cells?  Different scientists used different sources, but the primary aborted fetal material used was HEK-293, that is, Human Embryonic Kidney, specimen number 293, as well as modified versions of this cell line, named PLAT-A, PLAT-E, 293FT and Phoenix cells. Dr. Alex Van der Eb, of the Netherlands, obtained HEK from an electively aborted baby, and according to Van der Eb during 2001 FDA hearings, the information on the original abortion “was lost” and all he could remember was that it was a healthy fetus. He noted that the lack of family history also made HEK questionable for FDA standards of safety.[2]  In addition to using the HEK cells, Dr. Thomson obtained his DNA sequences from human embryonic stem cells, some of which were part of President Bush’s federally funded stem cell lines. Further, Thomson tested his reprogramming method using IMR-90 aborted fetal cell line, which was taken from the lung tissue of a 16-week gestation female baby. IMR-90 is a designer cell line specially produced by the NIH and Coriell Cell Repository as a future replacement for aborted fetal cell line WI-38, which is currently used in vaccine production.[3] In February, 2008, two more studies were published on reprogramming adult stem cells: the first by UCLA’s Dr. Kathrin Plath, using neonatal foreskin cells; the second by Dr. Yamanaka, using mouse liver and stomach cells, in which he claimed to overcome the problem of tumor formation. Interestingly enough, while none of his mice developed tumors, he admitted that several of them died for “unknown reasons.”  Once again, both scientists used aborted fetal cell lines as their DNA source and in addition, Plath then cultured her reprogrammed foreskin cells on embryonic stem cells. [4]  Since then, several more published studies continue to rely on both aborted fetal and embryonic stem cells in order to accomplish the reprogramming.  Well, why not?  After all, no one is complaining! For despite the fact that the truth about the origins of the DNA has been revealed, many pro-life leaders are still salivating over this research as a means of ending the “need” for human cloning. But their reasoning falls short for several moral reasons.  First, they argue that because the embryos and aborted children have already been destroyed, it is morally acceptable to use those cell lines. While it is quite true that the scientists involved in the reprogramming research may or may not have directly destroyed some of the embryos they used or participated in the original abortions, they did use cell lines taken from human beings that were deliberately destroyed specifically for research purposes.  And both the Vatican and the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops (USCCB) have condemned such practices: In their statement, Declaration on the Production and the Scientific and Therapeutic Use of Human Embryonic Stem Cells, the Pontifical Academy for Life answers the question: "Is it morally licit to use ES [embryonic stem] cells, and the differentiated cells obtained from them, which are supplied by other researchers or are commercially obtainable? "The answer is negative, since: Prescinding from the participation – formal or otherwise – in the morally illicit intention of the principal agent, the case in question entails a proximate material cooperation in the production and manipulation of human embryos on the part of those producing or supplying them" (Libreria Editrice Vaticana, p. 17). In addition, the USCCB posted their response to President Bush’s August 2001 decision to provide federal funding for only those embryonic stem cells in which the embryos had already been destroyed.  They noted especially both the above citation from the PAFL and the following from Donum Vitae (Instruction on Respect for Human Life In its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation: Replies to Certain Questions of the Day, Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1987): "To use human embryos or fetuses as the object or instrument of experimentation constitutes a crime against their dignity as human beings having a right to the same respect that is due to the child already born and to every human person...The corpses of human embryos and fetuses, whether they have been deliberately aborted or not, must be respected just as the remains of other human beings...Furthermore, the moral requirements must be safeguarded, that there be no complicity in deliberate abortion and that the risk of scandal be avoided" (I.4). "It is a duty to condemn the particular gravity of the voluntary destruction of human embryos obtained 'in vitro' for the sole purpose of research..." (I.5).[5] Clearly, there is nothing morally permissible in what these scientists have done, and thus one might assume that if our pro-life leaders knew how the reprogramming was accomplished, they would not have spoken out in favor of this research.  However, that is not necessarily the case.  Donum Vitae, an official Vatican instruction discussed direct use of the embryo or fetus. For example, taking tissue directly from an aborted baby and transplanting it was clearly defined as illicit. The Pontifical Academy for Life, which is considered a guideline, rather than an instruction, discussed using the cell lines that are produced from embryonic or fetal remains.  Because there was no official teaching on these cell lines some ethicists felt it would be morally permissible to use these cell lines in research since the scientists were not directly involved with the destruction of the embryos or fetuses. In fact, this is exactly what happened when Georgetown University scientists were using existing aborted fetal cell lines in government-sponsored research programs.[6]   And it is similar to what happened with arguments about the production of vaccines from aborted fetal remains, where researchers deliberately destroyed unborn children specifically for vaccine development.[7]   In embryonic stem cell research, the embryo is destroyed when scientists extract the stem cells from the blastocyst.  In aborted fetal research, the abortions are pre-planned and arranged for immediate harvesting and preservation of organs and tissues.  Subsequently, cell lines are produced from the remains.  In both cases, once the cell lines are developed, they are then patented and frozen for future use in the hope of one day producing viable therapies and medical products.  In iPS cell research, in order to prove their findings, scientists must use  embryonic stem cells as a control comparison in order to validate that the newly created iPS cells are indeed embryonic-like. Thus, embryonic stem cells are an inherent part of both the reprogramming and the control studies. In the April 2008 Ethics and Medics publication, Fr. Tadeusz Pacholczyk of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, in commenting on the new iPS experiments pronounced the source of the reprogrammed cells to be “ethically pristine” and that the new reprogrammed stem cells “were produced without destroying or using any human embryos.” There are two problems with this assertion.  First, the “source” – that is the original adult stem cell - was the only thing that was “ethically pristine,” as it came from a living adult donor.  However, the source of the DNA used to reprogram those cells was from immoral sources, as was the finished product since it was dependent on using cells from deliberately destroyed human embryos and aborted fetuses.  The second problem is the assertion that the reprogrammed cell lines "were produced without destroying or using any human embryos."  In fact, the scientists do not say whether or not they did in fact use new embryos in some parts of the research.  But in any case, they did use existing aborted fetal and embryonic stem cell lines, meaning that someone else conveniently did the killing while these scientists reaped the benefits. And while many would say this was clearly wrong, others still felt it was morally permissible as long as there was sufficient distance between the actual destruction of innocent human beings and the researchers using the cell lines in present day research. Clearly, a definitive Church teaching was needed as confusion abounded. Finally, in December 2008, the Holy See was about to end all dispute on the matter. In its new instruction from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith entitled Dignitas Personae, they emphatically asserted that the use of these "illicit biological materials" is prohibited. "A different situation is created when researchers use 'biological material' of illicit origin which has been produced apart from their research center or which has been obtained commercially...In this regard, the criterion of independence as it has been formulated by some ethics committees is not sufficient. According to this criterion, the use of 'biological material' of illicit origin would be ethically permissible provided there is a clear separation between those who, on the one hand, produce, freeze and cause the death of embryos and, on the other, the researchers involved in scientific experimentation. The criterion of independence is not sufficient to avoid a contradiction in the attitude of the person who says that he does not approve of the injustice perpetrated by others, but at the same time accepts for his own work the 'biological material' which the others have obtained by means of that injustice...Therefore, it needs to be stated that there is a duty to refuse to use such 'biological material' even when there is no close connection between the researcher and the actions of those who performed the ...abortion." End of discussion, case closed.  Or is it?  In the second article in the same issue of Ethics and Medics noted above, Richard Doerflinger of the USCCB Pro-Life Secretariat provides further insight as to why some may be falling silent on the not so “pristine” methods that were used in the reprogramming, stating that the research “may affect the fortune of several pieces of legislation now before Congress.”  He cited the Human Cloning Prohibition Act and the Human Animal Hybrid Prohibition Act noting that it would be difficult to argue against the passage of these bills when there is now an “ethically sound alternative” in iPS cell research. And there you have it: Smoke and mirrors.  If attention can be averted toward using reprogrammed stem cells, there will be no need to advance embryonic stem cell research and human cloning. Unfortunately, that argument has already been tested with successful, moral adult stem cell therapies and has failed. Scientists will never agree to abandon immoral research especially if they can have the federal government funding it. Yet what is lurking around the corner may very well end the debate about using iPS cells to pacify those pushing embryonic stem cell research. Aside from the ethical problems presented here, another glaring concern in reprogramming a stem cell back to the so-called “iPS” or “pluripotent” state is that those cells are not just “pluripotent,” but in fact, could become or already may be “totipotent.” To explain: Pluripotent stem cells are those in the early embryonic stage that can form most of the cells, tissues and organs in the human body; totipotent cells can form all cells, tissues and organs – plus, they can form entirely new embryos, something that happens in natural reproduction when twins form.  So what was to stop scientists from reverting the cells a little further back in the development stages of an embryo to the totipotent stage, which could provide them with an unlimited supply of human embryos?  Nothing.  Coincidentally, in April 2008, the UK’s Independent broke the news story: "Now we have the technology that can make a cloned child," by Steve Connor, science editor, in which he describes how reprogrammed skin cells were used to produce cloned mice, and perhaps in the near future, cloned human beings.[8] Robert Lanza, of the American biotechnology company Advanced Cell Technology, admitted the technique was unethical and unsafe, but still noted that “the technology could be used to produce a child.”   The method was touted as extremely desirable for infertile couples since the embryo would be produced with biological material from both parents. "It raises the same issues as reproductive cloning and although the technology for reproductive cloning in humans doesn't exist, with this breakthrough we now have a working technology whereby anyone, young or old, fertile or infertile, straight or gay can pass on their genes to a child by using just a few skin cells," he said. The article describes the reprogramming method used and goes on to state: “Last year, when the breakthrough was used on human skin cells for the first time, it was lauded by the Catholic Church and President George Bush as a morally acceptable way of producing embryonic stem cells without having to create or destroy human embryos.” "At this point there are no laws or regulations for this kind of thing and the bizarre thing is that the Catholic Church and other traditional stem-cell opponents think this technology is great when in reality it could in the end become one of their biggest nightmares," he (Lanza) said. "It is quite possible that the real legacy of this whole new programming technology is that it will be introducing the era of designer babies.” So does the Catholic Church really think this is so great?  Hardly, because those in authority have not been informed as to what was really done in these studies. And lest one thinks that this latest rogue research is somehow confined to mad scientists in Great Britain, the National Institutes of Health recently awarded an $8.9 million dollar contract to scientists at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine, the Genome Center of Wisconsin, the Morgridge Institute for Research and the Medical College of Wisconsin to further both embryonic stem cell and iPS cell research.[9]  It will only be a matter of time before the procedure is used here in the U.S. for full-blown human cloning.  The truth is that if iPS cells are truly embryonic in nature, they will also carry the same dangers and clinical failures that have plagued embryonic stem cell research for years. Without question, if unwarranted focus is given to iPS cells, embracing this research as the panacea for the future, it will be utter folly for the pro-life camp. First of all, that's no better than proponents of embryonic stem cell research and so called "therapeutic cloning" who have given false hope to the weak, the vulnerable and the suffering by promising miraculous cures. And while the debates have, up to this point, focused primarily on the moral aspects, the only argument that can and does win the debate across political or moral or even medical ideology is the safety aspect. Because one can argue ethics until they are blue in the face, but one cannot argue against solid clinical results, which only exist in adult stem cell research. Meanwhile, those who have steered religious and political leaders to support reprogramming in hopes of diverting attention and funding from human cloning may find that such tactics could backfire. Not only does their silence denote acceptance of immoral and clinically useless research, but also, by omitting the truth, they are hampering funding efforts for actual patient cures in adult stem cell research. That is both a travesty of justice and, ironically, a pro-life defeat for those who have worked so hard to promote moral avenues of research. Worst of all, it is a devastating blow to patients awaiting cures. Debi Vinnedge is the founder and director of Children of God for Life, an American Life League Associate group. This article was published on Children of God for Life's web site (http://cogforlife.org) in January of this year, and is reprinted here with its kind permission. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] Dr. Yamanaka, "Induction of Pluripotent Stem Cells From Adult Human Fibroblasts By Defined Factors,"  Cell 131, 1-12, Nov. 30, 2007 and Dr. James Thomson, "Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell Lines Derived From Human Somatic Cells," Science, Dec. 2007.  [2] FDA Dockets, May 16, 2001. [3] Christine Beiswanger, Ph.D, Associate Professor, "A Brief History of IMR-90," Coriell Institute for Medical Research Newsletter, Cell Collections 2003-2004. [4] Lowry et al., "Generation of induced human pluripotent stem cells from dermal fibroblasts," Science, Feb. 26 2008, Vol. 105, No. 8. [5] United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, August 2001, "President Bush’s Stem Cell Decision." [6] www.cogforlife.org/georgetownrefuted.htm and Shanthi Manian, "Georgetown’s Doctrine of Medical Research," Georgetown Voice, April 4, 2003; and Elise Craig, "Fetal Cell Research Continues," Hoya, Georgetown News, Feb. 3, 2004. [7] L. Hayflick and P.S.Moorhead, "The Serial Cultivation of Human Diploid Cell Strains," Experimental Cell Research, 1961, 25, p. 618. [8]  Steve Connor, Independent, April 14, 2008. [9] Johnson, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, "NIH Grants Will Fund University of Wisconsin Stem Cell Research," August 6, 2008.   http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2646 2009-06-22 16:29:00 The International Planned Parenthood Federation has just released a document that espouses a right to sexual pleasure. I have asked Jim Sedlak, vice president of American Life League, who has been fighting Planned Parenthood for over 25 years, to comment on this document as today’s guest commentator. Here is what Jim had to say: In talks around the world over the last 25 years, I have always emphasized that Margaret Sanger's founding of Planned Parenthood was based on three underlying philosophies: uninhibited sexual activity to achieve unlimited sexual pleasure; birth control, including abortion, to achieve universal small family size; and eugenics to achieve a human race devoid of any dysgenic stock. In recent weeks, an event took place that was clearly calculated to advance the first of these above-listed philosophies, thus revealing that it is very much alive and well in Planned Parenthood today. That event is the International Planned Parenthood Federation's release of a document the news media is referring to as “the world's first declaration of sexual rights.” Specifically, the Inter Press Service reported the following on June 10, 2009: In an effort to promote the free enjoyment of human sexuality, separate from reproduction, the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) launched the world's first declaration of sexual rights in the Argentine capital on Wednesday. "We want states to commit themselves to protecting these rights, and for the United Nations to adopt them in future meetings," Carmen Barroso, IPPF regional director for the Western hemisphere, told IPS. "Sexual Rights: An IPPF Declaration," the result of two years' work by a multi-disciplinary team, proposes that "sexuality is an essential part of our humanity," and that its free expression "is a component of human rights." The Declaration espouses "the entitlement to experience and enjoy sexuality independent of reproduction." So, here you have Planned Parenthood clearly stating what we have known to be its intent since its beginning: that the act of sex, in and of itself, without regard for its procreative powers, should be recognized as a “right to pleasure.” IPPF elaborates on this in its 29-page document, Sexual rights: an IPPF declaration,  when it states in Principle 4, Sexuality is not merely a vehicle for individuals to satisfy their reproductive interests. The entitlement to experience and enjoy sexuality independent of reproduction, and reproduction independent of sexuality should be safeguarded, paying particular attention to those who, historically and in the present, are denied such an entitlement. All persons are entitled to the conditions that enable the pursuit of a pleasurable sexuality. Pleasure is based on individual and relational autonomy, for which the existence of public policies on sexuality education, health services, freedom from coercion and violence, as well as the development of a field of ethics on issues of justice, equality and liberty must be ensured. Given that pleasure is an intrinsic aspect of sexuality, the right to seek, express and determine when to experience it must not be denied to anyone. It is clear, then, that Planned Parenthood believes that due to the stage it has reached in its own development and the world's current moral climate, the time is right to brazenly proclaim this “right” to sexual pleasure as a goal for everyone. Of course, in typical fashion, Planned Parenthood doesn’t see these rights as being just for mature adults. The IPS article quoted above also contains the following: [IPPF’s] Barroso,  an expert on sexual and reproductive health, said human rights in general gained ground in the mid-20th century, and expanded in the 1990s with the recognition of children's rights. In the mid-1990s, the U.N. affirmed reproductive rights, "but sexuality was tagged on as an afterthought," she said. "People talked about sexual and reproductive rights, but in fact they meant reproductive rights only," she said. In 1995 at the World Conference on Women in Beijing, sexual rights were introduced in the negative, as "women's right not to suffer harm, violence or coercion" in sexual intercourse, she said. "It was a step forward, but no one talked about the positive right to sexual pleasure, which is only now beginning to be discussed," she said. "That's why the IPPF is offering this Declaration as a tool for progress toward a specific concept of sexual rights." The Declaration also recognises the sexual rights of persons under 18, who need individual protection based on the idea of their "evolving capacity to exercise rights on their own behalf." According to this idea, parental authority eases off as young people progressively gain in decision-making autonomy. In addition, the Declaration says that "all persons are entitled to the pursuit of a pleasurable sexuality." In this document, Planned Parenthood takes the position that young children have the so-called right to sexual pleasure  when it says this: IPPF understands that the rights and protections guaranteed to people under age eighteen, as a matter of international and national law, sometimes differ from the rights of adults. These differences relate to all aspects of human rights but require particular approaches in regard to sexual rights. IPPF begins from the premise that persons under eighteen are rights holders, and that at different points within the spectrum of infancy, childhood, and adolescence, certain rights and protections will have greater or lesser relevance. Under Article 5 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, it is stated that the direction and guidance provided by parents or others with responsibility for the child must take into account the capacities of the child to exercise rights on his or her own behalf. The concept of evolving capacity of children requires a balance between recognizing children as active agents in their own lives entitled to be respected as citizens, as people and as rights-bearers with increasing autonomy, while also being entitled to protection in accordance with their vulnerability. The concept recognizes that the levels of protection from participation in activities likely to cause children harm will diminish in accordance with their evolving capacity. In addition, the principle of evolving capacity combines respect for children, their dignity and entitlement to protection from all forms of harm, while also acknowledging the value of their own contribution towards their protection. Societies must create environments in which children can achieve their optimal capacities and where greater respect is given to their potential for participation in, and responsibility for, decision-making in their own lives. Several key principles govern the interrelationship between children’s rights and other interests. Among these are: the view of persons under 18 as rights holders; the best interests of the child; the evolving capacities of the child; non-discrimination; and the responsibility for ensuring conditions for thriving. In the context of sexual rights, these principles require an individualized approach, informed by demonstration of maturity and consideration of particular circumstances, such as the specific child or adolescent’s understanding, activities, physical or mental health status, relationship with parents or other interested parties, the power relations among those involved, and the nature of the issue at hand. The key to understanding all this bureaucrat-speak is the last sentence. Let’s restate that line and add some emphasis in the form of underlining: In the context of sexual rights, these principles require an individualized approach, informed by demonstration of maturity and consideration of particular circumstances, such as the specific child or adolescent’s understanding, activities, physical or mental health status, relationship with parents or other interested parties, the power relations among those involved, and the nature of the issue at hand. What this means is that your child will not be safe from this ideology. For example, if Planned Parenthood can convince a judge that your child is mature and that the child is being stifled because of the Christian morality you are attempting to impose on his or her life, then the judge can declare your child to be emancipated in the area of attaining sexual pleasure. It means that that once the attainment of sexual pleasure is declared a right, you will be helpless to enforce any rules restricting your minor child’s sexual activity. Perhaps a final quote from the main IPPF document will drive this point home. Planned Parenthood says, All persons have the right to be recognized before the law and to sexual freedom, which encompasses the opportunity for individuals to have control and decide freely on matters related to sexuality, to choose their sexual partners, to seek to experience their full sexual potential and pleasure, within a framework of nondiscrimination and with due regard to the rights of others and to the evolving capacity of children. With this latest document, Planned Parenthood has declared war on our children and on traditional God-given morality. It is doing everything it can to get government approval for leading our children into lives of sexual sin. We must recognize this for what it is: an all-out effort to steal the souls of our children and lead them into lifestyles that will end with an eternity in hell. We dare not be silent.   http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2645 2009-06-22 09:03:00 The guest commentary today was written by Dr. Donald DeMarco and was originally published in American Life League's bimonthly magazine, Celebrate Life (March-April 2009). Dr. DeMarco is professor emeritus at St. Jerome’s University in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, and an adjunct professor at Holy Apostles College and Seminary in Cromwell, Connecticut as well as Mater Ecclesiae College in Greenville, Rhode Island. He is also the author of 22 books and a corresponding member of the Pontifical Academy for Life.   In his final debate with Senator McCain, Barack Obama declared, in his usual emphatic manner, “No one is pro-abortion.” Obama has an idealized notion of human beings (Republicans excepted), while perhaps feigning ignorance of what is really going on. Behind Obama’s declaration is the seemingly plausible hypothesis that no woman would ever get pregnant for the sole purpose of having an abortion. The grim facts, nevertheless, refute this hypothesis. Aborting for bonus money Consider the current situation in Australia. In an attempt to reverse the country’s plummeting birthrate, the government of Australia pays women $5,000 for each successful birth, as reported by LifeSiteNews.com (October 23, 2008).  It also awards that same amount, on “compassionate” grounds, in the case of a stillbirth. However, since late-term abortions are registered as stillbirths, a woman choosing an abortion at this time in her pregnancy is also eligible for the $5,000. As a result, according to the Australia Associated Press, some women routinely conceive for the purpose of aborting late-term in order to collect the bonus money. One woman is reported to have had three such abortions.   ‘Beautiful’ abortion The Australian example is by no means unique. On February 1, 2002, LifeSiteNews.com reported that some female athletes were deliberately getting pregnant and having early abortions in order to improve muscle strength. In “The Choices,” an article appearing in the January/February 1994 issue of Mother Jones, a writer identifying herself as “D. Redman” confesses that she felt “almost heroic” after obtaining a chemical abortion because the procedure was then experimental and thus made her a pioneer for other women. “At last,” she writes, “the blood I’ve been praying for. I look at the women around me and think how beautiful we are in our rebellion…” Abortion as religion, art and entertainment Also consider Ginette Paris’ book, The Sacrament of Abortion, in which, from a purely pagan perspective, she describes abortion as sacred. Similarly, Brenda Peterson, writing for New Age Journal (“Sister Against Sister: Re-Thinking Abortion Rhetoric,” September/October 1993) refers to abortion as a “sacrament” and a “sacred act of compassion.” Cold and callous indifference for unborn human life may have reached its absolute zero in the “art” project of Yale University student Aliza Shvarts. On April 17, 2008, the Yale Daily News reported that Ms. Shvarts claimed to have artificially inseminated herself over a nine-month period “as often as possible” and then induced miscarriages by means of herbal abortifacient pills. The filmed record of her activities (we cannot be too specific here) constitutes her senior thesis presentation. The April 18, 2008 Yale Daily News reported that the Yale Women’s Center defended Shvarts, stating, “Aliza Shvarts’ body is an instrument over which she should be free to exercise full discretion.”  The New York Times (November 10, 1985) reported that two abortions were committed on women at a feminist conference in Barcelona, Spain. When the bottled remains of the babies were presented to the audience of 3,000 feminists, according to Times reporter Edward Schumacher, “The hall rocked with cheers.” Indeed, there are women who are truly pro-abortion in the sense of getting pregnant for the sole purpose of having an abortion. They do it for money, to gain a competitive edge, because they think it is a sacrament or a sacred act, for art’s sake or for the feminist cause. A spreading plague Abortion has radically dehumanized and devalued preborn babies. It has engendered attitudes of cold-heartedness, narcissism and violence. Who knows how far this contagion will continue to spread, how many people it will affect and in how many ways? Abortion is an evil, and it is the nature of evil to spread until it is checked. It is an unleashing of death that spreads like a plague throughout society in increasingly sinister ways. Abortion is a choice for death, and its long shadow haunts all of us. In his 1968 novel, Couples, John Updike was being more prophetic than he realized when he noted the after-effects of abortion: “Death, once invited in, leaves his muddy boot prints everywhere.” Commenting on this episode in the novel, in which a character procures an abortion, constitutional lawyer John T. Noonan, Jr. writes, “Symbolically the abortion seals a course of infidelity. Conclusively it becomes death personified.” (How to Argue About Abortion, published by the Ad Hoc Committee in Defense of Life, 1974) There is no middle ground between birth and abortion. The proper response to abortion is not to seek a middle ground that does not exist, but to end abortion and, in so doing, end the evils that follow in its wake. http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2640 2009-06-15 13:40:00 The furor over the July 1 deadline facing Sean Cardinal O’Malley, of the Archdiocese of Boston, has been newsworthy for many weeks. Meanwhile, however, the clock is ticking and the fear is that Caritas Christi’s agreement with CeltiCare will go into effect with nary a whimper from the decision makers at the chancery. That would indeed be a tragedy of no small proportions. As we said in our statement of this past Friday, While Catholics and pro-lifers around the country await a definitive statement from the Archdiocese of Boston indicating that it will not participate in or facilitate abortions or other procedures contrary to Catholic teaching, Cardinal O’Malley’s latest statement raises even more questions. The archdiocese has acknowledged that an agreement has been reached with Celtic Group, Inc. – a subsidiary of St. Louis-based Centene Corporation – for a joint healthcare venture. We know that CeltiCare includes abortion and “family planning services” in its coverage and has promised to continue this policy after July 1. The archdiocese’s statement also acknowledged that the agreement requires modification. This is a positive step, but certainly not acceptable as a final answer. What is disconcerting is that Cardinal O’Malley and the Boston archdiocese have thus far failed to clearly explain how abortion and “family planning services” will not occur in Catholic healthcare facilities. The terms of CeltiCare’s contract with the state government specifically require coverage for abortions and other “reproductive health” services. How then could Caritas Christi – which owns 49 percent of the for-profit CeltiCare – justify its involvement and direct connection with this business while adhering to the Catholic Church’s unequivocal teachings on abortion, contraception and sterilization? Even if patients seeking abortions or contraception will be outsourced to a third-party referral service, this does not remove the archdiocese’s culpability for involvement in procedures that violate the Church’s fundamental moral teachings. Most concerning of all is the following quote from Mr. Ralph de la Torre, president of Caritas Christi: ‘When a patient seeks such a procedure, Caritas health care professionals will be clear that (a) the hospital does not perform them and (b) the patient must turn to his or her insurance for further guidance’ [emphasis added]. Boston Catholic commentator Carol McKinley responded well to this statement:  When the patient “turns to his or her insurance company,” they are “turning” to the “HMO” [of] which the Cardinal and Caritas are co-owners, [CeltiCare]. Therefore, the Cardinal and Caritas are providing these services… With the exception of removing family planning, abortion, sterilization, embryonic stem cell research and other moral evils covered under the HMO the Cardinal has an ownership interest in, there is no conceivable modification to the arrangement that could ever be in compliance with Catholic moral teaching. Incrementally separating the Boston archdiocese from committing an abortion or from the provision of contraception, sterilization and other such ‘services’ does not negate the fact that, through this agreement, Catholic hospitals will ultimately be referring mothers to abortion and/or contraception facilities such as Planned Parenthood, if the deal between Caritas Christi and CeltiCare remains as it is now written. Cardinal O’Malley can stop this today with one word. We beg Cardinal O’Malley and the Boston archdiocese to prevent yet another scandal by providing a clear defense of Catholic moral teaching, rather than a pact driven far more by financial interests than fidelity to the Catholic faith. Further, McKinley, who is no stranger to controversy or making sure all the facts add up, wrote this last Saturday:  Can a Catholic Cardinal bid on a contract that includes performing abortions, give written assurances they will either perform them or contract with people outside of their network to perform them, create an entity to send the women to the abortionists and take 49% ownership in that entity who then hires subcontractors to perform abortions, hires bilingual phone operators who will give the woman the number of the abortionists they've subcontracted, tell their employees at the hospital to give the number out of their 49% owned corporation? What level of ownership interest can they take in the set up that would make the arrangement consistent with the Gospel of Life and Catholic theology? After they have set this all up, can they then submit a revision of a partnership agreement to reduce their interests to 3% ownership in the arrangement? 1% ownership in the arrangement? After you bid on a contract that compels you to promise to perform abortions and you promise in writing to perform them - what is the structure in a corporation that the Cardinal can claim his arrangement meets compliance with Catholic ethics? When the Cardinal placed members of NARAL as his Advisory Board Members in his new business venture, what kind of advice to you suppose he is seeking? What are the ramifications of such advice? McKinley and the majority of those concerned about this grave situation in the Boston archdiocese have asked how, in God’s name, this agreement with the secular corporate structure of CeltiCare could possibly concur with the teachings of the Catholic Church, as set forth in Humanae Vitae and Evangelium Vitae. Try as we might, we cannot find a statement in either encyclical letter that justifies accepting a little bit of evil in exchange for an allegedly greater good. As a matter of fact, Pope John Paul II taught,  The moral conscience, both individual and social, is today subjected, also as a result of the penetrating influence of the media, to an extremely serious and mortal danger: that of confusion between good and evil, precisely in relation to the fundamental right to life. The condition the Holy Father described is so evident in so many corners of the culture today that we have to ask ourselves if perhaps, in his quest to aid the poor and needy in his archdiocese, the cardinal and his advisors felt pressured into making this deal for altruistic reasons. Perhaps they feel compelled to act without seriously considering the questions we and so many others have raised. While serving the poor is indeed a noble goal, this plan’s consequences are so serious that we have adamantly called for a reexamination of the agreement and dissolution of the contract before July 1. Phil Lawler, a well-known Catholic commentator and reporter, examined the matter and wrote, While pro-life activists in Boston have pleaded for Caritas Christi to withdraw from the CeltiCare initiative, abortion advocates have also been watching the situation closely and demanding reassurance that the new state-funded agency will impose no restrictions on access to abortion. The efforts of abortion advocates-- unlike those of pro-life activists-- have been successful. The Boston Globe reported:  Brian Delaney, a spokesman for CeltiCare, said an abortion rights group, NARAL Pro-Choice of Massachusetts, will serve on an advisory group for the health plan but he did not know whether any Catholic groups would be on the panel. Boston archdiocesan officials have stressed that no abortions will be performed at the hospitals of the Caritas Christi chain. That claim is not in dispute. The question is whether Caritas Christi, through its partnership in CelticCare, will provide-- and perhaps even profit from-- abortions performed at other facilities. CeltiCare advertisements indicate that Planned Parenthood will be enlisted to provide "reproductive services." The bottom line is that NARAL and Planned Parenthood’s involvement is the proverbial straw that has finally broken the camel’s back and thus the Archdiocese of Boston is officially ending the charade. But, as of this moment, neither the word “abortion” nor the abortion cartel’s involvement have been mentioned in a single archdiocesan document or statement. How can that be? What is it going to take for the Archdiocese of Boston’s officials to take definitive action? Please keep them in your prayers and continue to communicate your concerns to them. The clock is ticking; the hour is late; the Boston Massacre of 2009 could be just around the corner ... CONTACT: Cardinal Sean O’Malley, OFM, Cap. Cardinal Archbishop of Boston Office of the Cardinal 66 Brooks Drive Braintree, MA 02184-3839 617-782-2544 http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2638 2009-06-12 08:42:00 A friend reminded me of some rather startling numbers that I would like to share with you.  According to a 2002 report, one man was fined $2,500 for taking paddlefish eggs out of the state of Oklahoma. In addition to the fine, the individual could have spent 450 days in jail for smuggling the eggs. Felony violations involving the destruction of various endangered species and their eggs, according to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act can amount to as much as $250,000 in fees for individuals and $500,000 for corporations and up to six months in prison. A violation of the Eagle Act can result in a fine of up to $100,000 and imprisonment of up to one year. Penalties for subsequent offenses are significantly higher.  In all three of the examples provided, we are talking about laws that are on the books in our nation and are designed to protect the rights of wildlife including those belonging to endangered species.  These are, I hasten to point out, not considered crimes against human beings, but rather crimes against various types of birds and animals. Now compare these fines with those leveled against individuals who kill children who reside in the womb, in a Petri dish, or are newly conceived and on their way to implanting themselves.  Regardless of which category of preborn child you consider, there are no fines and there is no jail time to be served when one of them is killed.  If this doesn’t make sense to you, then we are on the same page.  But the point I want to make in this regard is far more serious than merely the incongruity of our laws when it comes to protecting wildlife versus protecting innocent human beings.  What we have in America right now is a legal system that places more value on a bird’s egg or a fish’s egg, than on a human being’s life.  Because of this disconnect with logic and common sense, very bad things happen, and they are happening in our communities on a daily basis. Take the case of the child found in a dumpster in Las Vegas on Wednesday of this week.  “Investigators think the child was between the age of 18 months and [two] years old. The coroner says the baby's death is the result of a homicide.”  In other words, this child was brutally murdered by someone.  At this time, “Detectives want to question 20-year-old Darrean Williams and 37-year-old William Marshall. Police believe Williams is the mother of the child and Marshall is her boyfriend.” Consider the case of the five Arizona police officers who are currently on paid leave because a criminal probe is being conducted following the flushing of a preborn child down a toilet.  Yes, that’s right.  Four officers responded to a call of a possible miscarriage Monday at the Motel 6 in Mesa where they arrested a man on suspicion of drug-related offenses and discovered a woman in the room apparently had miscarried a [four]-inch fetus that was an estimated 12 to 14 weeks old, according to [Police Chief] Gascón. Although both Mesa fire and police were present in the motel room, Lt. Lynn Young told the officers and fire personnel over the phone not to take the fetus but to flush it down the toilet, according to Gascón. Since this child was, according to our laws, not considered to be a full-fledged person, will the policemen go on about their daily lives as if nothing had happened?  Will any charges be recommended in this case?  Nobody knows at this point.  The question in my mind is whether or not the public will want to know what would have possessed anyone to tell the officers to flush a preborn human being down the toilet rather than give him a proper burial.  My guess is nobody will care! Finally there’s the case of Arnold Ross, a Louisiana teen charged with rape and the murder of an infant.  The report explains that Ross is suspected of having raped the eight-month-old baby boy Da-Von Lonzo and then beating the baby to death.  The investigation in this case is ongoing, but as Mary Ann Kreitzer, founder of Les Femmes – The Truth, so aptly observed in her blog when she wrote about this tragic case: The comments following the story express horror over what happened to this poor little baby. But I imagine some of the same individuals calling for the blood of the killer would describe themselves as pro-choice and excuse a similar crime provided the baby was murdered nine months earlier at eight months in utero. That's what George Tiller did every day: injected saline solution to scald babies and burn off their skin, stabbed them in the neck and sucked out their brains, thrust a needle full of digoxin into their hearts to stop its [sic] beating – his methods changed over the years, but all guaranteed delivery of a battered and dead baby. Yet Tiller is a hero to the pro-abortion mob while Ross, no doubt, they would consider a monster. Tiller didn't rape the babies; he performed a mechanical rape on their mothers using sterile instruments to violate the sanctuary of the uterus. But he, we are told, was a brave man wielding his murderous instruments against the little ones. He was eulogized at his funeral  as a "passionate and generous man who repeatedly overcame difficult challenges." A friend described him as "Mr. Enthusiasm," which was certainly true of his attitude toward killing children. Well, Mr. Enthusiasm, meet your philosophical twin, Arnold Ross, a young man raised in a culture that allows the dismembering of near term babies in utero. He never knew a time that pornography wasn't rampant, fornication wasn't encouraged, and child killing wasn't legal. He grew up in an age where liberal policies destroyed the black family driving fathers from the home, encouraging mothers to replace them with Uncle Sugar and his welfare checks. How can anyone be surprised when the young treat life as cheap and expendable? They've learned the lessons of the culture too well, perhaps. One can do whatever he likes and eliminate the consequences. The young find out too late that some killing is more equal than others. There's precious little difference between little Da-Von Lonzo and the babies killed at Tiller's abortuary – about ten pounds, in fact. But Tiller performed respectable murders that left him awash in money that he shared with liberal politicians. His politically correct killing filled Kathleen Sebelius' campaign chest and those of other liberal politicians. As the Bible says, "Love of money is the root of all evils" and it can buy a lot of approval from those who lust after it. As for me, I can't see much difference between George Tiller, mass child killer, and Arnold Ross, killer of one. They were philosophical twins. The pro-abortion "martyr" and the child abusing "monster" had more in common than our society is likely to admit. Kreitzer has hit the nail on the head.  And while, at this moment, we do not know what sort of sentence will be handed down in the case involving 17-year-old Arnold Ross, we do know that Da-Von is dead. And we also know that whether it is the Ross case, or the Mesa Arizona police case or the Las Vegas dumpster case, the bottom line is that we are living in a culture of violence.  For more than 36 years, America has denied that aborting a child prior to birth is the moral equivalent of murder; in fact many have glorified abortion as a human right and charged those who know otherwise with disrespectful, dishonest allegations such as fanaticism, terrorism and anti-feminism.  But the results of this disconnect between the price one has to pay for stealing a duck egg and the price one has to pay for killing a preborn child are all around us. It’s time America woke up and saw the brutality that is spawned on a daily basis by America’s violent culture; a culture dedicated to denial, betrayal and sexual saturation.  We are paying the price daily in human lives tossed on the trash heap of our inability to face reality. How many more will have to die?  http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2637 2009-06-11 13:38:00 On September 27, 2007, the Connecticut Catholic Conference announced its decision to allow the state’s Catholic hospitals to provide the morning-after pill, Plan B, for rape victims. A letter was issued by the three bishops: Archbishop Henry Mansell, Bishop Michael Cote and Bishop William Lori. At the time, the CCC issued a statement, which included these words: The four Catholic hospitals in the State of Connecticut remain committed to providing competent and compassionate care to victims of rape. In accordance with Catholic moral teaching, these hospitals provide emergency contraception after appropriate testing. Under the existing hospital protocols, this includes a pregnancy test and an ovulation test. Catholic moral teaching is adamantly opposed to abortion, but not to emergency contraception for victims of rape. This past spring the Governor signed into a law “An Act Concerning Compassionate Care for Victims of Sexual Assault,” passed by the State Legislature. It does not allow medical professionals to take into account the results of the ovulation test. The Bishops and other Catholic health care leaders believe that this law is seriously flawed, but not sufficiently to bar compliance with it at the present time. We continue to believe this law should be changed. At the time, the CCC argued that the Catholic Church’s magisterium “has not definitively resolved this matter and since there is serious doubt about how Plan B pills work, the Catholic Bishops of Connecticut have stated that Catholic hospitals in the State may follow protocols that do not require an ovulation test in the treatment of victims of rape.” In the aftermath of the CCC decision, American Life League, Human Life International and noted moral theologian Fr. Peter Damian Fehlner agreed that the CCC decision was fraught with error. All to no avail. As Fr. Fehlner pointed out at the time, "The fact is, if we have any doubt about whether a given action would directly risk someone's life, entail a violation of justice or threaten the salvation of a soul, we may not act on the basis of a scientific probability. That means even if the pill in Plan B is only 'dubiously' abortive, we simply may not use it at all." We understood that the Connecticut state law mandated that the abortive drug be provided, but we also encouraged the bishops of Connecticut to stand their ground and argue that their hospitals had every right under the law not to participate in any action that was contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church. The pleas we and many others made had literally no effect. Bridgeport Bishop William Lori wrote in 2007 regarding Catholic hospitals’ administration of Plan B to rape victims,   The administration of Plan B pills in this instance cannot be judged to be the commission of an abortion because of such doubt about how Plan B pills and similar drugs work and because of the current impossibility of knowing from the ovulation test whether a new life is present. To administer Plan B pills without an ovulation test is not an intrinsically evil act.   That was then and this is now. As I write, Connecticut’s Office of State Ethics is putting unbelievable pressure on Bishop William Lori and the priests of his diocese. But this time, Bishop Lori is fighting back. American Life League first learned of this from the Creative Minority Report, which explains:  The state government of Connecticut might just be the epicenter of state sponsored anti-Catholicism in the country right now. The state is seeking to silence the Catholic Church. Again.   Ever since the Church's stance supporting traditional marriage or at least for a conscience clause for religious organizations, many in state government have sought to punish the Church or at least silence it.   If you'll recall a few months ago two Democrat state legislators proposed a bill targeting Catholic parishes by instituting elected boards to oversee parishes. This, of course, caused an outrage as the government had no right to intervene in the Church's affairs. Tim Carney, of the Washington Examiner reports: Church officials mobilized against the bill, with the Bridgeport Diocese web site again asking Catholics to call their lawmakers. But then the church committed the cardinal offense, the act that compelled the Office of State Ethics to crack down: The diocese rented buses to bring parishioners to the state Capitol in Hartford for a rally against the bill on the day of the public hearing. The public uproar spurred the bill’s sponsors to withdraw it and cancel the hearing the night before. But the church-sponsored rally went on anyway, making the diocese a renegade lobbyist. Bishop Lori does not for a minute believe that his actions in decrying state efforts to step in and control Catholic parishes should be legitimately or logically defined as “lobbying.” He wasted no time in issuing a public statement against the state’s assault on religious freedom: We believe firmly that it is unconstitutional to apply the state lobbying statute to our Diocese for having exercised its constitutional rights by participating in a rally at the State Capitol and posting information on its website, to protest an unconstitutional attempt by the State to reorganize our Church. We are pursuing this matter through the judicial system… Fundamental constitutional rights include the responsibility to express our views in a civil and lawful manner.   Visiting the Diocese of Bridgeport’s web site provides an opportunity to review the history of this case, the relevant legal documents and additional background material. Carney’s report, which is based on his investigation of this matter, is revealing: I asked the Office of State Ethics about the ramifications of dubbing the diocese a lobbying organization. Would priests need to fasten “LOBBYIST” badges to their vestments whenever speaking from the pulpit about the death penalty, abortion or future state attempts to micromanage parishes? Who would enforce this? Would the state deploy ethics officers to regulate Masses so that no unauthorized lobbying occurred? Would the diocese Web nerd need to clock in as a lobbyist for the time it takes him to write, “Tell the Governor to Repeal the Death Penalty” and upload that message to the site? A spokeswoman said, “We really don’t have opinions that specifically address those matters.” The diocese has sued in federal court to block the state from enforcing the lobbying laws against it. Connecticut recently ramped up its ethics enforcement in response to government corruption and abuse of power by former Republican Gov. John Rowland. Today, the lobbying laws look like another tool for government to use to control meddlesome priests who resist the politicians’ agenda.   The stark contrast between the 2007 joint decision of three Catholic bishops regarding Plan B and this latest turn of events in the Bridgeport diocese is interesting. How can it be that the 2007 state requirement met with hesitant but willing agreement, while this latest state action is meeting total, absolute opposition? We pray the answer is that Bishop Lori is not going to let the State ramrod him into accepting an agenda that compromises Church policies or moral principles ever again! One has to wonder if, in retrospect, the little bit of evil which the Connecticut Catholic Conference accepted in 2007 by choosing to accommodate the State, rather than Catholic teaching, has permitted and even encouraged the evil that the State is now attempting to impose on Bishop Lori. Only time will tell. The more fundamental issue is that if it succeeds, Connecticut’s current move against the Bridgeport diocese could have a chilling effect on Catholic parish priests and bishops elsewhere in that state and the country. There are political agendas at work in the current situation, but they are no different today than they were in 2007. The State pressed the bishops in 2007 and won; this time around, it is our prayer that they don’t even come close. We pray that Bishop Lori continues his courageous resistance and that he succeeds in convincing the State of Connecticut that Catholics have the same rights and freedoms to which all Americans are entitled. Bishop Lori said recently, "I believe that an order from the Court barring Mr. Jones and his colleagues at the (OSE) Office of State Ethics from applying the lobbying laws to the Diocese in this manner is necessary to enable the Diocese to continue to carry out its mission without fear of incurring civil penalties, exposure to possible criminal prosecution, burdensome administrative requirements, and intrusive oversight by the State.” Please encourage Bishop Lori via mail or phone: Most Rev. William Lori Diocese of Bridgeport Catholic Center 238 Jewett Ave. Bridgeport, CT 06606 (203) 416-1364 http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2636 2009-06-10 10:31:00 The planet is a strange place these days where hyped political rhetoric continues to grow ever more bizarre.  Take, for example, the recent comments by Adam Reilly in his article, “The Blessing of Abortion.”  The man has a penchant for using emotionally charged words to misinform his readers regarding basic differences between those who support aborting children versus those who abhor it.  For example, he focused on the pro-abortion zealot Katherine Hancock Ragsdale about whom I commented awhile ago. She is the woman, you may recall, who defined abortion as a “blessing.”  Reilly is using Ragsdale’s words to present his side of the discussion on abortion, not to mention his desire to paint pro-life Americans as unreasonable and uncaring.  The single most chilling quote from Ragsdale’s speech being And when a woman becomes pregnant within a loving, supportive, respectful relationship; has every option open to her; decides she does not wish to bear a child; and has access to a safe, affordable abortion — there is not a tragedy in sight — only blessing. The ability to enjoy God's good gift of sexuality without compromising one's education, life's work, or ability to put to use God's gifts and call is simply blessing. These are the two things I want you, please, to remember — abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Let me hear you say it: abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Reilly uses Ragsdale’s comments to assure his readers that according to Ragsdale’s worldview, abortion is a good: “Something to be cherished and celebrated.” In addition, he opines that it is perspectives like hers that create a chasm of disagreement that does not permit a scintilla of common ground from existing.  On that, he is totally correct.  While he has missed the callous disregard for the baby, which is Ragsdale’s biggest failing, he has also avoided admitting that the very decision a mother makes to abort her baby creates a deep scar emotionally, spiritually and physically that will not soon disappear.  Not only that, but in Reilly’s world, he has to be dismissive of any commentary pro-life Americans might make on the subject.  He chooses to portray us as people whose arguments are steeped in venom and are a type of hate speech designed to create division rather than promote cooperation between the two sides. In the end, one surmises that Reilly is conflicted.  He cannot figure out how Ragsdale’s comments play on the stage of public opinion.  My guess is that he is confused because he has failed to take note of the fact that there are two people involved in a decision about abortion: a mother and her preborn child, each of whom would have equal human rights if indeed we lived in a sane society. There is another gentleman who has recently given his opinions on abortion and his name is Ross Douthat. Douthat is a commentator and senior editor at Atlantic Monthly.  His recent New York Times commentary, “Not all abortions are equal” is another example of problematic rhetoric masquerading as common sense.  My view is that Douthat’s premise is flawed, but see for yourself:  The argument for unregulated abortion rests on the idea that where there are exceptions, there cannot be a rule. Because rape and incest can lead to pregnancy, because abortion can save women’s lives, because babies can be born into suffering and certain death, there should be no restrictions on abortion whatsoever. As a matter of moral philosophy, this makes a certain sense. Either a fetus has a claim to life or it doesn’t. The circumstances of its conception and the state of its health shouldn’t enter into the equation. But the law is a not a philosophy seminar. It’s the place where morality meets custom, and compromise, and common sense. And it can take account of tragic situations without universalizing their lessons. Indeed, the argument that some abortions take place in particularly awful, particularly understandable circumstances is not a case against regulating abortion. It’s the beginning of precisely the kind of reasonable distinction-making that would produce a saner, stricter legal regime. Note his propensity to assign the “fetus” to a status of being a debate topic, a quasi-problem or a topic for a legal discussion, rather than admitting that when we discuss an expectant mother, we are also discussing her preborn child. The preborn child is not only an individual human being, but also someone whose human rights are equally as important as his mother’s.  This is not a philosophical position but rather a fact based on biology and human embryology. That being said, Douthat is suffering from a moral dilemma … he like Reilly, wants to consider the preborn child as an entity that has the same standing as a bank bailout.  In other words, the “fetus” is a topic for political debate rather than someone who should be recognized as having the same status as Douthat himself:  human person! While Douthat would like to see a “saner, stricter legal regime” for choosing which abortions to permit, those of us who know exactly who that preborn human is want to see his/her  human rights protected regardless of the circumstance surrounding his/her existence.  But as you have already recognized, it is the perspective of the Douthats of the world that wins the day with the media.  The mainstream media are genuine lapdogs for the intolerant pro-abortion cartel.  In their circles, phrases like “preborn baby” and “preborn human being with equal rights” are a no-no.  Finally, there is Doug Feaver who recently posted a blog on the Washington Post web site. His task in his June 9 collection of comments appears to be providing a rant platform for those who want to say something one way or the other about abortion.  His entry, titled “No Middle Ground on Abortion” gets off to a rocky start as he writes: “One question that never leaves the national agenda is abortion rights, and Our Readers Who Comment are involved in an often crude discussion this morning about Peter Slevin's story documenting how anti-abortion forces are concentrating their efforts on imposing state controls in the absence of gaining a federal ban.” First off, Slevin’s report covers abortion regulation measures, many of which are being considered in state legislatures across the land.  Since I have a definite negative attitude toward regulating how, when and at what time a child in utero can be murdered, we will not address the Slevin article per se.  What I am most interested in is Feaver’s conclusion, upon reviewing what readers are saying, that, “Our readers find no middle ground. Abortion is murder for one side; for the other, laws making abortion difficult are a profound violation of a woman's right to control what happens to her body. Restrictions such as those documented in Mississippi fall hardest on the poor at a time many states are cutting supportive programs for budget reasons.” Right there we have the age-old pro-abortion argument that the poor are being discriminated against by laws that propose to regulate abortion in some way.  Pro-abortion commentators have been using that tired argument for years, and it is as ridiculous now as it has always been, but it makes good press and it convinces people that pro-life Americans are heartless, cruel individuals who care little to nothing for the poor.  Personally, I have never been able to figure out how it is charitable to help someone poor kill her baby rather than help her welcome her baby and improve her state in life.  To my mind, it is the pro-aborts who are disingenuous when they say on one hand that they care about the poor, but on the other, present the poor with the only option that is viable to the pro-aborts: killing their children.  Somehow that makes no sense to me at all, but then again, I hope that my thought process is a bit more logical that that of my opponents. Speaking of logic, here is but one of the many comments Feaver’s blog featured yesterday: One reason so many Pro-Choice people can't understand the general Anti-Abortion crowd is that the very people wanting to outlaw abortion are the same ones preventing teenagers and poor women from getting sex-education and contraception in the first place. If you truly want to prevent pregnancies, hand out condoms the first day of middle school, teach the teenagers about real life and how sex fits in, but don't tell them 'just say no' and then demonize them for acting like everybody else does. This is an example of the apparently popular view that the only way to “prevent abortion” is by marketing contraception.  Such silliness completely avoids the fundamental problem facing the culture today: a complete and total lack of respect for the integrity of the human person.  The child who is handed a condom instead of challenged to live a life of moral courage is a child who has become the victim of the culture of death.  It is a vicious circle that must be broken and the men of the media could be part of the solution instead of the problem they seem to enjoy advocating. If I had but one wish to make for these men of the media, it would be for each of them, Adam Reilly, Ross Douthat and Doug Feaver to take a moment and consider who they really are and how fortunate they are that their mothers did not have the fetish for aborting children that they seem to have.  http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2635 2009-06-09 08:13:00 Many foolish statements have been made over the past several days. What is curious is that the statements are being made by or about Catholics who have an obvious affection for misrepresentations, deceptions and assorted flagrant flirtations with all things consistently offensive to Christ and His Church. For example, the infamous Catholic Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, recently remarked to Nancy Reagan upon the unveiling of a statue of the late president, Ronald Reagan, "Your support for stem cell research has made a significant difference in the lives of many American people. It has saved lives. It has found cures. It has given hope to people." But as the facts will expose to anyone with the ability to read, human embryonic stem cell research has produced not a single positive result. The only success in the field has come about because of the work being done with non-embryonic stem cells. Then there’s the comment recently made by Catholic moral theologian and world-famous Catholic dissident, Professor Daniel Maguire, who opined regarding the murder of abortionist George Tiller: It has become American policy to use torture, bombing, and killing to achieve our ends. George Tiller believed that women must be able to exercise their legal and constitutional right to abortion in problem pregnancies. For honoring the law of the land, he and his family and medical staff were for years tortured, even bombed, and [sic] now he is now killed. He is not the first doctor to so die and unless we get serious about this form of terrorism, he will not be the last. Religious and political leaders who fan the flames of anti-choice, anti-woman fanaticism are not without guilt. Pardon me, but exactly who is the fanatic? My opinion is that it is Maguire. He has apparently never met a fact he could welcome and appreciate. Since when does a Catholic theologian argue that killing a child in the womb is a “constitutional right?” He ought to know that any manmade law that contradicts God’s law is in fact an unjust law and must be exposed as such. Is he actually suggesting, as many equally disingenuous political types have, that pro-life Americans must be tarred with the same brush used to paint the sordid portrait of the deranged man who acted alone and did in fact commit the act of murdering George Tiller? It is very difficult for me to understand how Maguire retains his tenure at a Catholic university, not to mention how he has been able to avoid public excommunication from the Catholic Church. His form of theology has gotten the Catholic Church into so many difficulties over the past many years and continues to go uncorrected by even the highest officials in the Catholic Church. This brings me to another dissident by the name of Miguel Diaz. When President Barack Obama nominated Diaz to be his ambassador to the Vatican, many of us groaned in dismay, hoping that the Vatican would once again say no. But it is with the deepest regret that we report quite the contrary result. Recently apostolic nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Pietro Sambi, commented that Diaz is, "an excellent choice because he knows very well the United States and because of his background in the Catholic Church." Catholic News verified, “Diaz served as a member of Obama's Catholic advisory team during the campaign and was a regular campaign spokesman on Obama's behalf, particularly in the Spanish-language press.” It is mind boggling to consider the actual fact that Vatican officials are looking the other way, ignoring the Obama fetish for abortion on demand and pandering to Hispanic Americans who have received a nod from Obama without regard for the treachery such people have and will undoubtedly continue to cause! The very fact that Diaz served as a theological advisor to the social justice organization, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, should have disqualified him in the eyes of any right-thinking, faithful Catholic, regardless of the politics. And while I’m speaking of CACG, it should be noted that Alexia Kelley, who was CACG’s executive director and a huge Obama supporter, has just been chosen to become director of the Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships in pro-abortion Catholic Kathleen Sebelius’ Department of Health and Human Services. As Catholic News Agency reports, Kelley along with her ally Kris Korzen: [S]upported controversial political decisions and appointments made by the Obama administration, including the suspension of the Mexico City Policy and the decision to allow federally-funded [sic] embryonic stem cell research. Kelley and Korzen lent their support despite both measures drawing criticism from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. To continue presenting the diagram of dissent being carefully drafted by President Obama who is no friend to real Catholics, we come to Harry Knox, a very controversial individual, who is not a Catholic, but has made it his personal mission to attack Catholics and the Church whenever he gets the chance.  The White House spokesman has said that President Obama is “comfortable” with the makeup of his faith-based advisory council despite protests alleging anti-Catholic bigotry from one appointee who characterized Pope Benedict as a “discredited leader” and called the Knights of Columbus “foot soldiers” in an “army of oppression.” Harry Knox, the controversial appointee, is a former licensed minister of the United Methodist Church and a leader with the homosexual activist group Human Rights Council. Before being appointed to the president’s advisory council on faith-based partnerships, Knox had attacked Pope Benedict and some Catholic bishops as "discredited leaders" because of their opposition to same-sex "marriage." Finally, we come to the legal professor who turned a blind eye to Catholic teaching so that he too could become an advisor to President Obama, Douglas Kmiec. He recently participated in a debate with astute, learned Princeton Professor Robert George. Apparently, the debate between Kmiec and George caught Jill Stanek’s attention because she personally attended the debate. After the event, Stanek explained in her blog what occurred. Because Kmiec made unfavorable comments about her to the infamously left-leaning National Catholic Reporter, Stanek followed up on a brief discussion she had had with Kmiec with an e-mail, which states in part: You also stated, "[T]here isn't a county recorder in the country who would record a live birth" of a "temporarily alive" child. In fact, the State of IL, and I'm sure many more, requires that ALL babies born alive, no matter what gestational age and no matter how fleeting their lives (even with transient heartbeats), be issued legal birth certificates. To subjectively determine which live born babies receive birth certificates would introduce chaos into IL law. By your definition, very premature babies whose lives are fleeting are not legal persons. If this were true, bashing them over the head to expedite the end of their "temporarily alive" status would be legal, would it not? I look forward to your thoughts on the information I am presenting you, Professor Kmiec. My guess is that Kmiec will not respond to Stanek because he is all wrapped up in his personal Obamaland cocoon and is no longer feeling accountable to anyone who challenges his inane contradictions to common sense. After all, this is the dissident Catholic law professor who recently chided the American bishops who have refused to give holy communion to pro-abortion Catholics, claiming that their action in defense of Christ in the Eucharist was “not taking the ‘Catholic’ approach!” My guess is Kmiec’s version of Catholic would not be discernable to any of us who actually love our faith, our Church and Christ’s truth. If this set of snippets from the past week creates the impression that it’s old home week in the White House for the detractors of valid Catholic teaching then you have a very good grasp of the current situation on Obamaland. But try as they may, these ludicrous lightweights in matters Catholic cannot derail the fullness of truth that is indeed Catholic teaching.