http://www.all.org/rss_jblog.php Judie Brown, American Life League Blog RSS Feed en-us Sat, 11 Oct 2008 09:56:27 PDT Sat, 11 Oct 2008 09:56:27 PDT http://www.all.org webmaster@all.org webmaster@all.org http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2365 2008-10-10 09:16:00 Dichotomy: "division into two mutually exclusive, opposed, or contradictory groups." That is the most polite word I can thing of to describe the antics of the pro-death forces, which are moving ever so stealthily in their efforts to remove certain segments of the population from the land of the living. What you are about to read is not fiction; it is real, and it is happening right now in America. William Saletan is a writer who has frequently been the object of negative comments from me, but in the case I am going to relate here, he is to be applauded. He, of all people, has seen through the veil and has found death where others would opine there is hope for healing. In his commentary "The retreating boundaries of organ harvesting,"  he discusses the ethical morass of the organ transplant business as it applies to infants who are near death. He talks about parents who can be cajoled into believing that if they but allow doctors to take organs that—while vital to their dying babies, will be more beneficial in the bodies of not-so-ill babies—they will be at peace about the impending death of their own child. I wrote about this case in early September and am encouraged that Saletan is now examining it himself. He writes, Pick up the New England Journal of Medicine, and you'll see the far edge of this tortured world. In the journal, doctors at the Denver Children's Hospital describe how they removed hearts from infants 75 seconds after their hearts stopped. The infants were declared dead of heart failure even as their hearts, in new bodies, resume ticking. The federal government funded the procedure; other hospitals are looking to adopt it.  Is it wrong? If only the question were that simple. We like to think moral lines are fixed and clear: My heart is mine, not yours, and you can't have it till I'm dead. But in medicine, lines move. Dead means irreversibly stopped, and stoppages are increasingly reversible. Meanwhile, thanks to transplantation, entitlement to organs is becoming socialized. When life support ends, says one bioethicist, "not using viable organs wastes precious life-saving resources" and "costs the lives of other babies." Failure to take and reuse body parts looks like lethal negligence.   Of course, you and I know that it is wrong to take a single life for any reason, including the pretense that doing so may benefit someone else. It is always what it is: murder. Further Saletan observes, "Actually, doctors don't wait for the donor's death. They arrange it. Not the illness or injury, of course, but the timing of demise." And Saletan is not the only one grappling with what medicine obviously can do, but shouldn't do. Touchstone has published an article by Anita Kuhn, who is equally concerned about a commentary in the New England Journal of Medicine. She begins by informing the reader, In a remarkably candid article about organ donation in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), a doctor and a bioethicist  make the unnerving observation that, in cases involving vital organs, many "donors" may not actually be dead at the time their organs are taken from them. While this statement corroborates the viewof many pro-life groups, scientists, and physicians, it is likely to be news to the general public. Robert D.Truog, M.D. and bioethicist Franklin G. Miller, Ph.D. have exposed the sordid underbelly, not only of the Denver case involving the harvesting of organs from nearly dead babies, but the overall question of the ethics of removing a vital organ from a person who is not really dead. This is of particular interest, since neither is a dyed-in-the-wool pro-life thinker. They appear to be growing uneasy with the "brain death" criteria, and it is clear they are ill at ease about efforts to move far beyond brain death to other more elastic criteria. As Kuhn writes, "The authors candidly admit that, with respect to both 'brain death' and 'cardiac death,' the justification for removing vital organs from patients 'cannot be that we are convinced they are really dead.' In these cases, the dead donor rule may be invoked, but it is not followed." While we are at it, let us not forget that there are some medical professionals who "propose changing organ donation rules requiring patient or family consent for donation to 'presumed consent,' which legally assumes that everyone is automatically willing to be an organ donor unless they have documented an objection to it."  What this means in the practice of transplant medicine is yet to be shown, but one can deduce from recent events that once again the argument that some good can come out of a loved one's demise will be used in ways that ordinary people like you and me cannot imagine. You know, it's the lesser of two evils, or whatever! Compounding this already difficult situation that probably confronts families far more frequently than I can guess, there is the ongoing dilemma of the patient who has no choice other than go to a hospital for care. Who can he trust? Surely the lovely nurse, whose friendship often provides psychological comfort, is the last bastion of confidence between a patient and his caregiver. Well, if you live in California that may not be true at all. According to a report in the Los Angeles Times, Dozens of registered nurses convicted of crimes, including sex offenses and attempted murder, have remained fully licensed to practice in California for years before the state nursing board acted against them. And if you live in Oregon, there are people seeking an early, timed death, who may wind up becoming a statistic on an obituary page rather than someone who simply needs counseling. A recent study makes that very point.  You see, of those patients who chose physician assisted suicide, it now appears that at least some were clinically depressed at the time of the request, and probably would not have chosen early death if someone had taken the time to really pay attention to them. Published in the British Medical Journal, the study concluded that "the current practice of the Death with Dignity Act in Oregon may not adequately protect all mentally ill patients, and increased vigilance and systematic examination for depression among patients who may access legalized aid in dying are needed." Sorry for all the bad news, but the situation is grave. No pun intended. As a final example of the dichotomies in today's medical practice, I am compelled to call attention to one of the most devastating facts yet to come out regarding those who are alone and rely on competent healthcare professionals to help them at least be comfortable and as pain-free as possible. Joseph Sacco, M.D. has written an article about such patients, and it is interesting to note, for the record, that Sacco is not a pro-life enthusiast. In fact, by his own admission, he favors early death for some. He said, "Mention the idea of withholding or withdrawing medical care from patients who cannot express their wishes, and people get uncomfortable." But his article, "Incapacitated, Alone and Treated to Death" reveals a shocking fact:   A 2007 study found that doctors in intensive-care units across the country commonly withheld or withdrew life support in critically or terminally ill patients who lacked surrogates, without knowledge of their wishes. Most such decisions were made by a single physician, without regard to hospital policy, professional society recommendations or state law. In other words, doctors are withholding treatment from this vulnerable population, a practice that is neither regulated nor publicly recognized.     If that isn't the height of devastating dichotomies, I do not know what is! Presuming to kill because nobody is around to hear about it is not medical practice—it is murder. It is not health care; it is death dealing, and God help us because the future does not look any better. Disrespect for the human person's dignity appears to be getting much more agreeable to the very people who should be safeguarding it at all costs.  http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2364 2008-10-09 10:45:00 I am always concerned when public figures who claim to be Catholic make a point of denying Church teaching, or even worse, misrepresenting it for political gain. This is particularly true when the question involves the identity of the preborn child and his inherent right to life. Such has been the case during these past few days with Colorado's governor, Democrat and "Catholic" Bill Ritter. On the capitol steps, he spoke at a pro-abortion media event during which he asserted,    "I believe the amendment goes too far. . . My understanding is that there are things about calling a fertilized egg a person that do not square with church doctrine."   Not only is his statement a blatant misrepresentation of Church teaching, but it flies in the face of his self-identification as a "pro-life Catholic." One has to wonder where the hierarchy's statements of correction were and whether or not the media even bothered to speak with Archbishop Charles Chaput  about this obvious deception on the part of the governor and his abortion cronies. In an earlier report on this event, the Denver Post made it clear that this latest revelation from the governor does put him at odds with Catholic teaching: "He's in a dicey spot with Amendment 48," said Tom Hooyman, a professor of medical ethics at Regis University who holds a Ph.D. in moral theology. "It's clearly a pro-life amendment. For him to come out and oppose it, you have to say, 'What does it mean to be a pro-life Catholic?' " Just as Professor Hooyman questions the real definition of a "pro-life Catholic," so too should each of us. In fact, every practicing Catholic in Colorado should be asking this question. But . . . There's a whole lot more to this latest debacle than meets the eye, however. For as Ritter was being madly applauded by his pro-abortion fans, pro-life protesters were out in force, making their presence known, holding up signs and wearing T-shirts declaring "Pro-choice is a lie." In fact, one of the protesters, John Wiechel, got a little loud in his responses to the governor's deceptions, and after repeated attempts to get the man to move from the property, police had to arrest him. He was later released. Many of us believe strongly that this demonstrator's First Amendment rights were violated, but you can watch the entire video of this event and make up your own mind. Wiechel's passion came out during some of Ritter's most egregious statements – statements that were most offensive to the defense of the innocent. "Bad policy, bad medicine and bad law" is how Ritter described Amendment 48 during his speech, and he made it clear that he was opposing it because he supports abortion. There is no other way to interpret what Ritter said. Some of us believe that statements like the one I have quoted are designed to defame the preborn, excuse their murders and make it politically correct to support abortion. In fact, in Ritter's case, it would appear that he is also attempting, in Pelosi and Biden fashion, to rewrite Catholic doctrine to serve his own personal interests, including support for the killing of the innocent. And when you stop and think about it, and read the words of Amendment 48, it is hard to see where anyone could get the idea that the language was a threat to anyone, born or preborn. For those who cannot recall or have not seen it, Amendment 48 simply asks, Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution defining the term "person" to include any human being from the moment of fertilization as "person" is used in those provisions of the Colorado constitution relating to inalienable rights, equality of justice, and due process of law? The proposed amendment simply states a fact, though, scientifically, it is not as tight as we would have wanted liked. The Federal Personhood Amendment is accurate, whereas the Colorado language is a bit deficient. Be that as it may, it is certainly a sound policy; it is certainly not a threat to anyone's medical condition, and it most certainly should be embraced in law from one end of this nation to the other. No human being should be discriminated against because of his place of residence, and that includes the womb and the test tube! Amendment 48 embodies a statement that we are confident our Founding Fathers believed was unnecessary, because I am positive that not a single one of them could have dreamed that anyone would ever deem it a legal right to murder a preborn child. For Catholics, this statement holds a special meaning, because it reflects the natural law and the teachings of the Church. At least that is the case in theory. Apparently, Ritter is not among those Catholics who understand Church teaching. It would seem he prefers doctoring it up a little to soothe his culture-of-death mentality. So, we have a simple request to make of you. If you are reading this commentary and would like to let Ritter know what you think, and let Archbishop Chaput and Auxiliary Bishop James Conley know how sincerely grateful you are that they have explained the truth to their flock, you may contact them using the information below. In a statement issued yesterday, Archbishop Chaput said, Governor Bill Ritter seriously confused the Amendment 48 debate on October 7 by saying – according to news reports – that, "My understanding is that there are things about calling a fertilized egg a person that do not square with Church doctrine." This is false. Catholic teaching holds that human life is sacred from the moment of fertilization, commonly called "conception," to the moment of natural death. Separating a "fertilized egg" from the dignity of human personhood is bad theology and bad public policy. And Catholic public officials should know better."   Governor Bill Ritter: http://www.colorado.gov/apps/oit/governor/citizen/assistanceUtility/welcome.jsf Archbishop Charles Chaput: shepherd@archden.org Auxiliary Bishop James Conley: Bishop.Conley@archden.org   http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2363 2008-10-08 12:34:00 If you have visited the American Life League web site in the past day, you have seen the video of our own Marie Hahnenberg and know that our annual Pro-Life Memorial Day observance in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. was a tremendous success. There were 12 organizations of national stature that joined with American Life League in remembering those millions of preborn children who have died by chemical, medical and surgical abortion. But what you might not know is that a wonderful meeting occurred while ALL was there that was totally unexpected and for which we are still praising God. You see, human rights defenders from China joined with us at the last moment and were able to speak with the crowd. These heroic  people are fighting forced abortion and other human rights abuses in their country. Their names are most difficult to pronounce, but their message transcends the limits of mere language. As Katie Walker said in our press release , His eyes shone with joy. Even through an interpreter, everyone felt the depth of his passion for justice and his dedication to the rights of all persons – especially those most vulnerable little ones. This gentleman, who was persecuted for being a defender of life, was Li Fangping. He was accompanied to the events at the capitol by members of the China Aid Society , an organization that is committed to assisting those in China who suffer religious persecution at the hands of the government. Clearly, Mr. Li is no stranger to the sort of oppressive treatment the Chinese government can impose, having been repeatedly harassed by authorities for his defense of Chen Guangcheng, an activist who, in 2005, exposed the fact that thousands of Chinese women were subjected to forced abortions and sterilizations. Li was severely beaten in 2006 and was under residential surveillance during the Beijing Olympics in August. During the recent Olympics, contrary to the impression created by much of the media, it would appear that the suppression of free speech in China was in high gear. Many of those who protested their government or spoke to foreign journalists were arrested or driven out of the city as a news report from August makes painfully clear: Huang Qi, director of Tianwang Human Rights Centre, has been in prison since June 10, without the benefit of legal counsel. Ding Zilin, Jiang Peikun and Qi Zhiyong, who belong to the Tiananmen Mothers group, were pressured to get out of town before the start of the Olympics. Currently all three are somewhere outside of Beijing. Other activists were luckier and only got house arrest. Writer Liu Xiaobo, scientist Jiang Qisheng, independent intellectual Zhang Zhuhua, house church member Yu Jie, independent scholar Liu Junning, housing rights activist Zhou Li who opposed forced Olympics-related evictions, Christian activist Xu Yonghai, as well as attorneys Li Fangping, [emphasis added] Jiang Tianyong and Li Heping were placed under residential surveillance and monitoring. By contrast Beijing Activist Zeng Jinyan disappeared on the eve of the Olympics. Up to then and for two years she had been under either house arrest or residential surveillance. Ms Zeng is married to jailed (since 27 December 2007) human rights activist Hu Jia. Other activists are also under arrest or surveillance across the country like attorney Zheng Enchong of Shanghai, Yao Lifa in Hubei and Chen Xi of Guizhou. It is truly an amazing thing that, out of the clear blue sky, these wonderful Chinese heroes for life happened upon our gathering in front of the Supreme Court. Describing it as a "God moment" seems trite, but indeed that is what  it was,  and all those who attended were as touched by the moment as Katie Walker. American Life League is grateful to the many pro-life organizations and individuals who participated in this event, not only in Washington, D.C., but also in communities around the nation. We realize that we cannot go a single moment without remembering these children, praying for their parents and doing all we can to prevent the carnage from continuing. The first Monday in October is the date on which the Supreme Court reconvenes, which is why it was chosen as the date for the annual Pro-Life Memorial Day. We must not forget the infamous Supreme Court decisions that started this slide down the slippery slope of dehumanizing the most vulnerable in our midst. Sometimes this pro-life work can seem to be an overwhelming task, and it may even occur to us that a small effort here or there is really not making much of a difference, but I am here to tell you that nobody should ever think such a thing! As servants of the Lord and doers of his work, we are never alone.  As St. Francis de Sales once wrote,  Let us be firm in our purposes and unswerving in our resolutions. Perseverance will prove whether we have sincerely sacrificed ourselves to God and dedicated ourselves to a devout life. http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2362 2008-10-07 11:16:00 Tom Szyszkiewicz has always been one of my favorite Catholic reporters. While I could not pronounce his last name if you paid me to do it, I find his writing remarkably insightful and astute. His articles are always intriguing, and he has a habit of exposing little-known facts about such subjects as why some Catholic dioceses have banned the distribution of Catholic Answers' Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics.  He brings to light subjects that, if not for his investigative nose for news, would never make the light of day. So I shouldn't have been the least bit surprised to see his latest article in the American Spectator  entitled "Nature as a privileged minority," the content of which is so alarming that, if I had not known the reporter, I would have immediately thought it was a spoof. Believe me, it is not. Just a few days ago, the people of Ecuador approved, by an overwhelming margin, a new constitution for their nation. To be precise, this is the 20th version of a constitution this nation has had in its short 178-year history. He quotes a line from this new constitution: Persons and people have the fundamental rights guaranteed in this Constitution and in the international human rights instruments. Nature is subject to those rights given by this Constitution and Law. Tom defines this statement as pure socialism and tells his readers that the document is filled with such concepts. He further informs us that the nation's Catholic bishops vocally opposed the proposal, before it was actually approved by the people, for three reasons: . . .that through the ambiguous language of "reproductive rights" it would allow for abortion, that it allows for same-sex civil unions to have the same status as marriage, and that it doesn't allow parents the freedom to choose the schooling they think best fits their own children's needs. That last objection translates into the constitution requiring children to attend state-run schools. So, you might ask, what in the world does this new Ecuadoran constitution have to do with me, with the pro-life movement in America and with our current struggles? Glad you asked, as I was going to tell you anyway. It seems that the public-interest law firm Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund is the organization that the framers of this new constitution turned to for assistance in drafting language that would protect things of nature as persons. CELDF is located in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania and is in the business of focusing attention on the subject of why the physical environment should have rights of its own, including personhood. CELDF describes itself as the only public interest law firm in the U.S. that specializes in building a body of law focused on establishing rights for nature. In pursuit of that goal, the Legal Defense Fund has served as special legal counsel to over one hundred municipal governments across the U.S., and serves as a legal advisor to organizations and governments in other countries, including Ecuador, who are focused on driving similar laws into their governing frameworks. To my mind, the work of this seemingly concerned public-interest law firm is based on a tenet that flies in the face of the natural law and the instruction each human being receives from God, as revealed in the Bible. For in Genesis1:26-28 we are told, "God said, 'Let us make man in our own image, in the likeness of ourselves, and let them be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven, the cattle, all the wild beasts and all the reptiles that crawl upon the earth. " It is not logical, therefore, that plants, animals and ecosystems should be provided with the same status as a human being, be it in the law, in a national constitution or at any level. So as I was thinking about this new revelation from Ecuador, something else occurred to me. We already have plenty of precedents in the United States for further diminishing the respect due to the human person while continuing to elevate the status of thing such as birds, fish and trees. In 2005, poachers stole sea turtle eggs from beaches on Hilton Head Island, South Carolina. The news report stated, "Anyone convicted of stealing the eggs faces up to a year in jail and up to a $1,000 fine and the penalties can be handed out per egg," Department of Natural Resources Sgt. David Vaughn said. In Massachusetts this past year, two men were found guilty of one count of shooting and killing a bald eagle, commonly referred to as an American Eagle, in violation of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and one count of violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (for the killing of the bald eagle). . . Marianne C. Ophardt, a horticulturist for the Washington State University Cooperative Extension Office in Benton County recently wrote in the Tri-Cities, Washington newspaper that "senseless violence against trees" had to end. My point is not that people should be irresponsible toward the environment and fail to care for that which God has entrusted to us. Rather that while there is public outcry about cutting the tops off of trees, shooting birds out of the air and stealing eggs from turtles, a daily body count in excess of 4,000 babies builds and builds. After all, human beings were entrusted with the earth; the earth was not entrusted with us! It seems rather obvious to me that value systems are out of whack and that they get this way because people lose their sense of several things, starting with the awesome power of God and the intrinsic value of the human person. Each of us is blessed with the ability to serve God in many ways, and that does include saving animals from wanton destruction and not being destructive to our environment. But when a greater emphasis is placed on the earth and her creatures than is given to the dignity of the human being, I can only think that Moloch has returned and that our preborn brothers and sisters are being offered on the altar of balancing the ecosystem. It is a frightening thought, to be sure, but not very far-fetched if one pays close attention to the ties between a few Americans and an entire nation, which is now setting a new path for humankind. As Szyskziewicz points out in his article,   Ecuador's granting of juridic personhood to nature is unique in the world, but the country is not completely alone. Spain will be granting human rights to all 350 apes in its territory. Switzerland is telling farmers not to lop flowers off as they return from mowing their fields since those flowers have a right to exist as they are. The European Court of Human Rights will be hearing a case that could grant a chimpanzee the status of a person in Austria. And in an editorial watching amusedly as Ecuador begins its grand experiment, the Los Angeles Times reported that Australia, Italy, South Africa, and Nepal (which is also in the midst of writing a constitution) have all started looking at similar juridic person provisions. http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2360 2008-10-06 12:50:00 Today is the day we run our full-page ad in the Washington Times weekly edition. It is a full-color ad in which we pay tribute to the 16 Catholic bishops who have chosen to protect Christ from sacrilege by enforcing Church law, specifically Canon 915. [ Click Ad to Visit http://www.Canon915.org ] In the ad, we ask Archbishop Donald Wuerl of the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. when he will join with these bishops. We have to presume from past statements and actions that the archbishop does not plan to do so any time soon; yet the question is a valid one. As Catholic columnist Barbara Kralis wrote in January 2007,  Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington recently told journalist Allyson Smith that he would not discipline nor deny Holy Communion to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, nor to other Catholic politicians who promote and legislate procured abortion. Without belaboring the point, it is sufficient to say that many opportunities have presented themselves to the archbishop to not only enforce Canon 915, but to instruct his priests, ordained deacons and extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion to do likewise. Such an action has not occurred. The purpose of this column is to explain why we persist in this campaign and why our actions should not be perceived as disrespectful or otherwise antagonistic toward Catholic bishops. Quite the contrary is the case, as my comments will show. Perhaps you have not read this particular canon before, so I will quote it for you: Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, [emphasis added] are not to be admitted to holy communion. We pursue this project of asking Catholic bishops, priests, ordained deacons and extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion to enforce this Church law specifically because numerous pro-abortion Catholic public figures, politicians, media types and so forth are scandalizing the faithful. They do so by being permitted to receive the body of Christ despite exhibiting obstinate persistence in the manifest grave sin of publicly supporting abortion. As one Catholic wrote recently on Father John Zuhlsdorf's blog,  Senator Lisa Murkowski was listed as a guest of honor in the program for the Red Mass in Anchorage last Sunday, attended by Archbishop Roger L. Schwietz, OMI. Lisa voted for the infamous "Harkin Amendment," proclaiming the "sense of the senate" that Roe v. Wade is a wonderful decision and should be the law of the land. Thank God, she wasn't able to attend and profane the Eucharist. Nonetheless, the impression left with the congregation was that if you publicly endorse abortion, you too can still be a guest of honor at a Red Mass, of all occasions. The sentiments expressed in this comment expose the problem of not protecting Christ from sacrilege. The notion is created that pro-abortion Catholics in public life really aren't in direct conflict with Church teaching. And yet, the fact is that they are not only in conflict, but their souls are in grave jeopardy. Regardless of what your opinion may be on Catholic teaching, the fact is that for any Catholic who claims to be a practicing Catholic, the act of abortion is an intrinsically evil act that is always and in every case wrong. No Catholic should support the murder of the innocent and yet they do so with abandon, and few ordained priests and deacons remind them of the gravity of their public position by denying the body of Christ to them. This too is a scandal. American Life League does not focus attention on Canon 915 because we disrespect Catholic bishops; on the contrary, we do this because we believe sincerely that the purpose of Canon 915 is two-fold. Enforcement of this Church law protects the body of Christ and helps to teach the errant public figure that his actions are an offense to God and he must repent in order to return to full communion with the Church.  For these two reasons alone, we cannot understand why all 260-plus Catholic bishops have not united in a position of solidarity to protect Christ from sacrilege. And by sacrilege I do not mean to suggest that we at American Life League are sitting in judgment of others' intentions. Quite the contrary. If one examines the public record of any of these Catholic supporters of abortion, it is crystal clear that they endorse this crime against humanity while knowing full well that it conflicts with Church teaching, not to mention the commandment of God: "Thou shalt not kill." Deacon John Giglio states in his Deacon for Life blog,  Were there to be no support in the whole history of ethical and moral thought, were there no acknowledged confirmation from medical science, were the history of legal opinion to the contrary, we would still have to conclude on the basis of God's Holy Word that the unborn child is a person in the sight of God. He is protected by the sanctity of life graciously given to each individual by the Creator, Who alone places His image upon man and grants them any right to life which they have. It is an undeniable fact that there is a human being in the womb during pregnancy; if it were otherwise, why would anyone promote, support, fund or acquire an abortion? The presence of that baby in the womb, Fallopian tube or test tube is as real as is the presence of Christ in Holy Eucharist. It therefore makes perfect sense that just as the Catholic Church teaches that there is never a reason to abort a child, so too there should never be a reason to permit sacrilege against the truly present body of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. And yet it continues, day in and day out. But we are not disheartened. We know that defending the truth does not resound well with many, but the accusations that we are divisive or judgmental cannot deter us. In fact, we welcome it all as we continue to defend the preborn and the real presence of Christ. As Archbishop Raymond Burke wrote last year, The United States of America is a thoroughly secularized society which canonizes radical individualism and relativism, even before the natural moral law. The application, therefore, is more necessary than ever, lest the faithful, led astray by the strong cultural trends of relativism, be deceived concerning the supreme good of the Holy Eucharist and the gravity of supporting publicly the commission of intrinsically evil acts. Catholics in public office bear an especially heavy burden of responsibility to uphold the moral law in the exercise of their office which is exercised for the common good, especially the good of the innocent and defenseless. When they fail, they lead others, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, to be deceived regarding the evils of procured abortion and other attacks on innocent and defenseless human life, on the integrity of human procreation, and on the family. As Pope John Paul II reminded us, referring to the teaching of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, the Holy Eucharist contains the entire good of our salvation [91]. There is no responsibility of the Church's shepherds which is greater than that of teaching the truth about the Holy Eucharist, celebrating worthily the Holy Eucharist, and directing the flock in the worship and care of the Most Blessed Sacrament. Can. 915 of the Code of Canon Law and can. 712 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches articulate an essential element of the shepherds' responsibility, namely, the perennial discipline of the Church by which the minister of Holy Communion is to deny the Sacrament to those who obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin. http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2359 2008-10-03 16:04:00 There have been some remarkable and inspiring recent statements on the subject of politics and faith that are important to bring to your attention. These statements are not only clear, but reflective of the type of leadership so badly needed in the Catholic Church today. Milwaukee's Archbishop Timothy Dolan wrote a remarkable rebuttal to a very arrogant anti-Catholic columnist, Brian Smith, whose articles appear in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. The archbishop opened with these words: Quite a while back, I concluded that it would be a full-time job trying to correct the misrepresentation of Catholic matters regularly showing up in the media and that, reluctantly, I would have to let most of it pass. However, "Dead-end discussion" in the Sept. 21 Crossroads by Brian Smith demands a reply. The hint of bishops "meddling" in politics always has been red meat in American history, from the notorious editorial cartoons of Thomas Nast in the Know-Nothing/Nativist era to those of Pat Oliphant today. So, Mr. Smith had our hackles up already as he opened his piece by referring to the recent corrective given by two American bishops to a couple of prominent politicians, both of whom happen to be Catholic, on the issue of abortion." Archbishop Dolan proceeds to explain who started the "rhubarb" and then extends to the readers a concise, clear picture of Catholic teaching. His exposition reveals not only what the teachings are but why acting against them is a grave sin for a Catholic. But perhaps his most stunning comment comes near the end of his rebuttal, when he tells the readers of this secular newspaper that Smith is dead wrong by implying that bishops are out of bounds in clarifying the truth of their faith on this issue and that the powerful arguments of the growing pro-life movement hinder helpful conversation and lead to a political dead end. We cannot be mute on this premier civil rights issue of our day. It is such a breath of fresh air to read the words of a Catholic archbishop who is clearly not cowed into silence by the oppressive, jaded attitude of the media. God bless him! It is equally heartening to know that Catholics in the Scranton, Pennsylvania diocese will hear a pastoral letter from Bishop Joseph F. Martino, who as you may recall, when asked by the media if Communion would be refused to pro-abortion Democrat Joseph Biden, valiantly replied, "No Catholic politician who supports the culture of death should approach Holy Communion. I will be truly vigilant on this point." Bishop Martino's letter to his flock, which his priests are required to read at all Masses and distribute to all parishioners, is inspiring. In the letter, he shares the history preceding the current confusion apparently reigning supreme among so many Catholics. He provides insight into the warning contained in Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae, and he exposes the nightmare created by the contemporary media's misinformation on Catholic matters. Bishop Martino points out, Never have we seen such abusive criticism directed toward those who believe that life begins at conception and ends at natural death.  As Catholics, we should not be surprised by these developments. Forty years ago, Pope Paul VI predicted that widespread use of artificial contraceptives would lead to increased marital infidelity, lessened regard for women, and a general lowering of moral standards especially among the young. Forty years later, social scientists, not necessarily Catholics, attest to the accuracy of his predictions. As if following some bizarre script, the sexual revolution has produced widespread marital breakdown, weakened family ties, legalized abortion, sexually transmitted diseases, pornography, same-sex unions, euthanasia, destruction of human embryos for research purposes and a host of other ills. (emphasis added) He reminds the faithful, While the Church assists the State in the promotion of a just society, its primary concern is to assist men and women in achieving salvation. For this reason, it is incumbent upon bishops to correct Catholics who are in error regarding these matters. Furthermore, public officials who are Catholic and who persist in public support for abortion and other intrinsic evils should not partake in or be admitted to the sacrament of Holy Communion. As I have said before, I will be vigilant on this subject. (emphasis added) He beseeches the faithful, My dear friends, I beg you not to be misled by confusion and lies. Our Lord, Jesus Christ, does not ask us to follow him to Calvary only for us to be afraid of contradicting a few bystanders along the way. He does not ask us to take up his Cross only to have us leave it at the voting booth door. The people of the Diocese of Scranton are fortunate to have the opportunity to hear the truth without apology from their bishop, who has a sincere desire to save souls, not win a popularity contest. It is always a privilege to share uplifting commentary with those who read this column. In addition, it is a blessing to recognize the courage of Catholic leaders who have ordered their priorities according to a heavenly perspective. Praise God for them!   http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2358 2008-10-02 09:59:00 Yesterday, Lillie Reynolds' grandson lost his life in a tragic automobile crash. Logan Troy Taylor was living in his mother's womb, was eight months of age and was somehow ripped from his mother's womb during the crash. This is a very sad story, as are all those involving the deaths of preborn babies, but this one has a twist to it. The reporter writing the story states, "The question remains, however, whether he [the baby] ever really lived." While I find this an astounding statement for anyone to make, the fact of the matter is that in a legally schizophrenic country like the United States of America, the question is legitimate. We all know the reasons why. Laci and Conner's Law, known officially as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, passed by Congress in 2004, makes it clear that in this case there was a human being whose life was wanted by his mother. However, nothing about the preborn child is obvious due to our culture's duplicitous attitude toward the resident of the womb. Pro-life leader Judy Zabik spoke to reporters about Logan's death and said, "We expect (the same) prosecution regardless of whether the baby was in a car seat in the backseat or in the mother's womb." Indeed, every thinking human being should expect that justice will be done in this case, and even Logan's grandmother argued, "You don't put clothes on a fetus." Technically she is wrong, of course, because the Latin word fetus means "little one" or "child," but I can see why she made the point. Few people realize who lives in the womb during pregnancy these days and that, scientifically, they are human beings. But again, this is exactly what the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton Supreme Court decisions have created in America: confusion about whether or not, and when, this child was really a child. I am sure there will be intense debate about Logan's death before law enforcement personnel deciding what their course of action will be. And in the midst of the debate, the reality of why there has to be a debate in the first place will be all but lost. So just in case you want to get my perspective on this, let me make something perfectly clear. In the years following the Roe and Doe Supreme Court decisions, numerous pro-life legislative efforts have been pursued and some have been successful. But the reality of the situation is that while these laws are described as incremental steps toward ending abortion, some of them undermine the goal of overturning the Roe and Doe decisions. When laws like the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and their state counterparts are enacted, they provide cover for the abortion industry and for those two dreadful decisions. For example, the UVVA states,      (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution-- (1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law. Therefore, the law protects only those preborn human beings whose mothers choose to carry them. If Logan's mom had gone to an abortionist on the day of the accident, his death would not be a question of criminal behavior because the abortionist is merely doing what he was paid to do. Logan would have, as if by magic, become an unwanted child instead of a wanted child. This is what happens when laws pander to the Roe and Doe decisions, thus legitimizing them while claiming to be pro-life. I would guess this is also why Logan's grandmother is confused about the use of the word fetus to describe her grandson. Cases like Logan's remind us of the tragic conditions that our nation faces daily, due to our inability to recognize the preborn baby as a member of the human family. When medical dictionaries define the word fetus as "unborn offspring," and the definition of offspring is "the product of the reproductive processes of an animal or plant : young, progeny : child," it becomes obvious that the contradictions I have pointed out are simply mindless. It probably sounds far-fetched to some to go to this extent to make my point. But regardless of your opinion on the usage and meaning of certain terms, the crisis our preborn brothers and sisters face was created because words were manipulated. Seven men sitting on a Supreme Court bench decided what they should mean. And so, according to current law, maybe Logan is a child and maybe he isn't, but according to everything we know about pregnancy and the product of procreation, it is not confusing. A baby boy died during the car accident in Genesee County, Michigan, and a baby dies every single time an act of abortion occurs. As plain as this fact is, the real question is extremely troublesome, but must be asked: If the law can render some persons as undeserving of recognition as persons simply because of where they live, what is to prevent the law from reclassifying others because of how they look or how dependent they are on others? http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2357 2008-10-01 10:35:00 It seems sort of oxymoronic to read a news report that starts with the following sentence:   A complaint has been filed with the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts demanding the emergency suspension of the medical licenses of George R. Tiller and Shelley Sella, whose involvement in a late-term abortion last week nearly cost the life of a 23-year-old woman.   The very idea that a man known all over the world as the abortionist who specializes in late-term abortion could classified in the same category as those involved in the "healing arts" boggles my mind, but such is the case in Kansas. Tiller has become such a lightning rod among pro-life activists because of his arrogance. One of those activists has established a web site that focuses exclusively on Tiller, his practices, his associates and his apparent insulation from the law, even when his actions nearly kill the mother of a baby he has aborted. The most recent complaint against Tiller, filed by Operation Rescue, represents only the latest of OR's efforts to expose the cruelty of abortion and those who make their money by killing the preborn. What is perhaps most chilling about this complaint is that "Patient S." can be seen discussing her agony after the abortion on a video that is also posted on the OR web site. I cannot tell you how troubling it is to watch and listen to her discussing the horror she experienced. Even though we know that abortion is a wound that never leaves the child's mother, this fact does not make it any easier for someone like Patient S. to experience the inhumane treatment she received when she became deathly ill after the abortion. Beneath the video report posted on OR's web site, we read,   Patient S. has alleged that on Tuesday, September 23, abortionist Shelley Sella may have botched an injection into her abdomen, causing sepsis, a systemic infection that rapidly spreads throughout the body and can cause rapid death. You simply must watch this video and listen to her describe how they determined her due date and how she suffered, trying to let the doctor know she was in pain while on the brink of hysteria. Her boyfriend points out that, at the time of her initial cries for help, he was convinced they were simply waiting for her to die so that nobody would have to do anything. It is patently clear that not a single Tiller employee bothered to pay attention to her, and Tiller never once dropped by to check on her after the abortion. Cases like this make me wonder if anyone will act against Tiller and his accomplice, abortionist Shelley Stella, by actually filing criminal charges. If Patient S. had been admitted for any other type of surgery, you can bet your bottom dollar that heads would roll if something similar had happened. But abortion is, after all, upheld as sacrosanct and protected by law, by the very people who are supposed to mete out justice. The allegations in Operation Rescue's complaint include the following:   Patient S.'s pregnancy was misdiagnosed by Tiller's staff to be 19 weeks, even though    according to her last menstrual period and previous medical examinations, she was actually 23 weeks pregnant at the time of the abortion, beyond the legal limit.      Patient S. developed severe pain and other complications after having received a dioxin injection from abortionist Sella that was meant to stop her pre-born baby's heart.      Patient S. spiked a fever of 103.7 degrees, yet was not treated for possible infection by Tiller or his staff.   Patient S. was locked in a room against her will for over four hours without treatment for over four hours while feverish and in pain, and was not allowed to communicate with her family.   Tiller threatened to withhold treatment from Patient S., even though she was sick, in pain, and had not yet delivered the baby that was presumed to already be dead.   Tiller threatened to send Patient S. to a hospital in Kansas City, three hours away, in spite of her life-threatening condition and incomplete abortion.   Because of her treatment, Patient S. feared she would be killed while under sedation.   During the final abortion procedure, Patient S. stopped breathing and her heart stopped. She was revived.   Tiller refused to call an ambulance and instead personally drove Patient S. to Wesley Medical Center in his private vehicle, further endangering her life.   Tiller was observed to be shaking excessively, and exhibited extremely poor eyesight during the drive to the hospital.   Tiller never provided follow-up care for Patient S. In addition to the license suspensions, the complaint urges that the Board evaluate Tiller's fitness to continue providing surgical procedures due observations of extremely shaky hands and extremely poor eyesight. Out of the many things that trouble me about this mother's experience, the one question I have to ask is, why is this man still walking around as a free man? Clearly, Tiller is shrouded by the aura of death that is his stock in trade. For as we know, under our laws, abortion is not classified as a crime, even though the end result is the death of a baby whose only crime was being conceived. And when a woman is permanently scarred by a botched abortion or dies, it is a rare thing to see justice carried out against the offending practitioner. Oh, it happens now and then, but one has to wonder why it doesn't occur with greater frequency. Where is the justice for abortion's secondary victims, such as Patient S.? http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2356 2008-09-30 09:52:00 So much has arrived in my e-mail recently on the conflict between courageous preaching and the hate speech of those who find religion nauseating that I decided to write about it. What inspires me to do this is that it paints a clear picture of what we in the pro-life movement are up against when it comes to setting forth truth in a world intoxicated with nonsense. For example, this morning, I received a feedback comment from our web site that stated the following:   I grew up Catholic back in the days of Dominus vobiscum [the Lord be with you] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominus_Vobiscum, but am no longer involved with any religious activities. But I'm amazed at the number of people online over the past few years who verbally attack the hierarchy at any level for not acting as these lay people steeped in anger would have them act – i.e. rake politicians who have supported a woman's choice over reproduction over the coals for not rebuking them more harshly and/or deny them Corpus Christi [body of Christ]. The ordained can only do so much in this secular and diverse democratic Republic [sic]. It is no longer permissible to tie people to a stake over cords of wood and burn them alive. The individual who wrote this is accusing American Life League of attacking the Catholic bishops because they will not act in a way consonant with our "steeped in anger" attitudes! If I had been able to speak with this person, I might have said, "Good grief, man, get a life!" Nobody at American Life League, including yours truly, is steeped in anything other than our humble request that ordained priests, deacons and extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion do their best to enforce Church law and thereby protect Christ from sacrilege. The medicinal attributes of enforcing Church law, in this case, Canon 915, are to provide the opportunity for the wayward Catholic public figure to see the error of his ways and return to the Church and her teaching with a repentant heart. I really don't consider that a form of anger, but rather a loving act toward those Catholics in public life who support the act of aborting innocent persons. "Choice over reproduction" should not include murder, after all. But what is really most interesting about this fellow's comments is that I think he really believes that in America, a Catholic bishop or priest is no longer free to teach and preach the doctrine of the Church and expect that others in their care will follow it. However, the practice of the Catholic faith is not a political matter at all. In fact, some of the most heroic Catholics I have ever met, including Pope John Paul II, lived under oppressive regimes and proudly practiced their faith despite the threat to life and limb for doing so. Following Christ is not predicated on where we live, but rather on how much we love Christ. And so, if this gentleman thinks that requiring adherence to Canon 915 is the equivalent of tying the offenders to the stake and lighting a match, I guess we need to pray for him. But his comments are really not all that unusual. When a Catholic bishop does stand up in the midst of dissent and proclaim the truth, he is always attacked. A case in point is Sacramento, California's coadjutor bishop, Most Rev. Jaime Soto, who was invited to appear as a speaker at the recent meeting of the National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries. During his speech, Bishop Soto declared,   Sexual relations between people of the same sex can be alluring for homosexuals, but it deviates from the true meaning of the act and distracts them from the true nature of love to which God has called us all. For this reason, it is sinful. Married love is a beautiful, heroic expression of faithful, life-giving, life-creating love. It should not be accommodated and manipulated for those who would believe that they can and have a right to mimic its unique expression.   In response to the bishop's remarks, which did nothing but reflect Catholic teaching, five members of the audience walked out and one of this group's board members apologized for what the bishop had said! Now who is steeped in anger in this picture? Another faithful, courageous shepherd, Archbishop Alfred Hughes of the Archdiocese of New Orleans, responded within a day to the outrageous comments of state Representative John LaBruzzo, who proposed paying poor women to get sterilized. The archbishop was remarkable in his public statement, calling the proposal "an egregious affront to those targeted and blatantly anti-life." And he went on to say, "Our lawmakers would do better to focus on policies that promote education and achievement to counteract poverty and the bigotry of low expectations." When the Times-Picayune reported on the archbishop's statement, I was astounded by the comments posted on the web site: Here is one response: "The Catholic Church opposes all forms of birth control. How is this news? The Church's position is very self serving." What exactly is self-serving about acknowledging that the ability to conceive children is a gift from God, not from the state? Another wrote, "Hughes is a devil and Maestri is his devil-lap dog. Who cares what he says?" And yet another posted this: Hughes takes his cues from the devil's bullhorn........... I have to tell you, there are so many truly hateful comments posted in response to this news report that I am left with a saddened heart and sincere desire to get on my knees and say a prayer of thanks to God for the courage of these men, emboldened by truth and unafraid of proclaiming it. It is, after all, bishops like Soto and Hughes who are reflecting Pope Benedict XVI's recent invitation to bishops: "The example of the great apostle calls bishops to grow each day in a holy life, so as to have the same sentiments as Christ," Benedict XVI said. "The first apostolic and spiritual commitment of a bishop should be to progress in the life of evangelical perfection." The [p]ope exhorted the bishops "to trust each day in the word of God, so as to be teachers of the faith and authentic educators of your faithful." Moreover, he entrusted the prelates to the [word] of God, "so that you will be faithful to the promises you have pronounced before God and the Church on the day of your episcopal consecration. "Progressing along the path of sanctity, you will manifest that indispensable moral authority and prudent wisdom that is demanded of one who is at the head of the family of God," the Holy Father affirmed. "This authority is today more necessary than ever. Your ministry will be pastorally fruitful if it is supported on your sanctity of life."   Amen, Your Holiness, and alleluia!  http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2355 2008-09-29 10:58:00 The news from the reproductive health front is not good these days for preborn children, but it is for those who cash in on the sexually transmitted disease, sterility and unplanned pregnancy market. Those who profit from ignorance and pain appear to be having a very good economic surge and are campaigning hard for even more money. To increase the use of intrauterine devices, for example, a recent survey was conducted. A study of 144 adolescent and young women from Pittsburgh found that more than 60 percent of the study's participants initially had never heard of the IUD. The article states,   Researchers noted that more than half of all the participants had positive attitudes toward the IUD after the three-minute oral educational intervention and that women who had ever had voluntary sexual intercourse were significantly more likely to have a positive attitude toward the IUD. The researchers concluded that all sexually active women should be educated about IUD use in part because health care providers cannot predict who will be interested in IUDs based on reproductive history or demographic information. So we can safely presume that naïve young women who are sexually active will be receiving more information about the IUD. They will be hearing a great deal about this device, which happens to be the most effective abortifacient device so far in the birth control repertoire. However, they will not be given all the facts. A three-minute hard sell does not allow for telling the truth. In another report from the August 2008 issue of the Journal of Healthcare for the Poor and Underserved , it is reported that, nearly seven million U.S. women rely on family planning services funded by the federal Title X program, Medicaid, and states and localities. The services have numerous health, personal and financial benefits -- including better birth spacing and greater opportunity to reach educational and career goals for individuals, and cost savings to both individuals and society as a result of fewer unplanned births. Reading between the lines, we can ascertain the true objective of publicly funded birth control programs, which have now been in existence for over 38 years. The goal is to eliminate preborn children from the families of those below the poverty level who are deemed to be unable to accept an "unplanned birth." Notice that the term "unplanned pregnancy" is not used, because abortion helps the expectant mother avoid the "unplanned birth." Of course, the healthiest way to address this matter, if indeed it is a problem, would be to promote abstinence before marriage and fidelity within marriage. But if the government were to follow that course, organizations such as Planned Parenthood might see their funding dry up, and the government simply could not bear the thought. In case nobody has told you lately, those organizations that market birth control rake in millions of your tax dollars . . . $336 million last year, to be precise, and that number represents only the federal tax dollars going to Planned Parenthood! Jennifer Frost of the Guttmacher Institute, a Planned Parenthood research arm, reports in the current issue of the American Journal of Public Health, I examined the 1995 and 2002 National Survey of Family Growth for patterns and trends in the use of sexual and reproductive health care services by US women according to type of provider. The percentage of women reporting receipt of contraceptive services rose between 1995 and 2002 (from 36% to 41%), and the level and mix of services received varied considerably according to type of provider. Women visiting publicly funded providers received a broader mix of services than did clients of private providers. According to a report on this study, Frost recommended that her research be used to help policymakers and taxpayer-funded program planners improve delivery and increase financing for such services. Please note that this is yet another example of how effectively our tax dollars are being used to entice women into using birth control, which of course means that abortion absolutely must be available as a backup, since no method of birth control works all the time! Further, studies like this build the case for increasing the tax burden on you and I so that more and more clients can be created for the birth control market. More customers equal more money. Finally, to underscore their insatiable appetite for money, customers and souls, these purveyors of lurid behavior modification claim that sex education needs to be "medically accurate." Now, in case you have no clue what that means, I am most happy to explain it to you. The Monthly Women's Health Research Review, from which I gleaned the material for this commentary, reports on a recent article by John Santelli, of Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health. The report states,     Although many states have implemented "seemingly uncontroversial" requirements for scientific or medical accuracy in sex education and HIV prevention programs, these requirements "respond to the increasing injection of ideology into sexuality education, as represented by abstinence-only programs." …According to Santelli, science is "being manipulated and ignored" in debates concerning public policy, which has [led] to abstinence-only curricula that contain scientifically inaccurate information or withhold vital information from students. Here is the crux of the problem. When you have a federal government steeped in promoting the idea that birth control needs to be provided, along with "education" and how-to courses, the result is an ongoing effort to remove all references to virtue from such programs. The "medical accuracy" to which Santelli refers to means that information is very selectively presented to young people. While an adolescent may be told that he or she needs to have ready access to birth control in order to have "safe sex," that same young person will not be told that sexual promiscuity can result in agonizingly painful emotional and physical consequences that can last a lifetime.  Registered nurse Nancy Valko sums up this grim situation very well: "Comprehensive" sex education is not really about giving information but rather about a politics of despair where the sex "experts" hope for some damage control in the areas of teen pregnancy and disease. But we are already seeing the failure of such an approach in the proliferation of new sexually transmitted diseases, abortion, divorce, unwed moms, deadbeat dads, child abuse, etc., as well as a growing cynicism about relationships in our young people. If sex is seen as little more than recreation with consequences to be avoided, how will our children later be able to handle the temptation to cheat on a spouse or the sacrifices involved in raising a child? Yet, as the above makes very clear, it is not in the best interest of the birth control merchants to have such facts get out! After all, more virtue means less money in the cash register. Yet, the truth is there for one and all to see, if only they have eyes to see and a desire to save our youth. A 2000 Massachusetts News article reported that, according to psychiatrist Melvin Anchell,   sex education is "anti-educational." He says that if a young child receives sex education between the ages of 6 and 12, his "curiosity" and his "desire to learn are destroyed." The doctor says, "With the artificially induced arousal of his erotogenic zones, the child experiences a decreased capability for academic pursuits and exhibits an emotional retardation in connection with the development of compassionate feelings." There is nothing wholesome about any aspect of the birth control merchants and their wares. So I ask you, why are we paying for it? Until we demand an end to the birth control merchants' hawking of lasciviousness, we are literally underwriting a decadent future. Speak up! http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2352 2008-09-26 15:41:00 The 1904 comic strip character Gloomy Gus was habitually depressed or, one could say, without hope. So too are those who dabble in the dreary business of violating our most vulnerable brothers and sisters' rights.  This past week, it was once again perfectly clear that those who make it their life's work to interfere with human dignity are doing all they can to make everyone else as miserable as they are: We learned that Louisiana state Representative John LaBruzzo, a Republican, is so concerned about poverty that he has made a startling recommendation: He wants to pay poor women $1,000 to have their tubes tied, though he did admit that his plan might be a hard sell in the state legislature. Perhaps it is no coincidence that he hails from the same district as white supremacist David Duke. John Mashek of U.S. News and World Report took a cheap shot at Bishop Joseph Martino of Scranton, Pennsylvania, without deigning to even mention his name. It seems that Mashek feels that Senator Joseph Biden and others of his ilk are being treated harshly by Bishop Martino, who has publicly indicated that he would deny the body of Christ to Biden due to his support for abortion.  Mashek tells his readers, "As a Catholic since birth and one raised by a devout Irish Catholic mother, I have serious problems with my church [sic] on this matter." Then he exposes what is really sticking in his craw when he writes, I admit it relates in large part to the pedophilia scandals that have ripped the church [sic] in recent years. Many priests (roughly 5,000 were accused) have been found to have abused young males and young girls, some of them altar boys. For years, the problem was hidden from public view, with priests routinely sent to other parishes without warning the new church—and certainly without informing the authorities. Some cardinals were even involved, and they were, in my view, committing criminal acts as conspirators. For the record, rape and child molestation are crimes. Covering it up is a crime. Abortion is not a crime because of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. One pro-abortion Catholic defending another pro-abortion Catholic by attempting to smear the bishop! Tragic, but all too frequent in these days of politically correct "news speak." Further evidence of this miserable frame of mind comes from 13 state attorneys general, 12 of whom signed on to Connecticut AG Richard Blumenthal's letter telling the Department of Health and Human Services that its proposal for protecting pro-life medical workers' conscience rights is a danger to women. Blumenthal told the media that the regulation "threatens to drastically discourage and even deter a woman's right to choose. This proposed rule unconscionably puts personal agendas before patient care ... failing even to acknowledge the rights of rape victims and others to access birth control and related vital health services." In other words, because certain healthcare workers hold a moral conviction consistent with scientific truth and the natural law, they have put their "personal agendas" ahead of the type of patient care that results in the death of one of every two patients. How cruel can you get! In case you wondered, the 12 states that signed on to this pro-death screed are Arizona, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah and Vermont. Planned Parenthood, however, takes the cake as the nation's leading disciple of all things hopeless and decadent. In the latest issue of Stop Planned Parenthood International's Wednesday STOPP Report, we find out the following: Planned Parenthood is offering free birth control in Binghamton, New York. PP spokeswoman Ingrid Husisian admits that the reason for the Plan B free giveaway is to draw regular customers: "When people come in for their free emergency contraception, one of the things we'll encourage is would you like to book an appointment on your way out so you can get on a regular method of birth control." In Delaware, Planned Parenthood will host its "Fourth Annual Chocolate Festival and Silent Auction." As the WSR editor asks, what do chocolate, wine, a silent auction and birth control have in common? Well, according to the WSR,  Marion Hamermesh, a PPDE board member and the event's chairwoman, said, "The chocolate and auction items are a great draw, but the nicest part of the event is that supporters show up to help PPDE protect reproductive rights and continue to provide quality, confidential reproductive care to Delawareans. It turns out to be a wonderful evening for everyone." Well, Marion, not for everyone, since preborn babies will die as a direct result of your promotion of the very chemicals and surgical procedures that put them at risk daily. But perhaps the most sordid news item I saw this week dealt with Down syndrome children and the now-confirmed fact that very few Down's babies ever make it to birth. Father John Flynn, LC, writing for Zenit News Agency, reports, "An article in the Washington Post on Sept. 10 by opinion columnist Michael Gerson noted that when tests reveal Down syndrome in an unborn child, around 90% are aborted." Indeed, when I read the Gerson report, entitled "Trig's Breakthrough,"  I was astounded to learn that unlike what is accorded African Americans and women, civil rights protections for people with Down syndrome have rapidly eroded over the past few decades. Of the cases of Down syndrome diagnosed by prenatal testing each year, about 90 percent are eliminated by abortion. Last year the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommended universal, early testing for Down syndrome – not just for older pregnant women. Some expect this increased screening to reduce the number of Down syndrome births to something far lower than the 5,500 we see today, perhaps to fewer than 1,000. This has not been a good week for human dignity, if one measures it in terms of respect for the human person and his innate right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I am confident that even in his most dour moments, Gloomy Gus would never have wanted to find himself mentioned in the same breath as people who use murder and malicious personal attacks to satisfy their own desire to remain in the darkness, where the only thing that counts is maximizing self-gratification.   God save us from these hopeless individuals! Let us pray for each of them and for those they victimize, unwittingly or otherwise.   http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2351 2008-09-25 14:24:00 Hidden behind the headlines, but rarely discussed in polite company, is the dire measure pro-abortion forces are committed to enacting because the personhood movement has become a real threat to their deadly agenda. Hardly anybody talks about the Freedom of Choice Act these days, but SOME rumblings have started. I am grateful to Cardinal Justin Rigali, Committee on Pro-Life Activities chairman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, for exposing this danger.    In case you have not heard about this legislative nightmare, let me give you a few highlights. The first is the most obvious, and that is that if FOCA were to become law, Roe v. Wade would be enshrined in U.S. law. In other words, it would establish abortion as a fundamental right. But when we analyze those two words, we need to look no further than David Limbaugh's comments to see the fallacy in those words. For, as he writes,   If the right to an abortion were fundamental, wouldn't there have been a consensus for it among the individual states long before Roe v. Wade in 1973? But Justice Scalia, in his opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, reminds us that the opposite is true. Scalia wrote, "[T]he long-standing traditions of American society have permitted [abortion] to be legally proscribed." As such, the right couldn't possibly be considered fundamental in any real sense of that word.   Truly, at least in my humble opinion, what the pro-abortion forces want is something they know the courts will not give them, particularly when we are now on the verge of at least one state establishing personhood in a permanent and unchallengeable way.   But let's look further into this FOCA problem. The USCCB's Office of the General Counsel issued a memorandum confirming that the proposed law would prohibit any type of interference with a woman's "fundamental right" to abortion, and it would provide a civil remedy to any woman who argued that her 'rights" under FOCA had been violated in any way. Not only that, but the civil action section of the proposed law would mean that FOCA would be applicable to "every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on or after the date of enactment of this Act."   To describe FOCA as a draconian proposal is an understatement. With the stroke of a pen, if a U.S. president were to sign such a bill into law, nearly all pro-life legislative activity would be rendered meaningless.   In his letter to members of Congress, Cardinal Rigali stated,   FOCA would deprive the American people in all 50 states of the freedom they now have to enact modest restraints and regulations on the abortion industry. FOCA would coerce all Americans into subsidizing and promoting abortion with their tax dollars. And FOCA would counteract any and all sincere efforts by government to reduce abortions in our country.    We are encouraged that Cardinal Rigali has called on every member of Congress to pledge their opposition to this proposal, but we would also like point out that much more needs to be done than merely encouraging politicians to do something pro-lifers have been asking them to do for decades. If politicians could see abortion's tragic impact on our future in light of current economic trends, that would be one thing, but sadly, most politicians either cannot connect the dots or refuse to acknowledge the possibility that the connection exists at all!   Pro-life leader Dennis Howard has been making this point for years now, and his most recent analysis of abortion's economic impact is readily available to anyone, including elected officials. He is one of many who have warned that "the estimated loss in downstream tax revenue exceeds $14 trillion -- more than twice our current national debt. It is, in fact, the greatest tax increase of all time. That's why, even if abortion ends, it will still take more than a generation to recover."   During a time when it is increasingly difficult to get people to see beyond politics -- at what abortion actually does to a child -- I believe we should all be working to restore legal recognition of personhood at the state and federal levels. We should not hesitate, and we should be armed with all of the scientific, ethical and economic facts we need to make this case. The real question is this: Do we have the will to make this happen?   You see, we do not have the media access that our opposition does. We could not, for example, hope that the New York Times would invite Cardinal Rigali to write an op-ed on personhood, even though they recently allotted space for Hillary Clinton and Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards to claim that the latest Health and Human Services proposed rule, designed to protect healthcare workers from having to be involved in abortion, was actually denying services to women!    These two revealed their greatest concern when they wrote,   The definition of abortion in the proposed rule is left open to interpretation. An earlier draft included a medically inaccurate definition that included commonly prescribed forms of contraception like birth control pills, IUD's and emergency contraception. That language has been removed, but because the current version includes no definition at all, individual health care providers could decide on their own that birth control is the same as abortion.    Note their use of the phrase "medically inaccurate." It would seem that our pro-abortion counterparts not only have media's ear but are also permitted to twist science to suit their own agendas. Clearly, the media is into that game as well.   So, while the New York Times, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX and all of the rest of the so-called mainstream news media are not beating down our doors to hear about the reasons why every preborn child is a person who deserves equal protection under the law, we are and must remain committed to the truth.   The FOCA proposal is alive and well, my fellow pro-life Americans, and the antidote is not hand wringing; it is personhood. May we have the courage, fortitude and zeal to beat back those who preach death by proclaiming abortion as a fundamental right. We will do so by tossing FOCA into the flames as the establishment of legally protected personhood becomes a reality.   Click here to view the USCCB's press release on this extremely dangerous bill.    http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2350 2008-09-24 10:13:00 A recent headline caught my attention on a number of levels because it had to do with demographics and abortion. The headline read,  “U.S. Abortion Rate at 30-Year Low,” and the source for this story was none other than Planned Parenthood’s own Alan Guttmacher Institute. Knowing that the AGI is no bastion of ethical integrity, I decided to look into this a bit. One of the main reasons why the AGI issues such statements is not so that it can celebrate the fact that fewer preborn children are being slaughtered by surgical means, but so it can encourage the spending of more and more money on what it calls “contraceptive services.” As AGI's president, Sharon Camp, states in the AGI's press release,  Many Americans will welcome the news that there are fewer abortions, particularly among teens, and that a larger proportion of abortions are now happening very early in pregnancy. But at the same time, abortions are becoming more concentrated among women of color and low-income women. This presents a clear challenge to policymakers to redouble their efforts to improve access to subsidized contraceptive services for these women, thereby helping them to prevent the unintended pregnancies behind these abortions from occurring in the first place. This is what I call promoting silent death by chemicals rather than messy death by surgical instruments. The AGI is not concerned about the poor and about women of color! It is determined to market the products that provide a great deal of income for organizations like Planned Parenthood. Thus, the recent study results reek of hidden agendas. Furthermore, the AGI and its collaborators within the culture of death deny that popular contraceptives actually cause the death of a preborn child prior to implantation. Planned Parenthood says, "Some people say that the pill works by keeping a fertilized egg from attaching to the lining of the uterus. But there is no proof that this actually happens." But many medical experts, including noted endocrinologist Dr. Maria Kraw, heartily disagree. In a news report about Dr. Kraw’s statements we read, If abortion is defined as "any interruption in the normal development of the embryo," methods that "prevent implantation" are abortive. Breakthrough ovulation rates (fertilization occurs, but implantation fails), for example, can happen in up to one third of cycles on the pill. In combined hormonal birth control pills, this occurs from 1.7% to 28.6% per cycle, whereas with progestin-only pills, fertilization rates are from 33% to 65% per cycle. Clearly, based on the facts at hand, the headlines proclaiming a decline in abortion numbers do not tell the full story. But there is something even more sinister at work here, because it seems that news reporters are no longer interested in investigative efforts or alternative views. They will not challenge the AGI nor will they do a little independent research. As a matter of fact, when I read the statements in the media relating to the AGI study, I did not see a single doubt expressed nor did I detect any hesitation to take the AGI at its word. If I had written the Los Angeles Times article on this study, I would have asked the following: After more than 35 years of decriminalized child killing by abortion, doesn’t anyone think that the actual numbers of those women capable of bearing children has declined? Doesn’t that in and of itself have something to do with lower surgical abortion rates? And what about all those females who’ve been ingesting birth control of one type or another over the past decades and find that they are sterile? Those women cannot bear children because they are infertile, thanks to the pill. Well, none of these troubling aspects of the contraceptive culture are mentioned. If they were, some pretty tough questions would have been asked of Sharon Camp and her allies, but then again, the media darlings don’t go there. As my fellow pro-life warrior Jim Rudd wrote yesterday, as a preface to his listing of so-called mainstream news media articles on the AGI's latest twaddle, News of this "Abortion Demographic" report, splattered all over the corporate news media this morning, is from Planned Parenthood's Guttmacher Institute. That's like the fox guarding the hen house has published a "troubling report" on how many eggs are not being laid. Besides, we already know that more underage girls and young women today are aborting babies by using Bush's Plan B -- The Morning After Pill -- which the Guttmacher Institute does not count as abortion! Therefore, any "demographic" abortion reports from Guttmacher can be trusted no further than a man can pick up the Washington Monument and throw it. While Planned Parenthood celebrates its own manufactured statistics, the rest of us need to keep raising serious questions, focusing on the facts and teaching the truth to our fellow Americans. http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2349 2008-09-23 12:22:00 Just when you think the euthanasia forces have taken a siesta, they come out swinging for yet another round of fear mongering. And this time, the grotesque scenarios suggest to me that these people honestly believe they have a duty to promote the art of killing.   Let's start off with Britain's Baroness Mary Warnock. You may recall her involvement in promoting reproductive technology, including human cloning. In 2002, she pleased her American counterparts by stating that her belief that there are no "major ethical obstacles" to reproductive cloning for medical purposes. In fact, she claimed that infertile couples could benefit from it, asserting, "If it becomes a procedure which is . . . safe then it seems to me there needs to be a lot of thought before it is absolutely ruled out."   And most recently, she is telling the world that dementia sufferers may have a duty  to die. At 84 years of age, her comments are still respected and reported by many in the European media, and she is described as "Britain's leading moral philosopher." The British newspaper, the Telegraph, tells readers,   A prominent supporter of euthanasia, she has previously suggested that pensioners who do not want to become a burden on their carers [sic] should be helped to die.   Last year the Mental Capacity Act came into effect that gives legal force to "living wills", so patients can appoint an "attorney" to tell doctors when their hospital food and water should be removed.   But now she is advocating something even more ominous and unethical, namely, that the government should allow "licensing people to put others down."   Alex Schadenberg, a Canadian who does know the meaning of moral ethics, wrote about Lady Warnock's incredibly demented comments by reminding his readers of one very important characteristic of those who market planned death: The euthanasia lobby has always sold their goals within the framework of suffering, terminally ill people who make a free choice to die. They are a movement that rarely reveal[s] their real goals. Dr. Philip Nitschke – Australia's Dr. Death, hopes to distribute a "peaceful pill" that would be available to anyone who is tired of living. Nitschke stated several years ago in an interview with the National Review that the "peaceful pill" would be available to troubled teens. One could argue that these people never met a disease they couldn't "cure" permanently. Their perspective on a patient facing dreadful illness is not only unpleasant, but deadly.   Not to be outdone by non-American death mongers, the state of Washington is deciding whether the law should assist a patient to take his own life when it becomes too burdensome!    Initiative 1000 will be voted on in November. The Seattle Times' coverage of the debate between the supporters of euthanasia and those opposed to decriminalized killing was rather skewed. The reporter opines that voters' "experiences and fears about death are triggering powerful emotions."   Well, no kidding! When everything voters hear or read about in the newspaper tells them that suffering is not to be confronted or accepted under any circumstances, what sort of emotions should they be feeling?   It has been obvious for years that euthanasia forces do their best evil work when they march out people who are seriously debilitated, tell the public that they cannot bear it any longer and demand that someone be required by law to help them die. This very argument has been at the foundation of euthanasia claims for more years than I can count.   But the funny thing is, Americans are not buying it anywhere, except in Oregon, and even there, problems abound. The reason many of us reject the arguments designed by euthanasia pushers to frighten the elderly, the infirm and the disabled is that we do not want to see our nation become another Netherlands or Britain! We sincerely want truly compassionate care, not direct killing in the name of pain management.   A paralyzed man quoted in the SeattleTimes article said, "They see me as helpless, someone whose life isn't worth living. That's what this campaign is all about."   He is one of the many whose lives inspire those of us with properly formed consciences and faith in God and His will, to press on and defend life. We do not do this because suffering is highly desired; we do it because even when pain is unbearable or debilitation might appear to render someone less than a whole person, we know better. We know that within each person is a soul bestowed by God and that each person's innate human dignity can never be negated, even by those who market freedom from pain achieved through premature death.   In the midst of all this pressure on people who believe everything they hear on TV or read in the newspapers, one would expect Catholic medical ethicists, at least, to come out and defend human dignity. But no. Just recently, we read about a Catholic priest, described by some as a "noted ethicist and theologian." His name is Father Kevin O'Rourke, SJ, and he is being praised by the Catholic Health Association as a "vanishing breed of ethicist."   Mind you, this is the very same Catholic priest who argued in favor of starving Terri Schiavo to death! As I wrote last year, "Bishop Robert Lynch, Terri's bishop, never lifted a finger to help the family, nor did he speak out in Terri's defense. Theologians such as Father John Paris of Boston College condoned the killing, as did Fathers Kevin O'Rourke and Richard McBrien."   At a critical moment in history such as this, where "ethicists" are joining forces to market more murder and mayhem than ever, one would think that someone as admired as Father O'Rourke would be at the forefront of defending human dignity. He should be reminding people that human beings are, always and in every case, precious and that their lives are never to be ended by the will of another based on subjective judgment, self-interest or cost savings to a hospital.   Isn't it tragic that such is not the case, at least when it comes to the likes of Father O'Rourke? But all is not lost. It never is!   A few days ago, Pope Benedict XVI visited the shrine of Lourdes, a place in France where many who are suffering go not only to find the miracle of healing but also to feel the presence of grace at a time when their lives seem hopeless. During that visit, the Holy Father said something that I wish could be impressed on the hearts and minds of all those who take it upon themselves to tell us who should live and who should die. He said,   In Lourdes, in the school of Mary, first and perfect disciple of Christ, pilgrims learn to regard the crosses of their lives in the light of the glorious cross of Christ. God has so loved us that he gave himself up for us: This is the message of the Cross, "mystery of death and of glory." The cross reminds us that there is no true love without suffering, there is no gift of life without pain. Many learn this truth in Lourdes, which is a school of faith and hope, because it is also a school of charity and of service to brothers.   As our world appears headed further down into the abyss, let us take heart and inspiration from these words of wisdom. Let us oppose the purveyors of death with truth, hope and love. http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2348 2008-09-22 11:02:00 A few days ago, I had a very strange experience. While reading a news report about Brad Pitt's donation of "$100,000 to fight California's November ballot proposal that would overturn the state Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage," I noticed the following statement from Mr. Pitt: Because no one has the right to deny another their life, even though they disagree with it, because everyone has the right to live the life they so desire of it doesn't harm another and because discrimination has no place in America, my vote will be for equality and against Proposition 8. Now, on its face, we realize that this statement is made in favor of same-sex marriage. The irony of it is, this very same statement could have been made by Mr. Pitt in defense of innocent preborn children, which is why this column is being written. Could it possibly be that without knowing it, Brad Pitt has made one of the most profoundly pro-life statements ever made by a Hollywood icon? I think so! Bear with me for a moment while I share my thought process with you. Brad Pitt is the father of six children, two of whom were adopted by Angelina Jolie and then by Mr. Pitt. Apparently, the man loves children. While we might be able to debate his lifestyle choices, we do know, from the public record, that his children bring great joy to his life. That being said, we could further surmise that perhaps he is an unwitting pro-life spokesperson who has yet to realize that his recent statements put him in the category of a man who understands the dignity of the human person and the rights that every person should enjoy in a just society. For as we know full well, even in the case of a practicing homosexual, the human person is to be respected as a child of God though the acts he pursues are offensive to God and against His laws. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (Sections 2357 – 2359) teaches the following: Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. Thus I submit to you that Pitt has made a classic statement of respect for the human person. If I were to take his statement, word for word, and apply it to preborn children, it would be definitive in its principled position. Pitt's first point: "No one has the right to deny another their life." As we know, the act of abortion robs an innocent human being of his life by killing him or her prior to birth. Abortion is an act of murder. Pope John Paul II reminded us in Evangelium Vitae,  "The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder." Pitt's second point: "Everyone has the right to live the life they so desire if it doesn't harm another." The fact is, the act of abortion kills an innocent person. In addition, the mother who submits her child to this deadly harm not only becomes the mother of a dead child, but suffers emotionally, spiritually and physically as a direct result her child's planned death. Studies make it increasingly evident that abortion's effect on expectant mothers is a serious problem that, though shrouded by silence in the "mainstream media," is nonetheless very real. The Elliot Institute has spent years documenting this tragedy while mainstream medical organizations remain in denial. Recently, the prestigious Lancet medical journal joined the ranks of those who report objectively on abortion's aftermath. The Lancet states, "The fact that some women do experience psychological problems after a termination should not be trivialized. . . Women choosing to terminate must be offered an appropriate package of follow-up care, which includes psychological counseling when needed." Pitt's third point: "Discrimination has no place in America." The ultimate discrimination in America is protected under cover of law and affects an entire class of people simply because they reside in their mothers' wombs. As Bishop Eldon Curtiss so eloquently taught in his August 18, 2000 commentary entitled "It is not a liberal cause to support abortion: It is anti-life and anti-Church," You can be assured that I will challenge any Catholic in Northeastern Nebraska who claims to be a member of the Church and at the same time supports abortion. It is not a liberal cause that is being supported but an elitist anti-Catholic one. There is no place for discrimination against pre-born or partially-born babies in the Catholic Church. Obviously, based on the points I have set forth above, wittingly or unwittingly, Pitt did indeed make a strong pro-life statement that should be the basis for you, me, and every red-blooded pro-life American to write a letter to thank him for making it. Further, let each of us ask him to match the donation he made to oppose California's Proposition 8 with a donation to a pro-life charity such as American Life League. With an additional $100,000, our work to end abortion could be enhanced beyond all telling. If you think Brad Pitt would be amazed by such an outpouring of pro-life sentiment, please join me in contacting him through his booking agency: Brad Pitt c/o NOPAC Talent 2247 Rickover Place Winter Garden, FL 34787 Office: 888-550-6672 Fax: 407-905-4773 Email: info@nopactalent.com Mark your message or envelope "PERSONAL PLEASE."