http://www.all.org/rss_jblog.php Judie Brown, American Life League Blog RSS Feed en-us Thu, 05 Nov 2009 08:15:48 EST Thu, 05 Nov 2009 08:15:48 EST http://www.all.org webmaster@all.org webmaster@all.org http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2829 2009-11-04 13:14:00 (The following is a media release issued on November 3, 2009, by Debra Vinnedge, founder and executive director of Children of God for Life, an American Life League Associate group. It is reprinted here with her kind permission.) Last week, the pro-life organization Children of God for Life made news when it issued a media release saying that Neocutis, a San Francisco-based cosmetics company, was using aborted fetal material to produce its anti-wrinkle skin cream. Since then, thousands of angry consumers have begun taking action. Many have called or written Neocutis to complain, and unfortunately, they are receiving jaded, if not patently false responses from the company president, Mark Lemko. For starters, Neocutis responded to one inquiry by claiming there was only one abortion involved when, in fact, its own web site states, “The Laboratoire de Médecine Foetale at the Medical School of the University Hospital of Lausanne has worked extensively with fetal cells since 1995 and resulted in several patent applications.” Neocutis further says it was formed in 2002 as a spin-off of the university’s medical school team and began working to protect “the intellectual property of their proprietary technology defining a business strategy, setting up a business plan and hiring the pioneers in order to establish the skin cell bank.”  Yet the abortion used to provide the fetal material for their products was done in 2004. Clearly, if they had to protect their "proprietary technology," multiple sources of aborted fetal material had to have been used for years, prior to perfecting the final cell line that they ultimately used in 2004. In what can only be called suspect at best, Neocutis stated that the 2004 abortion was done because the “pregnancy could not come to term” and that “the mother’s life was in danger.” Yet what is reported in Experimental Gerontology (Vol. 44, Issue 3, March 2009, pp. 208-218) about its research makes no mention of this at all. What the research paper states is that the fetal material was obtained from a 14-weeks gestation male baby “after pregnancy termination” in which they “obtained informed and written consent.” Considering that the report dedicated an entire section to the “ethical aspects of working with human fetal cells,” in which they attempted to sanitize what they were doing, it is certain that if the abortion was somehow classified as medically necessary, it would have been documented as such. And of course, Neocutis does not mention why all those other abortions were done prior to 2004. Apparently, that is something it was not counting on the public finding out. And while Neocutis promises “no further fetal biopsies will be needed,” the University of Lausanne states, “We have seen that cells frozen in this manner are capable of being stored for at least 15 years in our laboratory.” So what happens after 15 years? The cells will eventually lose their capacity to replicate and will need to be replaced.   Neocutis has desperately tried to minimize its notorious activity by noting that only a four-centimeter section of skin was used to produce its cell line. But taken into perspective, based on the size of a baby at 14 weeks gestation, that’s about the size of the entire baby’s back.  Even more appalling was its attempt to justify using aborted fetal material. Mr. Lemko told  another letter writer that he “felt comfortable with his decision” after studying the 2005 statement by the Pontifical Academy for Life, "Moral Reflection on Vaccines Prepared From Cells Derived from Aborted Human Foetuses." He cites this statement in his letter: [A]s the same vaccines are prepared from viruses taken from the tissues of fetuses that had been infected and voluntarily aborted, and the viruses were subsequently attenuated and cultivated from human cell lines which come likewise from procured abortions, they do not cease to pose ethical problems. If someone rejects every form of voluntary abortion of human fetuses, would such a person not contradict himself/herself by allowing the use of these vaccines of live attenuated viruses on their children? Would it not be a matter of true (and illicit) cooperation in evil, a problem which arises every time that a moral agent perceives the existence of a link between his own acts and a morally evil action carried out by others? It is unconscionable that Mr. Lemko would use the Vatican statement to defend his actions. Not only are we talking apples and oranges here—health vs. vanity—he must have missed the part of that document where it stated, Therefore, whoever—regardless of the category to which he belongs—cooperates in some way, sharing its intention, to the performance of a voluntary abortion with the aim of producing the above-mentioned vaccines, participates, in actuality, in the same moral evil as the person who has performed that abortion. The Pontifical Academy for Life rightly puts no weight on the intention of the mother, as it is inconsequential when multiple parties are involved in an act of evil. Neocutis is directly complicit because it was its intention to use aborted fetal material in order to produce its skin creams. Interestingly, both the Pontifical Academy for Life in 2005 and Pope Benedict XVI in his December 2008 encyclical, Dignitas Personae, condemned the use of these "illicit biological materials," but Pope Benedict took it even further, stating, Therefore, it needs to be stated that there is a duty to refuse to use such “biological material” even when there is no close connection between the researcher and the actions of those who performed the artificial fertilization or the abortion, or when there was no prior agreement with the centers in which the artificial fertilization took place. This duty springs from the necessity to remove oneself, within the area of one’s own research, from a gravely unjust legal situation and to affirm with clarity the value of human life (35). Additionally, both Vatican statements commented on users of the end products from these aborted fetal cell lines, cautiously noting that parents could use the vaccines in question "on a temporary basis" and in situations of "grave inconvenience" or "considerable danger" to the health of their children and society. Hmm. Now, what do you suppose the Vatican would say about using these cosmetic creams? Children of God for Life is urging the public to take action by "sounding off" on its web site or by contacting Neocutis directly. It is also calling for a full boycott of all Neocutis products and any companies distributing them. Further information is available at the Children of God for Life web site. Editor's note: Also see the story in yesterday’s Washington Times. http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2828 2009-11-03 11:17:00 Hyperactivity has taken on new meaning as many of those who pander to the abortion lobby are becoming apoplectic due to the growing strength of the pro-life personhood movement at the state and national levels. You can tell by simply reading the reports that flood the internet daily. Some of them are downright humorous, but we dare not laugh for these commentators are serious — dead serious. Newsweek senior reporter Sarah Kliff penned a “web exclusive” titled “I Am Zygote, Hear Me Roar.” Kliff works hard at dehumanizing the earliest human person in our midst … the human individual. The problem is that she uses inaccurate language to achieve her goal. This is not really due to her ignorance but rather her zeal to convince the reader that preborn children are not really anywhere near as valuable or as human as those of us who survived the womb. She writes that Colorado’s first personhood effort in 2008 “would have revised Colorado's state constitution to define a fertilized egg as a person, thereby outlawing abortion.” Kliff is wrong. We don’t say that. In fact, “fertilized egg” is a scientifically inaccurate term that is used by pro-abortion forces to relegate the preborn child during his first days of life to a non-human status. Average citizens who hear the term “fertilized egg” have a mental idea of the same sort of egg one finds in a chicken coop or the refrigerator and automatically, as the pro-aborts hope, the citizen is put off by such a silly idea, saying things such as “who would ever argue that an egg is a person!” Those of us who understand the biological development of the human being know that the correct words to say are “human being” or “human zygote.” Kliff also tells the reader that the “idea” regarding when a human life begins has always been at the center of “anti-abortion-rights ideology.” In other words, she relegates the actual scientific facts regarding human development to nothing more than an “idea,” and the defense of those facts as theory. By carefully choosing her words, Kliff obfuscates, but that too is intended. We don’t say “idea” and we don’t say “ideology” because both are inaccurate, which is precisely why our opponents do. Freelance writer Wendy Norris recently created a blog entitled “Financial Issues Dog Second Colorado Egg-as-Person Campaign.” In case you missed it, she too cleverly gets that little old “egg” into her headline. Just a coincidence? I don’t think so. Norris is a bit more jaundiced in her remarks, focusing on the absence of adequate funding for Personhood Colorado’s activities. She focuses on the most recent campaign finance report in terms of what she defines as the organizational leadership’s “vow of poverty.” By suggesting that the group has little funding, she avers that in their lack of income, one can see their downfall. In fact, Norris was so worried about where the group got the money to fund a mailing that might have cost a thousand dollars that she desperately tried to call the leadership for an explanation.  Claiming “The peculiarities on Personhood Colorado campaign's recent financial disclosure form may very well be an oversight by fledgling activists. Or it could point to a much more cynical attempt to thwart public accountability by a well-oiled theocratic political machine,” she misses the whole point. When grassroots pro-lifers are committed to a cause, they frequently use their own personal resources to finance a campaign until such time as there is a thriving fundraising effort. I have known people who worked a regular job and poured all their excess income into a pro-life program and, the last time I looked, that was not a crime! Where has this woman been? Or is she simply making an attempt to destroy Personhood Colorado by tossing innuendo the way a Southerner tosses pancakes? By using phrases such as “shadowy activities” and “reporting snafus” it would seem that Norris is hell-bent on doing whatever she can to bring down Personhood Colorado based on nothing but her personal opinion. Norris is apparently not adept at arguing articulately about her reasons why personhood is not necessary. Perhaps this is because she knows there are no intellectual, logical arguments to support her pro-death tendencies. So character assassination appears to be her main course. We don’t say such things because we don’t have to; we have the facts which speak for themselves … if given a chance to be born, of course. USA Today has joined this linguistic circus as well, recently blogging about the reasons why aborting a child prior to birth is really what health insurance reform should be about. In an opinion piece subtitled “It’s a legal medical procedure—and insurance should cover it,” the editors posit the dubious claim that aborting a child is in the same category as removing an infected tooth. But what is most egregious about this blather is the following: Since the mid-1970s, abortion opponents have managed to cut off insurance coverage for the procedure for a larger and larger number of Americans. With exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother, federally funded abortions are banned for women covered by military insurance, Medicaid, the health benefits program for federal employees, and the Indian Health Service. This is, of course, the result of deep religious conviction. For those who believe that life begins at conception, pursuing such policies is a moral obligation. But it is simultaneously an intrusion into the private lives of millions of American women of other beliefs in a nation where the government is supposed to be religiously neutral. Now, the same forces are pushing for more. Note that the writer equates a “ban” with the funding of at least some, if not more than a few child killings. I never knew that banning something was the same as permitting it. I wonder where we find that definition. The blogger further suggests that the reason for curtailing federal funding is some “deep religious conviction.” Well, pardon me, but again we are dealing with human embryology, which is a science, not a church. We are further dealing with logical analysis of scientific facts, which is not a dogma but a function of the intellect if one cares to use it. Apparently, in the world of abortion advocacy, there isn’t much desire for cerebral exercise these days. Overstatements and misstatements appear to be favored fare when writing about preborn human beings. Finally, there is this idea that one’s position on abortion is based on a personal belief. Such assertions are loaded with deliberately inaccurate terminology designed to continue the grand scheme that has been in play for nearly forty years. The culture of death architects devised a long range plan which has always been to convince an unthinking public that abortion is not killing anyone but rather a surgery like any other. The tragedy of this strategy is that children die, mothers are wounded, families are destroyed and death persists unabated because ignorance rules. This is why we don’t say “belief,” we say “fact.” We don’t say “I think,” we say “I know.” We don’t say “that’s my opinion,” we say “look at the truth,” the 4-D ultrasound, the images so beautifully presented by eminent photographers like Lennart Nilsson.  We don’t lie, we tell the truth.  For this very reason, every now and then, someone from the dark side’s inner sanctum sees the light. Abby Johnson of Bryan [Texas] Planned Parenthood just had her encounter with the truth and now she tells the media, "I feel so pure in heart (since leaving). I don't have this guilt, I don't have this burden on me anymore that's how I know this conversion was a spiritual conversion." We do say, thank God! http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2827 2009-11-02 10:49:00 A couple of recent news items from South America have reminded me once again why the United States government — or any government, for that matter — must never be entrusted with the health care of its population.  Political arrangements or authoritarian actions are always just the stroke of a pen away from oppression of religious liberty. It is the rare country these days that can boast of a politician who actually stands up for truth, life and the ethics of honest government. When I first read of the actions of the president of the Constitutional Court of Peru, I was in total disbelief and had to immediately check sources to make sure that the news I had read was accurate. The president, Juan Vergara, has asked Peru’s minister of health, Oscar Ugarte, to prohibit the sale of the morning-after pill in pharmacies, due to the fact that the pill can cause an abortion.   This announcement came almost three years to the day after Chile’s feminist president, Michelle Bachelet, fought to liberalize the nation’s policies regarding the availability of contraception by making this very pill, the morning-after pill, available free at state-run hospitals.  The most recent news report on the court’s decision explains, The court's ruling bans the free distribution of the morning-after pill in public health care facilities; however the drug can still be sold in pharmacies as long as consumers are provided with information on the drug’s potential abortifacient nature. According to Carlos Polo, director of the Office for Latin America of the Population Research Institute, the court “has acted correctly because it put things into proper perspective. The promoters and sellers of the pill needed to show that the anti-implantation effect did not exist and they could not do so.” Only time will tell whether or not the proponents of abortion will rise up and challenge the ruling by appealing to international courts, but the fact is that there is at least one judge in Peru whose confidence in scientific fact supersedes his desire for political popularity. A rarity indeed, as was recently confirmed by events in Colombia, where quite a different scenario is playing out. Colombia’s Constitutional Court recently ruled against freedom of religion, freedom of conscience and freedom from oppressive, anti-life policies. In 2006, the Court ruled that there were certain circumstances in which an abortion could be performed. Thus, for the first time in Colombia’s history, abortion became available “when a pregnancy threatens a woman's life or health, in cases of rape, incest and in cases where the fetus has malformations incompatible with life outside the womb.” In plain English, that would mean that surgical abortion is available in all cases. The word “health” is so elastic that it can apply in nearly any situation. All one need do is consult the U.S. Supreme Court’s Doe. v. Bolton ruling to discern just how meaningless the word “health” truly is these days.  As if that 2006 ruling were not bad enough, a few days ago that Colombian court extended its reach into the practice of medicine by ruling that all hospitals and/or health centers whether public or private, secular or religious, must provide training for staff to perform abortions. In essence, this decision forces Catholic hospitals to teach and practice murder. Thank God for Auxiliary Bishop Juan Cordoba Villota, who declared in response to this egregious ruling, “We Catholic educators are not going to teach this; we're going to teach respect for life.  We emphatically reject this pronouncement. We will not disobey any orders, but... they cannot obligate us to do this."  The decision is now under examination because a formal request has been made that this recent court ruling be overturned. The decision to challenge this ruling has not pleased pro-abortion forces. In fact, one commentator wrote, [I] understand that a majority of Colombians may well be inflexible anti-abortionists, who believe that a woman never has a right to end her pregnancy even under the most extreme of circumstances. After all, Colombia still is a parochial, largely conservative society: the first legal abortion in Colombia, performed on an 11 year-old who had been raped by her stepfather, did not fail to outrage many people. It is very likely that if Colombians were to decide this issue by referendum, the pro-choice side would lose miserably. It is my opinion that these two events, which occurred in fundamentally Catholic countries with strong religious leadership from the bishops, should be of particular interest to American bishops right now. For contrary to what is happening in Peru and Colombia, the United States is not an overwhelmingly Catholic nation but one composed of people of many faiths. Further, as has been reported in survey after survey, a majority of American Catholics don’t object to abortion or contraception, even though the Church teaches that abortion is an act of murder and contraception is intrinsically evil.  Based on this fact alone, the Catholic bishops should be up in arms, sounding the alarm, running up the flag and telling the government, through the united activation of faithful American Catholics in America, that the Church will not tolerate any usurpation of its freedom to reject all anti-life aspects of health care reform in any form, under any guise, for any reason.  It is obvious that the debacle known as national health care reform is moving closer to becoming a reality. Many of us who have studied the various bills understand that what these proposals really represent is an imposed authoritarian government-controlled program that could have ominous overtones for Catholic health care facilities in the United States. There could come a time in the not-too-distant future when the federal government will do what the court is attempting to do in Colombia, by imposing its anti-life will on the Church and her facilities. What then?  How effective will the current “abortion neutrality” statement from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops be when the U.S. government is in charge of health care? A government that wishes to impose its will on one and all is a government that should not be interfering with the ethical practice of medicine. And yet by acquiescing to the idea of nationalized health care and stipulating only that such a program be “abortion neutral,” the USCCB is playing right into the hands of those in charge of alleged health care reform. The U.S. government has a track record to prove the veracity of my statements. The history of our government’s involvement in abortion alone, not to mention contraception, human embryonic stem cell research and other practices that violate the dignity of the human person, provides ample documentation on this question.  If there is suspicion that the above statement is an overreaction to the current proposal that has just come from the House of Representatives, examine the facts as set forth in Michael Hichborn’s study of the bill.  Contrast the Hichborn study with the USCCB action alert, which does not address euthanasia, health care rationing, contraception, human embryonic stem cell research or sterilization. There is no question that these anti-life activities, in addition to sex education, special privileges for groups such as Planned Parenthood and more that were included in the House version, were included in the Senate version and so far have not gone anywhere. Even Senator Chuck Grassley, one of the Senate leaders in health care reform negotiations at the time, is concerned: "I don't have any problem with things like living wills, but they ought to be done within the family," he said. "We should not have a government program that determines you're going to pull the plug on grandma." While we are eternally grateful to the bishops for sounding an alarm, the current situation deserves stronger action on a much broader scale. We would hope that USCCB bureaucrats would be scouring these proposals for the very same dreadful indications of promoting the culture of death that we have found and shared.  Hichborn assured America, American Life League will continue shining the spotlight on the culture of death’s attempt to promote its agenda and expand its reach through Obama-style "health care reform." As changes are made and provisions are introduced or removed from current federal legislation, you can count on American Life League to keep you updated on these developments. We call on the USCCB to do likewise. There is too much at stake; the lives of far too many of our fellow human beings are at risk. We are not living in a nation with a government or a judicial system that respects the natural law. We are not living in a Catholic country that puts Christ and His truth first.  On the contrary, we are living in a nation wherein a government has literally presided over the murders of millions of innocents as it denies that a human being exists prior to birth. Such a governing authority can never be entrusted with the health care of the people of this nation, regardless of their religious persuasion, immigration status, income or any other qualifier one might choose to list. Thomas Jefferson once said, “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” I would suggest to the Catholic bishops, as individual shepherds and as a united force for good, that the price of preserving the integrity of all that the Church teaches regarding respect for the dignity of the human person is their absolute opposition to government-controlled health care reform. http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2826 2009-10-30 11:26:00 Sometimes the facts are scary enough to double for imaginary witches, goblins and monsters from Count Dracula’s basement all in one fell swoop. These past few days have proven that not all that is bloodcurdling is going to be trick or treating tomorrow, that’s for sure. There’s the whole rigmarole with Notre Dame president Rev. John Jenkins. Even though he defied Catholic teaching, and never responded to the expressed concerns of more than 80 Catholic bishops, as he carried on with his plan to host pro-abortion U.S. president Barack Obama, he was still elected by the Notre Dame trustees to serve a second term as president of the prestigious University of Notre Dame.  As the Cardinal Newman Society pointed out in a press release, even though Jenkins abused the Catholic identity of Notre Dame by rolling out the red carpet for Obama, it didn’t seem to ruffle the feathers of the trustees one tiny bit. What a scary tale this is, as Patrick J. Reilly of CNS makes clear:  The Board of Trustees has once again neglected their responsibility to uphold Notre Dame’s Catholic mission by reelecting a president who has displayed public disrespect for the bishops and has permitted repeated scandals including the honors to President Obama and performances of The Vagina Monologues. But then again, as Jill Stanek exposed during the original ruckus, there’s not a whole lot Catholic about that board of trustees anyway.  On top of this, we find that Jenkins announced publicly that he would be coming to the March for Life in 2010. Well, frankly, that should have been expected. So why is it newsworthy? Aren’t Catholic priests supposed to set a good example for their flock? Oops, I think that lets Jenkins off the hook after his shenanigans, which might be why his public announcement received coverage. The National Catholic Register reported in a huge story covering Jenkins’ namby-pamby announcement:  The controversy over the University of Notre Dame’s honors to pro-abortion President Obama at its May 17 commencement has led some pro-life advocates to question whether the university is pro-life — or even Catholic. But it appears Notre Dame is trying to take the high ground. Holy Cross Father John Jenkins, Notre Dame’s president, announced in a Sept. 16 e-mail to the university community that he plans to attend the March for Life in Washington next January and hopes to offer a Mass. If that isn’t a tale from the crypt, I don’t know what is. First of all, Jenkins is not the University; he is the president and none of us question whether or not the “university is pro-life,” but rather why Bishop D’Arcy didn’t suspend Jenkins, whose pro-life credentials are questionable regardless of how many public pronouncements he makes about attending the March for Life. Why any upstanding Catholic newspaper would give ink to Jenkins’ announcement after the debacles of these past months is a mystery. But then again, I have been known to see hobgoblins where others suggest there are daisies and buttercups. So perhaps the next item is also a figment of my imagination. It seems that “Sister” Donna Quinn, a Dominican nun, is working as a volunteer at a local abortion mill in the Archdiocese of Chicago. No, she is not volunteering for the local pro-life pregnancy care center in an effort to prayerfully talk expectant mothers out of entering the place to pay someone to kill their own babies. Sr. Quinn is a death-scort. She escorts expectant mothers inside so they can kill their babies. Oh, and Sister has been doing this for at least six years according to one pro-lifer.  Horrors! And get this: Sr. Patricia Mulcahey, OP, Quinn's Prioress at the Sinsinawa Dominican community, said in an e-mail response to LSN that the nun sees her volunteer activity as "accompanying women who are verbally abused by protestors. Her stance is that if the protestors were not abusive, she would not be there."  Though Sr. Mulcahey claimed that her sisters "support the teachings of the Catholic Church," she declined to comment on Quinn's public protest of Catholic Church teaching. Finally, and perhaps the scariest tale of all, is that the latest Senate version of Obama’s health care reform package should have provoked some sort of comment from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. So far, that organization has been eerily silent. Many, including yours truly, are convinced that Section 1803 of the Senate bill will make Planned Parenthood a quasi-government agency, as if they weren’t really one already. In a public statement, we explained:  The Senate version of America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009 may transform the nation’s largest abortion chain into a quasi-government entity for sex education. Section 1803, page 503, creates a National Teen Pregnancy Prevention Resource Center and states: The Secretary shall award a grant to a nationally recognized, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that meets the requirements described in clause (ii) to establish and operate a national teen pregnancy prevention resource center (in this subparagraph referred to as the ‘Resource Center’) to carry out the purpose and activities described in clause (iii). (emphasis added) According to the requirements found in clause (ii): The organization has demonstrated experience working with and providing assistance to a broad range of individuals and entities to reduce teen pregnancy. The organization is research-based and has comprehensive knowledge and data about teen pregnancy prevention strategies. According to Rita Diller, national director for STOP Planned Parenthood, there is only one “nationally recognized” organization that fits the bill — Planned Parenthood. “This dangerous provision to the Senate health care bill could give Planned Parenthood, already under investigation for tax fraud and concealing child rape, quasi-government status and even more influence over our kids,” Diller said. Section 1803 also creates a “Personal Responsibility Education for Adulthood Training” program (i.e. sex education), which grants at least $250,000 to each state to educate adolescents on "both abstinence and contraception for the prevention of pregnancy and STDs." We scoured the internet for some late-breaking news, hoping to find a united voice of absolute opposition to this provision from the USCCB, but, so far, such a statement has either been eaten by a ghost or it doesn’t exist. Either way, this too is more than a bit frightening when one considers the power that a forceful statement from the USCCB could have in a matter as egregious as this one. Even if Planned Parenthood is not the organization the Senate has in mind (which we highly doubt), the sort of “tricks” and “treats” the government has in store for us should generate some sort of comment from the bishops, don’t you think? All in all, these events add up to some pretty spooky stuff when one considers that, in every situation, the Catholic Church and her leadership should be standing tall, defending truth, exposing evil and dealing with those who make a mockery of her teachings. Until that happens, the treacherous tricks will commence unabated.   http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2825 2009-10-29 16:24:00 By Michael Hichborn Ever since July 14, when the first version of Obamacare, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (H.R. 3200) was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives, American Life League has been carefully monitoring "health care reform” proponents’ efforts to promote abortion, contraception, sex education, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell therapy, health care rationing, violation of conscience rights and any other anti-life endeavors. By publishing several articles and producing two American Life League Report videos on Obamacare, American Life League is exposing so-called health care reform proposals for what they really are: the culture of death’s attempt to vastly expand its power and reach, through institutionalized population control. The U.S. Senate’s version of Obamacare, ironically named America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009 (S. 1796, introduced in the Senate on October 19) is set to cost the American people over $829 billion.  To put this amount in perspective, Defense Department spending for fiscal year 2009 was $651.2 billion, and the total amount of outstanding consumer credit card debt for 2008 was $927.73 billion.  But the most significant problems with this 1,504-page bill lie in its coverage of abortion; its redefining of euthanasia so as not to include starvation, dehydration and withholding or withdrawal of medical care; and its creation of a new resource center that would essentially establish Planned Parenthood as a quasi-government agency. Page 73 establishes abortion as a component of “a State basic health program,” thereby fostering taxpayer-funded abortion in individual states. Paragraph 3 (“Assured Availability of Varied Coverage through Exchanges”) of section 2245, “Special Rules Relating to Coverage of Abortion Services” (pages 140–144), specifically stipulates that there would be at least one state-funded plan that would provide for abortion. The “compromise” here seems to be that one can opt for a plan that does not cover abortion. Even though subsection (b), “Prohibition of Use of Federal Funds,” of section 2245 purports to prohibit the use of federal funds for abortion coverage, simply segregating funds so that specific individual dollars do not intermingle with abortion dollars is deceit of the highest order. The fact is that when money is granted to an entity that commits abortions, even if cannot be spent directly on abortion coverage, it frees up other funds to pay for abortions. Part (c) of Paragraph (3) of the same section, titled “No Discrimination on the Basis of Provision of Abortion” (page 144), is especially insidious. Regardless of whether a particular health care plan covers abortion or birth control, the insurer may not discriminate against paying individual health care providers because they do or do not perform abortions or distribute birth control. So, a private Catholic health insurance company that does not cover abortion or birth control, but does cover STD testing and pap smears, may not deny payment to Planned Parenthood if a patient insured by such a company seeks either of those services there, even though PP is the nation’s largest promoter and provider of abortion. Section 1202, “Application of State and Federal Laws Regarding Abortion” (pages 144–145), simply states that this Act supposedly does not affect standing state and federal laws regarding the practice, funding or coverage of abortion. It also states, “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to have any effect on Federal laws regarding conscience protection; willingness or refusal to provide abortion; and discrimination on the basis of the willingness or refusal to provide, pay for, cover, or refer for abortion or to provide or participate in training to provide abortion.” Section 1639, “State Eligibility Option for Family Planning Services” (pages 371–380), allows for state plans to cover “family planning services and supplies … in a family planning setting” (page 373). It is well known that “family planning services” means contraception and abortion, and a “family planning setting” is a place like Planned Parenthood. Section 1640, “Grants for School-Based Health Centers” (pages 380–381), states, “The Secretary shall establish a program to award grants to eligible entities to support the operation of school-based health centers.” It is very possible that Planned Parenthood, already heavily involved in school sex education programs and the peddling of contraception and abortion to minors under the guise of health care, could be among the “eligible entities.” Section 1802, “Support, Education, and Research for Postpartum Depression” (pages 480–484), authorizes a federal study of all mental health aspects of “resolving a pregnancy,” including carrying to term, miscarriage and abortion. While any speculation on the purpose of such government-sponsored research is pure conjecture at this point, it should be noted that this section also includes plans for a national propaganda campaign regarding “postpartum conditions.” Section 1921, “Protecting Americans and Ensuring Taxpayer Funds in Government Health Care Plans Do Not Support or Fund Physician-Assisted Suicide; Prohibition Against Discrimination on Assisted Suicide” (pages 581–583), creates a rather interesting dynamic. Subsection (a) states that federal funds “shall not pay for or reimburse for any health care entity to provide for any health care item or service furnished for the purpose of causing, or for the purpose of assisting in causing, the death of any individual, such as by assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing.“ However, subsection (c), “Construction and Treatment of Certain Services” (page 582) specifically states that this prohibition does not apply to abortion. While the statement itself is deplorable, it is highly noteworthy as an implicit recognition of the preborn baby as an “individual” and an acknowledgement that abortion causes the death of an “individual.” Furthermore, it should also be noted that subsection (c) also stipulates that “the withholding or withdrawing of medical treatment or medical care” and “the withholding or withdrawing of nutrition or hydration” are not to be considered “assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing” and are thus not prohibited under subsection (a). This subsection is a direct slap in the face to those of us who denounced the withdrawal of Terry Schiavo’s feeding/hydration tube for what it was: murder. This subsection allows for physicians to intentionally starve and dehydrate patients to death by redefining what constitutes “assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing.” The title of Section 1803, “Personal Responsibility Education for Adulthood Training” (pages 491–508) is a euphemism for new taxpayer-funded, massive sex education programs and stipulates grants of at least $250,000 to each state for this purpose. In order for states to receive money for such programs, they must provide the following: current statistics on the pregnancy and birth rates of children age 10–19; goals for reducing pregnancy and birth rates for said children; and a description of how such funds will be used to reach these goals, especially for “youth populations that are the most high-risk or vulnerable for pregnancies or otherwise have special circumstances, including youth in foster care, homeless youth, youth with HIV/AIDS, pregnant youth who are under 21 years of age, mothers who are under 21 years of age, and youth residing in areas with high birth rates for youth.” The allotted money may be granted to organizations that would operate such programs, i.e. organizations such as Planned Parenthood. Personal Responsibility Education for Adulthood Programs are defined as those “designed to educate adolescents on both abstinence and contraception for the prevention of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections” (pages 498–499). Requirements for these programs, found in subsection (B), include replicating “evidence-based effective programs … which means delaying sexual activity, increasing condom or contraceptive use for sexually active youth, or reducing pregnancy among youth.” Specifically, such a program must be “medically accurate and complete”; the program must include “activities to educate youth who are sexually active regarding responsible sexual behavior with respect to both abstinence and the use of contraception”; “the program places substantial emphasis on both abstinence and contraception … among youth”; and “the program provides age-appropriate information and activities.” But the most dangerous aspect of this entire section is the creation of a “National Teen Pregnancy Prevention Resource Center” through Subsection (C) on page 503: The Secretary shall award a grant to a nationally recognized, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that meets the requirements described in clause (ii) to establish and operate a national teen pregnancy prevention resource center (in this subparagraph referred to as the ‘Resource Center’) to carry out the purpose and activities described in clause (iii). (emphasis added) According to the requirements set forth in clause (ii), The organization has demonstrated experience working with and providing assistance to a broad range of individuals and entities to reduce teen pregnancy. The organization is research-based and has comprehensive knowledge and data about teen pregnancy prevention strategies. There is no organization that better fits this description than Planned Parenthood. The language in this clause even includes PP’s preferred adjective for its explicit, promiscuity-promoting sex education: “comprehensive.” If this provision is allowed to remain in America’s Healthy Future Act, PP will assume the position of a quasi-government agency with quasi-governmental powers to engage the nation’s youth on matters of sex, birth control and abortion. American Life League will continue shining the spotlight on the culture of death’s attempt to promote its agenda and expand its reach through Obama-style “health care reform.” As changes are made and provisions are introduced or removed from current federal legislation, you can count on American Life League to keep you updated on these developments. Michael Hichborn is a researcher for American Life League and host of the American Life League Report. http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2823 2009-10-28 17:34:00 One never knows what might be posted as a YouTube video, readily available to anyone with an internet connection. Among the most recent is a shocker starring Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s vice president for medical affairs, Vanessa Cullins, M.D. In a recent Wednesday STOPP Report, Rita Diller, national director of Stop Planned Parenthood International (STOPP), described this video’s basic message quite simply as “Get sexually active and get your STDs.”  In fact, Cullins makes it clear that you should “expect to have HPV [human papillomavirus] once you become sexually intimate; all of us get it” and that you should expect this because  “most  of  us” are sexually active and just have to admit it. Cullins’ hellishly brazen comments are not anything new, of course, and many who read my commentaries know that American Life League has been working for many years to expose Planned Parenthood’s true agenda. Through our STOPP project, we are constantly encouraging parents to get involved with their children, their school systems and their community, to get rid of this extremely harmful stain on the cultural environment. For just as surely as oil sludge can pollute a stream, Planned Parenthood is polluting the minds and souls of our children. Any adult female such as Cullins who can, with a straight face, expound on the virtues of promiscuity is contributing to corruption in more ways than one. She tells young people that “whether you’re thinking this a relationship [that is] going to end up in marriage or one that’s gonna end up as a one-night stand,” you just need to “take precautions in order to stay healthy.” This is evidence that Cullins is an adult female who has sold the virtue store down the river for a few measly dollars that will go into Planned Parenthood’s coffers. The problems with this mindset are myriad, but as long as that cash register is ringing out ka-ching, ka-ching, nobody at Planned Parenthood is going to blink an eye. But what about the public? Aren’t parents concerned about this? Don’t they want their teens to be chaste until marriage, appreciate the authentic meaning of their sexuality and understand why it is important to save oneself for marriage? The sad answer to that question is, for the most part, no! Cullins’ implication that if you are not sexually active, you are not “like most of us” rings true among not only young people but far too many young parents, many of whom are single parents, and even among married couples who have bought into the lies inherent in the prevailing contraceptive mentality. It is a sad testimony to the times in which we live, but all too true. If we bury our heads in the sand and pretend that such grossly misguided attitudes and distorted theories about human sexuality are normal, then we too are part of the problem. So the question is, how do you solve it? Well, there are a growing number of young, vibrant experts who already have the answer and are teaching it in any venue they can find that that permits them to discuss sex from a Christian perspective. And some of them are using their public identity to foster wholesome values in the midst of all this bunkum. For example, Jeff McLain, of American Life League’s Rock for Life project, recently blogged about the failure of school sex education programs. His insights are very useful in this age of “everybody’s doing it, so just admit it.” He writes, There is an old saying: “When it rains, it pours.” A Chicago high school is now learning a new meaning to that saying. The principal of Paul Robeson High School discovered one out of every seven of his female students is pregnant. Nowadays, it isn’t unusual to find a few pregnant girls in a school; however, this is certainly a high number. Principal Gerald Morrow told CBS2, in an interview, that he is aware of 115 young ladies, out of 800 female students, who are currently expecting or have recently given birth. Perhaps the first question that comes to mind is the topic of sexual education. You’re probably assuming the school doesn’t teach it. Otherwise, it would be working, right? Wrong. Reporter Kristyn Hartman, from CBS2,  says that the school has had “prevention talks” with the students. So what can we blame this high number on? Is sex education not working in our public school systems? Principal Morrow is blaming the problem on a lot of issues, one of them being a lack of leadership and a lack of fathers at home. Another issue brought up is the fact that parents aren’t educating their kids. In case it’s news to you that parents are delinquent in their duties, let’s remember that for the last 50 or more years, Planned Parenthood has been busy in our schools nationwide, brainwashing students, handing out birth control information and referring expectant young mothers to abortion practitioners. So the parents of today’s kids in that high school are perhaps convinced that their kids are going to have sex, so why interfere? If that sounds crass, you really need to get in tune with the world out there. It is the rare parent who accepts responsibility for instilling values in their children and by doing so, preparing them to say no to sex outside of marriage. Such are the parents of college football great Tim Tebow, a Heisman Trophy winner. As a matter of fact, it’s at times like these that I wish the nation had at least a million young men like Tebow. To understand why, read on. One Florida sports reporter, Martin Fennelly, described his favorite moment at the Southeastern Conference’s Football Media Days: [T]he moment, at least to me, was when some writer (not me) entered virgin territory - there, in front of hundreds of people, all those cameras, he popped the question to college football’s leading man. “Tim, are you saving yourself for marriage?” Heads turned, many with eyes rolling. Some groans, some breath being held. Given Tebow’s faith and what it means to him, it might not have been out of line to ask this question. But here, in front of hundreds, to put him on the spot in front of hundreds and hundreds of ... Uh, Tebow, laughing, interrupted: “Yes, I am.” Another reporter began to ask another question, but Tebow, still laughing, interrupted again. “I think y’all are stunned, right now. Y’all can’t even ask a question. Wow. I was ready for that question. I don’t think y’all were, though.” It was just another touch of class from a kid who has exuded it from the moment he set foot in Gainesville. It probably goes a lot further back than that. Leave it to Tim Tebow to steer a rancid Gotcha moment onto the high road and stay there. Obviously, Fennelly sees what a positive effect a young person with good character, faith and the ability to be honest can have. You see, Tebow is a heartthrob, not a guy with buck teeth and thick glasses. And yet Tebow knows what he’s about and is not ashamed to express it. Whether the good news about how amazing it is to live according to God’s standards instead of Cullins’ is coming from Rock for Life, Tim Tebow or the purity ring-wearing Jonas Brothers, the message needs to be broadcast to young people and their parents over and over again. Real men such as McLain, Tebow and the Jonases need to be in the spotlight so that America can finally replace sicko with hero! http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2822 2009-10-27 11:14:00 Recently, I received a letter from a dear physician friend with whom American Life League had worked in the late 1990s. His name is Charles W. Norris and he is one of the world’s leading experts on naturally spacing children, commonly known as Natural Family Planning. His book, Know Your Body: A Family Guide to Sexuality and Fertility, is still one of the best available on the subject. When he wrote me last week to catch up on old times, he expressed a serious concern. And it provoked me to recall that, while American Life League does not remain silent about what it will take to actually end abortion in America, we don’t emphasize positive alternatives with the enthusiasm we should. A culture that understands the reasons behind naturally spacing children within marriage is key to ending the death grip proponents of contraception, abortion and all manner of sexual perversion have on this nation at this moment. In his letter to me, Dr. Norris said, It seems that pro-lifers have used every weapon against the pro-aborts that they can think of: logic, the truth, the ballot box, the law, anecdotal abortion horror stories, trying to get pro-life judges elected and on the Supreme Court and etc., etc. Let me suggest to you that abortion will not stop until everyone takes the responsibility for the handling of their own fertility on their own shoulders in the practice of Natural Family Planning. Frankly, Judie, I fail to understand why pro-life organizations do not vocally and loudly promote NFP as the weapon to combat abortion. Dr. Norris is fundamentally correct, though we might put his sentiment in a more critical light. It is, in fact, the contraceptive mentality that has driven couples away from a sincere desire to understand fertility and subsequently accept the fact that if a couple really wants to avoid procreating a child, there are natural ways of doing that. Further, should a child be conceived anyway, that same couple would welcome God’s gift, even though untimely, by realizing that God’s timing is perfect.    Imagine a world where teens were not being ravaged by sexually transmitted diseases nor carrying babies and aborting babies while they are still developing into adulthood. What sort of culture would it be if men and women respected each other as human beings gifted by God with blessings that are to be appreciated rather than savaged by date rape, promiscuity and all manner of sexual perversion? How many crimes of the flesh would go away if persons of both genders addressed the fundamental truth that life itself is a gift from God and the practice of virtue is the only road to physical, emotional and spiritual health? In a situation like that, nobody would even think of murdering his own child or pressuring an expectant mother to do so  based on selfish reasons of economic gain. This is exactly what Dr. Norris is getting at. In the spirit of reviving an old friendship and honoring a man who is still teaching us what it really means to respect human dignity, we remind readers of my blog that indeed American Life League does understand the fundamental facts about what it will take to end abortion in America. This is why, more than nine years ago, the American Life League Board of Directors approved the following statement of policy:   Naturally Spacing Children: A Couple’s Act of Faith! A married couple sincerely seeking the will of God makes a genuine commitment to always include His will in their marital relations. During this process their love for each other grows. The reason is clear: marriage and conjugal love are, by their very nature, ordained to procreation.  A question often arises in today’s society regarding the differences between spacing children according to nature’s calendar (natural family planning) and contraception. A further question is asked regarding the licit practice of such natural approaches. Let us be clear. First, the differences between respecting a woman’s natural rhythms and the practice of artificial family planning methods are stark. In fact these differences were once recognized by all Christian churches. Prior to 1930 no Christian church approved the practice of contraception.  We recognize that the practice of contraception violates the principles of Natural Law which are understandable by the use of reason alone. We endorse the consistent Catholic teachings on this subject and specifically cite Pope John Paul II’s definition of these differences, Familiaris Consortio, (Section 32):   When couples, by means of recourse to contraception, separate these two meanings [the unitive and procreative purposes of the marriage act] that God the creator has inscribed in the being of man and woman and in the dynamism of their sexual communion, they act as “arbiters” of the divine plan and they “manipulate” and degrade human sexuality and with it themselves and their married partner by altering its value of “total” self-giving. Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life, but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.  Regarding the licit practice of natural approaches to spacing children, which we have referred to as respecting a female’s natural rhythmic cycle, we understand that such practices may be employed for just reasons [Humanae Vitae, Section 10]. We understand that what one couple views as just reasons may not be viewed as such by another couple.  It is clear, however, that in loving communion the couple can, during such times and with spiritual guidance, discern the will of God and grow in mutual respect, love and tenderness ever remembering that above all else, God is at the center of their union and the couple’s prayer is “Thy will be done.” American Life League concurs with Pope John Paul II, who writes in Familiaris Consortio (Section 32),  In the light of the experience of many couples and of the data provided by the different human sciences, theological reflection is able to perceive and is called to study further the difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle:  It is a difference which is much wider and deeper than is usually thought, one which involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality. The choice of the natural rhythms involves accepting the cycle of the person, that is, the woman, and thereby accepting dialogue, reciprocal respect, shared responsibility and self-control. To accept the cycle and to enter into dialogue means to recognize both the spiritual and corporal character of conjugal communion and to live personal love with its requirement of fidelity. In this context the couple comes to experience how conjugal communion is enriched with those values of tenderness and affection which constitute the inner soul of human sexuality in its physical dimension also. In this way sexuality is respected and promoted in its truly and fully human dimension and is never “used” as an “object” that, by breaking the personal unity of soul and body, strikes at God’s creation itself at the level of the deepest interaction of nature and person.  American Life League will never endorse any method of family planning designed to intentionally avoid one of the two meanings of the conjugal act within marriage which are to be open to the possibility of a child (procreative) and to nourish the love between the spouses (unitive). We do recognize the distinct differences, however, between artificial methods which are grievously sinful all of the time and the occasions when for just reasons a couple may ask God to postpone conception for a while. It must be clear that couples understand that when they ask God to not send them another child just now they are also saying, “If it is Your will to send us another child at this time, we praise You for Your divine providence.” American Life League continues to insist that the contraceptive mentality is the root cause of abortion on demand, and we will persist in our efforts to make this truth known in every way that we can. It is because of the insistent teaching of physicians like Dr. Norris and ordained priests like Father Paul Marx, OSB and Father Thomas Euteneuer that we have grown not only in our understanding of how to teach these facts but in our desire to do all we can to spread the good news. The final end of abortion in America will come when every human being begins to appreciate his own life as a gift from God and the lives of those entrusted to his care as the true blessings they are. A culture that affirms life will not practice contraception nor will it murder its progeny.  http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2821 2009-10-26 15:31:00 By Joan Robinson and Steven Mosher On the morning of 2 October 2009, one of us (Joan) joined an audience of mostly health professionals and listened as Dr. Diane Harper, the leading international developer of the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, gave a sales pitch for Gardasil. Gardasil, as you may know, is the new vaccine that is supposed to confer protection against four strains of the sexually transmitted HPV. Dr. Harper came to the 4th International Public Conference on Vaccination to prove to us the real benefits of Gardasil. Sadly, her own presentation left me (Joan) and others filled with doubts. By her own admission, Gardasil has the doctors surrounding me glaring at a poor promise of efficacy as a vaccine married to a high risk of life-threatening side effects. Gardasil, Dr. Harper explained, is promoted by Merck, the pharmaceutical manufacturer, as a “safe and effective” prevention measure against cervical cancer. The theory behind the vaccine is that, as HPV may cause cervical cancer, conferring a greater immunity [to] some strains of HPV might reduce the incidence of this form of cancer. In pursuit of this goal, tens of millions of American girls have been vaccinated to date. As I sat scribbling down Merck’s claims, I wondered why such mass vaccination campaigns were necessary. After all, as Dr. Harper explained, 70% of HPV infections resolve themselves without treatment in one year. After two years, this rate climbs to 90%. Of the remaining 10% of HPV infections, only half coincide with the development of cervical cancer. Dr. Harper further undercut the case for mass vaccination campaigns in the U.S. when she pointed out that “4 out of 5 women with cervical cancer are in developing countries.” (Harper serves as a consultant to the World Health Organization [WHO] for HPV vaccination in the developing world.) Indeed, she surprised her audience by stating that the incidence of cervical cancer in the U.S. is so low that “if we get the vaccine and continue PAP screening, we will not lower the rate of cervical cancer in the U.S.” If this is the case, I thought, then why vaccinate at all? From the murmurs of the doctors in the audience, it was apparent that the same thought had occurred to them. In the U.S., the cervical cancer rate is 8 per 100,000 women. Moreover, it is one of the most treatable forms of cancer. The current death rate from cervical cancer is between 1.6 to 3.7 deaths per 100,000 women.  The American Cancer Society (ACS) notes that “between 1955 and 1992, the cervical cancer death rate declined by 74%” and adds that “the death rate from cervical cancer continues to decline by nearly 4% each year.”  At this point, I began to wriggle around in my seat, uncomfortably wondering, is the vaccine really effective? Using data from trials funded by Merck, Dr. Harper cheerfully continued to demolish the case for the vaccine that she was ostensibly there to promote. She informed us that “with the use of Gardasil, there will be no decrease in cervical cancer until at least 70% of the population is vaccinated, and in that case, the decrease will be very minimal. The highest amount of minimal decrease will appear in 60 years.” It is hard to imagine a less compelling case for Gardasil. First of all, it is highly unlikely that 70% or more of the female population will continue to get routine Gardasil shots and boosters, along with annual PAP smears. And even if it did, according to Dr. Harper, “after 60 years, the vaccination will [only] have prevented 70% of incidences” of cervical cancer. But rates of death from cervical cancer are already declining. Let’s do the math. If the 4% annual decline in cervical cancer death continues, in 60 years there will have been a 91.4% decline in cervical cancer death just from current cancer monitoring and treatment. Comparing this rate of decline to Gardasil’s projected “very minimal” reduction in the rate of cervical cancer of only 70 % of incidences in 60 years, it is hard to resist the conclusion that Gardasil does almost nothing for the health of American women. Despite these dismal projections, Gardasil continues to be widely and aggressively promoted among pre-teen girls.  The CDC reports that, by 1 June 2009, over 26 million doses of Gardasil have been distributed in the U.S. With hopes of soon tapping the adolescent male demographic, Merck, the pharmaceutical manufacturer of the vaccine, and certain Merck-funded U.S. medical organizations are targeting girls between the ages of  9 and 13. As CBS News reports, “Gardasil, launched in 2006 for girls and young women, quickly became one of Merck's top-selling vaccines, thanks to aggressive marketing and attempts to get states to require girls to get the vaccine as a requirement for school attendance.” Just as I began, in my own mind, to question ethics of mass vaccinations of prepubescent girls, Dr. Harper dropped another bombshell. “There have been no efficacy trials in girls under 15 years,” she told us. Merck did study a small group of girls under 16 who had been vaccinated, but did not follow them long enough to conclude sufficient presence of effective HPV antibodies. If I wasn’t skeptical enough already, I really started scratching my head when Dr. Harper explained, “if you vaccinate a child, she won’t keep immunity in puberty and you do nothing to prevent cervical cancer.” But it turned out that she wasn’t arguing for postponing Gardasil vaccination until later puberty, as I first thought. Rather, Dr. Harper only emphasized to the doctors in the audience the need for Gardasil booster shots, because it is still unknown how long the vaccine immunity lasts. More booster shots mean more money for Merck, obviously. I left Dr. Harper’s lecture convinced that Gardasil did little to stop cervical cancer, and determined to answer another question that she had largely ducked: Is this vaccine safe? Here’s what my research turned up. To date, 15,037 girls have officially reported adverse side effects from Gardasil to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). These adverse effects include Guillain-Barre syndrome, lupus, seizures, paralysis, blood clots, brain inflammation and many others. The CDC acknowledges that there have been 44 reported deaths. Dr. Harper, who seems to specialize in dropping bombshells, dropped another in an interview with ABC News when she admitted, “The rate of serious adverse events is greater than the incidence rate of cervical cancer.”  This being the case, one might want to take one’s chances with cancer, especially because the side effects of the vaccine are immediate, while the possibility of developing cancer is years in the future. In the clinical studies alone, 23 girls died after receiving either Gardasil or the aluminum control injection. 15 of the 13,686 girls who received Gardasil died, while 8 died among the 11,004 who received the aluminum shot. There was only one death among the group that had a saline placebo. What this means is that 1 out of every 912 who received Gardasil in the study died (see page 8 of Merck’s prescribing information).  The cervical cancer death rate is 1 out of every 40,000 women per year.  The numbers of deaths and adverse effects are undoubtedly underestimates. Dr. Harper’s comments to ABC News concur with the National Vaccine Information Center’s claim that “though nearly 70 percent of all Gardasil reaction reports were filed by Merck, a whopping 89 percent of the reports Merck did file were so incomplete there was not enough information for health officials to do a proper follow-up and review.” On average, less than 10 percent—perhaps even less than 1 percent—of serious vaccine adverse events are ever reported, according to the American Journal of Public Health.  Given the severity and frequency of Gardasil adverse reactions, I definitely wasn’t the only one in Dr. Harper’s audience who winced when she dismissed most Gardasil side effects as “easily just needle phobia.” Due to the young age of the trial participants and the short duration of the studies, the effects of Gardasil on female fecundity have not been studied. I did discover, in my post-conference reading, that Polysorbate 80 (sometimes referred to as “Tween 80”), an ingredient in the vaccine (see page 14 of Merck’s prescribing information)  has been observed in a European clinical study to cause infertility in rats. Is this an additional concern? Time will tell. I do not wish to give the impression that Dr. Harper presented, even inadvertently, a consistently negative view of her own vaccine. She did tout certain “real benefits,” chief among them that “the vaccine will reduce the number of follow-up tests after abnormal PAP smears,” and thereby reduce the “relationship tension,” “stress and anxiety” of abnormal or false HPV positive results. To me, however, this seems a rather slim promise, especially when weighed against the deaths and side effects caused by the Gardasil campaign. Should millions of girls in the United States, many as young as 9, be put at risk, so that sexually active adults can have less “relationship tension” about false positive HPV results? Is the current rate of death, sterility and serious immune dysfunction from Gardasil worth the potential that, in 60 years, a minimal amount of a cervical disease (that is already decreasing on its own) may perhaps be reduced? But what I really wanted to know is why Merck is so eagerly marketing such a dangerous and ineffective vaccine? Aren’t there other ways they could make a profit? While Merck’s behavior is probably adequately explained by the profit motive, what about those in the Health and Human Services bureaucracy who apparently see Gardasil as medicine’s gift to women? What motivates them? I (Steve) think that they see Gardasil as what one might call a “wedge” drug. For them, the success of this public vaccination campaign has less to do with stopping cervical cancer than it does with opening the door to other vaccination campaigns for other sexually transmitted diseases, and perhaps even including pregnancy itself. For if they can overcome the objections of parents and religious organizations to vaccinating prepubescent—and not sexually active—girls against one form of STD, then it will make it easier for them to embark on similar programs in the future. After all, the proponents of sexual liberation are determined not to let mere disease—or even death—stand in the way of their pleasures. They believe that there must be technological solutions to the diseases that have arisen from their relentless promotion of promiscuity. After all, the alternative is too horrible to contemplate: They might have to learn to control their appetites. And they might have to teach abstinence.   Joan Robinson is assistant editor for the Population Research Institute. Steven Mosher is president of the PRI. This article was originally published as the PRI’s October 15, 2009 Weekly Briefing and is reprinted with its kind permission. Founded in 1989, the PRI is a nonprofit research and educational organization dedicated to objectively presenting the truth about population-related issues and to reversing the trends brought about by the myth of overpopulation. Its growing global network of pro-life groups spans over 30 countries. http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2817 2009-10-23 15:33:00 When I read the news that Archbishop Raymond Burke, who currently heads the Vatican’s equivalent of the U.S. Supreme Court, had just been appointed by Pope Benedict XVI to serve the Church as a member of the Vatican Congregation for Bishops, I was elated. He has been such a heroic figure to all of us. Setting aside his enormous grasp of Catholic teaching, his intellect and his commitment to defending truth, perhaps his most endearing characteristic is his humility. You have to be in his presence to know what I am saying, but anyone who has even been in the same room with him knows it. One experiences a feeling of peace and joy just by looking at his face. These are but a few reasons for my total elation over the Holy Father’s selection of my favorite archbishop for yet another Vatican post where we know he will do great things for God. American Life League immediately issued a statement of congratulations, which I am sure would embarrass His Excellency. But when good things happen to extraordinary people, it’s nice to say a good word. In the wake of this news, I felt it would be appropriate to recall some of the profound statements enunciated during his recent speech at Inside Catholic’s 14th Annual Partnership Dinner.   Reminding the attendees that “God has created us to choose life,” Archbishop Burke exhorted pro-life people and, in fact, all faithful Catholics, to therefore “never give up in the struggle to advance a culture founded on the choice of life, which God has written upon our hearts, and the victory of life, which Christ has won in our human nature.” I believe it is no accident that he made the point that abortion cannot be fought in isolation, which the Church has made repeatedly. One must first understand the connection between contraception, the abuse of human sexuality and the act of killing an innocent preborn child. He said, The attack on the innocent and defenseless life of the unborn has its origin in an erroneous view of human sexuality, which attempts to eliminate, by mechanical or chemical means, the essentially procreative nature of the conjugal act. The error maintains that the artificially altered conjugal act retains its integrity. The claim is that the act remains unitive, even though the procreative nature of the act has been radically violated. In fact, it is not unitive, for one or both of the partners withholds an essential part of the gift which is the essence of the conjugal union. The so-called “contraceptive mentality” is essentially anti-life. Many forms of so-called contraception are, in fact, abortifacient, that is, they destroy, at its beginning, a life which has already been conceived.   The manipulation of the conjugal act, as Pope Paul VI prophetically observed, has led to many forms of violence to marriage and family life (Pope Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Humanae vitae,  “On the Proper Regulation of the Propagation of Offspring,” 25 July 1968, no. 17). Through the spread of the contraceptive mentality, especially among the young, human sexuality is no longer seen as the gift of God, which draws a man and a woman together, in a bond of lifelong and faithful love, crowned by the gift of new human life, but as a tool for personal gratification. Once sexual union is no longer seen to be, by its very nature, procreative, human sexuality is abused in ways that are profoundly harmful and even destructive of individuals and of society itself. One has only to think of the devastation which is daily wrought in our nation by the multi-million dollar industry of pornography. Essential to the advancement of the culture of life is the proclamation of the truth about the conjugal union, in its fullness, and the correction of the contraceptive thinking which fears life, which fears procreation. This is the heart of the pro-life message. It addresses  what underlies the highly problematic moral relativism spewed not only by many politicians but by many ordained to the Catholic priesthood. It is impossible to focus on ending the killing of the preborn unless we also focus on the root causes of this tragedy. At a profound level, Archbishop Burke has always understood this, as well as the reality that the child hidden in the womb of his mother or barely visible in a petri dish is a human person as truly as the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ are present in the Holy Eucharist. Nonetheless, our opponents spend millions dehumanizing the preborn baby and disparaging Catholic teaching, as exemplified by anti-Catholic TV personality Bill Maher, who has likened Holy Communion to cannibalism.  We have heard, witnessed and been the targets of so many attacks against defenders of human personhood and Christ’s real presence in Holy Eucharist. We know the truth of what His Excellency told his audience as he quoted from the late, great Pope John Paul II’s Evangelium Vitae (section 58):  The acceptance of abortion in the popular mind, in behavior and even in law itself, is a telling sign of an extremely dangerous crisis of the moral sense, which is becoming more and more incapable of distinguishing between good and evil, even when the fundamental right to life is at stake. Given such a grave situation, we need now more than ever to have the courage to look the truth in the eye and to call things by their proper name, without yielding to convenient compromises or to the temptation of self-deception. He underscored his point by explaining that, in fact, a phrase such as “common good” cannot be equated with “common ground,” as some, including President Obama, have attempted to do: The common good refers to an objective perfection which is not defined by common agreement among some of us. The common good is defined by creation itself as it has come from the hand of the Creator. Not only does the notion of common ground not correspond to the reality of the common good, it can well be antithetical to it (for instance, if there should be common agreement in society to accept as good for society what is, in reality, always and everywhere evil).   In the words of Pope Benedict XVI, the common good “is the good of ‘all of us’, made up of individuals, families and intermediate groups who together constitute society” (Caritas in veritate, no. 7). Inside Catholic's founder and director, Deal Hudson, reflecting on Archbishop Burke's address, wrote,  Archbishop Burke describes the latest tactic of pro-abortion Catholic politicians, who talk about finding common ground, as a form of “proportionalist moral reasoning.” “Common ground is found rather on ‘the ground of moral goodness,’ and not in a compromise of certain moral truths, like the rejection of abortion and euthanasia.”   He warned against allowing this kind of false reasoning to enter the health-care debate. A Catholic cannot accept the attainment of universal health care if it includes abortion and other evils “just because it achieves some desirable outcomes.”   In this form of reasoning, the archbishop hears an echo of the type of “seamless garment” argument that conceals a distinction between intrinsically evil acts and those that may be evil in some situations; these acts “are not all of the same cloth.”   The standing ovation for Archbishop Burke lasted several minutes before Raymond Arroyo, the master of ceremonies and news director of EWTN, returned to the podium….   As InsideCatholic.com editor Brian Saint-Paul handed Archbishop Burke the award for “Service to the Church and our Nation,” I commented that “[t]his lion speaks with the voice and face of a lamb, and, thus, is an example of how to speak the truth in charity.” We agree! Archbishop Raymond L. Burke is an example to all of us as a teacher of truth and goodness. God bless His Excellency! http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2816 2009-10-22 15:41:00 There’s got to be a reason why there is so much whining in the pro-abortion movement right now. The recent behavior of the folks at RH Reality Check, National Abortion Rights Action League (I mean NARAL Pro-Choice America) and elsewhere is very interesting. These people are seriously distraught over our insistence that every human being, from his beginning, has a right to equal protection under the law. NARAL’s latest video production, Women Can’t Lose, focuses on our efforts, and Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, referred to American Life League during the first 60 seconds of a recent speech. Not only that, but as LifeNews.com’s Steven Ertelt reports, Keenan is getting downright hostile toward those of us who understand the cruelty of taking the life of even one innocent preborn baby: “I’ll be honest -- we all expected a fight from the usual anti-choice agitators on health-care reform,” she said. “We expected it from Rep. Michele Bachmann, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), the Family Research Council, and the American Life League.” She accused [Michigan Congressman] Stupak of “carrying the right wing’s water on this issue.” “Stupak is ready to jeopardize the entire health-care reform bill to stand between women and their doctors,” Keenan claims. “He’s willing to undermine health-care reform -- blocking the landmark bill from even coming to a vote -- in order to impose an abortion ban on women in the reformed health system. His proposal would take away coverage from women who already have it,” she says, even though the latter claim is not the case. My, oh my! Could it be that we at American Life League, and our pro-life friends, are touching nerves that make our opponents nervous? I wonder why? Is the pro-life fly on the pro-death movement’s oversized chassis starting to create a big pain that can no longer be ignored by the vigilantes for “choice”? What could be so nerve-racking for Keenan about a simple standard that prohibits payment for child killing in any health care “reform” bill? The answer, quite simply, is that the proponents of death for the preborn see big bucks coming their way. They don’t mind deceiving expectant mothers into believing abortion is a choice, not an act of killing. They just want our tax dollars to pay for the dirty deed. Keenan says it’s all about reproductive rights, after all, not about those expectant mothers and their future pain, should they actually decide to abort. The lesson to be learned from this is a simple one. When the pro-life movement stays on message, doesn’t play games with politicians, presses forward and repeats the facts, the other side gets as nervous as a kindergarten student preparing for his first Christmas pageant. All we pro-lifers have to do is remain steadfast; the rest is easy. This is why Montana commentator Laura Lundquist writes,  Meddling busybodies are back, sneaking around behind the scenes and trying to abort Montana’s constitutional right to privacy. Last weekend, a national anti-choice group slithered into three Montana cities, including Missoula, to launch a petition drive with the covert intention of stopping abortions. In order to do that, the Virginia-based American Life League wants Montanans to rewrite our constitution. The proposed Constitutional Initiative 102 would define “person” as starting “from the beginning of the biological development of that human being” — basically anything with one or more human cells. If this group has its way, the due process clause that says “no person should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law” would apply to an egg the minute it is pierced by the head of a sperm, even if it sits in a test tube. I will give Lundquist credit for understanding the fundamental meaning of human personhood, even if her spin is off base. After all, working to protect the human rights of all persons from the moment their lives begin is in keeping with America’s traditional defense of the innocent; it’s certainly nothing that requires slithering or sneaking. I guess that when our team visited the Big Sky state, the message made sense, so poor Laura had to say something negative. Jodi Jacobson, a blogger on the anti-life RH Reality Check web site, opines about the human personhood effort in Michigan, telling her readers that with the economy being in such poor shape and women struggling to pay for “family planning services” such as contraception and abortion, state legislators should not be attempting to garner support for a resolution that might open the way to placing a personhood measure on the ballot in that state. She writes, The implications of these so-called “personhood” amendments, which are spreading like the swine-flu in state legislatures, such laws would also outlaw any activity or medical treatment required by a woman--radiation or chemotherapy for breast cancer, say--that might interfere with the “personhood” of fertilized eggs, or the possibility that a fertilized egg might be present in the carrier of said egg-people. In case Jacobson’s silliness troubles you, let me set the record straight. A human personhood proposal affirms that all human beings, including those not yet born, have equal rights and that their human rights should be protected. The effect would be to restore the integrity of this statement in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” This is why the human personhood message is spreading like the good news that it is—quite the opposite of swine flu. Americans are sick of the pro-abortion tirades and are increasingly uncomfortable with the whole idea of killing babies prior to birth. It’s as simple as that, really. And as far as radiation treatments, chemotherapy and other treatments for disease are concerned, the ethical physician who is treating an expectant mother always provides proper guidance to her because he knows that he is dealing with two patients, even though pro-abortion stalwarts like Jacobson prefer to ignore one of the doctor’s two patients. Oh, and speaking of the swine flu, Amanda Hess just reported that  that the ordeal of swine flu victim Aubrey Opdyke, whose horrific suffering resulted in losing her preborn child, her ability to walk and more, has not been properly reported by others. Hess tells her readers, In [New York Times reporter] McNeil’s profile of Opdyke, losing the baby was “most important”—more traumatic than even falling into the coma, suffering a seizure, temporarily losing the ability to walk, talk, and see her family, and facing death. The trauma of losing a child in the womb is clearly central to Opdyke’s experience. But it is still Opdyke’s experience—the ordeal is hers, not her baby’s. No, Amanda, the ordeal was that one person died and the other will grieve for that loss. The whole experience of losing that baby was so tragic that Opdyke's husband of 16 months had photos taken of their baby girl, Parker Christine, who died shortly after birth, so that, when sufficiently recovered, Opdyke could at least see the daughter she lost due to swine flu complications. To callously toss off this baby’s death as nothing more than another side effect of Opdyke’s devastating illness is chilling. However, it underscores the fact that for women such as Hess and her confreres in the shrinking culture-of-death cartel, these babies count for nothing. And that is the greatest tragedy of all. If pro-life Americans were not having a positive effect on our culture, people such as Hess, Jacobson and Keenan would not be exhibiting such a bizarre degree of hysteria. I feel badly for these women. I worry about their dysfunctional attitudes toward the wonder and beauty of life, motherhood and family, and I pray for them. But I am eternally grateful to my friends in all the many spheres of our united pro-life effort. We are truly blessed to be of one mind in this work. We join with David Bereit, national director of 40 Days for Life, in a prayer that should be on our lips and in our hearts as we persist in our quest for human personhood and pray for our enemies:  O God, our heavenly Father, give us courage and wisdom as we seek to eradicate the evil in our society. Help us to realize that Your divine Spirit alone can change hearts and minds so that all Your human creatures may enjoy the fullness of life You intended for them. I pray this prayer in the name of Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior. Amen. http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2815 2009-10-21 15:31:00 In her seminal book Dialogues with the Devil, Taylor Caldwell digs deep into a fictional Lucifer’s psyche as well as that of Saint Michael the Archangel. While it is a work of fiction, there are profound insights throughout, including Lucifer’s description of human beings who choose to do evil. He tells Saint Michael, “Evil is madness and has no pity, and therefore it is confusion thrice compounded. Evil men possess no wits. They are easily led to believe what they wish to believe.” These succinct phrases are very applicable to that grave fear of the unknown many Americans experience at the thought of the federal government managing everyone’s health insurance. My sense is that these concerns are not far off the mark. A visit to the real world is in order before anyone jumps up to claim that Judie Brown is just a right-wing fanatic who doesn’t care about all those millions of Americans without health insurance. This persistent allegation about my intentions is false, but what I am about to share is very real. Two years ago, at the University of California at Berkeley, Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor under Clinton and current Obama economics advisor, spoke candidly about health care rationing. His comments are a matter of public record. The following excerpt exemplifies the serious ethical problem in certain politicians' thought process: “[I]f you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It’s too expensive...so we’re going to let you die.” This past week, the pro-assisted suicide organization Compassion and Choices focused attention on a court case, Blick v. Connecticut, which it claims could lead to a court ruling on “whether a mentally competent, terminally ill patient’s desire to bring about a peaceful death should be considered ‘suicide.’ Connecticut physicians Gary Blick and Ron Levine are asking a Connecticut court to rule that the state assisted suicide statute does not reach their conduct in providing aid in dying.” On her Living His Life Abundantly web site, well known EWTN personality Johnette Benkovich posted an article by journalist Susan Brinkmann that gets to the heart of why a ruling on Blick v. Connecticut could have deadly consequences:  Opponents of assisted suicide, or aid in dying, cite the many serious problems occurring in the two U.S. states that allow assisted suicide and countries where assisted suicide is legal. For instance, a 1995 Dutch study found that 948 patients who did not request suicide were killed by their doctors. There are also innumerable problems with the legal definition of “terminal” which has allowed many patients to commit suicide who were not dying but suffering from depression. Pro-euthanasia groups usually cite humane reasons for ending someone’s life to gain public sympathy; however, today’s palliative care is so advanced that virtually all pain can be eliminated with the proper care. Even in those cases when pain cannot be completely alleviated, it can be reduced significantly if properly treated. People can die with dignity naturally, without having to resort to killing. But imagine how convenient a court decision in favor of “aid in dying” could be if cost cutting is at the root of so-called health care reform! A recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine attempts to paint dementia as a terminal disease in need of a quick resolution. This news report indicates just how skewed the thinking of these researchers is: “During the last three months of life, more than 40 percent of those with end-stage dementia underwent at least one serious medical intervention -- hospitalization, emergency department visit, IV nutrition or tube feeding.” In other words, if certain medical “experts” can redefine comfort care such as nutrition and hydration as a “serious medical intervention” and persuade family members that their loved one is better off dying now than later, starvation can become a cause of death not seen as the cruelty that it is. Medical journal articles such as this one and court cases such as Blick v. Connecticut are paving the way for health care rationing and denial of basic comfort care, regardless of what Obama-style health care “reform” supporters are telling America. There is absolutely no doubt about it. The recent news out of Florida unequivocally proves my point. In that state, there are plans to literally bar some patients from treatment in the event of a severe flu pandemic. The South Florida Sun Sentinel reports,   Florida health officials are drawing up guidelines that recommend barring patients with incurable cancer, end-stage multiple sclerosis and other conditions from being admitted to hospitals if the state is overwhelmed by flu cases. The plan, which would guide Florida hospitals on how to ration scarce medical care during a severe flu outbreak, also calls for doctors to remove patients with poor prognoses from ventilators to treat those who have better chances of surviving. That decision would be made by the hospital. The flu causes severe respiratory illnesses in a small percentage of cases, and patients who need ventilators and are deprived of them could die without the breathing assistance the machines provide. According to this report, so far the state “has not yet publicized the guidelines or solicited input from the general public.” But something is terribly wrong when such a proposal even meets the light of day. Then again, we are living in the age of Obama-style health care rationing. When the media and the medical professionals, not to mention politicians, talk about things such as denying nutrition, hydration and/or oxygen to certain patients, think about this man in Liverpool, England, who had suffered from stomach cancer, was starved to death in a London hospice and after his death, was found to be cancer free! The news report states,“76 year-old Jack Jones had responded successfully to chemotherapy and surgery, but died of pneumonia two weeks after doctors at the Marie Curie Hospice ordered the withdrawal of food and hydration and all medication except painkillers in accordance with what is being called in British media the ‘death pathway.’” No wonder Mrs. Jones is suing the hospice! What would you do? Could such draconian so-called palliative care measures be adopted in the USA? Would they be deemed cost-effective? Well, as reported recently, such atrocities already do happen here. Bill Beckman, executive director of Illinois Right to Life Committee, reported the following in his blog on September 8: A caller from Virginia today told me how her father died prematurely when a doctor and hospice decided 89 years was enough for him, since his quality of life had declined. This case begins on a positive note. A caring doctor and nurses helped this man overcome pneumonia successfully. He was ready to go home and the family was ready to take him home when another doctor raised the issue of food aspiration, suggesting they could not take care of him on their own. The medical basis for this concern is unclear, but it created fear that affected the family’s decisions. Even though this patient had no terminal illness, the family ultimately accepted getting hospice involved. Hospice wanted to give the patient morphine, even though he told them he was not in pain. Family members did not allow use of morphine at that time. With severe restrictions on food and water intake by mouth, he began showing symptoms of dehydration. Rather than offering an IV or feeding tube, hospice pushed morphine as the solution. When the dehydration began causing serious external symptoms, the family gave in to allow the morphine. Between the dehydration and the morphine, the patient died rather quickly. The doctor and hospice justified the denial of sufficient food and water as observing the patient’s durable power of attorney for health care, which indicated he did not want to be kept alive by “extraordinary means.” That generic phrase allowed this patient to be denied food and water, leading to his death, even though he had no underlying terminal illness or condition. Such anecdotal cases, coupled with public comments by political operatives such as Reich and state government proposals such as that of Florida, invite a second look at current discussions about “scarce medical resources” and “cost cutting.” Political considerations in life-and-death matters must not be based on the cruel proposition that one may save money at the expense of human lives. This was the message of parents of children with disabilities who gathered with members of Congress on Capitol Hill recently. At their press conference, Congressman Trent Franks, whose deceased brother had Down syndrome, said, “A society is measured by how it cares for those who are down, in the shadows and in the twilight of death. Those in the shadows have the greatest things to say and God’s greatest gift is given to them.” America’s response to the elderly, the terminally ill and the vulnerable must not be starvation, dehydration, suffocation or denial of basic, humane comfort care. But lest we forget, Taylor Caldwell’s fictional Lucifer reminds us, “Evil is madness and has no pity, and therefore it is confusion thrice compounded. Evil men possess no wits. They are easily led to believe what they wish to believe.” http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2809 2009-10-20 13:22:00 Michael Kimmel is touted as a leading authority on men and their masculinity, so I was a bit taken aback when Feministing.com published an interview with him. Then, as I read the interview, I had to ask myself what sort of masculinity Kimmel’s expertise addresses.  In the interview, Kimmel's 10-year-old son is described as a "budding male feminist."  Kimmel also talks about his younger days, when he and his female “partner” collaborated due to her inability to drive a stick-shift car, which happened to be their only mode of transportation. Since she worked with victims of domestic violence, Kimmel drove these women to shelters, and during those trips, he  learned a bit about abusive males. I find it commendable for any man to reach out to assist women in a time of trial and learn from their experiences, as Kimmel apparently did. But somewhere between the abused females and the 2009 interview, Kimmel’s perception of real men went awry.  When asked who his heroines are, Kimmel named Gloria Steinem, because she's been the figurehead for American feminism for fifty years. But also because of her unbelievable grace in the kind of vilification that she's gotten from the right and from anti-feminists over those fifty years. She's an amazingly gracious and emotionally available person, and she's deeply respectful of women, so I've always admired her. A bit later in the interview, Kimmel added what I believe is the crux of his male thinking: It is sort of weird and a bit discomforting for me to offer advice to feminists as a group, being a man, but what I would say is that the group that feels that it has nothing to gain from feminism, and that feminism has nothing to do with them, is men. And I think that that's the reason that women are faced with such draconian choices between opting out and balancing work and family, because men haven't stepped up and aren't doing as much housework and childcare as women need them to do in order for women to be able to balance work and family. And my argument here is that the group that has to be embraced by feminism is men — although, I hasten to add that it's not your job. That should be our job. We should be doing that. The biggest mistake we make is to assume — and men often think this — that gender equality is a zero-sum game. That if women win, then men are going to lose. And I think what we have to do is to show people that feminism is a win-win. I think we can do that at the personal level in terms of the quality of our relationships with our children, our partners and our friends, and also in terms of public policy.   Perhaps Kimmel needs to step back for a time and study his views in light of what Gloria Steinem and her ilk really believe about men. The history of Steinem’s involvement in advancing the contraceptive mentality versus the ability of real men to step up and do the very things that he claims men don’t do enough of may deep-six his defense of the feminist male. He may find that his perspective on what it takes to be a “real man” is slightly askew, especially since his heroine likes the idea that the feminist movement has literally feminized the male. As a grandmother, I have had experience with three amazing men in my life: my husband, my son and my son-in-law. Each of them is what I would call a man’s man. Each is a wonderful, caring husband and an excellent father. All three of these men have characteristics in common that Kimmel may have overlooked in his pursuit of male feminism. These three men are devoted to being father figures in the home and have made it possible for their wives to feel secure in their roles as wives and mothers. They represent three very human, imperfect but genuine examples of how men can and do respond to God’s call to the vocation of husband and father, and the responsibilities attendant to that task. Kimmel never mentions men such as these.  There are a lot of additional things Kimmel overlooks. For example, his heroine Gloria Steinem once said,  “A liberated woman is one who has sex before marriage and a job after.” Comments like this are degrading to women and certainly do not enhance the once-respected female characteristic of femininity.   In response to a question asked of her in 1996 about her position on such things as abortion, Steinem opined, I do think "pro-abortion" was the wrong term--since everyone would like to reduce the necessity of abortion. I prefer reproductive freedom--the freedom to have as well as not to have children. I appreciate the openness of spirit in your question. I hope that you would support my choice, as well as your own. And in any case, we could work together for contraception and sex education that would diminish the necessity of abortion. The point of bringing up a couple of Steinem’s comments is that such views play directly into the stereotypical feminist ideology that Kimmel apparently believes men need to embrace. To my mind, such thinking is not only destructive to the true male identity, but contradictory to the images of manhood that many Christians hold dear.  But there I go again, right? Talking about God when the audience that would listen to a Steinem or a Kimmel might not be interested in what God has to say. Regardless, here are some facts that even those who prefer agnosticism to Christianity might find worthy of further thought and study. Contrary to Kimmel, writer/researcher Mark Wegierski commented in “The decline of the gentleman in late modernity,” Current-day, hypermodern societies, such as the U.S., Canada, Britain, and northwestern Europe — countries which were formerly among the world's bastions of gentility — now have a hostile outlook and inherent bias against the traditional gentleman, or the man of manners and genuine cultivation. As a result, the general moral tenor, as well as the stability of family life in those societies, has been further undermined. This decline in gentility (respectful, moral conduct) among members of the male sex contributes to disrespect toward women and their femininity. Any time a man can take advantage of a woman and be “protected” from fatherhood, sociological damage to the human family is going to occur. Everything, including sexual relations, has to be tempered with moderation and respect. When it isn't, horrors such as domestic violence occur at an increased rate. As we know from government-generated statistical reports, the increase in popularity of contraception, compounded by surgical abortion as a backup, has contributed not only to the dehumanization of the preborn child but to the mothers carrying those children.   Dr. Evelyn L. Billings, one of the world’s foremost authorities on natural family planning, appears to truly understand the meaning of being a “real man” when she writes, ironically, on “Womanhood”:   Physically a woman is specially endowed to conceive, to give birth and nurture a child. …These physical components of her femininity are fused undeniably with her feminine nature which instinctively accepts the child and the protective role. In order to fulfill this role she seeks security, fidelity, protection and harmony in her male partner, requiring and demanding his selfless love. To be wanted, loved and challenged by a woman whose needs for herself and child are great, challenges and enhances his masculinity. This enables him to exercise his male role and express his male strength and tender love. Her demands are essential for him to realize his maleness. While some might choose to overlook the negatives created culturally, sociologically and medically by overemphasis on contraception and abortion (two topics Kimmel avoided), the facts are building every day in the case for a return to gentility. Registered nurse Jenn Giroux pointed out in the Cincinnati Enquirer, “I have seen the physical, mental, psychological, and spiritual damage done to women from abortion and contraception.” She attributes the rise in divorce rates, sexually transmitted diseases and sterility to the practice of contraception and rightfully suggests that women deserve the truth. I would add that men interested in becoming feminists also need to study the facts. In case Kimmel is searching for additional evidence, we have learned that contraceptives are polluting our water systems and may be contributing to male fertility problems. Not only that, but horror of horrors, scientists are now saying that hormones in birth control pills suppress a woman’s interest in masculine men and actually "make boyish men more attractive." Could this mean that Kimmel’s wishes are coming true? Will men devolve into some type of androgynous creature that can appear either male or female so as to placate the desires of a particular female on steroids? As outlandish as this may sound, we don’t manufacture the news; we just make sure people are aware, so that they don’t make life-changing decisions in a vacuum. Since Kimmel's son is only 10 right now, perhaps Kimmel should do a little more research before he finalizes his opinions about what it takes to be a “real man.” http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2808 2009-10-19 16:39:00 By Jim Sedlak    Last year, we brought you the story of Planned Parenthood’s involvement in clinical trials as a way to increase its professional identity and increase its income. We have recently completed a review of the government database on clinical trials and found 33 of them that involved Planned Parenthood. Presented below is a great deal of detail on the various trials involving Planned Parenthood. We do not expect you to be interested in all this detail, but are presenting it to you so that … ... You will get a sense of the scope of Planned Parenthood’s involvement. ... You will have the data to understand that Planned Parenthood is not just another organization doing abortions and other procedures, but it is intimately involved in creating and evaluating techniques, and finding ever more “efficient” ways of killing babies. ... You will understand how much of Planned Parenthood’s efforts involve underage girls and how much its activities in this area are funded by our own government agencies. ... You will be able to talk to your elected officials and make them understand just how much federal agencies are involved with Planned Parenthood and how shutting off Planned Parenthood’s taxpayer money is much more than stopping Title X funds. A total of 28 Planned Parenthood affiliates were involved in these trials, and many of the affiliates were involved in more than one trial. Trials on Underage Girls Of particular interest were the 10 trials (30 percent) that involved girls under the age of 18. Of those trials, one was on girls as young as 13; three more involved girls as young as 14; another five are on girls as young as 15; and the 10th trial involves girls as young as 16. As you read the information below, please remember that, in most states, minor girls being involved in sexual activity is considered sexual abuse and is illegal. The Planned Parenthood affiliates doing the clinical trials with minor children include Planned Parenthood of Georgia, Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, Planned Parenthood of Central North Carolina, Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, Planned Parenthood of Maryland, Planned Parenthood of Shasta-Diablo, Planned Parenthood Golden Gate, Virginia League of Planned Parenthood, Planned Parenthood of New York City, and Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas. These trials involve a number of different programs and products. Here are the details of the 10 trials on underage girls: 1. Two of the trials are specifically aimed at getting these minor girls to take their birth control more consistently by sending them text messages reminding them to take their pills. a. One of those trials is sponsored by Columbia University and is aimed at New York City girls as young as 15. b.  The second one is sponsored by “an anonymous foundation” and has the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts determining whether there is increased oral contraceptive pill adherence in girls as young as 14 who receive daily text-messaging reminders to take their OCP. 2. Emory University is a sponsor of three of the clinical trials, all involving underage African-American girls. a. Emory and pharmaceutical company Merck are conducting a trial with Planned Parenthood of Georgia to increase the use of its Gardasil shot among 13- to 17-year-old African-American girls. b. Emory and the National Institutes of Health are conducting a trial with Planned Parenthood of Georgia to develop and test a culturally and gender-appropriate (African-American girls) sexual health education program designed to promote long-term maintenance of HIV preventive sexual behaviors over a long follow-up period. Girls as young as 14 are participating in this trial. c. Emory and the National Institutes of Health are also conducting another trial with Planned Parenthood of Georgia to study the efficacy of a multi-session HIV prevention program (HORIZONS HIV) for African-American female teens. This completed trial accepted girls as young as 15. 3. Planned Parenthood Mar Monte in California and Planned Parenthood of Central North Carolina are involved in clinical trials to increase the use of emergency contraception among sexually active girls aged 14- to 24-years-old. The trials are being sponsored by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. 4. Planned Parenthood in Maryland is involved in a National Institute of Child Health and Human Development clinical trial to study the risk of Chlamydia and gonorrhea in children as young as 15. 5. Two Planned Parenthood California affiliates (Planned Parenthood Shasta Diablo and Planned Parenthood Golden Gate) are conducting trials sponsored by the University of California at San Francisco and the National Institutes of Health. The purpose of these trials is to examine “such things as the relationship between partnerships, parental and peer influences, and contraceptive choice; factors associated with long term continuation of contraceptive methods; attributes of new hormonal contraceptive associated with user satisfaction and long-term continuation; and the extent to which high-risk women who use these methods are also condom users and determine the characteristics of these users.” These trials are accepting girls as young as 15. 6. The Virginia League of Planned Parenthood is involved in a clinical trial to get girls as young as 15 to use a “quick start” method of using the NuvaRing in adolescents. The trial is sponsored by Bayer, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and Virginia Commonwealth University. 7. Planned Parenthood of Houston, Texas, is one of 120 various locations where KV Pharmaceutical is conducting clinical trials of a new vaginal infection drug. The trial includes girls as young as 16. Trials involving medical abortion techniques Planned Parenthood, operator of the nation’s largest abortion chain, is involved in trials involving medical abortion techniques. 1. Planned Parenthood of Waco, Texas, is involved in a trial, paid for by Gynuity Health Projects, on changing the way misoprostol is given to a woman after she has been given methotrexate to start a medical abortion. The FDA-approved procedure is that misoprostol should be given vaginally in the office. At Planned Parenthood today, women are routinely told to take it orally at home. This trial is to test giving it to women buccally (a drug delivery method where the drug is administered in the mouth, not by swallowing but by absorption through the skin of the cheek; often by placing between the top gum and the inside of the lip). 2. Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts and the Society for Family Planning are involved in a trial on the effectiveness of buccally administered misoprostol instead of a Dilapan-S rod placed three to four hours before a dilation and evacuation abortion. 3. Planned Parenthood of San Diego and Planned Parenthood of New York City are both involved in a trial funded by Gynuity Health Projects, and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation to “investigate the possibility that medical abortion using mifepristone and misoprostol can be administered in a manner that is simpler and less costly than that routinely employed [no sonogram and only one visit] in the United States.” Trials involving birth control techniques Planned Parenthood distributes birth control at over 800 facilities across the country. It is involved in a number of clinical trials concerning emergency contraception and the delivery of birth control shots. 1. Planned Parenthood in Utah is conducting a trial funded by the University of Utah and an anonymous foundation. The stated purpose of the trial is “to see if women presenting for emergency contraception are willing to accept the copper intrauterine device.” This will be accomplished by offering all women who present for EC at participating Planned Parenthood Utah clinics during the study period the option of having the copper IUD or Plan B. Women who agree to the study will be followed for six months. 2. Planned Parenthood in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, is running two trials: a. The first is funded by Pfizer, the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill and Planned Parenthood Federation of America. The purpose of the trial is to train women to self-administer Depo-Provera shots at home. b. The second is also funded by Pfizer. The purpose of this study is to see if it is feasible to have women receive their second and third birth control injection (with Depo-Provera) at a pharmacy, compared with receiving it at a Planned Parenthood clinic. Trials on Pain Reduction It appears clear that if you are a Planned Parenthood insider and you want to send would-be trials on pain management to one of your affiliates, there is only one natural choice: Planned Parenthood of Columbia-Willamette in Portland, Oregon. This affiliate is involved in more clinical trials (six) than any other Planned Parenthood affiliate. Five of the six are about pain. The six trials are as follows: 1. Reducing pain during a first-trimester abortion through an intrauterine lidocaine (a numbing medication) infusion. The trial was sponsored by the Oregon Health and Science University. This trial was completed in 2004. 2. Another clinical trial sponsored by Oregon Health and Science University examines the effect of lidocaine inside the uterus on patient pain during an early abortion, compared to the paracervical block (lidocaine injected on either side of the cervix). This began in 2007. 3. In 2008, a trial studied the analgesic effects of combined ketorolac and lidocaine in a paracervical block during an abortion. This trial was sponsored by Johns Hopkins. The trial is also being conducted at Planned Parenthood of Maryland’s Baltimore clinic. 4. Another trial on the use of lidocaine to reduce pain began in 2007. This one was directed at the pain subjects experience during and after Essure transcervical tubal sterilization. Again, the sponsor of this trial was the Oregon Health and Science University. 5. Reducing the pain of IUD insertion by using misoprostol (a medication that softens the cervix) before placing an IUD. The trial is sponsored by the Oregon Health and Science University. 6. To assess the safety and efficacy of a new emergency contraceptive called Ella. Ella is designed to “prevent pregnancy” when taken three to five days after unprotected sexual intercourse. The trial is sponsored by HRA Pharma and is also being done at 15 other Planned Parenthood clinics. HRA Pharma reportedly expects to launch Ella in 2009. In addition to these trials at Planned Parenthood in Oregon, 1. The Planned Parenthood affiliate in San Diego completed a trial in 2008 that examined how best to control the pain of a first-trimester suction curettage abortion. That trial was sponsored by the University of California at San Diego. 2. The Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts conducted a clinical trial sponsored by an anonymous foundation “to determine the equivalency of oral conscious sedation and intravenous conscious sedation for first trimester surgical abortion.” The clinical trial system indicates this trial was terminated prior to completion. HIV/AIDS-related trials In addition to the two studies mentioned above on underage African-American girls, Planned Parenthood was involved in other HIV/AIDS-related trials. While reading the descriptions below, it is important to remember that Planned Parenthood’s biggest product is birth control pills. It has been known for decades that women on the pill are more susceptible to AIDS/HIV than those not on the pill. If Planned Parenthood was really interested in preventing AIDS, it would get all its customers off the pill. 1. Planned Parenthood of El Paso, Texas, was where to go to when you wanted to conduct research on Hispanic men and women with HIV. This affiliate went out of business in June 2009 and was a. Conducting a trial sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals to give the investigational drug Tipranavir for HIV-infected adult patients with no other treatment options. b. Involved with a trial sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb to study the treatment of HIV infections. Specifically, it sought to “find out the frequency of the I50L substitution among patients experiencing treatment failure on an atazanavir-containing regimen.” c. Conducting a trial sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on how to teach HIV prevention techniques to Hispanic men. 2. Planned Parenthood of New York City is participating in a trial sponsored by the New York Academy of Medicine to determine “what programmatic approaches effectively address two of the most difficult hurdles in HIV health services delivery: (1) getting people who would benefit from health care to use it and (2) getting people who do use health care to do so more consistently and effectively.” Conclusion As Planned Parenthood continues to spread its tentacles throughout our country’s health care establishment, it is imperative that they be met with resistance at every turn. We encourage everyone who lives in the areas serviced by the Planned Parenthood affiliates mentioned in this report to launch educational campaigns against Planned Parenthood. We, at American Life League’s Stop Planned Parenthood project, stand ready to assist you in all phases of your efforts against Planned Parenthood. Feel free to contact us by mail at STOPP, P.O. Box 1350, Stafford, VA 22555; by phone at 540-659-4171; or by e-mail at stopp@all.org.    Jim Sedlak is vice president of American Life League, a recognized expert on Planned Parenthood and the managing editor of the Wednesday STOPP Report, STOPP’s weekly e-newsletter. This article was published on September 30 of this year and is also available online as a pdf file.  http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2806 2009-10-16 14:48:00 Saint Francis de Sales would have been concerned, if not horrified, at the situation in the Catholic Church in the U.S. today. I say that without reservation because he once said, “It is true charity to point out the wolf wheresoever he creeps in among the flock.” I have been pointing out the wolf for many years now, particularly as the scandals and problems affect the greatest "treasure of the Church": the Holy Eucharist. Unfortunately, the actions of various members of the hierarchy are, at best, befuddling and, at worst, absolutely outrageous. Among those things that have caught my attention recently is a spate of news reports that are baffling on many fronts. While I would give any prelate the benefit of the doubt, I am also painfully aware of how such events affect average faithful Catholics who simply cannot believe what they are reading. Take, for example, the funeral Mass of the recently deceased bishop of Wilmington, Delaware, Michael Saltarelli, who died of bone cancer on October 8. Bishop W. Francis Malooly, who succeeded Bishop Saltarelli, praised him in glowing terms as a faithful servant of the Church. But Bishop Malooly is the very same bishop who proclaimed he would not and will not deny Holy Communion to Vice President Joseph Biden, who is from his diocese. The bishop claimed at one point that he would not “politicize” the Eucharist. His predecessor, on the other hand, was a defender of the faith. Bishop Saltarelli made it perfectly clear that, regardless of whether or not Biden was elected vice president, he would not be permitted to speak at Catholic schools in the diocese because of his manifest support for the act of abortion. While Bishop Saltarelli did not go so far as to publicly announce he would enforce Canon 915 and deny Holy Communion to Biden, he did say, The promotion of abortion by any Catholic is a grave and serious matter. Objectively, according to the constant teaching of the Scriptures and the Church, it would be more spiritually beneficial for such a person to refrain from receiving the Body and Blood of Christ. I ask Catholics in this position to have the integrity to respect the Eucharist, Catholic teaching and the Catholic faithful. What a tragedy that, between these two bishops who have shepherded the same flock, there is such disparity regarding a fundamental truth of the Catholic faith. If Catholics in the Wilmington diocese are confused, there is good reason. When their shepherds are not united, how should they perceive those in their midst who have public prominence and claim to be Catholic, but support the killing of preborn babies? On October 12, the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Francis Cardinal George, issued a statement on the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Barack Obama:  In the name of the Catholic Bishops of the United States, I would like to offer congratulations to President Barack Obama on his receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. As he has graciously said, much of the work of realizing a more peaceful and just world for all persons and nations remains to be done; but the prize was given because as President of the United States he has already changed the international conversation. I was stunned to read this and had to ask myself why the USCCB had to make a comment on this event at all. Pope Benedict XVI did not find it necessary to do so. Surely the USCCB must realize that Obama is among the most flagrant abusers of the natural law, due to his disrespect for the lives of preborn babies. To receive a “peace” prize as he continues to preside over the worst type of war – the war against innocent preborn children – simply makes no sense. Why offer such praise in the light of such a stark dichotomy? The Vatican’s newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, printed a commentary on Obama’s Nobel Prize that stated in part, ”The American president's [war policy] is an oscillating policy, similar to his policy for the important bioethical issues and in the first place, abortion, which has sparked so many disputes among Catholics in the U.S.” The entire problem of public comments by the USCCB brings me to yet another worrisome event involving the USCCB’s president. Let me preface my comments on this subject by saying that I cannot imagine the weight of responsibility that sits on the shoulders of Cardinal George in his role as the USCCB’s current president. And I have no way of understanding the political pressures that put him in the limelight when he would perhaps prefer to be simply leading his flock in the Chicago archdiocese and remaining focused on souls instead of media quotes. But that is his cross and we pray for him daily. However, when it comes to the evils that can lurk in a such a massive piece of legislation, especially as it is largely written by proponents of the culture of death, I am perplexed by the USCCB’s push for universal health care reform. Yes, they have made statements regarding abortion and “conscience rights,” but. overall, they seem to strongly endorse yet another big government program in a push for reform in a “must do” and hurried way. Thankfully, some individual bishops are voicing an approach that can bring about needed reform in keeping with Catholic principles, including that of the “principle of subsidiarity.” Just a couple of days ago, His Eminence spoke about this issue with members of the press and he was quite honest in telling them that the ground is still shifting on the question because the legislative proposals are fluid. He did say, however, that “the abortion issue will vitiate the whole project if it’s not attended to.” But he then went on to say that the bishops have two goals: “Everybody should be taken care of, and nobody should be deliberately killed. It’s up to the politicians, the lawyers, and legislators to see what the mechanism for doing that is.” Cardinal George knows as well as we do that, as long as politicians such as Vice President Biden and other pro-abortion Catholics are allowed to continue receiving the body and blood of Christ while advocating the direct murder of the preborn, there will be deceit of the worst possible kind – especially on the subject of health care reform. Let us not forget that the architect of this concept of reform now being pushed in Congress was none other than the late pro-abortion Catholic senator Edward M. Kennedy.  The USCCB's letter to the U.S. Senate of October 8, 2009, lends some hope that the leadership of that body is coming to see things as they really are:   [W]e remain apprehensive when amendments protecting freedom of conscience and ensuring no taxpayer money for abortion are defeated in committee votes. If acceptable language in these areas cannot be found, we will have to oppose the health care bill vigorously. Any politician who defies Christ and is willing to defile Him by his actions and his words can never be trusted to be truthful about anything, even when dealing with the president of the USCCB.  While it is true that Obama is not a Catholic, it is a documented fact that his community organizing days in Chicago began in an organization funded by the Catholic Church! Today, many of those doing his dirty work for him, such as House Speaker Pelosi, and Senate Finance Committee members John Kerry, Maria Cantwell and Robert Menendez, are allegedly Catholics, but each is also totally dedicated to abortion on demand. These men and women present a clear and present danger to the Church, to the babies and to any credibility that any promise emanating from the White House might hold to be true. Surely Cardinal George is aware of this. It makes perfect sense to me that those who hold the positions of greatest influence within the Catholic Church – the bishops, archbishops and cardinals – need to unify. The USCCB should unanimously take a firm position and make it clear that the body and blood of Christ will not be defiled any longer by those in elected office who violate Catholic teaching while maintaining a spurious Catholic identity. The damage these disobedient Catholic men and women are doing to the credibility of the Church, to consciences of the faithful who are misguided by what they witness and to the preborn children themselves cannot be quantified. Addressing this issue is more urgent than the push for health care reform. Our Blessed Lord must be perpetually in agony over such scandalous behavior and lack of faith. If the USCCB were to defend the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist from sacrilege and make it their top priority, my sense is that miracles would begin to happen and even White House operatives who are quasi-Catholic might take notice. The Scriptures and the testimony of the saints show that God can work great things through the faithfulness of those who serve Him unreservedly. When we become more faithful to all that is holy and the discipline our faith demands, then a genuine discussion of principled, ethical health care reform might be considered. But until then, forget about it. Health care reform and life-and-death control over the weak and vulnerable in our midst do not belong in the hands of an administration dedicated to advancing the culture of death. The bishops know this, and it is my hope they also know that they have the power – the power of the Holy Spirit – to stop the madness by simply defending Christ and letting the chips fall where they may. “It is true charity to point out the wolf wheresoever he creeps in among the flock.”  http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2804 2009-10-15 14:13:00 Many who have read Lewis Carroll’s beloved Alice Through the Looking-Glass remember the classic lines of dialogue between Alice and Humpty:  "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone. "It means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."   Humpty’s words have developed a new meaning when discussing subjects such as Obamacare, Senator Ted Kennedy and what it means to be Catholic. The ever-insidious (while always amusing) dissident Catholics United organization has taken a turn toward ugly with recent statements about American Life League’s September 12th poster reading “Bury Obamacare with Kennedy.”  An unsigned blog entry on its web site states: Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good today called on the American Life League – a group that bills itself as a “Catholic pro-life education organization” – to immediately suspend a campaign aimed at derailing health care reform and dishonoring the legacy of the late Senator Edward Kennedy. The American Life League continues to spread misleading information about so-called “death panels” and “taxpayer-funded abortion,” even as Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, is praising health reform efforts in the U.S.   There’s nothing fair and balanced about this commentary, which offers a politically skewed perspective on the hot topic of health care reform and Catholic teaching. We have never expected intellectual honesty from Catholics United, and they did not disappoint. Their most recent diatribe is a case in point. For the record, American Life League has not fostered a campaign to “derail” any program that is designed to serve the best interests of the poor among us. This is why we have taken great pains to point out that the Obamacare approach is deadly for the preborn, for the elderly and for the principle of subsidiarity — a principle which should put the government at the service of the poor, not in control of which among them will or will not receive care. The “dictatorship of moral relativism” is the fundamental basis for any of the existing Obamacare proposals. This is why the proposals are not in keeping with true democracy and why we oppose them. Of course, we are aware that Cardinal Martino in the Vatican takes issue with our perspective on the various health care reform proposals, but we must not forget that there is room in a democracy for a disagreement now and then. Further, we are pleased to point out that Cardinal Martino does not speak for the Vatican, but is simply voicing a personal political opinion on a very controversial topic.  Contrary to the Catholics United screed, there has been nothing in any report or commentary that we have published that has set forth false or misleading information. But let’s move on and see what else they have to say. Chris Korzen, Executive Director of Catholics United, states:  The American Life League's campaign is an outrage and an embarrassment to the Catholic community. The organization's interest in scoring cheap political points at the expense of common good solutions to the current crisis in the health care system constitutes a profound disservice to our country and our church.  With the number of uninsured teetering at alarming levels and health care costs spiraling out of control for American families, it is simply unfathomable that the American Life League would attempt to turn the moral urgency of health care reform into a reckless and destructive appeal that does irreparable harm to the health of the country and ridicules a much-loved Catholic leader. Mr. Korzen must have American Life League confused with some fellow dissident organization in his core group or he would never allege that we are involved in pursuing a campaign of disinformation.  We are not quite sure what he means when he says that we are opposed to “common good solutions” to the health care crisis. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is clear in defining the principles that provide the foundation for pursuit of the “common good”: “the common good presupposes respect for the person as such. In the name of the common good, public authorities are bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person.” Mr. Korzen should read the various health care reform proposals in light of this basic Catholic teaching. We are positive that once he realizes that these proposals provide taxpayer support for aborting the most vulnerable members of the human family, preborn children, he would realize that the documented evidence we share is indeed accurate, which means that Catholics who support these proposals are doing so in defiance of Catholic teaching. However, Mr. Korzen’s elevation of Senator Ted Kennedy to the pedestal of “much-loved Catholic leader” probably means that he could care less about the “common good” as defined by the Catechism.   And as far as much loved Catholic leaders are concerned, Pope John Paul II was most definitely one, as was Mother Teresa, Father Damien (one of our newest saints), Archbishop Fulton Sheen and others too numerous to mention. Each of these heroic Catholics stood on the shoulders of the magisterium of the Church and defended her teachings with total commitment to Christ. And each of these Catholics put the service of the poor, the downtrodden and the spiritually hungry ahead of everything, raising up the sick, the impoverished and the needy.  On the other hand, Senator Kennedy defied Catholic teaching again and again throughout his public life. The reason our sign pointed out the relationship with Obamacare and Kennedy is a simple one: he was the architect of the plan. He was also a man who advocated the direct killing of the preborn with every ounce of energy he had for more than 30 years. We hope all of the “much loved” of Sen. Kennedy have joined with us in praying for his soul. However, that does not negate the fact that Sen. Kennedy was not a defender of Catholic teaching!  Finally, we get to the crux of problems these misguided Catholics appear to have with American Life League: “Senator Edward Kennedy, a man of deep faith, spent an entire career in public service committed to common ground and civility about the most pressing moral issues of our time: tolerance for immigrants, dignity for workers, and health care for the sick and vulnerable,” said Victoria Kovari, acting director of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good. “Senator Kennedy’s commitment to justice and human dignity deserves our deep respect. The American Life League’s attempt to dishonor his legacy by spreading misinformation and fear violates both the spirit and truth of the Gospels, and fails the most basic test of human decency.” My dear friends, Senator Edward Kennedy was a man who may have had a deep faith — in political power, deception and delusion. He never advocated for the most needy in our midst, the preborn. That is not to say that he was always so misguided. In 1971, he wrote to a constituent, “Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which much be recognized — the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old.” But that position ended after Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, leaving Kennedy in the incredibly tragic situation of being an alleged Catholic who advocated for abortion in every way he could, thus defying Christ and His Church. His views on “human dignity” never included the preborn, and anyone who examines his record is painfully aware of the pain and agony he caused to many by his hypocrisy, all of which is public information. American Life League makes no apology for setting the record straight, for putting forth the facts in this matter or for continuing to defend Catholic teaching regardless of how uncomfortable that may make those who, like Humpty Dumpty, want words to mean what they say they mean.  American Life League is proud of our record in defense of the poorest and neediest in our midst: the preborn, the severely disabled and the elderly. We praise God for the gift of life and the ability to serve His Church in this struggle. In the spirit of Catholic truth, we ask those involved with Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to examine their allegations in the light of Christ’s admonition to His disciples. Please explain how anyone can hear these words and still defend those who spent a public career committed to denying basic human decency by advocating the murder of little children not yet born: Obstacles are sure to come, but alas for the one who provides them! It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone put round his neck than that he should lead astray a single one of these little ones. Watch yourselves! (Luke 17:2)