LifeNet

American Life League on Catholicism vs. Obamaism

Judie Brown, President of ALL, writes about Cardinal Stafford's remarks, which we posted here.  U.S. Cardinal Stafford: Catholics will experience the Agony of the Garden as Obama campaigned on an “extremist anti-...

Note CNN's remarks ... predictable, very predictable.

CATHOLICISM VS. 'OBAMAISM'
By Judie Brown

When the Catholic University of America's Tower reported that during a recent address at the university, His Eminence James Francis Cardinal Stafford criticized President-elect Barack Obama as "aggressive, disruptive and apocalyptic" and said he campaigned on an "extremist anti-life platform," I can only imagine the cheers that must have risen from the hall. The Tower continued,

"Because man is a sacred element of secular life," Stafford remarked, "man should not be held to a supreme power of state, and a person's life cannot ultimately be controlled by government."

"For the next few years, Gethsemane will not be marginal. We will know that garden," Stafford said, comparing America's future with Obama as president to Jesus' agony in the garden. "On November 4, 2008, America suffered a cultural earthquake."

Cardinal Stafford said Catholics must deal with the "hot, angry tears of betrayal' by beginning a new sentiment where one is 'with Jesus, sick because of love.'"

These inspired sentiments from such a beloved prelate should have been received with echoes of agreement, not only by the USCCB but the entire Church and pro-life movement. After all, this American cardinal is currently the major penitentiary of the Apostolic Penitentiary for the Tribunal of the Holy See and has staunchly defended Catholic teaching for years.

Well, I haven't heard much from my fellow pro-lifers, but I have seen the vitriol that has spewed forth from CNN.

On Tuesday's Situation Room, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer referred to a Catholic cardinal's criticism of Barack Obama's abortion position as a "scathing rant" and a "diatribe." A CNN graphic also used the "scathing rant" term, and Blitzer later referred to the cardinal's words as a "blistering rant."

As the Media Resource Center's Matthew Balan reported,

At the end of the segment, Blitzer misrepresented the Catholic Church's stances on various issues. He stated that the Church and Obama "do agree on some hot button issues, including opposition to the war in Iraq, greater access to health care, and more equitable tax codes," as a CNN graphic referred to the health care issues as "universal health care." On the last two issues, this is an oversimplification. Paragraph 2211 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church refers to the "political community's" duty to "honor the family, to assist it, and to ensure," among other things, "the right to private property, to free enterprise, to obtain work and housing, and the right to emigrate" and "in keeping with the country's institutions, the right to medical care, assistance for the aged, and family benefits." The same Catechism, which lists the official teachings of the Catholic Church, says nothing of "more equitable tax codes." It only states how it is "morally obligatory to pay taxes" (paragraph 2240) and that tax evasion is "morally illicit" (paragraph 2409).

On the other hand, Blitzer did correctly state that Obama and the Church "strongly disagree on embryonic stem cell research; abortion rights...and civil unions for gay couples, all of which Obama supports -- the Catholic Church opposes."

One can surmise from the above that there is more to this bashing of Cardinal Stafford than meets the eye. After all, the cardinal was not screaming, and he did make every effort to make sure his comments were understood in the proper context. But as we might have guessed, CNN is not going to attempt, even for the sake of appearances, to be objective about the president-elect.

Further, they can rely on many Catholic dissidents and alleged pro-lifers to shore up their inference that saying anything negative about Obama is always a very bad thing indeed. As the Catholic News Agency reports, 

The pro-lifers reaching out to abortion rights supporters argue that legal challenges to permissive abortion laws will not be successful, especially following Barack Obama's election to the presidency, the Washington Post reports…

The coalition of pro-lifers seeking policy change rather than legal change includes Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference; Richard Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals; Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good; Catholics United, described as a progressive Catholic lay group; Sojourners, a progressive evangelical organization; and RealAbortionSolutions.org, a coalition of Catholics and evangelical leaders.

Rev. Thomas Reese, S.J., from Georgetown University's Woodstock Theological Center, has also allied himself with the effort, even though he has resigned himself to only commenting on politics in the past.

So too has Nicholas Cafardi, a former dean of the Duquesne University School of Law and a Catholic canon lawyer. He resigned from the board of Franciscan University of Steubenville in Ohio after writing a column supporting Obama and declaring the abortion battle lost, the Washington Post says.

My, what a tragic web is being woven – a labyrinth of half-truths designed to further entangle the American public into believing the media myth that when a Catholic prelate speaks out in defense of truth, it is always a bad thing for America. I can actually see a time when the hierarchy might, by law perhaps, be silenced similarly to the way the administrator of the Charleston, South Carolina diocese has silenced Father Jay Scott Newman.

The fullness of truth could even come to be regarded as the enemy of the common good. Who is to say where all this might lead, with the media in charge of preaching and teaching Catholic dogma to the not so faithful?

Now is the time for courageous leadership, unapologetic declarations of truth and much more honesty, such as that courageously displayed by Cardinal Stafford at the Catholic University of America.

We need to hear from the bishops, now more than ever. We should expect them to provide us with clarifications on anti-life measures such as the Freedom of Choice Act and the Prevention First Act. These bills would lead to more social chaos than anyone can imagine. It is tragic enough that abortion is ever committed, but to become a signed, sealed and delivered government program would be anathema to the future of this once-great nation.

Father Frank Pavone has written, "It is the role of bishops to herald the Gospel of Life by their preaching, teaching, and stirring into flame the gifts of God in the hearts of the laity."

Let us hope that the flame ignited by Cardinal Stafford, with his stirring comments, will be carried forth and burn intensely from every pulpit in the United States, Catholic and otherwise. The time is now!

Judie Brown is president of American Life League and a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life.

Population Research Institute on Obama supporter Doug Kmiec

Of course Kmiec was given lots of publicity by the media before the campaign, as a "fromer Reagan Administration appointee" and "pro-life Catholic" who supported Obama.

In fact, you could say the media created Kmiec.

We are reprinting the latest email from the Population Research Institute (PRI) in full below -

Dear Colleague, As every leftist ideologue knows, "framing the issue" is everything. The Washington Post, no friend of the unborn, is attempting to portray the handful of "pro-lifers" who supported Obama as somehow representing the mainstream of the movement, while relegating the rest of us to the outer darkness. Memo to the media: It's our movement, not yours. And Doug Kmiec, sadly, is no longer a part of it. Steve Mosher

DOUG KMIEC'S DEPARTURE FROM THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT by Steven Mosher and Colin Mason The more incredible the claim, the greater the number of column inches the liberal media devotes to making it. That's why The Washington Post, on November 18th, gave over such a large swath of its front page to religion writer Jacqueline Salmon, who fantasizes at length about the "growing number of anti-abortion pastors, conservative academics and activists [who] are setting aside efforts to outlaw abortion and instead are focusing on building social programs and developing other assistance for pregnant women to reduce the number of abortions." This, she would have us believe, is the future of the pro-life movement. The rest of us have given up, or are about to. As Exhibit Number One for her argument, Salmon produces the now well-known Doug Kmiec, a conservative academic who teaches law at Pepperdine University. Kmiec early endorsed Obama for president, justifying his support for the abortion-minded candidate by claiming that legal efforts to restrict abortion have failed. "If one strategy has failed and failed over decades," Kmiec told Salmon, "and you have empirical information that tells how you can honor life and encourage women to make th[e choice to keep their child] by meeting real needs that are existing and tangible, why not do that?" Kmiec, a practicing Catholic, earlier elaborated his views on Catholic Online, writing that "if it's a choice between giving a boost to the work of my fellow parishioners who week after week in thinly-funded, crisis pregnancy centers, open their minds and their hearts and often their homes to pregnant women . . . and a Supreme Court Justice to be named later who may or may not toss the issue back to the states, I think I know which course is more effectively choosing life."  He goes on to conclude that "good, evenhanded information and genuine empathy and love save more children than hypothetical legal limits--which, as best as I can tell, have saved: well, zero" (read the entire piece here). Salmon wishes her readers to believe that defeatists such as Kmiec, who have basically raised the white flag of surrender and are now trying to wheedle crumbs out of the federal government for crisis pregnancy centers, represent the new pro-life mainstream. Those of us in the movement, however, know that Kmiec is literally an army of one. No serious pro-lifer that I know has followed him into the Obama camp, and for good reason. Quite simply: Kmiec has his facts wrong, and his hopes misplaced. His claim that pro-life legislative and community service efforts have failed to reduce the number of abortions is demonstrably false. And his belief that Barack Obama will actually succor women in crisis pregnancies is hopelessly naive. Pro-lifers have proposed, and state legislatures have passed, a considerable number of restrictions on abortion. These laws have saved many lives that would have otherwise been lost. States that have strict abortion laws, like South Dakota, have seen the number of abortions cut in half. States with parental consent laws, waiting periods, and informed consent laws have also seen marked decreases in the abortion rate. Kmiec is not only factually wrong in dismissing past restrictions on abortion as ineffective, he is politically naive. Such laws don't work anyway, he seems to be saying, so why fight to preserve them? Does he not know that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are eager to pass, and Obama to sign, the so-called Freedom of Choice Act, which would overturn all such laws? Does he really want to provide wavering congressmen, not to mention President-elect Obama himself, with a further justification for passing such Draconian legislation? Pro-lifers have saved millions of babies from abortion over the past few decades through their loving intervention. Hundreds of thousands of pro-life volunteers in the U.S. run crisis pregnancy centers, teach abstinence, engage in sidewalk counseling, and encourage adoption. Our people have dedicated their lives to helping women avoid the bad choice of abortion, and to caring for them through crisis pregnancies. Even as the end of Roe v. Wade remained tantalizingly out of reach, we have continued to place restrictions on abortion in order to give women a real choice, and babies a chance for life. Our incremental approach to the abortion problem, coupled with the love and support that we give mothers and babies, continues to be the best strategy for reducing the number of abortions now. Kmiec apparently supports a government program to "reduce the number of abortions." The problem with this approach is that, if you throw federal money at the problem, where is it most likely to wind up? Certainly not in the hands of the thousands of local crisis pregnancy centers (that run on love rather than money anyway.) Rather, it will go to abortion-minded beltway bandits like Planned Parenthood. And the abortion rate will go up, not down. The mainstream media are happy to repeat Kmiec's false claims, of course. It is precisely to give credence to such claims that they have anointed him the new head of the "moderate" pro-life mainstream. They want to convince us that the battle to overturn Roe v. Wade is definitively lost, and that the best we can hope for is a new welfare program for unwed mothers. But we know better. We know that Kmiec not only does not define the pro-life movement, but that he has in truth defected from it, not to mention from the teaching of the Catholic Church itself. Finally, we note that the highest ranking Catholic in the Clinton Administration was former Boston Mayor Ray Flynn, who was appointed U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican. It is unlikely that the Vatican would accept the appointment of Doug Kmiec, however, on account of his high-profile advocacy of a pro-abortion candidate. What, pray tell, is to become of him? Steven W. Mosher is the President of the Population Research Institute and the author of Population Control: Real Costs and Illusory Benefits. Colin Mason is the Director of Media Production at PRI.

City Council Bill Threatens Free Speech

A bill is pending before the New York City Council (Intro. 826) that would unfairly restrict the free speech rights of peaceful pro-life witnesses outside of abortion clinics within the five boroughs of New York. Please contact your City Council representative and the Mayor, who supports the bill, to express your opposition to the bill. Here are some important points to make: 1. Intro. 826 would violate the First Amendment. Intro. 826 contains unclear definitions of the kinds of conduct that would be prohibited, using vague words like "harass" and "interfere." It would chill the free speech rights of persons seeking to provide information to women entering abortion clinics, out of fear of an arrest or civil suit based on an entirely ambiguous standard. The First Amendment gives very broad protection to free speech rights, particularly when the speech occurs on a public sidewalk, which has been described by the Supreme Court as a "public forum" where citizens generally have a First Amendment right to speak. Intro. 826 fails to respect this fundamental right of all Americans. 2. Intro. 826 is unnecessary. The proponents of Intro. 826 argue that the bill is necessary to prevent people from knowingly blocking or obstructing a clinic entrance (including vehicular entrances), to prohibit "harassment" within 15 feet of the clinic, and to clarify that the prohibited conduct includes obstructing the clinic entrances. But this kind of conduct is already prohibited by the current provisions of city, state and federal law, and there are already ample civil and criminal remedies available. In fact, there have been very few violations of the current law -- only five people have been arrested in New York City since 2003 for violations of the state clinic access law, and only four have been convicted. There is clearly no significant problem that needs to be addressed by new legislation. 3. Intro. 826 is unfair. This bill will lead to unfair prosecutions of ordinary citizens who wish to express their free speech rights, but will be subject to criminal and civil penalties merely because some influential groups consider their speech to be unwelcome. Ultimately, Intro. 826 is unfair to women, who have a right to information before they make the decision on whether or not to have an abortion. You can find the name of your Council representative here, and e-mail him or her directly through this site: http://council.nyc.gov/html/members/members.shtml. You can email Mayor Mike Bloomberg here: http://www.nyc.gov/html/mail/html/mayor.html. Thank you for your actions on behalf of life. Note: The above communication refers to the recent New York City Council hearing on November 18, 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. After a two hour introduction by the opposition, one - that is, only one City Council member remained to listen to testimony on this issue. Chris Slattery of EMC Frontline Pregnancy Centers attended this hearing and reported that this bill is an attempt to limit sidewalk counseling and the ongoing prayer presence outside abortion clinics. This is an attempt to threaten misdemeanor charges for so-called harrassment of clinic clientele. The peaceful, First Amendment-right protected pro-life clinic presence is deemed a threat because women have been turned around from seeking abortions when presented with the facts. At this time, Chris feels this bill will likely pass, but that clinics will overreach in an attempt to discourage the pro-lifer's protests and prayers. You can look for the video of this hearing at the Council's NY website. Christine Quinn heads the Council and recent news articles, opinions and comments can also be found on the New York Daily News website. More hearings are scheduled. No dates at this time. P.S. We encountered some text transfer problems. Sorry for any inconvenience.

Parent Alert! Healthy Teens Act a Big Problem

If you haven't yet heard of the (un) Healthy Teens Act, you will. Learn all you can about this legislation so, as parents, you can safeguard your children and watchdog your official school programs before they become entrenched in the schools' cirricula. Religious Education programs must also be pro-active about this pending legislation and the effect its possible passage will have on their own programs for students and parents.

The Healthy Teens Act would impose extreme sex-education for your child in Day Care, Nursery School and Kindergarten, and at every stage of your child's education.

You can read about this legislation and see how it is being promoted at www.getthefactsny.org. It refers to a "dire public health need in New York State" and the Assembly and Senate bills A.2856(new number) and S.5121(we're checking possible bill number change here), that address it. While the bill reads like an all-inclusive attempt to educate children and promote "health" and "self-esteem" and involve parents and "other adults", you must not accept these seemingly benign statements at face value. Why? Get the Facts NY is a project of Family Planning Advocates of New York State (FPA) and the Planned Parenthood Affiliates of New York State. We know their agenda includes promotion of early sexual experimentation, birth control and "morning after" pills, condoms, the Gardisil vaccine, and the inevitable abortions - without parental consent.One sentence about "the value of abstinence" should not lull you into thinking the aim of this program is your child's "health".

Enough said. Do your homework, parents! Go to School Board meetings and ask school officials questions about plans for these programs. The fact that someone is watching will have an effect. Question if they have given thought to the possibility of law suits directed at the School District. This will also give them pause.  

Please call your local State Senate and Assembly representatives www.senate.state.ny.us/mem/.org or www.assembly.state.ny.us/mem.org and voice your concerns today!

U.S. Cardinal Stafford: Catholics will experience the Agony of the Garden as Obama campaigned on an “extremist anti-life platform, ... aggressive, disruptive and apocalyptic.”

What more is there to say? From Zenit.org

Cardinal Says Future With Obama Is Gethsemane

Affirms That Life Cannot be Controlled by Government

WASHINGTON, D.C., NOV. 19, 2008 (Zenit.org).- The decline in respect for human life has had “catastrophic effects” on the unity and integrity of the United States, which are evidenced by the presidential election, says a Vatican official.

Baltimore-native Cardinal James Stafford, major penitentiary of the Apostolic Penitentiary, affirmed this in a lecture on "Humanae Vitae" last Thursday at the Catholic University of America. His lecture, “Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II: Being True in Body and Soul,” pointed out the need for Catholics to return to the true values of marriage and human dignity faced to the current challenges.

“Because man is a sacred element of secular life,” the cardinal said, “[…] a person’s life cannot ultimately be controlled by government.”

"On Nov. 4, 2008, America suffered a cultural earthquake,” continued the cardinal. He pointed out that president-elect Barack Obama campaigned on an “extremist anti-life platform,” and described him as “aggressive, disruptive and apocalyptic.”

Now Catholics will experience the Agony of the Garden through the next few years of Obama’s presidency, the cardinal said, and will have to endure the “hot, angry tears of betrayal.” He invited people to live this time “with Jesus, sick because of love.”

The lecture, hosted by the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family, concluded by emphasizing authentic family values. The relationship between husband and wife is the truest reflection of the love between the believer and God, the cardinal affirmed. Contraception does not fit into the framework.

Cardinal Stafford served as the archbishop of Denver for 10 years before being called to Rome. He was the pastor of that archdiocese when Pope John Paul II went there for World Youth Day in 1993.

Fr. Thomas Euteneuer, President of Human Life International, on the recent election

This was Father's weekly email, sent out November 13th.

Election Part I: "We Have No King But Caesar"

The following is the first of a three-part series on the 2008 Elections. In the next two weeks we will deal with issues of Culture and Conscience.

Now that the election is over, we can separate the real Catholics from those who just act the part. Those still reeling from the results of the election can rest assured that they are in good company with the saints. Those who have drawn a line in blood and made a decision to stand with the culture of death need a serious examination of conscience. Now look at what we've done to ourselves. America has made her "choice" for maximum leader and it is not pretty. In fact, it is one of the most devastating blows to American civilization that we have ever undergone, and I do not speak in hyperbole. Even such a saintly figure as Mother Theresa said that "a nation that kills its children has no future;" likewise, an authority like Fr. Benedict Groeschel recently commented that we have entered into "the beginning of the twilight" of our country - dire words that touch on the reality of electing the most extreme, pro-abortion candidate America has ever had the misfortune of occupying the highest office of our land.

This has happened before though. When the prophet Samuel complained to God that the people of Israel were asking for a king, the Lord God replied that they were not rejecting Samuel but were in actual fact rejecting God Himself, His sovereignty and His authority over them (cf. 1 Sam, ch. 8). He also told Samuel that the people would have to accept the consequences of their wicked desire, and as we know, the craven need to be like the surrounding pagan nations was a bitter pill for them to swallow. The people of Israel echoed that rejection of their God more than a thousand years later when the King of Kings and Lord of Lords stood before them in Herod's derisive purple robe and the people shouted, this time with vehemence: "We have no king but Caesar!" In essence, we have chosen a Barabbas over Christ - again.

And choices have consequences they say. The consequences of this election will be imprinted upon our national conscience for years to come, one of which is that, by electing abortion extremists to rule over us, both in the Presidency and in the Congress, we have now lost the blessing promised in Psalm 41:1-4 - "Happy those concerned for the lowly and the poor; when misfortune strikes, the Lord delivers them. The Lord keeps and preserves them, makes them happy in the land, and does not betray them to their enemies. The Lord sustains them on their sickbed." It is hard for Americans to imagine that a land so consecrated could be shriven of that blessing. Yet, we have made our sickbed and we must lie in it.

This did not happen, though, without dire and prolonged warnings about the institutionalization of evil. We can't say we were not warned. When moral persuasion about the killing of innocents did not work, rational science was our witness. When science was ignored and then co-opted for the works of death, AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases came to awaken people's consciences, but these did little better. God then had to allow such an onslaught of terrorism, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, wildfires, earthquakes and tsunamis in the past decade that He surely thought we would wake up to the deadly reality of the culture of death and repent. When that didn't happen, He hit us in the most sensitive spot on the human body: our wallets. The gas price hikes and the recent financial meltdown surely would do the trick, He thought, but apparently that did not work either because our people adamantly refused to be deterred at any price from our lust for abortion and put into office all those who would serve the interests of this unholy agenda for decades to come. Alas, we all need to get on our knees and repent from the very depths of our hearts for the plague that we have just invited onto our beloved nation.

At the same time, my friends, despite the dismal picture, this is a time to thank Almighty God for the gifts of life, love and family that we have been given. It is also the time to seriously engage in efforts to take the culture back so that eventually our politics will follow the growth of a new pro-life culture from the seeds we are planting today.

A conversion story from Serbia

This was first publicized in a Madrid newspaper.

And here''s the rest of the story.

Another 'champion of abortion' becomes defender of life: the story of Stojan Adasevic

A vital read: lessons from a pro-life failure in Britain

The recently passed Human Fertilization and Embryology Bill in Britain makes prophetic the "Brave New World" Aldous Huxley wrote about, way back in 1932.

We have to be aghast, knowing that this could be the path the United States and the rest of Europe may soon be headed down. And read between the lines of the last paragraph we have excerpted - what pressures will be brought to bear on scientists, hospitals and universities that refuse to take part or promote anything-goes genetic manipulation, or human-animal cloning, to name just two outrages?

As the author writes, "the angels weep."

The pro-life movement in Britain just fought a losing battle ... What lessons are to be learned?

Defending Life Against Unaccountable Power

... now that the bill has been passed and signed into law, I imagine that the said authority has never felt more reassured and smug. It surely is enough to make the angels weep.

Everything is now approved, every taboo is broken, every possible outrage against human dignity is now formally endorsed: animal-human embryos, artificial gametes, cloning using two maternal egg sources, germline manipulation, preimplantation diagnosis for eugenic purposes, posthumous conception, removal of the child’s need for a father, use of tissue without proper consent … The list goes on.

‘We lost every vote’

We fought hard against the bill. The Catholic Church, strengthened by its clear position on the right to life of the human embryo, was particularly vocal, and a great deal of activity was centred around other Christian churches as well. Many of the pro-life organisations grouped together under the banner Passion for Life, and, with a platform which included parliamentarians David Alton, Ann Widdecombe, Geraldine Smith and David Burrowes, travelled the land conducting rallies and encouraging the audiences to make their voices heard. Two million postcards of opposition were sent to MPs from around the country, and everyone was encouraged to lobby personally their individual representatives. There were protests in Parliament Square, briefings, debates, processions, prayers. And we lost every vote.

The old 1990 Act was already responsible for breaking most rules regarding the inviolability of the human embryo, but it left in place some restrictions, some inclination towards morality rather than the absolute scientific imperative, and vaguely endorsed the rights of children to traditional family life. The new law represents a total victory for science, for genetic determinism, for unconstrained reproductive freedom. Even more worryingly, it has a built-in capacity for limitless liberty, a quality proudly described as “future-proofing” by health minister, Dawn Primarolo.

Summing up in the House of Commons, having assured us cryptically that “The kaleidoscope of science is coming to a rest,” Ms Primarolo proudly asserted that no longer will the “extremes of scientific progress be blocked by red tape, stifled by regulation, or frustrated by a regime that fails to keep pace."

Catholic Bishops Press Release on the election of Barack Obama

Note the section we highlighted regarding the imminent expansion of abortion.

DATE:           November 12, 2008

FROM:           Sr. Mary Ann Walsh

                                                                                                            O: 202-541-3200

                                                                                                            C: 301-325-7935

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

CARDINAL GEORGE VOICES HOPE FOR OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, POINTS TO POSSIBLE OBSTACLES TO OUR DESIRED UNITY

 

BALTIMORE--Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), voiced hope for the Obama Administration but pointed to possible obstacles to our desired unity, in a Nov. 12 statement at the end of the annual fall assembly of the USCCB.

            “The bishops of the Catholic Church in the United States welcome this moment of historic transition and look forward to working with President-elect Obama and the members of the new Congress for the common good of all,” he said.

            He said that “the unity desired by President-elect Obama and all Americans at this moment of crisis will be impossible to achieve,” if the administration’s policies increase abortions.

“Aggressive pro-abortion policies, legislation and executive orders will permanently alienate tens of millions of Americans, and would be seen by many as an attack on the free exercise of their religion.”

“We express again our great desire to work with all those who cherish the common good of our nation,” he added. “The common good is not the sum total of individual interests: it is achieved in the working out of a common life based upon good reason and good will for all.”

Cardinal George’s remarks follow.

 

 

 

STATEMENT of the President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

 

“If the Lord does not build the house, in vain do its builders labor; if the Lord does not watch over the city, in vain does the watchman keep vigil.” (Psalm 127, vs. 1)

 

The Bishops of the Catholic Church in the United States welcome this moment of historic transition and look forward to working with President-elect Obama and the members of the new Congress for the common good of all.  Because of the Church’s history and the scope of her ministries in this country, we want to continue our work for economic justice and opportunity for all; our efforts to reform laws around immigration and the situation of the undocumented; our provision of better education and adequate health care for all, especially for women and children; our desire to safeguard religious freedom and foster peace at home and abroad.  The Church is intent on doing good and will continue to cooperate gladly with the government and all others working for these goods.

 

The fundamental good is life itself, a gift from God and our parents.  A good state protects the lives of all.  Legal protection for those members of the human family waiting to be born in this country was removed when the Supreme Court decided Roe vs. Wade in 1973.  This was bad law.  The danger the Bishops see at this moment is that a bad court decision will be enshrined in bad legislation that is more radical than the 1973 Supreme Court decision itself. 

 

In the last Congress, a Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) was introduced that would, if brought forward in the same form today, outlaw any “interference” in providing abortion at will.  It would deprive the American people in all fifty states of the freedom they now have to enact modest restraints and regulations on the a bortion industry.  FOCA would coerce all Americans into subsidizing and promoting abortion with their tax dollars.  It would counteract any and all sincere efforts by government and others of good will to reduce the number of abortions in our country.

 

Parental notification and informed consent precautions would be outlawed, as would be laws banning procedures such as partial-birth abortion and protecting infants born alive after a failed abortion.  Abortion clinics would be deregulated.  The Hyde Amendment restricting the federal funding of abortions would be abrogated.  FOCA would have lethal consequences for prenatal human life.

 

FOCA would have an equally destructive effect on the freedom of conscience of doctors, nurses and health care workers whose personal convictions do not permit them to cooperate in the private killing of unborn children.  It would threaten Catholic health care institutions and Catholic Charities.  It would be an evil law that would further divide our country, and the Church should be intent on opposing evil. 

 

On this issue, the legal protection of the unborn, the bishops are of one mind with Catholics and others of good will. They are also pastors who have listened to women whose lives have been diminished because they believed they had no choice but to abort a baby.  Abortion is a medical procedure that kills, and the psychological and spiritual consequences are written in the sorrow and depression of many women and men.  The bishops are single-minded because they are, first of all, single-hearted.

 

The recent election was principally decided out of concern for the economy, for the loss of jobs and homes and financial security for families, here and around the world.  If the election is misinterpreted ideologically as a referendum on abortion, the unity desired by President-elect Obama and all Americans at this moment of crisis will be impossible to achieve.  Abortion kills not only unborn children; it destroys constitutional order and the common good, which is assured only when the life of every human being is legally protected.  Aggressively pro-abortion policies, legislation and executive orders will permanently alienate tens of millions of Americans, and would be seen by many as an attack on the free exercise of their religion.

 

This statement is written at the request and direction of all the Bishops, who also want to thank all those in politics who work with good will to protect the lives of the most vulnerable among us.  Those in public life do so, sometimes, at the cost of great sacrifice to themselves and their families; and we are grateful.  We express again our great desire to work with all those who cherish the common good of our nation.  The common good is not the sum total of individual desires and interests; it is achieved in the working out of a common life based upon good reason and good will for all.

 

Our prayers accompany President-elect Obama and his family and those who are cooperating with him to assure a smooth transition in government.  Many issues demand immediate attention on the part of our elected “watchman.” (Psalm 127)  May God bless him and our country.

# # # # #

08-174

SEC,DD,CNS,RNS,Crux

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCCB Pro-Life Secretari at

Catholic League P.R.: the bishop's meeting and abortion

We will post more on what the Bishops had to say in the next day or two.

BISHOPS WARN OBAMA ON ABORTION; CATHOLIC LEFT REBUKED

November 12, 2008

In a statement released today, Francis Cardinal George, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, made it clear that the bishops will fight any expansion of abortion rights that may occur under the next administration. Specifically, the bishops are objecting to the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), a bill so sweeping and draconian that it would not only repeal every single state restriction on abortion, it would seriously jeopardize the right of Catholic hospitals and doctors to opt out of performing abortions.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue released the following remarks:

“Cardinal George is right to label FOCA ‘an evil law that would further divide the country.’ At stake are two issues: a) the rights of the unborn and, b) religious liberty.

“First, those who admit that abortion should be rare unwittingly acknowledge that there is a reason to limit its frequency: as Cardinal George said, ‘abortion kills.’ By contrast, no one maintains that root canals should be rare, and that is because this medical procedure—unlike abortion—does not result in the total denial of someone else’s rights.

“Second, religious liberty is enshrined in the First Amendment and cannot be trespassed upon lightly, and certainly not by abortion zealots.  Those who support FOCA must realize that if Catholic hospitals are ever required to perform abortions, the bishops will close every one of them; no one would be hurt more than the poor.

“Cardinal George explicitly rejected the ‘common good’ mantra of the Catholic Left that justifies legal abortion while pursuing ameliorative social policies that may reduce abortions. At stake, he said, is the ‘legal protection of the unborn,’ something which is rejected by Catholics United, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholic Democrats. We hope they amend their ways and fall in line with Catholic thought on this grave matter. If they do not, they will become indistinguishable from Catholics for Choice, a fully discredited organization.”

Boston's Cardinal O'Malley: laments Obama's "deplorable record" on pro-life issues

Cardinal O'Malley is the Capuchin Franciscan who was sent to Boston to clean up the horrible sex abuse mess. he has done a good job, going into a terrible situation.

But wouldn't it have been nice if he said something like this before the election? Perhaps he did - we don't know.

Cardinal O’Malley laments president-elect’s ‘deplorable’ abortion record

Describing his past involvement with the civil rights movement, Cardinal O'Malley likened the election of an African American to the Berlin Wall falling. "I mean, for my generation, I suppose young people today can’t appreciate that, but to me it is something very big,” he told Paulson.

“My joy, however, is tempered by the knowledge that this man has a deplorable record when it comes to pro-life issues and is possibly in the pocket of Planned Parenthood,” the cardinal continued, noting the irony that the organization’s origins were racist and claiming its aims were to “eliminate the blacks.”

Saying he will try to work with the president-elect, Cardinal O’Malley said Obama should realize his election was not a mandate to “rush ahead with a pro-abortion platform.” He argued that the passage of marriage referenda in Florida and California showed that people who were socially conservative voted for Obama for other reasons.

Uraguayan Bishops on abortion, abortion supporters, and the Eucharist

At Zenit.org. We highlighted part of the article

Uruguay Prelates: No Eucharist for Abortion Backers

Point to Canon Law

MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, NOV. 10, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Uruguayan bishops are recalling that those who vote in favor of abortion exclude themselves from communion with the Church.

The prelates appealed to canon law in recalling the Catholic position on abortion during their Nov. 5-12 plenary assembly.

In a communiqué Friday, the bishops responded to a bill regarding "reproductive and sexual health" currently under consideration.

They cited a declaration from last year, titled, "In Defending Human Life, All of Us Win." There, the prelates affirmed, "Legalizing abortion doesn't change bad into good. Once it is made concrete, things go badly for everyone. A human life is lost. The mother ends up with wounds that do not easily heal. The doctor goes against the essence of his noble profession. Society loses a life because of not opening its arms to receive it. The culture of life is attacked."

The bishops go on to say that no "honest law can justify the elimination of a defenseless being who has the right to life and to be born."

Regarding Catholics who promote and/or vote for laws in favor of abortion, they recalled that such a person breaks the link that unites them to Christ and the Church. While he remains committed to this position, the bishops affirmed, he is impeded from approaching Eucharistic Communion, according to what is established in the Code of Canon Law, canons 1341 and 1398.

"Uruguayans need to multiply the signs of favor for human life in the midst of emigration and the demographic winter that compromises our future," the prelates concluded. "The well-being of our people requires sons and daughters to bring joy to homes, to fill the classrooms and playgrounds. We are in favor of the integral development of human life, which as Catholic bishops we see from the perspective of Jesus Christ, who came to the world to bring worthy and abundant life."

Abortion comparisons

Back in July we published excerpts and a link to this superb essay  "One women's journey from pro-choice atheist to pro-life Catholic" which was published in America magazine.

The author, Jennifer Fulwiler, has a really excellent weblog and this morning posted this Conversion Diary: Abortion and Holocaust comparisons - The diary of a former atheist . Besides being a fine posting in it's own right - Jennifer is a wonderful writer - there are numerous valuable links.

With this soon to happen, LifeNet: Obama administration to immediately reverse Bush pro-life policies and abortion to be treated as the moral equivalent of trimming your fingernails, it's important for all of us to study and re-read essays and postings like those of Jennifer Fulwiler.

Here is an excerpt from her posting we have linked to, and to repeat, she has numerous valuable links to bring home her points:

The injustice I sensed in the comparison was that the victims of the Holocaust experienced a level of suffering that is unparalleled in the human experience, a kind of suffering that no unborn baby, even the victims of late-term abortions, would or could ever know. During the Nazi reign mothers had toddlers torn from their arms to be sent to their deaths or, perhaps worse, walked hand-in-hand with their children into gas chambers. Millions of people were yanked from their homes, shoved into cattle cars, then starved, shot, gassed, and subjected to sick medical experiments -- and they all knew it was coming.

Ever since I learned about the events of the Nazi Holocaust in grade school not a week has gone by that I don't think of its victims and feel a little queasy to imagine what they went thorough. To minimize the horror that took place there is unconscionable, and I detest loose comparisons to the Holocaust.

One thing that has surprised me, then, as I've researched the pro-life position further, is that I do see a critical similarity between abortion and the Holocaust. To be very clear, I do not think it's the same thing. I do not think that they are directly analogous in every way. But I do think that both scourges are born of the same seed, and that it is not only appropriate but important to highlight what that is.

Obama administration to immediately reverse Bush pro-life policies

The President-elect is already charting the new course, including reversal of the Mexico City policy denying funding to Overseas abortion operators.

Condoms Trump Abstinence in Obama Global AIDS Policy, Aide Says Bloomberg.com: Politics

President-elect Barack Obama will reverse U.S. family planning and AIDS prevention strategies that have long linked global funding to anti-abortion and abstinence education, a public-health adviser said.

Public health policies of President George W. Bush's $45- billion PEPFAR program have brought AIDS drugs to almost 3 million people in poor countries such as Rwanda and Uganda, more than under any other president. Still, requirements that health workers emphasize abstinence from sex and monogamy over condom use have set back sexually transmitted disease prevention and family planning globally, said Susan F. Wood, co-chairman of Obama's advisory committee for women's health.

``We have been going in the wrong direction and we need to turn it around and be promoting prevention and family-planning services and strengthening public health,'' said Wood, a research professor at George Washington University School of Public Health in Washington.

Bush on his first day in office in January 2001 reinstated the so-called Mexico City Policy -- known as the global gag rule to critics -- that bars U.S. family-planning assistance for organizations that use funding from any other source to provide counseling and referral for abortion; lobby to make abortion legal or more available in their country; or perform abortions except in certain cases. Those exceptions are a threat to the woman's life, rape or incest.

Obama ``is committed to looking at all this and changing the policies so that family-planning services -- both in the U.S. and the developing world -- reflect what works, what helps prevent unintended pregnancy, reduce maternal and infant mortality, prevent the spread of disease,'' Wood said.

Hit the link above for more ...

Good Counsel's 12th Award Celebration a Gem

Inspiration and conviviality - if not election joy - filled the 3 West Club in New York City when on Thursday evening, November 6, many good folks gathered in admiration of the work and the pro-life example of Good Counsel Homes at their Twelfth Annual Award Celebration. Co-founder Chris Bell and his wife, Joan Andrews Bell, were on hand with their 19-year old son Emeliano to welcome guests and supporters and to introduce the evening's honorees. Photos below begin to tell the story.

             

Special Guest was Miss Nellie J. Gray, Founder and President of the annual March for Life held each year since the Supreme Court Roe vs. Wade decision in Washington, D.C. Nellie was reluctant to be singled out. "We haven't won anything yet," she argued with Chris.

       

Other special honorees included Sister Mona O'Connell, SSND, Good Counsel's Director of Residential Operations

   

and Marisa McClinton

 

mother, student and former Good Counsel resident whose personal stories stirred the hearts of all. 

Good Counsel co-founder Father Benedict Groeschel, also founder of the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal, prayed with us and closed with some pointed remarks about the recent Presidential election and the future of the pro-life cause.

Miss Nellie J. Gray is an inspiration.

 

If you wondered why, it was her steadfast determination and fighting words this evening that helped define why. A former Women's Army Corps Corporal during World War II, Nellie founded the March for Life to guarantee Constitutional protection for the right to life for each born and preborn human being from the moment of fertilization, with equal care for the mother and child with no exception. Back in the 70s, she was horrified by the photo of the dead bodies of fetal childlren thrown into a dumpster. Her sense that this was no different than the Holocaust spurred her to develop the "Life Principles" based on the responsibility and dignity of human life demanded by the Neuremburg trials and Pope Pius XI 1930 Encyclical, Casti Connubii. Both reaffirmed her sense of the need for "equal care" for mother and child. She continues to work tirelessly to overturn Roe vs. Wade. She spoke of her disappointment in the current so-called "conservative court" that continues to accept Roe rather than overturn, citing stare decisis, the legal term which means the court will stand by prior precedent. She spoke of the election this year of officals to the highest offices who turn their backs on human life. She sees the attempt to impose the Freedom of Choice Act, and the future of the courts in America and the makeup of Congress as troubling. She sees the need for "bottom up, grassroots education, calling for no exceptions, no compromises, grieving that we feel our culture taken over." She called everyone to join her in Washington in January for the largest group of pro-lifers ever present for the 36th annual March for Life, two days after the Inauguration of President-elect Obama. The battle cry will be for a culture of life under God. 

Fr. Benedict, expressing disappointment in the election asked, "What must we do?" The answer: "Go on."

He said pro-lifers are not going to give up. This is an extremely important moment that requires us to "make ourselves heard" during the next four years. He offers prayers for Obama that he receive "light" on the issue. It will be no doubt a difficult four years for people who are the most defenseless. Democracy and America will be challenged. Quoting a Greek proverb, Fr. Benedict pointed out, "The mills of God grind slowly, but exceeding fine," and reminded us that "we follow the greatest loser in recorded history." As said by Kierkegaard, "... never...has anyone accomplished so little by the sacrifice of a consecrated life as did Jesus Christ." 

Father Benedict ended with the prediction that the John Paul II generation will bring about "a different and a better world." He said he personally plans to take lots of vitamins to live to 90 to see it!

The Catholic League on Catholic voting in State referendums

A Catholic League P.R.

CATHOLIC VOTE ON MARRIAGE AND FAMILY: MUCH TO CHEER ABOUT

November 5, 2008

Catholic League president Bill Donohue commented today on the role Catholics played in securing marriage and family rights in the election:

“Were it not for Catholics, the institutions of marriage and the family would have taken a hit in places like Arizona, Florida and California. Indeed, in Florida and California, their vote proved to be decisive.

“Arizonians rejected gay marriage by a vote of 56% to 49%, though the margin among Catholics was less—51% to 49%. In Florida, the Catholic vote proved to be controlling: overall, the ban on gay marriage won by 62% to 38%, but among Catholics it was 66% to 34%. Californians narrowly defeated gay marriage by a margin of 52% to 48%, but Catholics rejected it by an impressive 60% to 40% differential. A vote in California to support parental notification lost by 52% to 48%, but it won among Catholics by a hefty 58% to 42%.

“On both issues, Catholics and Protestants who are regular church-goers clearly supported a ban on homosexual marriage and affirmed their support for parental consent. Unmarrieds and those who don’t go to church overwhelmingly voted for the right of two men to marry; they also voted to deny mothers and fathers of their right to be notified in advance if their child is considering an abortion.

“Those who support traditional values, then, tend to be religious and married while those who sport a preference for moral relativism tend to be secular and single. The implications are clear: tax laws, and other public policy initiatives, which are both family-friendly and church-friendly, are critically important.

“Because those who reject traditional values and religion voted heavily for Barack Obama, it’s a sure bet the culture war will only get hotter. We expect to be quite busy.”

From Russell Shaw - what the Obama presidency will mean to Catholics

If anything, he sugar-coated it.

OSV | Newsweekly | November 16, 2008

The Church's growing difficulties became embarrassingly clear during the campaign when Biden and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), also a Catholic, misrepresented Catholic teaching on abortion on national television.

In response, many bishops issued statements attempting to set the record straight, but Catholics of the left then accused them of inappropriately working for Obama's defeat. Worse still, bishops fell to disagreeing publicly among themselves about whether they were putting too much emphasis on abortion.

The hierarchy might find help in something Pope Benedict XVI said in France last September. While approving church-state separation, the pope spoke of the Church's "irreplaceable role" in forming consciences and helping to create "a basic ethical consensus in society."

In a sense, the Church in America has tried to do that for years. But the events of 2008 suggest that uncoordinated, scattershot efforts have diminishing results.

The Obama victory a defeat for the unborn

A pro-abortion agenda.

Barack Obama Captures Win Over John McCain, Expected to Promote Abortions

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Presidential candidate Barack Obama captured a victory on Tuesday night in the presidential elections over John McCain. Under an Obama administration, pro-life advocates are concerned about the promotion of abortion.

Under an Obama administration pro-life advocates expect the new president to force taxpayer-funding of abortions, make detrimental Supreme Court appointments and sign a Congressional bill to overturn pro-life laws nationwide.

Obama won 338 electoral college votes compared with 156 for McCain by winning in battleground states like Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio and Virginia and the western states of Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico.

McCain was able to win only a handful of the battleground states and failed to capture enough votes to become the next president.

With an Obama victory, pro-life advocates will immediately be on the defensive.

Obama is expected to make funding abortions one of his first actions as president and he could overturn the Mexico City Policy on his first day in office. That’s the presidential policy that prevents taxpayers from being forced to fund groups that engage in performing or promoting abortions in other nations.

Senator Obama could also immediately overturn the policy Preside Bush put in place to prevent taxpayer funding of new embryonic stem cell research. That could happen even though embryonic stem cells have never helped a human patient and have had problems when used in animals.

Pro-life advocates are concerned Obama will push through a bill in Congress, known as the Freedom of Choice Act, that would make unlimited abortions throughout pregnancy the national law by codifying Roe v. Wade.

However, the bill would go further by overturning all of the abortion reduction laws in all 50 states -- including measures such as informed consent, parental involvement and conscience clauses for medical professionals.

Ultimately, the pro-life movement is concerned that Obama will appoint new Supreme Court judges who will uphold the Roe decision for another 35 years. With at least two or three high court judges nearly retirement and having health problems it’s not inconceivable that Obama could have the ability to pick a new judge or two during his term.

The election today

This is from Theresa Bonopartis, director of Lumina, post abortion services, and a co-director of the Hudson Valley Coalition for Life. Her posting is short, and we suggest you hit the link to read it in it's entirety.

Lumina - a ray of light after abortion

This day is like no other in the history of our country... I believe the very soul of our country is at stake.

I truly do understand people fearful because of the economy. I can also respect the historic value of having our first black president and the emotions that can run with that. It would be wonderful to break through the barriers, IF the man were one of morals and values. Early on in the election process before I knew much about him, I wanted to like Obama, but as I looked up his record and words, in spite of his cool and cunning appearance, the truth hit me in the face, and I knew there was no way he would get my vote.

I also fear him as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. He is someone who did nothing to support the troops until his campaign, and in fact, even voted against protections for the troops in harms way. I know, I have a son who served in Iraq.

But no matter how many issues present themselves, nothing can be more central to our country, its prosperity and well being than the issue of life.

An analysis of the "Pro-life, Pro-Obama" partisans defense of their position after Archbishop Chaput's critique

Law professor Douglas Kmiec defended his position in NCR several days ago 'Why Archbishop Chaput's abortion stance is wrong' | National Catholic Reporter , in the face of this LifeNet: Franciscan Archbishop Charles Chaput powerfully demolishes Douglas Kmiec and other "Pro-Life, Pro-Obama" apologists .

This morning an analysis of Kmiec's essay in NCR was published online. We highly recommend it - takes ten minutes or so to read.

An excerpt is below the link

Public Discourse - The Pro-Life Case Against Barack Obama . . . and Doug Kmiec, by Ryan T. Anderson

Doug Kmiec is at it again. His most recent Obama propaganda piece is titled ''Why Archbishop Chaput's Abortion Stance Is Wrong.'' As far as we can tell, Kmiec, a legal scholar who identifies as pro-life, has never written an article titled ''Why Senator Obama's Abortion Stance Is Wrong.'' We await such an article. In the meantime, Kmiec has offered a pro-Obama reply to Archbishop Chaput's wise counsel that Catholics vote with a view to securing the equal protection of the law for all people, born or unborn. Kmiec's answers to the Archbishop can be divided without remainder into three categories: the irrelevant, the false, and the fallacious. Exposing their failure shows that the pro-life case against Obama is decisive.

>>>>>>

What about his argument that Church teaching--including Pope Benedict's stated views on the matter--would leave room for a principled defense of a vote for Obama? Is Kmiec right to claim that there can be reasons to vote for a pro-choice candidate over a pro-life one that are proportionate to the possibly unintended harms of doing so?

Notre Dame legal scholar Gerard Bradley provides some helpful thought experiments to guide us in applying the Golden Rule as a proportionality test: What if it were not unborn babies being denied legal protections, but some other class of people? If 1.2 million American women a year were being killed by abusive husbands, he asks, would we vote for a candidate who was ''pro-choice'' about the ''private'' matter of lethal domestic violence but favored addressing its root causes (say, with anger-management classes and education)?

Or suppose some candidate favored protecting a "right" to kill hundreds of thousands of mentally handicapped or infirm people each year. Even if we thought his views superior to his opponent's on issues like foreign policy, the economy, and health care, would we be justified in voting for him?

Given Obama's record, we can even strengthen the analogies: What would we think of a candidate who favored financially supporting legalized domestic abuse or extermination of the unwanted?

Of course, some would object that the cases are different because unborn human beings do not enjoy the same moral status as the rest of us. But this would be to deny the principle of basic human equality that Kmiec claims to accept and that defines his intended audience, faithful Catholics and other pro-lifers.

More on what passage of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) will mean

Some of the political proponents of FOCA have said that it will "only" codify at the federal level Roe vs. Wade. This is bad enough; however the reality is that pro-abortion interest groups have emphatically stated that it is designed to go even beyond Roe and the companion case Doe vs. Bolton (which made the "health exception" for abortion in the third trimester include emotional, social and even economic factors!) and the abortion on demand legal environment which they created.

We are not making this up; here is a study from the Family Research Council quoting the various pro-abortion interest groups. we excerpt from it below the link; the full report prints out at five pages and includes 17 footnotes. See the second paragraph below, quoting the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

Family Research Council

... let's review the history of FOCA. The Freedom of Choice Act was first introduced in November 1989 by Representative Don Edwards (D-Calif.) and Senator Alan Cranston (D-Calif.). The legislation seemed to be a response to the Webster decision [6] from February of that year. Webster was the first Supreme Court decision that broadened the restrictions that could be put on the use of tax money to pay for abortions. FOCA quickly became a tool for pro-abortion politicians to declare their fealty to the abortion cause. When pro-abortion President Bill Clinton took office in 1993, Planned Parenthood had high hopes for the passage of FOCA. [7] The bill ended up being stuck in the Senate with the opposition led by Senator Obama's predecessor, Carol Moseley Braun (D-Ill.), [8] based on concerns that it did not go far enough. The opposition argued that "the bill allows the states to discriminate against young and poor women seeking an abortion"[9] by ensuring conscience protections for health care personnel, not requiring states to fund abortions and allowing for parental consent in cases of minors seeking an abortion. The Senate version of the bill, S.25, explicitly stated that, "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prevent a State from protecting unwilling individuals or private health care institutions from having to participate in the performance of abortions to which they are conscientiously opposed; prevent a State from declining to pay for the performance of abortions; or prevent a State from requiring a minor to involve a parent, guardian, or other responsible adult before terminating a pregnancy."[10] At the time, both NARAL and The New York Times, two strong supporters of abortion on demand, supported the Senate "compromise." It comes as no surprise, though, that they seem to have no problem with the current bill omitting the "compromise" language of 1993 and, instead, inserting a provision that says state and federal governments may not "discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information."[11] Thus, the state and federal government must use taxpayer funds to pay for abortions at all stages of pregnancy. Not to do so would be discriminatory toward abortion "rights" as stated in the legislation.

Some of the supporters of the "Freedom of Choice Act" state that it merely codifies Roe v. Wade. This could not be further from the truth. As the American Civil Liberties Union said in its Reproductive Rights Update from December 20, 1991, "This [FOCA] bill prohibits such restrictions as parental notification and consent, as well as the requirement that all abortions be performed in a hospital, spousal consent, waiting periods ..."

Maryland has had a Freedom of Choice-like law on their books since 1991. Here is what has happened to the Maryland abotion rate since then -

Since that time, Maryland law has provided for abortion on demand even late in pregnancy, granted abortionists immunity from legal action, allowed abortionists the discretion to perform abortions on minors without notifying a parent, and denied health care workers the right to refuse to make abortion referrals as a matter of conscience.[13]  ... According to Planned Parenthood's Alan Guttmacher Institute, the abortion rate in the United States has declined nine percent since 2000 to 19.4 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age in 2005. By contrast, the state of Maryland produced a rate of 31.5 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age, an increase of eight percent since 1991.[14] Pro-abortion advocates argue that eliminating laws designed to protect women, parents, children and health care providers will make abortion "safe, legal and rare." While it is highly questionable whether such actions make abortion safer, allowing for unrestricted abortions only increases the likelihood of abortion, certainly not making it rarer.

In 1991, Maryland 's abortion rate was similar to the national average of 26.3 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age. As seen in the Guttmacher Institute's own chart (see below), while Maryland 's abortion rate has steadily increased since the enactment of its FOCA-type law in 1991, the national abortion rate has had an equally steady decrease.

 

The table speaks for itself. See our prior posting LifeNet: Letter from Knights of Columbus - the Freedom of Choice Act for a summary of the state laws that will be invalidated by FOCA.

An abortionist's dream come true.

Letter from Knights of Columbus - the Freedom of Choice Act

Astonishing what will be wiped out if FOCA were to be passed. There are 19 sponsors in the Senate, including both NY Senators.

Letter from Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson Dear Brother Knight:    It is probably fair to say that no other single activity has defined the Knights of Columbus over the past half century as much as the pro-life movement.    Following the shock of the Supreme Court's decision to preempt all state and federal laws regulating abortion in Roe v. Wade in 1973, we launched a long-term battle to fight legalized abortion.  While achieving the ultimate goal of overturning Roe remains somewhere in the future, we have been able to achieve many small successes along the way:   ·         the Hyde Amendment, which restricts federal funding for abortions; ·         the federal law banning partial birth abortions, which was finally upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in April 2007; ·         the "Mexico City Policy," which has barred the use of federal taxpayers' money to pay for abortions in other countries; ·         laws in 44 states that preserve a parental role when children under 18 seek abortions; ·         laws in 40 states that restrict late-term abortions; ·         laws in 46 states that protect the right of conscience for individual health care providers; ·         laws in 27 states that protect the right of conscience for institutions; ·         laws in 38 states that ban partial birth abortions; ·         laws in 33 states that require counseling before having an abortion; ·         and laws in 16 states that provide for ultrasounds before an abortion.   All of these restrictions on abortion - all of the progress we've made over the past 35 years in trying to limit and reduce abortions in the United States - would be invalidated with the stroke of a pen if the next Congress passes, and the next president signs, the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA).   Before you cast your vote on Tuesday, please take the time and effort necessary to learn whether candidates for whom you might vote favor or oppose FOCA.   The House sponsors of FOCA are listed here     The Senate sponsors of FOCA are listed here   Obviously, if a candidate in your area is not listed among the sponsors, you may have to ask his or her campaign for their position on FOCA.   We have gathered much additional information about the Freedom of Choice Act, including links to material from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and o n life issues generally on a special Knights of Columbus web page: Remember, all that we've done together since Roe to save the lives of the unborn is at stake.  Please pass on this message to your pro-life friends.

[email protected]. Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy. Knights of Columbus | One Columbus Plaza | New Haven | CT | 06510