LifeNet

Why "Reducing the Number of Abortions" not Necessarily Prolife

A recently established website is  www.moralaccountability.com. It is well worth a visit if you are interested in the intellectual underpinnings or orthodox or traditional Judeo-Christian ethics. 

Below is a brief commentary by Professor Francis Beckwith with a provocative title. It's only four paragraphs long; we excerpt the second paragraph under the link. 

Why “Reducing the Number of Abortions” not Necessarily Prolife | Moral Accountability

I and other pro-life activists have worked tirelessly over the years to reduce the number of abortions, but a numerical reduction is not our only goal. The prolife position is that all members of the human community, including the unborn, have inestimable and equal worth and dignity and thus are entitled to the fundamental protection of the laws. “Reducing the number of abortions” could occur in a regime of law in which this principle of justice is denied, and that is the regime that President Obama wants to preserve and extend. It is a regime in which the continued existence of the unborn is always at the absolute discretion of others who happen to possess the power to decide to kill them or let them live. Reducing the number of these discretionary acts of killing simply by trying to pacify and/or accommodate the needs of those who want to procure or encourage abortions only reinforces the idea that the unborn are subhuman creatures whose value depends exclusively on someone else’s wanting them or deciding that they are worthy of being permitted to live. So, in theory at least, there could be fewer abortions while the culture drifts further away from the prolife perspective and the law becomes increasingly unjust.

More from Capuchin Franciscan Archbishop Chaput on politics and faith

Archbishop Chaput's book mentioned in the article below, Render Unto Caesar is excellent.

  Amazon.com: Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life: Charles J. Chaput: Books

The Archbishop speaking in Toronto -

Denver archbishop warns against ‘spirit of adulation’ surrounding Obama

After giving a sketch of the basic principles in his New York Times Bestseller "Render Unto Caesar," the archbishop offered his insights on the need for an honest assessment of the situation of the Church in the public square.

"I like clarity, and there’s a reason why," began the archbishop. "I think modern life, including life in the Church, suffers from a phony unwillingness to offend that poses as prudence and good manners, but too often turns out to be cowardice. Human beings owe each other respect and appropriate courtesy. But we also owe each other the truth -- which means candor."

>>>>>>

According to the archbishop, the political situation for Catholics is difficult to discern because a "spirit of adulation bordering on servility already exists among some of the same Democratic-friendly Catholic writers, scholars, editors and activists who once accused pro-lifers of being too cozy with Republicans. It turns out that Caesar is an equal opportunity employer."

Looking ahead to the coming months and years, Chaput offered four "simple things" to remember.

"First," he said, "all political leaders draw their authority from God. We owe no leader any submission or cooperation in the pursuit of grave evil."

"In fact, we have the duty to change bad laws and resist grave evil in our public life, both by our words and our non-violent actions. The truest respect we can show to civil authority is the witness of our Catholic faith and our moral convictions, without excuses or apologies."

In a reference to the messianic treatment the Barack Obama received from some Americans during the presidential primaries, Archbishop Chaput delivered his second point: "in democracies, we elect public servants, not messiahs."

Noting that Obama actually trailed in the weeks just before the election, the Denver archbishop said that this places some of today’s talk about a "new American mandate" in perspective.

"Americans, including many Catholics, elected a gifted man to fix an economic crisis. That’s the mandate. They gave nobody a mandate to retool American culture on the issues of marriage and the family, sexuality, bioethics, religion in public life and abortion. That retooling could easily happen, and it clearly will happen -- but only if Catholics and other religious believers allow it."

The third point to focus on when the beliefs of Catholics are challenged is that "it doesn’t matter what we claim to believe if we’re unwilling to act on our beliefs," Chaput counseled.

"The fourth and final thing to remember, and there’s no easy way to say it," remarked Archbishop Chaput, is that the "Church in the United States has done a poor job of forming the faith and conscience of Catholics for more than 40 years."

"And now we’re harvesting the results -- in the public square, in our families and in the confusion of our personal lives. I could name many good people and programs that seem to disprove what I just said. But I could name many more that do prove it, and some of them work in Washington."

We recommend you hit the link to read the whole article; there are over 80 comments on the posting.

Democrats for Life of America (DFLA) promotes legislative initiative

We published this "Plea from a Democrat for Life" in the Jan-Feb. issue of LifeNet. The author, John Lally, has worked for quite a few years on many issues of poverty and justice, including pro-life efforts.

We are publishing his essay below, as well as the commentary/editorial that ran in response in the current issue of LifeNet. Of course, comments are welcomed!

A Plea from a Democrat for Life

My conversations with other participants during my recent trip to the March for Life in Washington moved me to write the following piece in hopes that it might be helpful to others in the pro-life community.

President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party have made it clear that they will continue to advocate for a woman’s choice to bring her pregnancy to term or to abort it.

But also the President In a statement released on Roe's anniversary, the day of the March, but little publicized by the media – a statement which echoes others he has made consistently during his public career - offers an optimistic view of the level of cooperation possible between pro-lifers and pro-choicers:  “While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue, no matter what our views, we are united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make. To accomplish these goals, we must work to find common ground….” (Newsweek, Jan 27, 2009).

The 2008 Democratic National Platform, overseen by by the then Democratic nominee Obama and the National Democratic Party, in the section on “Choice” includes strong support for these same two means of reducing the incidence of abortion: prevention of unintended pregnancies and – included for the first time in a Democratic National Platform – support for pregnant women who choose to bring their pregnacies to term.

A 2008 poll, conducted by Third Way, a non-profit think tank that promotes bipartisan cooperation, found that 72 percent of Americans support these two common-ground – pro-woman, pro-choice (in the best sense of the term) and pro-life – public policy approaches to reduce the felt need for abortion.

Democrats for Life, the pro-life voice within the Democratic Party, is promoting targeted legislation, based on a proposal that it made, which focuses on the second of these approaches. The Pregnant Women Support Act was introduced in both the U.S. Senate and House in January.

Two of the underlying factors that have been found often to lead women to have abortions are lack of economic support and social support (Guttmacher Institute). Indeed, the abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty level is more than four times that of women living 300 percent or more above the poverty level. The Pregnant Women Support Act targets such underlying factors through a number of different measures that will help expectant mothers in need and their babies during their pregnancy and after they give birth.

For example, the bill would:  help to increase public awareness of resources available to pregnant women to carry their pregnancy to term and to new parents; expand state options to provide healthcare coverage for low-income pregnant women and unborn children; help pregnant and parenting high school and college students stay in school; provide free home visits by registered nurses to teenage or first-time parents for education on health needs of infants and counseling on parenting skills; increase support for the WIC Program and nutritional (Food-Stamp) support for low-income parents; and  expand adoption credit and adoption assistance programs. (For more, go to http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.270: )

Pope John Paul II noted that “It is not enough to remove unjust laws.... For this reason there need to be set in place social and political initiatives capable of guaranteeing conditions of true freedom of choice in matters of parenthood.” Thus, he saw struggle to remove unjust laws and promotion of legislation such as the Pregnant Women Support Act as necessary, complementary efforts toward ending abortion. In addition, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops supports PWSA.

Clearly, the programs included in the Pregnant Women Support Act are significant if we want to save unborn lives. But even though the data indicate that a large majority of Americans supports such programs, passage of this bill will not be easy in the face of the issues competing for priority which the President and Congress are dealing with, especially the financial crisis. Also, there is still opposition from some extreme pro-choice interests. We’ll need all the support we can get.

Therefore, as a fellow pro-lifer, I appeal to you to contact the President, both your Senators, and your Congressperson and urge them to co-sponsor and support the Pregnant Women Support Act, S.270 in the Senate and H.R.605 in the House.

For more information on Democrats for Life, go to http://democratsforlife.org/ 

John Lally

Croton-on-Hudson, NY

Here are thoughts from HVCL directors.

                  Common Ground

HVCL Board commentary on the statement by friend and DFLA member John Lally.

An HVCL press release on November 9, 2004 quoted Democrats For Life on the Bush/Cheney election victory. The DFLA urged the DNC “to concede its pro abortion position today on the heels of one of the worst Election Day performances in recent memory.” The HVCL encouraged the DFLA “…to continue to fight the good fight…and never at the expense of the pre born (urging) pro life Democrats not to bow to the false mentality of choice, especially now.” We also warned “not to confuse the search for ‘common ground’ with defense of humanity’s common good.”

It is November 2008, four years later, and pro life Democrats did make an inroad on the DNC national platform. Obama and the Democrat Party proceeded to win sweeping victories across the nation, with abortion an inconsequential issue for the majority of voters.

Today we applaud the DFLA’s efforts to seek support for the Pregnant Women Support Act, but again we encourage them not to embrace “choice” principles as they look to reduce abortions.

 As expected the Administration’s early days have given prolife hopes a poor beginning. Most Cabinet and Administration appointees, as well as the President, share an ideology that is radically pro abortion, with a determined push by some to broaden and enshrine abortion as a “right”. Nationally this push is called FOCA, in New York RHA, formerly RHAPP. These facts, admitted to by the DFLA, cause concern when any principled positions in opposition are labeled divisive.

Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania is another case confounding sensibilities. He has a 65% positive voting rating from the ultra abortion group NARAL. He says he is “prolife” but is silent on the President’s rescinding of the Mexico City Policy, then votes against an amendment restricting the funding for overseas abortions.

Our concern here is that the Pregnant Women Support Act, supported by the USCCB (U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops), does not address abortion realities as problematic. There is serious disconnect when Democrat reduction rhetoric coexists with abortion expansion. This “cohabitation” mentality gives abortion not only acceptability, but also a complete pass on the rent.

On February 9 Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver called President Obama’s abortion reduction mantra a “fraud”; see www.lifenews.com. Professor Francis J. Beckwith of Baylor University www.moralaccountability.com has also written insightfully about concerns with interpretations of common ground. The HVCL Board respectfully asks if the DFLA is challenging the Democrat Party on life issues, or the reverse? DFLA is a hoped-for ally and a promising light in the fight to protect our nation’s children and safeguard women. Their silence on abortion expansion at critical times is troubling. For now the HVCL Board agrees to proceed with caution and question details, including possible interpretations and oversight, of PWSA programs before endorsing a “poverty” initiative that could, intentionally or unintentionally, promote and justify abortion.

Let us know your thoughts. Is this Act common ground, common sense, or cause for

concern?

LifeNet

Jan/Feb 2009

 

 

President's Day rally against RHA at Stewart-Cousins office in Yonkers

A good turnout for a holiday with 70 participants last Monday.

Thanks to Gerald Yeung for these pictures!

 

 

 

 

 

"March for Life" in Mahopac St. Patrick's Day Parade, March 8th

See also the similar opportunity in Yonkers on the same day, which is our previous post -  LifeNet: "March for Life" in the Yonkers St. Patrick's Day Parade, Sunday March 8th

Here is information on Mahopac. for additional info, call Walt Doherty at 845-628-8997.

Putnam County has its St. Patrick's Day parade on March 8th in Mahopac at 2 PM.  St. John's Church Respect Life Society has marched every year for many years now.  We would invite any other Northerners to join us. We meet at 1:30 PM in front of Dick Beyrer's State Farm Insurance Agency at 710 Route 6 Mahopac.  Our Parade Grand Marshals are Letitia & Ann P. Driscoll, the mother and wife of Police officer Stephen Driscoll who died heroically in the 9/11 inferno.   All are welcome to march or view!

Peg & Walter Doherty

"March for Life" in the Yonkers St. Patrick's Day Parade, Sunday March 8th

From the Advocates for Life - complete with contact information if you wish to participate!

The Yonkers St. Patrick’s Day Parade will be held on Sunday, March 8^th. The Advocates for Life has registered to march in the parade in order to bring a pro-life presence to the event. The idea behind this was to bring together all of the different groups and committees that work together in our area to march together and make a visual statement in support of life.

We would like to invite everyone to march with us. The group is registered under Advocates for Life and we will have a horizontal banner in the front of our group. All groups and committees are encouraged to make a pole banner to hold while marching that indicates their own identity. We would like to see as many people as possible marching – friends and family are most welcome.

There are just a few guidelines for marching –

1.  There can be no hand-outs or flyers, postcards etc. of any kind distributed at the parade– this is required by the parade committee.

2.  We will not use issue signs – only banners that depict the names of our various groups may be used on the day of the parade.

3.  We will not be advocating verbally on any issues – no chanting, singing, etc.

4.  Each group leader is responsible for the people they invite to march in the parade -  please make sure that the people you bring are cooperative and observe the simple guidelines above.

The parade is a great opportunity to present pro-life advocates in a positive light. If you would like to march with us, please email [email protected] or call 914-473-5937. The parade begins at 1:30pm - anyone marching with us will receive more detailed information about the time to line up, where we will meet, etc.

Please help us gather a large group to 'March for Life' in the St. Patrick's Day Parade!

Silent No More in New York City, Thursday, February 26th

The National Silent No More Awareness Campaign

 Gathering

Please Join SNM New York, with Founder Georgette Forney

February 26, 2009

City Hall Park

12pm - 2pm

The campaign has three main goals:

1. Educate the public that abortion is harmful emotionally, physically and spiritually
2. Inform women who are hurting from an abortion that there is help
3. Invite women to join us in speaking the truth about abortion’s negative consequences

You can participate in 3 ways

1.      If you are a post abortive person who would like to speak out about the harm abortion has brought to your life

2. If you are a post abortive person who does not wish to speak but is willing to hold a sign saying “I Regret My Abortion”
3. As a general support and prayer person who will attend as a spectator (we need you there!)

Abortion must be addressed on many fronts -- such as the legal, political, and spiritual -- but the National Silent No More Awareness Campaign is designed to address abortion by touching the hearts of people. We believe that abortion should be unthinkable as an option for women facing an unplanned pregnancy. Evidence of the damage abortion does to women, men and others will help persuade society that women dealing with an unplanned pregnancy deserve better help than legalized abortion

If you are planning to attend in any of these capacities please contact Colleen at 347-245-9476 or email [email protected] or Theresa  at 718-881-8008 or [email protected]

Georgette Forney, Executive Director of NOEL (National Organization of Episcopalians for Life) and Janet Morana, Associate Director of Priests for Life are the Co-Founders of this Campaign.

 

Please check at http://reclaimingourchildren.typepad.com/ on Wednesday Evening, February 25, if you plan to attend the event, to ensure that the permit has been issued by the City of New York. 

ArchBishop Chaput speaks in Ireland on pro-life strategies

From the Irish pro-life publication, Family & Life

Family & Life

‘Abortion Reduction Strategies’ Ignore Half of the Problem, Archbishop Chaput... : 18th Feb 09

During a recent trip to Ireland, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver delivered a talk at a conference organized by the John Paul II Society that outlined the “dos and don’ts” for the pro-life movement. Those who claim pro-lifers should avoid the “divisive” issue of ending legalised abortion and focus on providing better support for pregnant mothers are creating a false division, the archbishop insisted.

Following the theme “An American view on how to build a culture of life,” Archbishop Chaput explained that his goal was “to offer some lessons from the American experience that Irish Christians might find useful.” More than three decades after the legalization of abortion in the U.S., Archbishop Chaput diagnosed Americans’ beliefs on abortion as schizophrenic as he gave an overview of the current situation.

“Most believe abortion is wrong. But most also want it legal under some limited circumstances,” he said. The consequences of holding two such divergent views are that the U.S. has “a large and well-funded abortion industry” and that a “very vigorous pro-life movement” has grown up “right alongside the abortion industry,” Chaput observed.

Drawing on a point made in his book “Render Unto Caesar,” (available from Family & Life bookstore: CLICK TO READ MORE.....) he told his Irish audience: “If we really believe that abortion is an intimate act of violence, then we can't aim at anything less than ending abortion. It doesn't matter that some abortions have always occurred, and some will always occur. If we really believe that abortion kills a developing unborn life, then we can never be satisfied with mere ‘reductions’ in the body count.”

“We need to help women facing problem pregnancies with good health care and economic support; and we need to pass laws that will end legal abortion. We need to do both.” “Our real task, and our much longer-term and more important goal, is to carry out what John Paul II called the ‘evangelization of culture’," he explained.

Exhorting pro-lifers to continue fighting for this goal, Archbishop Chaput said, “cultural trends can be changed. And I'll prove it.”

Archbishop Chaput went on to cite a national poll by Harris Interactive that came out in December 2008, which found among other things that “fewer than ten per cent of Americans support legalized abortion on demand as it stands today.” The findings of the poll show that “pro-life efforts have made real progress in improving people's awareness of the sanctity of unborn life,” he asserted. “We need to work to change the culture. And that demands a lifelong commitment to education, Christian formation and, ultimately, conversion.

Only saints really change the world. And there lies our ultimate victory: If we change one heart at a time, while we save one unborn life at a time, the day will come when we won't need to worry about saving babies, because they'll be surrounded by a loving, welcoming culture.”

Catholic League press release on pro-abortion Catholic Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as new Secretary of Health and Human Services

Catholic League: For Religious and Civil Rights

SEBELIUS—ENEMY OF THE UNBORN—TO HHS?

February 19, 2009

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a front-page story in today’s New York Times that says Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius is the president’s top choice as secretary of health and human services:

“Almost all of those working in the Obama administration are pro-abortion, and the expectation is that almost all future appointees will be champions of abortion rights, as well. Fortunately, most are not in a position to affect abortion policy. One glaring exception is the secretary of health and human services. Unfortunately, Gov. Sebelius, a Catholic, may get the job.

“Sebelius’ support for abortion is so far off-the-charts that she has been publicly criticized by the last three archbishops of Kansas City. In 1992, when Sebelius was a state legislator, Archbishop Ignatius Strecker rebuked her for leading what he dubbed a ‘death-march of the unborn.’ When Sebelius became governor in 2003, Archbishop James Keleher, citing her abortion record, asked her to move her inauguration interfaith service from Topeka’s Assumption Catholic Church. She refused. The current archbishop, Joseph Naumann, called her out on the issue: he challenged her to name one instance in her long legislative career where she supported limiting abortion rights. She could not. He subsequently asked her not to go to Communion.

“None of these archbishops overreacted. Not only does Sebelius support the now outlawed practice of killing babies who are 80 percent born, so-called partial-birth abortion, she has accepted donations from one of the most notorious practitioners of this Nazi-style act—Dr. George Tiller. Moreover, she even hosted a dinner for him in the Governor’s Mansion.

“Just yesterday, the pope admonished House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on this issue. Now we have the specter of another pro-abortion Catholic stiffing the Catholic Church. This is setting up a confrontation that pro-life Catholics will not walk away from. It is also setting up a battle between those Catholics who are honestly pro-life, and those who feign a pro-life position while always embracing the likes of Sebelius.”

From National Review: Were Pelosi and the Pope at the same meeting?

Almost amusing, if it weren't so sad. We have only excerpted a portion of this short essay.

Were They at the Same Meeting? by George Weigel on National Review Online

Charity requires that one concede the possibility that genuine piety was a part of Pelosi’s (rather boorish, and certainly irregular) insistence on being given a private moment with the pope during her current taxpayer-funded junket to Rome. But her office’s statement on today’s meeting makes it clear something else was afoot: that Pelosi, who shamelessly trumpets her “ardent” Catholicism while leading congressional Democrats in a continuing assault on what the Catholic Church regards as the inalienable human rights of the unborn, was trying to recruit Benedict XVI (“Joseph Ratzinger, D., Bavaria”?) to Team Nancy.

His Holiness wasn’t buying it.

He told Pelosi, politely but unmistakably, that her relentlessly pro-abortion politics put her in serious difficulties as a Catholic, which was his obligation as a pastor. He also underscored — for Pelosi, Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Barbara Mikulski, Rose DeLauro, Kathleen Sebelius, and everyone else — that the Church’s opposition to the taking of innocent human life, at any stage of the human journey, is not some weird Catholic hocus-pocus; it’s a first principle of justice than can be known by reason.

And here's another post from National Review -

A fictional account of what might have happened ...

Speaker in Rome - NRO Staff - The Corner on National Review Online

And this posting from Kathryn Jean Lopez on NR -

Pastoring Pelosi & the Rest of Us - Kathryn Jean Lopez - The Corner on National Review Online

Judie Brown, President of ALL and member of the Pontifical Academy for Life, statement on the meeting between Pope Benedict XVI and Speaker of the House Pelosi

This is from the American Life League daily email -

Pope to Pelosi: Catholic Politicians Must Protect Life
http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-18-2009/0004974750&EDATE=
PR Newswire
Judie Brown, president of American Life League and three-term member of the Pontifical Academy for Life, issued the following statement today on the meeting between Pope Benedict XVI and U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi. "We are encouraged by Pope Benedict XVI's admonishment regarding the requirements of moral law. The Vatican's statement earlier today said: His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church's consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoins all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development. These initial reports are very encouraging for faithful Catholics in America. We hope and pray Pelosi will reflect upon the pro-abortion ideology that has defined her career as a politician and misled so many, especially Catholics. We encourage our bishops and priests to emulate the same courage exhibited in Rome. These strong words from the Pope, coupled with Archbishop Burke's interview in January are a reminder that Catholic priests and bishops have a duty to protect the Eucharist from sacrilege and reassert the absolute necessity of enforcing Canon 915."

Pope rebukes Speaker of the House Pelosi

It's diplomatically worded -

Pope: Catholic politicians must protect life

The Vatican released remarks by the pope to Pelosi, saying Benedict spoke of the church's teaching "on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death." That is an expression often used by the pope when expressing opposition to abortion.

Benedict said all Catholics—especially legislators, jurists and political leaders—should work to create "a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development."

Pelosi could not immediately be reached after the 15-minute meeting, which was closed to reporters and photographers. The two met in a small room of a Vatican auditorium after the pope's weekly public audience.

A number of the bishops in the United States have questioned Pelosi's stance on abortion, particularly her theological defense of her support for abortion rights.

And also here -

Gateway Pundit: POPE REBUKES PELOSI... Condemns Her Radical Pro-Abortion Record

North Dokota passes Personhood amendment

The vote in the State House was 51-41.

Go here -

causa nostrae laetitiae: Breaking News: North Dakota Legislature passes Personhood Amendment

The abortion video - a twelve year old girl speaks out

This video has been posted on youtube for two weeks and is creating a sensation. The girl is a 12 year old seventh grader in Toronto.

From Lifesitenews:

Lia's mother says that the topic was of her own choosing, and that she was
determined not to back down, even after teachers told her it was "too
mature" and "too controversial."

"She was also told that if she went ahead with that topic, she would not
be allowed to continue on in the speech competition," Lia's mother wrote
in the email to the Moral Outcry blog.  "Initially, I tried helping her
find other topics to speak on, but, in the end, she was adamant. She just
felt she wanted to continue with the topic of abortion. So she forfeited
her chance to compete in order to speak on something she was passionate
about."

The mother told LSNews.com (LSN) that the girl's homeroom teacher was
supportive of Lia's speech even though she was pro-abortion.  "After
helping Lia do the speech she said, 'It really got me thinking,'" the mom
noted.

At the schoolwide competition, the mom said one pro-abortion teacher on
the judge's panel "didn't even want to hear" the speech, and stepped down
from the panel before Lia began.  After the speech, which Lia's family
said was well-received by both students and teachers, the judges initially
told Lia she had indeed been disqualified.  But controversy among the
judges eventually led to a reversal, and Lia's family learned the next day
that the panel agreed the girl deserved to win the competition.  

Jesuit Fr. Oakes on "Liberal Creep" in politics

Fr. Oakes is a seminarian professor. He's not saying that liberals are creeps - rather Liberalism creeps up on you...

FIRST THINGS: On the Square » Blog Archive » Liberal Creep

This is most obviously the case with social issues, which is part of the reason debate on them is both so heated and so frustrating. For example, I remember when gay marriage was first proposed in the early nineties, which struck me then as no more likely to pass than that goofy bill mooted in the Indiana state legislature in 1897 to give a rational value to pi. (One amusing sideline: it was claimed that 1 Kings 7:23 “reveals” the rational value of pi.) Marriage is first and above all a reality of human nature before society makes it into a legal contract, and attempts to change that reality would be like trying to pass a law to confine the value of pi to a number short enough for John Q. Public’s limited memory. Or so I thought in my benighted youth.

How out of date I am. Of course in the early days of the controversy, voters were given a chance to vote in referenda on gay marriage, which they voted down resoundingly. But as is usual nowadays with these issues, courts meddled, imposing gay marriage in some states, and civil unions in others; and now plebiscites show majority opposition gradually fading. I do not feel particularly passionate on the issue, but the process is worrisome. Think of physician-assisted suicide: Even without direct court intervention, two states have already passed, through referenda, laws allowing the practice.

Nor do I need to mention here that attempts to overturn Roe vs. Wade have so far gone nowhere. But the longer that atrocious decision stays on the books, the greater the danger of liberal creep on abortion too. I myself do not think the Freedom of Choice Act—which would, among other things, mandate that every medical student be trained to perform abortions—will pass in this Congress. But the very fact that it has been proposed is clearly a salvo in what will surely be an epochal battle. The bill is flagrantly unconstitutional; but that is hardly consolation, since the same holds true of Roe vs. Wade. Liberal creep, in other words, means a slow drift toward coercive liberalism.

The only question remaining, however, is how long this liberal drift will continue before the country slams into reality (political pi, as it were). In that regard, I cannot help but think of Bernard Madoff’s now notorious Ponzi scheme, a display of financial shenanigans I find strangely riveting. The odd thing about Ponzi schemes, though, is that they always fail. Only when the perpetrator is able to arrange to get out of town (and out of the reach of the law) just before the inverted pyramid collapses does it make sense for the schemer to dupe the investors. But whether the perpetrator sticks around too long, or manages to skedaddle out of town in time, the scheme will collapse.

I mention this universally recognized reality (pi anyone?), because Social Security is its own Ponzi scheme. Is not what is supposed to be a government-sponsored old-age insurance program really just a nationwide program to pay early “investors” out of the proceeds of later ones? As with traditional Ponzi schemes, the question is: Who benefits? That is, who gets to “skedaddle” in time? The elderly, of course, provided they die before the whole thing comes down. And given the demographic implosion in Europe, together with a globalized economy (which means recessions can no longer be localized, but all economies sink together), I expect the crisis of Ponzi implosion will hit Europe first, then Japan. But the United States won’t be that far behind, and then comes China.

Sisters of Life hosting Retreat

This from Sr. Lucy:

Dear Friends,

Wonderful upcoming retreat hosted by the Sisters of Life at Villa Maria Guadalupe Retreat Center in Stamford, CT - for more info or to register go to http://sistersoflife.org/vmg.html#schedule  There are still some openings.

March 13-15
Gazing on the Face of Christ: Meditations on the Gospel of Life
Directed by: Father Joe Koterski, SJ

Fr. Koterski is an incredible retreat director and I would strongly encourage you to attend!

God Bless You.

Sr. Lucy Marie

Respect Life Coordinator

Archdiocese of New York

1011 First Ave., 7th Floor

New York, NY  10022

212-371-1011 X3192

Mon-Thurs 9:30am-4:30pm

News from Ireland: State argues that embryos created artificially do not have rights

the link is here -

Family & Life

Embryos Don’t Have Rights of Unborn, State Argues

A human embryo created through a fertility procedure has no legal status in Ireland, is not entitled to Constitutional protection until he or she isin a woman’s womb, and may be legally killed before implantation, lawyers for the State have told the Supreme Court. Donal O’Donnell SC, for the Attorney General, said an embryonic human isn’t an “unborn” person within the meaning of Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution.

Because of this, and in the absence of any regulation of fertility procedures, he asserted, people who undergo fertility procedures that produce embryos may decide what happens to those tiny new humans. Counsel agreed that nothing in Irish law bars the commercial production of embryonic humans, and that that killing them before implantation in a woman’s womb is legal.

The fate of human embryos was for the people and legislature to decide, and he wasn’t speaking for the latter, Mr O’Donnell said.

Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman called counsel’s comments “the clearest statement since 1983” of the State’s position concerning the ambit of Article 40.3.3. He said the legislature had “maintained total silence” on embryonic humans.

Mr O’Donnell agreed that Ireland could enact regulations of fertility procedures without a referendum. He was aware that the 2005 Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction had recommended regulation, but that none existed. Mr O’Donnell was making opening submissions on the third day of the appeal by a separated mother of two against the High Court, which had refused to order a Dublin fertility centre to release three frozen embryos to her so she could become pregnant, against the wishes of her estranged husband.

The appeal hearing will take place sometime later this month. The woman claims the right to have the embryos implanted because of consents that her husband signed in 2002 and the State’s obligation under Article 40.3.3 to protect and vindicate the right to life of the unborn. She contends an embryo is an “unborn” under Article 40.3.3. The Irish Times. February 5.

Rally on February 16th against RHA, at Andrea Stewart-Cousins Yonkers office

We received this email today. Note that RHAPP is now referred to as RHA by it's promoters.

Good Morning Everyone,
           We are holding a Prayer Rally for Andrea Steward-Cousins on
Monday February 16, 2009, at 5:00 pm, outside Andrea Steward-Cousin's
office on 35 East Grassy Sprain Road (Hudson Valley Bank Bldg),
Yonkers, New York.

         As you know Senator Steward-Cousins is the sponsor of the
Reproductive Health and Pregnancy Protection Bill (RHAPP), very soon
the bill is will be introduced to the Senate under a new name
Reproductive Health  Act "RHA".

          RHAPP/ RHA is a radical bill that would make abortion a
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, it would supersede Roe v. Wade. Present New York
State laws places a 24 wk limit on abortion, where as, the RHAPP/ RHA
bill lifts all limits allowing abortion up to 9 months.

          The RHAPP/ RHA bill would also undermine parental rights by
allowing minors to illicit contraception, the morning after pill, and
abortions without parental consent or knowledge;  the morning after
pill would be made available over the counter, and doctors and nurses
would be forced to perform abortion even if it went against their
morals, monies would be facilitated from charity organization and
schools to facilitate abortions. In essence it would eliminate  40
years of prolife milestones that were implemented to secure the safety
of women, and children, and protect doctor from going against their
moral conscience ness. These are just a few things that the bill
promises to do.

       For more information go to  www.nyscatholic.org

        I humbly invite you to join us in pray for our fellow Catholic
sister who has gone astray by choosing to sponsor a bill that would
morally hurt her soles and those of hundreds of thousands of other
women, at the same time morally devastating our society.



God Bless You and Your Families,
      Jackie Nagle
       Coordinator
St. Barnabas Committee for Life

Catholic Bishop: Catholic hospitals won't close, but will not comply with FOCA

From Lifenews.com

Catholic Bishop: Hospitals Won't Close But Won't Comply With Pro-Abortion FOCA

A leading Catholic bishop says Catholic hospitals won't close but neither will they comply with a law requiring them to do abortions if the radical Freedom of Choice Act ever becomes law. The FOCA bill could overturn the conscience laws that allows the hospitals to opt out of doing abortions.

Under the original FOCA bill, which has not been reintroduced in the current Congress, limits on forcing medical centers or staff to do abortions could be overturned.

>>>>>>

“Idle threats about the certain closing of Catholic hospitals if certain things happen are simply that – idle,” the bishop said about threats of closing hospitals.

“Catholic hospitals will not allow abortions to be performed in their facilities," Lynch wrote and they will not comply with forced abortion laws “even if our actions constitute civil disobedience,” he said.

“No Catholic institution or employee of an institution can or will be made to violate the dictates of their conscience resulting from federal or state legislative action,” Bishop Lynch added, according to CNS. But "we will not close" either because Catholic hospitals have an obligation to serve patients for non-abortion reasons.

The CHA reaffirmed its opposition to the FOCA bill during the meeting, CNS indicated.

The problem is that in a worst case scenario, with passage of FOCA and aggressive enforcement by the government, the hospitals could be defunded, their adminstrators held in contempt of court, etc.

Let's not assume it couldn't get this bad - we must aggressively fight FOCA, and it's NY State equivalent, which has been re-named from RHAPP to RHA.

From Great Britain - a third of GP's will refuse to work in clinics or offices that provide abortions

From the British press - excerpt below - hit the link forthe whole article

Third of GPs 'would refuse to work at surgery offering abortions' | Mail Online

 

A third of GPs would refuse to work in a surgery offering abortions, a poll has found.

Almost two-thirds oppose all plans to make it easier for women to get a termination, according to the survey.

Doctors say the Government's policy of making abortions available in doctors' surgeries, rather than only in hospitals or special clinics, will cause a massive increase in the numbers of women having them.

Britain's abortion rate is second only to that of the U.S. in the western world. Last year, almost 200,000 women had a termination.

At present, abortions can only be carried out in hospitals or in clinics. Ministers have had the power to allow terminations elsewhere since 1967, when abortion was legalised, but they had never done so.

Last year, however, the Government conducted a pilot study which found that women could safely receive 'early medical abortions' from nurses in 'community settings'  -  such as GP surgeries.

Michael Dubruiel's last column

We mentioned here that Catholic author and blogger Michael Dubruiel had died suddenly on Tuesday, at the age of 50. LifeNet: Michael Dubruiel

The last column he wrote, for a Diocesan newspaper, was just published on his wife Amy Welborn's blog.

Read it here:

The Last Column « Charlotte was Both

"none of us knows what the future holds..."

Baby born, then killed during abortion

The mother is now suing. 

What does President Obama think of this?  As we all know, while an Illinois State Senator he strongly opposed the "Infant Born Alive Protection Act" - so to his mind isn't this just a retroactive abortion? Wouldn't that be logical?

Fla. doctor investigated in badly botched abortion : 24 Hour Breaking News : The Buffalo News

The complaint says one of the clinic owners, Belkis Gonzalez came in and cut the umbilical cord with scissors, then placed the baby in a plastic bag, and the bag in a trash can.

Williams' lawsuit offers a cruder account: She says Gonzalez knocked the baby off the recliner chair where she had given birth, onto the floor. The baby's umbilical cord was not clamped, allowing her to bleed out. Gonzalez scooped the baby, placenta and afterbirth into a red plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.

No working telephone number could be found for Gonzalez, and an attorney who has represented the clinic in the past did not return a message.

At 23 weeks, an otherwise healthy fetus would have a slim but legitimate chance of survival. Quadruplets born at 23 weeks last year at The Nebraska Medical Center survived.

An autopsy determined Williams' baby - she named her Shanice - had filled her lungs with air, meaning she had been born alive, according to the Department of Health. The cause of death was listed as extreme prematurity.

And more here:

Lawsuit Filed for Baby Born Alive at Abortion Clinic then Killed and Hidden from Police

 

Michael Dubruiel

It's terrible to report that the author and blogger Michael Dubruiel, husband of author and blogger Amy Welborn, died suddenly yesterday morning. He was 50 and they have young children.

OSV Daily Take

and from Amy's weblog

Michael Dubruiel « Charlotte was Both

An important new book by Rachel MacNair, former president of Feminists for Life

This review is lifted from Tom Faranda's weblog -

Achieving Peace in the Abortion War

Rachel MacNair is a longtime activist who has been involved in promoting a "consistent ethic" across a wide span of issues. She is a Quaker, a pacifist, and pro-life. She was president of Feminists for Life of America for ten years  Feminists for Life - Women Deserve Better

MacNair is a scholar, with a Ph.D. in social psychology.

Her latest book

 

is very powerful and persuasive. The text is 145 pages long, with footnotes at the back. She makes liberal use of quotations from abortionists, abortion staff, and people who've left the abortion business.

MacNair points out that through Democratic and Republican administrations the abortion rate has first leveled off (starting at the beginning of the 80's) and then been consistently dropping. For several reasons, she believes this is very likely to continue. 

First, the "trauma in abortion staff" problem. Fewer people want to perform abortions or work in the abortion industry.  There is the contradiction between being in a "caring profession" while destroying the offspring of their clients. And they don't get much support from their professional peers, being frequently looked down upon by them.

 Second, there is dropping demand for abortion. The abortion rate has fallen from 25% of pregnancies to between 19 and 20%. The number of "first timers" having an abortion is also dropping - the abortion rate would be much lower if it weren't for women having multiple abortions. And without "first timers" where are the "repeaters" going to come from? With fewer women having abortions, it's becoming more acceptable to speak up against abortion.  

MacNair believes the psychological role of cognitive dissonance now comes into play and a "great switch" is in the making. She outlines this in the last chapter entitled "Collapse" theorizing as to how people thought and think about abortion, themselves, and their country

In the 70's and 80's (1) abortion was expanding and (2) we Americans are a noble and virtuous people. The first is a fact, while the second involves our self-respect and self-image of ourselves and "is highly resistant to change ... If both elements resist change, than the tension can best be dealt with by deciding they don't conflict. ... Any attack on the first point will be seen as an attack on the second point..." with bad results for American self image.

But now (1) abortion numbers are dropping and abortion clinics are fewer and (2) we Americans are a noble and virtuous people.

So the dynamics of tension reduction for cognitive dissonance, "with the crucial importance of self-respect" are working in favor of prolife people. 

 It's Rachel MacNair's feeling that this "great switch" will continue.  

Well, we will see. Without MacNair saying so, it seems to me that  the "great switch" will be speeded up by the number of women who are more and more coming forward and speaking up about the negative effects of their own abortions. Groups like "Silent no More." If we Americans view ourselves as a "noble and virtuous people", hearing the voices of people harmed by abortion may accelerate the "great switch."

Excellent book, highly recommended.

Rachel MacNair is a longtime activist who has been involved in promoting a "consistent ethic" across a wide span of issues. She is a Quaker, a pacifist, and pro-life. She was president of Feminists for Life of America for ten years  Feminists for Life - Women Deserve Better

MacNair is a scholar, with a Ph.D. in social psychology.

Her latest book

 

is very powerful and persuasive. The text is 145 pages long, with footnotes at the back. She makes liberal use of quotations from abortionists, abortion staff, and people who've left the abortion business.

MacNair points out that through Democratic and Republican administrations the abortion rate has first leveled off (starting at the beginning of the 80's) and then been consistently dropping. For several reasons, she believes this is very likely to continue. 

First, the "trauma in abortion staff" problem. Fewer people want to perform abortions or work in the abortion industry.  There is the contradiction between being in a "caring profession" while destroying the offspring of their clients. And they don't get much support from their professional peers, being frequently looked down upon by them.

 Second, there is dropping demand for abortion. The abortion rate has fallen from 25% of pregnancies to between 19 and 20%. The number of "first timers" having an abortion is also dropping - the abortion rate would be much lower if it weren't for women having multiple abortions. And without "first timers" where are the "repeaters" going to come from? With fewer women having abortions, it's becoming more acceptable to speak up against abortion.  

MacNair believes the psychological role of cognitive dissonance now comes into play and a "great switch" is in the making. She outlines this in the last chapter entitled "Collapse" theorizing as to how people thought and think about abortion, themselves, and their country

In the 70's and 80's (1) abortion was expanding and (2) we Americans are a noble and virtuous people. The first is a fact, while the second involves our self-respect and self-image of ourselves and "is highly resistant to change ... If both elements resist change, than the tension can best be dealt with by deciding they don't conflict. ... Any attack on the first point will be seen as an attack on the second point..." with bad results for American self image.

But now (1) abortion numbers are dropping and abortion clinics are fewer and (2) we Americans are a noble and virtuous people.

So the dynamics of tension reduction for cognitive dissonance, "with the crucial importance of self-respect" are working in favor of prolife people. 

 It's Rachel MacNair's feeling that this "great switch" will continue.  

Well, we will see. Without MacNair saying so, it seems to me that  the "great switch" will be speeded up by the number of women who are more and more coming forward and speaking up about the negative effects of their own abortions. Groups like "Silent no More." If we Americans view ourselves as a "noble and virtuous people", hearing the voices of people harmed by abortion may accelerate the "great switch."

Excellent book, highly recommended.

Gallup poll: Large majority of Americans oppose Obama's overturning of Mexico City policy, and funding foreign abortions

By 58% to 35%, Americans oppose -

Poll: Americans Upset Obama Reversed Mexico City Policy, Promoting Abortions

Breaking down the new poll further, Gallup asked respondents to state their opinion on seven major actions President Obama has taken since becoming president. Overturning the Mexico City Policy engendered more opposition than any of the other actions and it had the lowest level of support.

The pro-abortion move also evoked the least support from Democrats and the most opposition from Republicans and independents.

While 59 percent of Democrats supported the move, it came in last among the seven total issues on which Gallup surveyed.

Only 8 percent of Republicans backed overturning the limits as did just 33 percent of the independent voters surveyed -- with opposition higher about this action than any other Obama has taken a president.

The results of the Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews with 1,027 adults across the country and were conducted January 30-February 1.

The Mexico City Policy covered over $400 million in federal funds, part of which will now flow to the abortion businesses Planned Parenthood and Marie Stopes International for their foreign efforts.