Why should we care about euthanasia as present in Britain? I care because we are following in their footsteps. How soon before Obama-care mandates cost cutting methods effecting care of the elderly and the weakest among us. Abortion is only the beginning!
How opposed to First, do no harm, or, in Latin, primum non nocere, a medical injunction (the "Hippocratic oath" is this:
"THEY WISH FOR THEIR BABY TO GO QUICKLY. BUT I KNOW, AS THEY CAN’T, THE UNIQUE HORROR OF WATCHING A CHILD SHRINK AND DIE
Here is an abridged version of one doctor’s anonymous testimony, published in the BMJ under the heading: ‘How it feels to withdraw feeding from newborn babies’."
The voice on the other end of the phone describes a newborn baby and a lengthy list of unexpected congenital anomalies. I have a growing sense of dread as I listen.
The parents want ‘nothing done’ because they feel that these anomalies are not consistent with a basic human experience. I know that once decisions are made, life support will be withdrawn.
Assuming this baby survives, we will be unable to give feed, and the parents will not want us to use artificial means to do so.
Regrettably, my predictions are correct. I realise as I go to meet the parents that this will be the tenth child for whom I have cared after a decision has been made to forgo medically provided feeding.
A doctor has written a testimony published under the heading: ‘How it feels to withdraw feeding from newborn babies’
The mother fidgets in her chair, unable to make eye contact. She dabs at angry tears, stricken. In a soft voice the father begins to tell me about their life, their other children, and their dashed hopes for this child.
He speculates that the list of proposed surgeries and treatments are unfair and will leave his baby facing a future too full of uncertainty.
Like other parents in this predicament, they are now plagued with a terrible type of wishful thinking that they could never have imagined. They wish for their child to die quickly once the feeding and fluids are stopped.
They wish for pneumonia. They wish for no suffering. They wish for no visible changes to their precious baby.
Their wishes, however, are not consistent with my experience. Survival is often much longer than most physicians think; reflecting on my previous patients, the median time from withdrawal of hydration to death was ten days.
Parents and care teams are unprepared for the sometimes severe changes that they will witness in the child’s physical appearance as severe dehydration ensues.
I try to make these matters clear from the outset so that these parents do not make a decision that they will come to regret. I try to prepare them for the coming collective agony that we will undoubtedly share, regardless of their certainty about their decision.
I know, as they cannot, the unique horror of witnessing a child become smaller and shrunken, as the only route out of a life that has become excruciating to the patient or to the parents who love their baby.
I reflect on how sanitised this experience seems within the literature about making this decision.
As a doctor, I struggle with the emotional burden of accompanying the patient and his or her family through this experience, as much as with the philosophical details of it.
‘Survival is often much longer than most physicians think; reflecting on my previous patients, the median time from withdrawal of hydration to death was ten days’
Debate at the front lines of healthcare about the morality of taking this decision has remained heated, regardless of what ethical and legal guidelines have to offer.
The parents come to feel that the disaster of their situation is intolerable; they can no longer bear witness to the slow demise of their child.
This increases the burden on the care-givers, without parents at the bedside to direct their child’s care.
Despite involvement from the clinical ethics and spiritual care services, the vacuum of direction leads to divisions within the care team.
It is draining to be the most responsible physician. Everyone is looking to me to preside over and support this process.
I am honest with the nurse when I say it is getting more and more difficult to make my legs walk me on to this unit as the days elapse, that examining the baby is an indescribable mixture of compassion, revulsion, and pain.
Some say withdrawing medically provided hydration and nutrition is akin to withdrawing any other form of life support. Maybe, but that is not how it feels. The one thing that helps me a little is the realisation that this process is necessarily difficult. It needs to be.
To acknowledge that a child’s prospects are so dire, so limited, that we will not or cannot provide artificial nutrition is self selecting for the rarity of the situations in which parents and care teams would ever consider it.
It’s been fifty years, since I was first confronted by issues of life in the womb, and of choice conflicting with traditional morality. It’s an old story, but very personal, and fraught with emotional triggers. Then, I was a student nurse at Mt. Sinai Hospital, where Dr. Alan Guttmacher and Margaret Sanger were being hailed as super-heroes of Womankind. In a lecture presented to student nurses in our formative years, opinions were presented as fact. The class focused on birth control, under the banner of Women’s Health. A one-sided presentation of the history of Planned Parenthood took center stage. I knew, then, the class was skewed, avoiding the issue, and immorality of abortion, which, in reality, eventually raises its ugly head in an unbiased arena.
I was silent, asked no questions, although I was aware that what was being said was not the whole, unadulterated story. The heroine, Margaret Sanger, in truth, wrote prolifically, revealing the underpinning of her eugenic philosophy. Her own words promote a foundational agenda more akin to racial cleansing, than savior of womankind. Her involvement in the Negro Project and speeches to the Klu Klux Klan should have been red flags stripping her of any moral authority. She was, and, is no hero, to at least half our Nation. Yet, fifty years, and Sanger’s own words, have not deterred Planned Parenthood from canonizing her, and striving to re-write her actual history. Then, I didn’t know her history; I do now.
You can find Sanger’s writings online, as well as ample examples of her questionable associations and eugenic thought processes. I wish I knew all this years ago, for my experience of the lecture left me feeling that my inexperience and naiveté, made me vulnerable to propaganda. I was not prepared to confront the status quo, and those in authority, even at this level, in a teaching venue.
Well, it has been fifty years, and in reading our Alumnae News, spring 2012, an article entitled, “The Past- Planned Parenthood from the Beginning” brought me back to that day and my dilemma. What bothered me most about the recent, well-meaning article was the writer’s voice that seemed to me to assume moral superiority. There is a false compassion that plays to emotionalism and worse case scenarios, and I heard it in the tone of this piece. It, yet again, presented its cast of characters as pioneer heroines, and their cause as above reproach. Yet, there are many Mt. Sinai alumnae, and millions of people in this country, who, in a just righteousness, also seek the welfare of women, desire to protect the living, the home, and the foundational fabric of society as guardians of family and the individual, and who do not agree with this stance, and suppositions made here. They are ignored in this article, as they were in the lecture of years ago.
Motherhood plays poorly, when pregnancy is portrayed as an albatross hung about its neck. For a true dialog, and the Big Picture, the voice of the other side needs to be heard by student nurses and society as a whole, for the good of women and society. It is a necessary and rational voice, lifted to oppose, what it views as a pseudo-sophisticate, myopic view presented as progressive. This other valid voice addresses life issues compassionately, while being circumspect and prophetic, speaking for, and caring for, the good of the person and humanity. It, too, takes a moral stance that is unselfish, sometimes unpopular, and honors the wisdom of cultures and the sages of present and past ages. Dismissive attitudes do no justice to truth and learning. Student nurses, and society as a whole, deserve the whole truth. Our personal humanity hangs in the balance.
I, for one, want a voice, not a label. I’ll stand with those that reject a culture, in which truth doesn’t matter, that seeks the material over life, “whose morality is only a mask, which covers confusion and destruction”1and in doing so comes dangerously close to denying the Creator of life.
Our motto, “Vota Vita Nostra”, “We devote our lives,” speaks not only to our personal decision, but to there being One, and a cause, greater than ourselves, worthy of sacrifice, and our dedication, greater even than the Mt. Sinai from which we ventured forth, will never forget, and now are carrying into this day and this hour of history. Keep it real. Keep it honest. Listen for truth with the heart of a nurse.
© 2012 Joann Nelander
“Who do you say I am?”
Who do you say I am?
The jars lined the walls.
Each one marked:
A weight and words,
“Products of conception.”
Parts, just parts!
Parts, just parts?
Who do you say I am?
©2012 Joann Nelander
This painting is so consoling, I just have to share it again since Advent brings us closer and closer to the precious moment of our Savior’s birth. He comes to save Fallen Man, and with such a gentle hand.
“Virgin Mary Consoles Eve”
Crayon and pencil by Sr. Grace Remington, OCSO
Copyright 2005, Sisters of the Mississippi Abbey
Joseph Bottum writing in Bad Medicine grieves:
…….I was utterly mistaken. I did warn that Stupak and his fellow pro-life Democrats in the House are, after all, people who have always favored health-care reform—and they were going to vote for the Democratic program if they possibly could. But after Stupak stood firm during the debates over the House version of the bill, forcing his amendment through even while enduring the fury of what seemed like every mainstream editorial page in the nation, I thought he would not desert the pro-life organizations when it came down to a vote on the Senate’s version. But desert he did. Praise Bart Stupak now, I demanded—and, like many other pro-lifers, I was left with nothing to show for it.
Bottum writes of arguments that were used to give cover to the Democrats who call themselves pro-life, from Harry Reid and Bob Casey in the Senate to Bart Stupak in the House.
The first was the claim that, through its complicated payment procedures, the Senate bill ensured that the government portion of the new insurance program wouldn’t actually fund abortions. The second was that nationalizing the health-care system would result in a net drop in the number of abortions performed. And the third was that an executive order from the president would ensure that abortion funding would not follow from the new bill.
Meanwhile, the desertions of Harry Reid and Bob Casey and Bart Stupak mean that the pro-life cause must look entirely to the Republicans for leadership. Oh, they may pick up a few Democratic votes along the way for pro-life measures, but we now know that those Democrats will not take the lead in a pro-life fight. This is a bad result for the pro-life movement—in part because the Republican party platform is not a unified whole: People can oppose abortion while rejecting all the rest. But it’s also bad for the pro-lifers because it weakens the leverage they have within the Republican party.
NPR staff memo quoted by La Shawn Barber in NPR Drops ‘Pro-Life for'”Abortion Rights Opponents’:
NPR News is revising the terms we use to describe people and groups involved in the abortion debate.
This updated policy is aimed at ensuring the words we speak and write are as clear, consistent and neutral as possible. This is important given that written text is such an integral part of our work.
On the air, we should use “abortion rights supporter(s)/advocate(s)” and “abortion rights opponent(s)” or derivations thereof (for example: “advocates of abortion rights”). It is acceptable to use the phrase “anti-abortion”, but do not use the term “pro-abortion rights”.
What’s in a name? Barber points us to: “How the Public is Manipulated” which gives us a heads up and out of the sand noting:
It Makes a Pro-Abortion Assumption that the Debate is About Abortion Rights, Not Abortion It Plays Word Games with the Word “Rights” It Ignores the Fact That Abortion Can Exist Without Abortion Rights It Assumes the Negative It Ignores the Concept of a Right to Life It Affirms the Concept of a Right to an Abortion
Barber makes some points of her own for the mainstream media:
- Refer to abortion supporters as “right to life opponents”
- Refer to gun control supporters as “gun rights opponents”
- Refer to “hate speech” backers as “speech rights opponents”
- Refer to racial preferences advocates as “constitutional rights opponents”
Write me if she missed any.
President, Susan B. Anthony List
I know you are worn down from this battle, but the last word has not yet been spoken on healthcare reform. We cannot allow Washington to think our voices have gone silent for even one moment. Later this week, the Senate will vote on the reconciliation package to the health care bill passed by the House on Sunday, which includes federal funding for abortion. During this process, Senators will be able to offer an unlimited number of amendments. Senator Coburn plans to offer two amendments in regard to the Life issue. One amendment will prevent funding for RU-486, the abortion pill, and the other will ensure conscience protection for doctors who do not want to be involved in abortion. The amendments could be voted on as early as this evening!
Senator Coburn’s amendments are essential to ensure that your tax dollars do not go toward the purchase of the dangerous abortion pill and to allow doctors to practice medicine without the fear of being forcibly involved in an act that goes against their conscience.
Os Guinness in his discourse “Addressing the Question of Evil In An Age of Genocide and Terror” dialogues on the questions of evil: “Where on earth does evil come from? How are we to understand evil?” Guinness asks us to consider the possibility of magnifying evil in modern times:
“The dreadful evil of the Final Solution was not carried out by monsters. Hitler was a monster. Goring was a monster. Goebbels… They were monstrous. They didn’t carry any of it out. It was carried out by millions, and millions and millions of “good ordinary people.”
“You could see how in a world of bureaucracy with division of labor and diffusion of responsibility and a distancing,.. people don’t actually see the effects of the decisions they make. You can see how a modern world and its procedures and its way of doing things has made possible evil on a scale the world never imagined. (paraphrased)
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.- Edmund Burke
NewsMax.com reports the numbers:
Among the key findings:
86% of Americans would significantly restrict abortion. 60% of Americans would limit abortion to cases of rape, incest or to save the life of a mother – or would not allow it at all. 53% of Americans believe abortion does more harm than good to a woman in the long term. 79% of Americans support conscience exemptions on abortion for health care workers. This includes 64% of those who identify as strongly pro-choice. 69% of Americans think that it is appropriate for religious leaders to speak out on abortion. 59% say religious leaders have a key role to play in the abortion debate. 80% of Americans believe that laws can protect both the health of the woman and the life of the unborn. This includes 68% of those who identified as strongly pro-choice.
Additionally, the data showed that since October nearly every demographic sub-group had moved toward the pro-life position except for non-practicing Catholics and men under 45 years of age.
Independents and liberals showed the greatest shift to the pro-life position since October, while Democrats were slightly less likely to be pro-life now than they were in October.
“The data shows that the American people are placing an ever increasing value on human life,” said Supreme Knight Carl Anderson. “Far from the great divide that most people think exists when it comes to the abortion debate, there is actually a great deal of common ground. Most Americans are unhappy with the unrestricted access to abortion that is the legacy of Roe
vs. Wade, and pundits and elected leaders should take note of the fact that agreement on abortion need not be limited to the fringes of the debate and issues like adoption or pre-natal care. The American people have reached a basic consensus, and that consensus is at odds with the unrestricted access to abortion that is the legacy of Roe.”
The survey of 1,223 Americans was conducted May 28 – 31 and has a margin of error of +/-3%.
Hope grows as we are willing to let in the Light.
I haven’t be able to embed this short film by the Doorpost Film Project but it well worth the click it takes to get to it.
Volition (n)- The act of making a choice. Sometimes the choice of inaction has consequences stronger than we could ever imagine. Throughout history, men have been faced with difficult choices in a world that makes it easy for them to conform. This film explores the hope that lies behind every decision made in the face of adversity; the hope that is buried in the heart of those that look beyond themselves and see something bigger worth fighting for.
This is the movie trailer:
A question of truth, a question of conversion; the Anchoress asks can Obama be converted on abortion? I ask, and I think posterity will ask, how can this black man, who knows the Black Man’s pain of Slavery, the history of popular resistance to change, who knows the history of a Stephen Douglas ignoring an Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln who finally pricked Douglas into debate by clubbing him verbally, until, as Edward T. Oakes, S.J. says, “Douglas finally had to take notice of Lincoln’s ceaseless hammering away at Douglas’ ‘pro-choice’ platform (which said, in effect, ‘I’m personally opposed to slavery but can’t impose my choice on other states, including other Norther states.’),” not only ignore but side against so utterly defenseless a part of American humanity? ” How can such a man, now President of a country, founded on the principal that all men are created equal, now consent in his heart of hearts to discriminate against the obviously created human person growing from day to day, as all men grow, just because he/she is still under the protection of a mother’s womb.
How can this President, the citizen of the greatest free nation, ever, be content while people conspire to deprive the weakest most dependent members of their civil rights; when to steal or negate life, black,white, red,yellow, male, female,old or young, is intrinsically evil and morally wrong? How can this be-gifted man standby, a blind, deaf, and mute creature, while this glaring, screaming, appealing and appalling issue of Civil Rights is left to cry in the arms of Lady Justice?
The questions continue, nagging and still unanswered. How can a professor, a teacher, a sworn defender of the Constitution, forget the cries of these similarly beleaguered, disenfranchised, these who endure discrimination, these forgotten and forbidden human beings? Is it simply that they have no power, but the power to be, while Obama, himself, who knows the benefits of life, and the gifts of God and has sworn an oath in the Creator’s Name, forsake his power refusing just consideration? Could he not use his powers of rhetoric to acknowledge our posterity and his power of intellect to comprehend their potential? How can such a man claim his “pay grade” justifies the “choice” not to chose life or engage his own reason and heart and soul?
The buck Mr. President not only stops here but demands you at least use the means you possess; ears, eyes and brain to watch a simple, state of the art and science, video of life in the womb. The thumb-sucking, kicking, jumping, hiccupping creature you see before you may well declare the reality; “I am here, now. I am alive, unless you allow my life to come to naught.”
What price freedom; what price honesty? History begs you not to hide behind polls and politics. Don’t ask people with vested interests in the abortion industry, or who purchase human parts for research, who like slave owners count it lose if right prevails. Ask Martin Luther King, Jr. when you should stand for the civil right SIMPLY TO BE!
H/T Anchoress, who hopes for conversion of President Obama on issues of life. I’ll pray for that! I’m sure Obama now knows who Mary Ann Glendon is and may give ear to what she has to say he only out of curiousity, due to a well publicized run in with this woman of integrity.
“We have also been mindful of the fact that in today’s world, ironically, many threats to the dignity of the person have appeared in the guise of human rights. As you pointed out in your memorable speech to the United Nations last year, there are mounting pressures to ‘move away from the protection of human dignity towards the satisfaction of simple interests, often particular interests.’ “……………
“We have paid special attention to rights that are currently under assault such as the right to life, the right to found a family, freedom of conscience and religion, and to rights that have too long awaited fulfillment such as the right to decent subsistence.”
From Pope Benedict’s response: (Full text here)
“The Church’s action in promoting human rights is therefore supported by rational reflection, in such a way that these rights can be presented to all people of good will, independently of any religious affiliation they may have”. At the same time, “insofar as human rights need to be re-appropriated by every generation and by each individual, and insofar as human freedom … is always fragile, the human person needs the unconditional hope and love that can only be found in God and that lead to participation in the justice and generosity of God towards others”.
Humanae Vitae could be called, “Truth and Consequences.” With prophetic clarity, Pope Paul VI, in his Encyclical Letter on the Regulation of Birth, delineated the changes that would overtake society with the artificial control of birth.
In 2008 the German Federal Statistics Office’s vice-president,Walter Rademacher, was quoted by Agence France-Presse saying: “The fall in the population (of Germany) can no longer be stopped.” Life Site News reported “The population losses faced by Germany reflect a trend occurring across Europe–The European Union’s statistics agency Eurostat has predicted an overall drop in Europe’s population of 7 million people by 2050.
The Population Reference Bureau’s 2008 World Population data sheet and its summary report offer detailed information about country, regional, and global population patterns.”Nearly all of world population growth is now concentrated in the world’s poorer countries,” said Bill Butz, PRB’s president. “Even the small amount of overall growth in the wealthier nations will largely result from immigration.”
Some points of interest: NoSpeedBumps writes :
… Germany has one of the largest populations of Muslim immigrants in Western Europe, with a Muslim community of over 3 million. That trend is expected to continue, leading some demographic trend-watchers to warn that the country is well on the way to becoming a Muslim state by 2050, Deutsche Welle reported.
The Brussels Journal reported last month that one third of all European children will be born to Muslim families by 2025. There are an estimated 50 million Muslims living in Europe today–that number is expected to double over the next twenty years.
With the fanaticism of religious zealots, Feminism and Planned Parenthood, continue to preach their doctrines that would set mankind free to just “be” without the hindrance of Faith, God, or social pressure. Am I paranoid wondering how free or tolerated, non-muslims will be in a world with the new demographics of 2050. Even One World enthusiasts might wonder, can the nations hold their own, their own identity or posterity and even faith?
The next generation faces many decisions and morality matters. Truth and consequences oblige even those who are disinterested, too busy to care, or otherwise engaged in life pursuits.
Priests for Life reports:
Baby Body Parts
Priests for Life has known for some time of the grisly trade in baby parts taking place in abortion facilities throughout the nation. Through the efforts of our friends at Life Dynamics, Inc., the details of this trade have come to light. You may obtain from Life Dynamics (1-800-401-6494) copies of the actual order forms used. Some of the forms request that there be no abnormalities. Many mistakenly think that abortions in later stages of pregnancy are performed only in cases of fetal abnormality.
Fetal tissue wholesalers are companies which place employees in abortion clinics to harvest tissue, limbs, organs, etc. from aborted babies. This material is then shipped to researchers working for universities, pharmaceutical companies and government agencies. Although it is against federal law to sell human tissue or body parts, these organizations have devised a system to circumvent this restriction. Technically, all fetal material they harvest is “donated” to them by the clinics. However, they do pay a “site fee” to the clinics for the right to access the tissue. The tissue is then “donated” to the researchers who in turn pay the wholesalers for the cost of retrieval. Profit is realized by the wholesalers’ ability to set their own retrieval fees.
As to the harsh realities of keeping our country safe, the Gateway Pundit says Fox reports:
The release of the photos along with Obama’s decision last week to release CIA memos has federal agents feeling dispirited.
Jake Tapper reported:
Calling the ACLU push to release the photographs “prurient” and “reprehensible,” Dr. Mark M. Lowenthal, former Assistant Director of Central Intelligence for Analysis and Production, tells ABC News that the Obama administration should have taken the case all the way to the Supreme Court.
“They should have fought it all the way; if they lost, they lost,” Lowenthal said. “There’s nothing to be gained from it. There’s no substantive reason why those photos have to be released.”
Lowenthal said the president’s moves in the last week have left many in the CIA dispirited, based on “the undercurrent I’ve been getting from colleagues still in the building, or colleagues who have left not that long ago.”
“We ask these people to do extremely dangerous things, things they’ve been ordered to do by legal authorities, with the understanding that they will get top cover if something goes wrong,” Lowenthal says. “They don’t believe they have that cover anymore.” Releasing the photographs “will make it much worse,” he said.
Along the same lines of disclosures that hurt our country, Michelle Malkin points to the Rasmussen report in her, “Public to White House”:
Results from the latest Rasmussen poll show a public more in tune with Dick Cheney than George Soros:
Fifty-eight percent (58%) believe the Obama administration’s recent release of CIA memos about the harsh interrogation methods used on terrorism suspects endangers the national security of the United States. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 28% believe the release of the memos helps America’s image abroad.
Thirty-seven percent (37%) of voters now believe the U.S. legal system worries too much about protecting individual rights when national security is at stake. But 21% say the legal system is too concerned about protecting national security. Thirty-three percent (33%) say the balance between the two is about right.
This reflects a significant shift over the past couple of years. In several surveys conducted during 2008, Americans were fairly evenly divided as to whether our legal system worried too much about individual rights or too much about protecting national security…
…Forty-six percent (46%) of voters disagree with Obama’s decision to close the prison camp for terrorism suspects at the Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba, while 36% agree with the president’s action. Support for the decision has fallen since the president announced it in January.
Ed Morrissey says more:
Instead of the headlines being about what the Bush administration sanctioned, they became about Nancy Pelosi’s denial and then non-denial of her knowledge on waterboarding interrogations, the success of the interrogations in preventing an attack, and Obama’s lack of testicular fortitude in sticking with his original position to let sleeping dogs lie. Small wonder that he began backtracking in earnest yesterday when meeting with Congressional leaders.
Now we have confirmation that Obama planned this all along as a political attack against a man who hardly matters on the national political scene any longer – or at least he didn’t until Obama decided to pick a fight with him. Just as with his strange attack on Rush
Teresa Tomeo of Ave Maria Radio took time to answer this pro-choice/pro-life Catholic educator. She’d really like it shared.
Here is the initial letter Kathy wrote to Teresa.
Dear Ms. Tomeo,
I was discouraged and even angered at your comments about President Obama. He is one of the most inspirational figures of recent times. As a Catholic educator for over 30 years, I am proud that we gave each student a book about Barack Obama on Inauguration Day. Most teachers have his picture in our Catholic classrooms and talk about his thoughtful, open, and integrity‐based life. He cares about LIFE ‐ education and health care are life issues, how we handle war and the economy are life issues. How we talk with people in dialogue is a life issue. Measuring all life issues through the lens of abortion is outrageous to say the least. Obama’s commitment to prevent abortion and to support healthy life for all is a critical moral issue. God created us to be able to choose. It is our job in churches to help form conscience so that we may choose life.
Working on his campaign in the fall, and the Catholics for Obama campaign, was one of the most important times I have experienced in my 55 years of life.
It is clearly deeply Christian to be PRO‐LIFE and PRO‐CHOICE both.
It is offensive to promote such negativity toward the president of the United States.
Peace and grace,
Hi Kathy. Thanks for writing. I hope you will take the time to read this e mail and really pray and think about what I am laying out before you. I will be discussing this e mail exchange on my radio show this week so I hope you tune in and even call in if possible. I have attached an article that is coming out this week on a major Catholic web site regarding the Obama administration. As a woman I thought you would be interested in this and this will help you understand why I
feel so strongly about this issue. I was so disappointed to see that you call yourself a “Catholic educator” and a “proud member” of the Catholic Church and yet you express only emotion and no fact to back up your claims that it is okay for Christians to be both pro life and pro choice as well as your claims that the
president is “for life” as you put it. As the old Wendy’s commercial use to say “where’s the beef?” I normally don’t spend this much time on e mails but the Holy Spirit is prompting me to reach out to you in hopes that you will really re‐consider and really truly study what our Church and the Bible have to say about abortion. I am also very concerned because you are in a position to influence young people.
From your note I get the sense that you have very little awareness of the fallout from abortion on women, men, families, the economy, increased rates of drug abuse, the connection to abortion and breast cancer, increased suicide attempts with post abortive women etc. and most importantly the loss of life with 50 million babies lost in this country (17 million of whom are African Americans) yes Barack Obama’s own people have suffered the greatest causalities since the legalization of abortion in this country.
Regarding all the above issues here are some web sites for you‐www.afterabortion.org , www.abortionbreastcancer.com and one of the best of course www.priestsforlife.org Are you aware that most abortion centers are unregulated and that there have been many cases, several recently, of statutory rape that have gone unreported by these abortion centers? Are you also
aware that the majority of women having abortions say they feel they are being forced to do so and that there was little “choice” involved but threats and coercion? A great amount of research has been done in all of these areas although it rarely gets any attention. Have you ever heard of the Silent No More Awareness campaign? www.silentnomoreawareness.org where women and men tell their painful post abortive stories?
Go here for the rest of the article.
The moves and monies against Life have come fast and furiously, since President Obama took office and turned his attention to the most defenseless of this Nation. Calling it “health” millions will die with the help of American dollars. With Planned Parenthood at the top of the list, ” Abortion groups have submitted their 50 page proposal to the Obama-Biden Administration.”
From Susan B. Anthony List:
- $1 BILLION dollars in taxpayer funding for International Abortion Groups
- $700 million in taxpayer funding for “Title X” Health Clinics (aka your local Planned Parenthood affiliate)
- $65 million for the UNFPA, an international aid organization connected to coercive abortion as part of China’s coercive one-child policy
- Repeal the Hyde Amendment – Vastly expanding federal taxpayer funding for abortions
- Include Abortion coverage in any taxpayer-subsidized national health care program
- Expand taxpayer-funded abortions on military bases
- Expand taxpayer-funded abortions through the Peace Corps program
- Expand taxpayer-funded abortions for federal prisoners
For action alerts check here as well.
When you think you’ve heard it all, Amy Welborn tells you that the unanimously elected a new dean, Dr. Katherine Ragsdale of the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge is preaching Abortion is a Blessing!
As quoted by Chris Johnson of Midwest Conservative Journal:
And when a woman becomes pregnant within a loving, supportive, respectful relationship; has every option open to her; decides she does not wish to bear a child; and has access to a safe, affordable abortion – there is not a tragedy in sight — only blessing. The ability to enjoy God’s good gift of sexuality without compromising one’s education, life’s work, or ability to put to use God’s gifts and call is simply blessing.
These are the two things I want you, please, to remember – abortion is a blessing
and our work is not done. Let me hear you say it: abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done.
I want to thank all of you who protect this blessing – who do this work every day: the health care providers, doctors, nurses, technicians, receptionists, who put your lives on the line to care for others (you are heroes — in my eyes, you are saints); the escorts and the activists; the lobbyists and the clinic defenders; all of you. You’re engaged in holy work.
Can there be anything sadder ? Convenience over conscience, money over morals, sex over sacredness, what are those Doctors of Divinity thinking. Dr. Katherine Ragsdale is their unanimous choice. I can better understand why questions of the true Presence of Christ in the Eucharist are at issue when these people cannot recognize the true presence of a child in the womb.
Pursuing Holiness has this: [UPDATE: Ms. Ragsdale deleted the sermon, but on the intarweb things have a zombie-like way of coming back to get you. Cached copy is here. And for posterity, here’s a PDF of the cached page with Our Work Is Not Done. Why do you think she deleted it?
As the liberal media and liberal government close ranks, and embed abortion and anti-life laws and philosophies into American Culture, hope springs eternal. On-line you can find the alternative to the Culture of Death, as Pope John Paul II dubbed it.
For pro-life bloggers, and the likes of Priests for Life, Catholic Vote.org, Jill Stanek, the light at the end of the tunnel is getting brighter. The demons press on, indoctrinating our children in the classroom, and all strata of our citizenry in higher education, from Hollywood to the doctors office and health department, through glossy magazines, pop-culture etc. Light, however, finds a way! It’s the candle in the darkness thing at work. I’m new to blogging but those who’ve been doing this for a while like the Anchoress writing about miracles and little Faith and Brutally Honest declaring God alive, delight me with the persistent signs of hope I need to see.
Today is a good day for that kind of hope. The Wall Street Journal had good news for pro-life advocates and all those asking questions about life and wanting the truth.
Stephanie Simon reports:
“Mr. Obama supports legal abortion. Yet this video by CatholicVote.org — viewed nearly 1.8 million times on YouTube since it was posted in January — has turned his life story into an advertisement for the antiabortion movement.”
“The White House declined to comment. The producers describe their 40-second video as a strategic triumph that can help chart a new course for their movement as abortion opponents face a hostile climate in Washington, with Democrats controlling Congress and the White House.”
“So CatholicVote.org plans a series of biographical videos along the lines of the Obama video. The goal is to get people thinking about what the world would be missing if musicians, athletes and other luminaries with hard-luck life stories had been aborted.”
“Ms. Doan said ultrasound images circulating online have been especially helpful to abortion opponents, because they humanize the fetus. “I’ve seen a marked change in how people talk about abortion,” especially young adults, Ms. Doan said. “It’s much more favorable to the pro-life movement.”
“We’re able to reach people directly,” said Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life. He stars in a series of matter-of-fact videos that explain how abortions are performed, with a plastic model of a fetus as a prop. The clip describing a first-trimester abortion has been viewed more than 680,000 times on YouTube. “TV networks would never show this type of video,” Father Pavone said, “but now that doesn’t matter.”
EWTN’s Sunday Night:Live with Fr. Groeschel featured – Our Lady Appears in Rwanda. Guest: Immaculee Illibagiza
Recently, I wrote about Immaculee , her book, Left to Tell and about the Apparitions of Our Lady of Kibeho that preceded and predicted the Rwandan genocide nine years before it occurred. The images of the apparition were graphic and terrorizing as was the genocide.
In Left to Tell, Immaculee Ilibagiza tells her story of her experience of the Rwandan genocide. In 1981, many years prior to the Rwandan events( to which the world turned a blind eye,) Our Lady made them known through a series of apparitions (approved by the Church) to seven children, Alphonse, Anathalie, Marie Claire, Agnes, Stephanie and Vestine and Emanuel, a young pagan, known as ‘Sagastasha’ at the time of the revelations.
The Shrine of Our Lady of Kibeho has been given Church approval. Sean Bloomfield writes:
Although Rwanda was graced by a divine visitation during the eighties, the nineties brought quite the opposite: a gruesome genocide in which a million men, women and children were brutally killed, often by friends and neighbors, in only 100 days. The message of Kibeho, however, is intrinsically tied to this tragic event.
It was not until after the war that the Catholic Church made a definitive ruling about the apparitions. Only three of the seven alleged visionaries gained Church approval:
Alphonsine Murmureka Nathalie Mukamazimpaka Marie Claire MukangangoThese seers were the first three young people to report experiencing apparitions of the Virgin Mary, who called herself Nyina wa Jambo, which translates to Mother of the Word.
“We walk by faith and not by sight.” 2 Corinthians 5:7
No one knows that better than Myah who’s been walking the walk with grace and joy. Now she walks it with Faith, her beautiful babe in arms. Myah writes:
I was told that my baby was only alive because she was attached to me, but that she couldn’t survive on her own. The doctor said that I could continue the pregnancy safely, but that my baby would die shortly after being born. Or I could choose to terminate the pregnancy then, which would mean being induced at 20 weeks and letting my baby die without ever seeing or holding her (I don’t even want to know what they do with babies in this case). Well, to some people this would be a difficult decision, but it wasn’t for me. I knew there was nothing to gain by terminating the pregnancy and I already loved my daughter more than anyone else in the world. Even if she was unconscious like the doctors said and lived for only a few seconds or minutes –even if she was stillborn –it was worth it to me. And so we began our journey…
Pursuing Holiness writes:
Faith has confounded the medical community, helped her mother and other family members rely wholly on God, and she is the recipient of a very great love. And if those things are the extent of her success and achievement in her life, it will have been a life well-lived.
Pope Benedict XVI must be doing something right because the press is crucifying him again. Monsignor Raun writes, “On his way to Africa, the Pope was asked what the Church thought of AIDS and condoms. Our Holy Father answered that the real answer was sexual morality, not pieces of plastic. The press dubbed him ‘a moral monster’.”
The liberalized world and press avoid the Truth, especially on issues of life. They prefer to propagandize, for the furtherance of liberal, secular, “progressive” agenda’s, which leave God out of such deliberations. As if an investigation without Truth could be substantive.
“I suspect every abortion, every “compassionate” bit of euthanasia has the evil one stamping his foot in triumphant glee.” says the Anchoress. In speaking of God’s influence and grace in the world, she submits that such grace is “subdued in the world” when those “enthusiastic about subduing new life – of judging how much life there should be, and of what quality” play God.
Monsignor Raun makes a few points of his own:
1. Ten to twenty percent of the time, condoms don’t
work. For argument’s sake, let’s say they don’t
work 1 percent of the time. Would anyone say it
was moral to do something that there was a one-ina-
hundred chance of giving someone a deadly illness?
Would any sane person take such a chance
with their own life? (If there was a one-in-a hundred
chance that holy water could give you
AIDS, would any of you put your fingers in the
fount, or allow your children to do so?)
2. And the sad fact is that some people think they are
“invulnerable” if they wear a condom, and so they
are all the more promiscuous – all the more spreading
the possibilities of infecting others with the disease.
Condoms are the answer to AIDS for those people who
are only willing to do what it takes to stop this horrible
disease as long as sexual freedom is preserved – which
for liberal society has become the ultimate good in life.
If you don’t want to get sexually-transmitted AIDS, be
faithful to your spouse or live a chaste single life. This
and this alone, is guaranteed to be 100% effective. It is
also the moral teaching of Christ and His Church –
which is the Holy Father’s duty to teach. To teach anything
else is cruel, and to gamble with peoples lives.
And, from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we have this:
To achieve the maximum protective effect, condoms must be used both consistently and correctly. Inconsistent use can lead to STD acquisition because transmission can occur with a single act of intercourse with an infected partner. Similarly, if condoms are not used correctly, the protective effect may be diminished even when they are used consistently. The most reliable ways to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), are to abstain from sexual activity or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner. However, many infected persons may be unaware of their infections because STDs are often asymptomatic or unrecognized.
The above report sounds like Russian Roulette to me. Chastity is still the best policy, even according to disease control scientific and statistical reports.
A call to action delivered by Cardinal Francis George:
As Catholic bishops and American citizens, we are deeply concerned that such an action on the government’s part would be the first step in moving our country from democracy to despotism. Respect for personal conscience and freedom of religion as such ensures our basic freedom from government oppression. No government should come between an individual person and God–that’s what America is supposed to be about. This is the true common ground for us as Americans. We therefore need legal protection for freedom of conscience and of religion–including freedom for religious health care institutions to be true to themselves.”
Full text follows:
“Hello. I am Cardinal Francis George, Archbishop of Chicago and President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. I’d like to take a moment to speak about two principles or ideas that have been basic to life in our country: religious liberty and the freedom of personal conscience.
On Friday afternoon, February 27, the Obama Administration placed on a federal website the news that it intends to remove a conscience protection rule for the Department of Health and Human Services. That rule is one part of the range of legal protections for health care workers–for doctors, nurses and others–who have objections in conscience to being involved in abortion and other killing procedures that are against how they live their faith I God.
As Catholic bishops and American citizens, we are deeply concerned that such an action on the government’s part would be the first step in moving our country from democracy to despotism. Respect for personal conscience and freedom of religion as such ensures our basic freedom from government oppression. No government should come between an individual person and God–that’s what America is supposed to be about. This is the true common ground for us as Americans. We therefore need legal protection for freedom of conscience and of religion–including freedom for religious health care institutions to be true to themselves.
Conscientious objection against many actions is a part of our life. We have a conscientious objection against war for those who cannot fight, even though it’s good to defend your country. We have a conscientious objection for doctors against being involved in administering the death penalty. Why shouldn’t our government and our legal system permit conscientious objection to a morally bad action, the killing of babies in their mother’s womb? People understand what really happens in an abortion and in related procedures–a living member of the human family is killed–that’s what it’s all about–and no one should be forced by the government to act as though he or she were blind to this reality.
I ask you please to let the government know that you want conscience protections to remain strongly in place. In particular, let the Department of Health and Human Services in Washington know that you stand for the protection of conscience, especially now for those who provide the health care services so necessary for a good society. Thank you and God bless you.”
acertainslantoflight writing in Catholics in the Public Square reports the meeting of President Obama with Cardinal Francis George. “The statement from the USCCB said: “The meeting was private. Cardinal George and President Obama discussed the Catholic Church in the United States and its relation to the new administration. The meeting lasted approximately 30 minutes.”
Private, yes, but one can guess that Obama’s attack on conscience issues in health related fields had to be in mind and mouth. The meeting followed by one day Cardinal George’s warnings of emerging “depotism” with the removal of conscience protection.
EWTN report here
We have important moral and ethical problems to face in America and in the world. In order to make educated decisions, people need to be educated. Our present culture seems determined to keep the people, young and old, in the dark as to the life that lives and moves and has its being within a mother’s womb.
National Geographic will take you inside the womb, so that you can watch the reality. While Planned Parenthood, funded by U.S. dollars, enters into the most personal and profound decisions women can make, offers less than the reality. For the woman making a life changing decision, a decision that will impact, for better or worse, how she thinks and feels about herself and others,especially her own child, Planned Parenthood obscures the facts in favor of its own agenda. Planned Parenthood will, for instance, turn the monitor away from the pregnant mother during a sonogram procedure. Why trouble the client with the fact within the womb of their client, an actual picture of the truth, the infant/fetus growing within them. Why is that? Could it be that seeing is believing and believing can effect a decision to abort, when such a decision would effect the financial bottom line of this booming mega-business?
Our schools are no better. Values-free education is of no value when it comes to living a moral, ethical human life. Giving teenagers less than science, and telling them less than the actuality of pregnancy and person-hood is to fail them. We propagandize them, when we pretend they will not be effected by decisions that society makes for them in lieu of the education that can with present technology show them, in flesh and blood, not only the life in the womb, but abortion as it really is.
When the young teenager is aborted of the baby she carries within her, she sees it and feels it, and then has to live with it. What teacher, lawmaker, journalist or councilor has prepared her for this reality, rather than failed her in the name of compassion and/or convenience? False compassion leaves scars too deep to be helped by a brochure hastily given before dismissing the girl to make way for their next act of “mercy?”
The education needed for today’s moral and ethical decisions goes beyond the facts of pregnancy to the heavy lifting science touching on embryonic stem cell research. Here journalistic misinformation and purposeful skewing of the facts muddy the waters. Archbishop Charles J. Chaput spoke of “The Evil of Embryo Destruction – In embryonic stem cell research, end does not justify the means.”
Commenting on journalistic integrity Chaput responses to the Denver Post:
In the debate over federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, some of the massive media coverage has been fair, accurate and thorough, but much of it — too much of it — has fallen short of reasonable journalistic standards.
By far the most troubling piece I’ve seen was the editorial, “Zealotry vs. science,” published by the Denver Post….. in this case, the Post used bombast and misleading information to argue its support for federally funded embryonic stem cell research in a way reminiscent of a not-very-bright bully.”
Ed Morrisey talks about the issue here with more from Archbishop Chaput
The Left would like to place marriage, decisions regarding life and end-of-life, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and quite possibly cloning, outside of religious proscriptions. They would like to forget, or rather, re-write history. It is the Church’s message that is the foundational structure of our liberty, our National conscience, our democracy and our human rights. In fact, it is the message of Christianity that is the bench-mark of Western Civilization.
George Washington’s in his Farewell Address emphatically states, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.”
John Adams, who followed Washington in the Presidency writes, “Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand…. The only foundation of a free Constitution, is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People, in a greater measure, than they have it now, they may change their rulers, and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty. They will only exchange tyrants and tyrannies.”
Issues of marriage, decisions regarding life and end-of-life, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and cloning are precisely where separation of church and state have meaning. Said another way, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s” The Left would like to isolate the message of the Church, have us believe it speaks to practicing members alone. However, it is God who speaks through His Church, and God speaks from Eternity. He breaks into Time, all time, lighting up every Age. The Church’s commission obligates it to announce Truth to all peoples of all times. Their message is the stuff of a true humanity.