Tag: Abortion

Posted on

If Abortion is Just a "Political Issue" Then is it Political Killing?

Just about every priest who has ever preached against Abortion has had the experience that someone will accuse him, when he does so, of talking about politics and being “too political.”

Of course the answer is that abortion is a moral issue on which the Church has always taught consistently. For what ever reason, the main political parties in this land of our have staked out different positions on the issue, so that in the political sphere abortion has a partisan tendency. But that is a fairly new phenomenon as we shall see. The Catholic Church however has taught against abortion from the very start, long before the existence of the Democratic or Republican Parties. For example the Didache, written sometime between 90 – 11o AD says:

You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill those who are  born. (Didache, 2)

Now the last time I checked my history books, 110 AD is a time that predates the American political scene or the founding of the Democratic or Republican Parties. I also checked my most sophisticated calendars and found that 110 AD predates the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and the political shaking out and dividing that followed it. It would seem therefore that Church Teaching on Abortion predates the American Political scene and that we have a pretty long track record of teaching against abortion.  It is unfair to say we have simply picked sides in a political battle. Our stance against abortion is principled, moral and in accord with biblical and ancient norms that require us to respect innocent life in the womb.

Partisan division over abortion is actually a rather recent phenomenon. Even in the direct aftermath of Roe v. Wade in 1973, there was not an immediate political relignment of the main parties on either side of the issue. For example, many prominent Democrats had pro-life stands well into the 1980s.

  1. Al Gore, during his tenure in the U.S. House (1977 to 1984) voted pro-life 27 times and had a 84% pro-life voting record. In 1980, he wrote a letter to NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE, supporting the Hyde Amendment. In letters to constituents, he wrote: It is my deep personal conviction that abortion is wrong. I hope that some day we will see the current outrageously large number of abortions drop sharply. (Letters from Sept. 15, 1983, August 22, 1984). In 1984, he voted for the following Amendment to the Civil Rights Act:  For the purposes of this act, the term ‘person’ shall include unborn children from the moment of conception.  Sadly, the amendment was defeated.
  2. Then Governor Bill Clinton  wrote to  Arkansas Right to Life on September 26, 1986,  I am opposed to abortion and to government funding of abortions. We should not spend state funds on abortions because so many people believe abortion is wrong.
  3. Rev Jesse Jackson endorsed the Hyde Amendment and wrote in an open letter to Congress that he opposed federal funds used for “killing infants.”  He also wrote the following statement in a 1977 National Right to Life News article: There are those who argue that the right to privacy is of [a] higher order than the right to life … that was the premise of slavery. You could not protest the existence or treatment of slaves on the plantation because that was private and therefore outside your right to be concerned. …”What happens to the mind of a person, and the moral fabric of a nation, that accepts the aborting of the life of a baby without a pang of conscience? What kind of a person and what kind of a society will we have 20 years hence if life can be taken so casually? ….It is that question, the question of our attitude, our value system, and our mind-set with regard to the nature and worth of life itself that is the central question confronting mankind. Failure to answer that question affirmatively may leave us with a hell right here on earth.
  4. Senator Edward Kennedy wrote to a constituent in 1971 just prior to Roe V. Wade and had this to say:  While the deep concern of a woman bearing an unwanted child merits consideration and sympathy, it is my personal feeling that the legalization of abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life. Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized — the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grown old…..When history looks back to this era it should recognize this generation as one which cared about human beings enough to halt the practice of war, to provide a decent living for every family and to fulfill its responsibility to its children from the very moment of conception.

These are just a few examples. But calling abortion “a political issue” is not only flawed because it is a moral issue, but it also over simplifies the political scene. There has recently been a strong partisan trend, but it is recent. And, even today there are pro-life democrats and even a few pro-abortion Republicans.

There also seems to be a logical flaw in those who want to insist that abortion is a political issue that should be banished from the pulpit. I don’t have it all worked out but imagine the following conversation:

  1. You say that abortion is a political matter? –
  2. Yes.
  3. Why?
  4. Well, when you denounce it from the pulpit you are supporting the Republican party.
  5. So you want to insist that abortion is a political matter?
  6. Yes.
  7. Well, if that is the case, then it seems you support political killing.
  8. No , I don’t.  I don’t agree with State sponsored assassination and killing.
  9. But you said that abortion is political. Now abortion is about killing, and if its just a political matter, then it’s political killing you support.
  10. Well I don’t mean that and you know it.
  11. Well then don’t call abortion political. It is a moral issue and I have every right and duty to speak on it.

Abortion is not a political matter. It is a moral one and the Church can and must speak of it. Sadly it is not the only only moral issue that has been politicized by the world (e.g. Homosexuality, stem cell research, Gay marriage etc.). But the Church was here long before the political stars aligned as they have and She will be here long after they have realigned.

If you get a chance to see this 10 minute video it is worth it. It described the amazing miracle of life in the womb.

Posted on

"A Life Like Yours" On The Dignity of the Disabled and the Call to Save Them From Abortion

I spent the afternoon today taking part in a “webinar” focused on providing support, Church teaching and information to families who receive a pre-natal diagnosis that their child will be disabled in some way. Perhaps they are informed that the child will have Down Syndrome, or perhaps a birth defect that will lead either to early death, or to a lifetime of challenges.

The pressure on such families to abort is often enormous. They are told, “It is the right thing to do” and, “You should not make the child suffer.” Some are even made to feel they are doing something “unethical” by bringing forth such children. There are also time pressures placed on such parents. Doctors often want the decision to terminate, made quickly, within a matter of days.

A life not worth living? There seems to be operative a notion on the part of many in our culture  that there is such a thing as a life not worth living. We have stumbled upon the very unusual and tragically ironic concept that death is a form of therapy, that the “treatment” for disabled babies is to kill them. Of course death is not a treatment or a therapy, it cannot be considered a “solution” for the one who loses their life. Yet tragically this is often the advice that many parents with a poor pre-natal diagnosis receive, the urgent pressure that they terminate the pregnancy now.

90 % are lost – All this pressure goes a long way to explain that just over 90% of families with a poor pre-natal diagnosis choose to abort. We in the Church cannot remain silent in the face of this. We must prophetically and compassionately reach out to families in such a crisis. Many of them are devastated by the news that their baby may have serious disabilities. Often they descend into shock and are overwhelmed by fear, conflicting feelings and even anger at God or others. Sometimes the greatest gifts we can give them are time,  information, and the framework of faith. Simply considering some of the following may help:

1. They do not have to rush, despite what they are told. Serious life-changing decisions should never have to be made in a 48 to 72 hour time period. Pressure should never be applied to families by medical personnel and the family should consider such pressure a grave injustice.

2. Pre-natal diagnoses are not always right. We often think of Medicine as an exact science. It is not.  Data can be misinterpreted and premises can sometimes be wrong. Further, there is a difference between the result of a screening and an actual diagnosis. Screenings can point to potential problems and likelihoods, but are not an actual diagnosis of a problem. Further study is always needed if a screening indicates potential problems. Quite frequently, further tests, after a screening reveal no problem at all.

3. Disabilities are not always as terrible a reality as we, in our “perfect-insistent” world, think. Many people with disabilities live very full lives and are a tremendous gift to their families, the Church and the world. Providing families with further information about disabilities and connecting them with families who have experience in these areas are essential to avoid the catastrophizing that sometimes sets in when an adverse pre-natal diagnosis is given.

4. For those with faith it is essential to connect them with the most basic truths of our Christian faith. The cross is an absurdity to the world. But to those of the Christian faith, the cross brings life and blessings, even despite its pain. Where it not for our crosses, most of us could never be saved. Bringing forth a disabled child will not be easy but God never fails. He can make a way out of no way and do anything, but fail. My own sister was mentally ill and she carried a cross. We too had a share in that cross. But my sister, Mary Anne, brought blessings to our family as well. I don’t know if I’d be a priest today if it were not for her. I am sure I would not be as compassionate and I doubt I could be saved were it not for the important lessons she taught me. I know she brought out strength and mercy, not to mention humility, from all of us in the family. Her cross and ours brought grace, strength and many personal gifts to all of us. Yes, the cross is painful, but it brings life as well. Easter Sunday is not possible without Good Friday. To the world the cross is absurdity but to us who believe it is salvation, it is life, it is our only real hope, it is our truest glory to carry it as Christ did.

5. Disability is not an all-or-nothing thing. Disability exists on a continuum. In some way all of us are disabled. Some of us have very serious weight problems, others diabetes, pressure, heart problems, etc. Some of us are intellectually challenged in certain areas. Some of us struggle with anxiety or depression, addictions, or compulsions. Some experience losses in mobility through an accident or just due to age. All of us have abilities and disabilities. Some of our disabilities are more visible than others, some disabilities are more serious than others. But in most cases we are able to adjust to what disables us and still live reasonably full lives. We may not be able to do all we would like, but life still has blessings for us. And even our weaknesses and disabilities can, and do, bring us blessings by helping to keep us humble. How much disability is too much? Can you really be the judge of that? Can you or I really decide for someone else that their life is not worth living?

6. Life is not usually what it seems. In this world we esteem things like wealth, ability, strength and power. But God is not all that impressed by these sorts of things. God has a special place for the poor and the humble. The Lord has said that many who are last in this life are going to be first in the next (cf Mat 19:30). There is a great reversal coming wherein the mighty are cast down and the lowly are raised up. In this world we may look upon those who suffer disability with a misplaced pity. But understand this: they are going to be the exalted ones in the kingdom of heaven. As we accept the disabled and the needy into our midst we are accepting those who will be the royalty in heaven. We ought to learn to look up to them, beg their prayers and only hope that their coattails may also help us attain to some of the glory they will specially enjoy. They have a dignity that this world may refuse to see but we who believe cannot fail to remember that the last are going to be the first. Life is not always what it seems.

What of those who aborted? We as a Church cannot avoid our responsibility to prophetically declare the dignity and worth of the disabled. More than ever our world needs the Church’s testimony,  for it is a startling statistic that 90% of parents choose to abort in cases of a poor pre-natal diagnosis. Even as we prophetically witness to dignity of the disabled and the wrongness of abortion in these cases we must also embrace those who have chosen abortion and now struggle with that choice. We are called to reconcile and bring healing to all who have faced this crisis and fallen. Many were pressured, afraid and felt alone. We offer this embrace through confession, and healing ministries like Project Rachael which offers counseling, spiritual direction, support groups and prayer services. Even as the Church is prophetic in speaking against abortion she must also reconcile those who have fallen under the weight of these heavy issues.

For more information:

  1. National Catholic Partnership on Disability
  2. Project Rachel – Post Abortion Healing
  3. Be Not Afraid – an online outreach to parents who have received a poor or difficult prenatal diagnosis
  4. Parental Partners for Life – Support information & encouragement for carrying to term with an adverse prenatal diagnosis and support for raising your child with special needs after birth

This video was produced by the Office of Special Needs and the Life Issues Department for the Youth Rally and Mass for Life, held at the Verizon Center in Washington, DC on January 22, 2010. It shares the story of Maddie, who reminds us of the dignity and joy that can be found in every human life

Posted on

Was the Black Community Targeted by the Abortion Industry?

June is Abortion Awareness Month in the African American Community. It is a tragic and curious fact that just over 30% of the abortions in this country are performed on African American women. But the African American community is only 12% of the US population. This means of course that the Black population is strongly over-represented in terms of abortion deaths. Hence the need for an abortion awareness month in the Black Community. Recent statistics from the Guttmacher institute indicate that  1784 Black children are killed by abortion every day in the USA.

Why are African American children five times more likely to die by abortion than white children? Like all sociological phenomena, one simple explanation is not enough. Surely the breakdown of the Black family structure is a factor. High poverty rates must also be influential. Others explain that women in poverty often have less access to contraceptives and other “health-care” that might help prevent “unwanted” pregnancies. But others also note that the Black community was historically targeted by Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers. Currently 78% of Planned parenthood clinics are  located in minority neighborhoods. I would like to take a brief look at this historical phenomenon.

Margaret Sanger’s “Negro Project” – I do not propose to give a complete description of the origins of Planned Parenthood. You can read a more through description of that history here: Margaret Sanger and the “Negro Project” and here: The Pivot of Civilization . But fundamentally Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger was a believer in Eugenics. This was a theory that held that certain races of the human family were inherently inferior and that they should be eliminated from the gene pool through the use of contraceptives, sterilization and even abortion. Doing this would help “purify” the human race of undesirable traits (negative eugenics).

Where were these undesirable traits found in the human gene pool that Eugenicists sought to minimize or remove? You guessed it, darker skinned peoples such as African Americans, Gypsies, and various indigenous peoples had these “undesirable” traits, tended to live in poverty and were targeted for reduction and elimination by the eugenics movement. The movement became quite widespread by the 1930s and influenced Adolf Hitler in his genocidal programs.

Here in America a chief proponent of eugenics was Margaret Sanger. In 1922 Sanger wrote against outreach to the poor since it caused them merely to become more numerous:

The most serious charge that can be brought against modern “benevolence” is that it encourages the perpetuation of defectives, delinquents and dependents. These are the most dangerous elements in the world community, the most devastating curse on human progress and expression (from page 108 of her book The Pivot of Civilization).

In 1926 she began to propose sterilization for those who were “unfit”:

It now remains for the U.S. government to set a sensible example to the world by offering a bonus or yearly pension to all obviously unfit parents who allow themselves to be sterilized by harmless and scientific means. In this way the moron and the diseased would have no posterity to inherit their unhappy condition. The number of the feeble-minded would decrease and a heavy burden would be lifted from the shoulders of the fit (in the Birth Control Review Oct. 1926).

The Eugenics movement used the word “moron” to describe those caught in the cycle of poverty and attributed their inability to escape that cycle as evidence of their inferior genes and poorer mental capacity. By 1929 she chose to target African Americans especially for her “benevolent” outreach establishing her first clinic in Harlem. By 1939 she began her “Negro Project”  establishing clinics and locating them especially in poorer neighborhoods to “encourage” Blacks and other poor people to reproduce less. The distribution of contraceptives was her primary strategy.  She saw Black ministers as “useful” in her campaign and rather infamously wrote to her Regional Director Dr. Clarence Gamble:

The minister’s work is also important and he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members (Letter to Gamble, Dec 10, 1939).

After World War II the Eugenics movement was discredited so Margaret Sanger adjusted her rhetoric and spoke of trying to “help the poor” and of “promoting better health” but the method, the plan and the targeted groups remained the same. Today it is instructive to note that the usual location of Planned Parenthood Clinics remains largely poor Black and Latino neighborhoods. After 1973 Planned Parenthood added to its arsenal by becoming the largest provider of abortions in this country.

Was Sanger successful? Well, as noted, African Americans are 12% of the American Population. But just over 30% of abortions are performed on Black women. Some conclude to moral problems in the Black Community. Others conclude that the Black Community has been targeted. You decide. Today as noted, 78% of Planned Parenthood clinics are located in minority neighborhoods.

In an interesting twist of fate, Whites and Northern Europeans (races that Sanger and the Eugenics movement would have considered most “fit”) bought into contraception in a big way after 1965 and now themselves face a kind of demographic implosion. Meanwhile many “Third World” races and nations (considered by Sanger and the Eugenics movement as “inferior”) are now set to demographically dominate the world. I have written of the demographic implosion of Europe here: Contraception is Suicide

As stated above, the high rate of abortion in the Black Community is likely complicated and surely cannot be reduced to one thing. But the targeting of the Black Community cannot be dismissed as a factor. The quotes from the distant past might be dismissed by some. But the current location of most Abortion “Clinics” in Black and Latino neighborhoods cannot be so easily dismissed.

The trailer is below and features a series of quotes from proponents of Eugenics (Sanger among them) in the early half of the 20th Century. Make sure you have a strong stomach before you watch since the quotes are ugly and horrible examples of racism that has thankfully and hopefully has abated to a large degree.

Here is another video that effectively addresses abortion using a hip hop format:

Posted on

Abortion Awareness Month in the Black Community

What is the leading cause of death in the African American Community? Ask this question of most people or even post it in Google and answers like this come forth: Heart Disease, Diabetes, Cancer, Crime and so forth. But the leading cause by far is (you guessed it) Abortion. Look at this graph:


You can see it’s not even close. Abortion is huge killer for Black Americans as it is in any other ethnic group. Why is there a special month for awareness of abortion in the Black Community?  African American women comprise about 12% of women in this country but over 30% of  Abortions are  performed on Black  women.  There are many reasons for this including poverty and the fact that the Black Community was targeted many decades ago by Margaret Sanger, founder of “Planned Parenthood” in her so-called “Negro Project.” Planned Parenthood clinics are  especially present even to this day in Black and other Minority Neighborhoods. This month is therefore set aside in African American Catholic Parishes and some more sympathetic Protestant Denominations as a month to consider the huge toll abortion has taken in the African American community. Here on the blog I hope to provide a number of articles and insights as well. Pray to end abortion. Pray that people will want and find alternative to abortion.


Posted on

On Fetal Pain and the Humanizing of the Abortion Debate

There was a good article in the Washington Post today By Marc Thiessen entitled   Bringing Humanity Back to the Abortion Debate. The article is an op-ed piece reflecting on the recent action of Gov. Dave Heineman of Nebraska in signing  into law the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

Obviously the Nebraska law will be challenged by pro-choice forces in this country and likely  go all the way to the Supreme Court. But in the end as Mr. Thiessen also observes in his article, the increasing evidence that unborn children do feel pain early on in the pregnancy may be a significant factor in changing hearts across this land.

In the Church we have always held to the fact the unborn child is fully human from the moment of conception. Yet, outside pro-life circles it has always been necessary for them to dehumanize the “fetus” (in other words the baby) in order to make this heinous act more palatable. No amount of evidence for the humanity of the unborn child will ever convince hardened pro-choice advocates. But it remains true that not every one who is pro-choice is adamantly so. The evidence that unborn children feel pain may well move the hearts of the ambivalent toward deeper respect for life. If baby seals should not be clubbed to death because it is cruel, perhaps some will be convinced that abortion is cruel to the child as well if fetal pain can be clearly demonstrated.

It is clear that we face challenges even here. Some years ago the movie “Silent Scream” showed ultrasound images of an actual abortion. It was unmistakable to me that the unborn child was struggling to survive and frantically drawing away from the cutting instrument. But to many others it was not so clear. I thought at the time, “If this cannot convince people what will?” So even here I am aware that some hearts are very hardened. But  it is that the middle ground where the ambivalent pro-choice Americans reside that there may be response to the increasing evidence of fetal pain. We can only hope and pray.

I would like to provide excerpts from Mr. Thiessen’s article and add some comments of my own in RED.

Can an unborn child feel pain? That question will dominate the abortion debate in America for the next several years thanks to Gov. Dave Heineman of Nebraska. Last week, Heineman signed the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act into law, banning abortions in Nebraska at and after 20 weeks based on growing scientific evidence that an unborn child at that age can feel pain.

The legislation was enacted as a defensive measure. After the murder of late-term abortionist George Tiller, a physician named LeRoy Carhart declared his intention to carry on Tiller’s work at his Bellevue, Neb., clinic. State legislators did not want Nebraska to become the country’s late-term abortion capital — so they voted 44-5 to stop him. Good for them and look at the size of the vote!. God bless the people of Nebraska.

The new law will probably spark a Supreme Court showdown, because it directly challenges one of the key tenets of Roe v. Wade — that “viability” (the point at which an unborn child can survive outside the womb, generally held to be at 22 to 24 weeks) is the threshold at which states can ban abortion. In defending the law, Nebraska will ask the high court to take into account scientific research since Roe and push the legal threshold back further. That’s the idea, moving the ball down field. We may not be able to score a touchdown just now but moving the ball, moving the threshold back wherein a State can legally ban abortion is important. If we cannot completely end abortion right now we can possibly erode its legality.

In 1973, when Roe was decided, it was believed that the nervous systems of even newborn babies were too immature to feel pain— so doctors generally did not provide anesthesia to infants before surgery. But 25 years ago, a young doctor at Oxford University named Kanwaljeet Anand noticed that babies coming to his neonatal intensive care unit from surgery suffered a massive stress response — indicating they had been through extreme pain. His research into this phenomenon shifted medical opinion, and today even the most premature newborns are given anesthesia to alleviate pain during surgery. It is incredible we would ever think that newborns couldn’t feel pain. Obviously they do. I remember being able to see that in my newborn baby brother. Once his hand got pinched in the stroller. He howled. Another time a little the corner of the car door nicked his head. Again he screamed and cried for quite some time, so much so we were getting ready to take him to the hospital. Of course newborns feel pain. They also experience anxiety. This is obvious. What were we thinking to presume they did not? Luckily common sense and research have prevailed and we now use anesthesia.  

Anand — now a professor at the University of Arkansas and a pediatrician at the Arkansas Children’s Hospital — continued his research into infant pain, which has led him to conclude that fetuses can feel pain at 20 weeks, and possibly as early as 17 weeks when a portion of the brain called the “subplate zone” is formed. Indeed, according to a New York Times Magazine story on Anand’s research, a fetus’s “immature physiology may well make it more sensitive to pain, not less: The body’s mechanisms for inhibiting pain and making it more bearable do not become active until after birth.”  Anand clearly has credibility here and a track record of turning medical opinion. This is very good news,  not that infants feel pain but,  that we are finally paying attention to the evidence and demonstrating what we should have presumed all along. That there was even the possibility that unborn children feel pain and expereince anxiety should have been enough for us. But at least now we have a solid researcher and doctor on the job who is widely respected and  and affirming a  pro-life premise.

Mr. Theissen goes on to give some more good news on the pro-life front and reasons for hope. You are encouraged to read the remainder of his article here:  Bringing Humanity Back to the Abortion Debate.

We must continue to pray mightly for conversion of hearts in the matter of abortion. We must also not neglect to to pray for women who often face difficult circumstances in preganancy.

Pray too for those who have procured abortion (whether men or women) and who now suffer the emotional and psychological trauma that often comes from such a choice. As a Church we must be prophetic and speak clearly against abortion but we must also be a place where healing and mercy are found. As evidence for fetal pain grows there may be increasing need for the Church to help post abortive women and men find healing and reconcilation as what they have done becomes more clear to them. The less abstract abortion becomes all the better for rolling back the numbers of those who claim to be pro-choice but all the more the need for the Church to continue to be that place where grace and mercy can be found.

Posted on

A Life Like Yours

There are many ways to describe my teen-age niece, Anna. She is a cell phone carrying, iPod wearing, High School Musical -crazed girl who loves going to the movies. In her more serious moments she’s a hard-working student who speaks two languages, likes photography and serves as an altar server at her parish. To those who first meet Anna, she is described as a person with Down Syndrome. Her sister describes her as the only person she knows who does not know the meaning of jealousy and who is an experience of pure love.

Unbelievably, 9 out of 10 ten  times women and men make the choice to abort a life that could one day, look a lot like Anna’s. In fact, the conversation with the doctor when my sister received the diagnosis of Downs went something like this:

The doctor: “The test results have a strong indication that the child will be born with Down Syndrome, when would you like to schedule an appointment to terminate the pregnancy.”

My sister:  “There will be no termination of the pregnancy.”

The doctor: “I don’t think you understand, the test indicates that there is a high probability that the child will be mentally retarded.”

My sister: “I understand that, but I would like to know what we can do to make sure the baby is born safe and healthy.”

The doctor: “I don’t’ think you understand fully what I am saying; you need to go home and think this over.”

My sister went on to say that the doctor also shared that he had never had parents, when faced with this diagnosis, choose to keep the baby. At the time she shared this it did not surprise me because my sister lives in Stockholm, Sweden and Sweden is one of the most secular countries with very liberal abortion laws. What does surprise me are the statistics here in the U.S. Not only because of the high rate of active practice of religion as compared to other countries, but also because in the course of our daily lives we see adults with Down Syndrome working in retail stores, attending classes at vocational schools and colleges, serving as liturgical ministers and active in lots of community activities. For example meet Maddie. www.adw.org and click on news and events.

Sunday was World Down Syndrome Day and there was an ad in the Washington Post that seeks to educate people that “Babies with Down’s grow and develop just like other children…perhaps more slowly, but just as surely.”

My sister often shares that what was most critical for her and my brother-in-law was the support they received from family and friends as they worried through so much of the unknown during the pregnancy and the support they receive from other families raising special needs kids.

The Archdiocese through its Department for Ministry to People with Special Needs and its Department for Life Issues is working in a number of different areas to educate, provide support, and build environments to help children and families thrive. On Saturday, March 27 there will be a workshop at Blessed Sacrament parish to explore all this and more. If you are interested click here

Posted on

Are Congressman Stupak’s Assurances are Without Merit?

I have commented little on the healthcare debate in DC since the focus of this blog is meant to be Church life and culture not partisan politics. And yet, the USCCB had asked us to stand against the bill due to its legal wording that permitted the Federal funding of abortion. Abortion is a moral issue, not political one and I feel free to comment on that.

A man who hours ago had my admiration for his principled stance against the funding of abortion was Congressman Bart Stupak. He and the a number of other pro-life Democrats stood courageously against the bill on the grounds that it funded abortion.

 Today Mr. Stupak and the  principled stance of other pro-life democrats gave way to political pressure. Mr Stupak et al. were given a political fig leaf and they took it. Mr Stupak has to know that the executive order of the President carries no weight because it cannot over-rule the Law that is going into effect upon the President’s signature. Both Democrat and Republican leaders I saw interviewed fully admit this. The Healthcare Bill, when signed into law permits Federal funding of Abortion. Anyone denied such funding on the the basis of an executive order can sue and will win because the law is clear and an executive order cannot set aside the law.

The reassurances that Mr. Stupak declares the executive order gives are without merit. He must know better than this. A fig leaf could not take away Adam and Eve’s shame. And the same remains true here as well: no fig leaf of some executive order can take away the shame of voting to fund abortion. It is shameful.

You can read the statement by the National Right to Life Committee here: http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/Release032110.html

I am interested in your understanding of this deal and if you think that the reassurances of Mr. Stupak are with or without merit. Since this is not a political blog I am grateful if you can avoid partisan jabs and comments that are more political than focused on the issue of abortion and how it relates to this bill.

In this video Congressman Stupak defends his decision

 

Update: Statement by Richard Doerflingerof the USCCB:


We’ve consulted with legal experts on the specific idea of resolving the abortion funding problems in the Senate bill through executive order. We know Members have been looking into this in good faith, in the hope of limiting the damage done by abortion provisions in the bill. We believe, however, that it would not be fair to withhold what our conclusion was, as it may help members in assessing the options before them:

“One proposal to address the serious problem in the Senate health care bill on abortion funding, specifically the direct appropriating of new funds that bypass the Hyde amendment, is to have the President issue an executive order against using these funds for abortion. Unfortunately, this proposal does not begin to address the problem, which arises from decades of federal appellate rulings that apply the principles of Roe v. Wade to federal health legislation. According to these rulings, such health legislation creates a statutory requirement for abortion funding, unless Congress clearly forbids such funding. That is why the Hyde amendment was needed in 1976, to stop Medicaid from funding 300,000 abortions a year. The statutory mandate construed by the courts would override any executive order or regulation. This is the unanimous view of our legal advisors and of the experts we have consulted on abortion jurisprudence. Only a change in the law enacted by Congress, not an executive order, can begin to address this very serious problem in the legislation.”

Richard Doerflinger
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

Posted on

The”Pro-Choice”Bluff Has Been Called

Focus on the Family will run an Ad during the Superbowl which speaks of a decision for life by the mother of Tim Tebow. I hesitate to comment on an Ad that I have not seen. But since others have felt free to do so, so will I. Mrs. Tebow, faced with doctor’s warnings of  possible deformity in her unborn infant, chose to carry Tim to term. Clearly he was just fine. Mrs Tebow and Time are mighty glad she chose life. This seems to be the gist of the Ad.

Enter planned Parenthood and other abortion rights advocates such as Women’s Media Center who protest the Ad which shows “choice” in action.  But evidently it is not the sort of choice they want to see publicized. It seems clear that this is more evidence that Planned Parenthood et al. are not pro-choice as they claim to be but rather, pro-abortion. They seem to be pro-choice as long as the choice is abortion. When the choice is not abortion they seek to muzzle and silence the celebration of a choice for life.

I think it is possible for us to admit that Focus on the Family’s sponsorship of this Ad is an understandable factor in their aversion to the Ad. However if the really are pro-choice as they say not only should they support such an ad but they ought to sponsor spots themselves that show women choosing life. Then a nemesis of theirs like Focus on the Family wouldn’t have to sponsor such an Ad.

It seems to me that Focus on the Family has called Planned Parenthood’s bluff. No one doubts that Focus on the Family is Pro-Life. Their cards are in plain sight. But now Planned Parenthood et al. have been foced to show their cards. The bluff has been called and Planned Parenthood is pro-choice alright. But only if the choice is abortion.

Here is a Youtube video they are running to counter the Focus on the Family, Tim Tebow Ad.

I will display the Focus on the Family Ad and update this post when the video becomes available on the internet.  Also embedded beow is an excellent and. I think, fair interview by Bill O’Reilly with Jehmu Greene of the Women’s Media Center, a pro-“choice”  group.