Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Abortion’ Category

The recent legislative push in several states for not only abortion up to the moment of delivery, but also the revocation of legal obligations to provide lifesaving treatments for babies born alive in botched abortions, forces this nation to confront itself with the questions, “Why infanticide, and why now?”.

The answers to those questions may be traced back to the fatal flaws in the arguments surrounding Roe v. Wade, as well as those that were a part of the decision’s majority opinion.

The answers to those questions extend even further into the fatal flaws of the 1960’s and 70’s feminist ideology.

Beginning with feminism’s fatal flaw, the precious metal of authentic autonomy and freedom for women was co-mingled with the base metal of radicalized autonomy and the raw assertion of unfettered political power in response to historical wrongs. The result? To date, more than 60 million innocent humans have paid with their lives as a result of this misguided attempt to establish true social justice for women.

The legalization of abortion never had anything to do with making the procedure safe, as NARAL co-founder, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, admitted that the numbers of women whom he reported as having died in back-alley abortions was simply invented out of whole cloth for the purpose of rallying public support for the cause. (Nathanson proved the well-known truth that all evil begins with a lie.) Perversely, New York’s new abortion law now returns women to the back-alley standard by permitting non-physicians to perform even the inherently dangerous late-term abortions. There is no social justice for women in such a law. It betrays the original issue of seeking to legislate a higher standard of medical proficiency.

Likewise, the new laws betray the assertion by the majority in Roe, that we cannot be certain of when human life begins. Such twisted assertions ignored long-established jurisprudence that holds hunters accountable for loss of human life when they shoot into rustling bushes without clearly identifying the source of the rustling. In such cases, the presumption of human existence always prevails when in doubt.

Also betrayed by the new laws permitting infanticide is the Court’s core “Constitutional” assertion which states that a woman’s right to her bodily autonomy permits her to kill the child of her womb, since that child makes demands of her body. When the child survives the procedure, the right of the woman to be rid of the child from her body has been fulfilled. The child is now a completely autonomous human being, physically separated from its mother’s body. So why tie infanticide to abortion?

Because infanticide was always lurking behind the weak and flimsy arguments in favor of abortion.

Because infanticide reveals the true argument abortion’s proponents never dared make from the outset.

Infanticide and abortion are about power. The ultimate power.

It is about the power to determine who lives, and who dies.

Does it really come as a surprise that infanticide legislation has made its appearance as more than ten percent of the states in this country have legalized physician-assisted suicide, and many more seek to do the same, setting the nation on the same trajectory toward euthanasia as the Netherlands and Belgium?

Does it come as a surprise that such legislation has appeared as the same political party that promotes abortion, physician-assisted suicide, and euthanasia is also working feverishly to create a government-run, single-payer system where these very people will ration healthcare?

What they all have in common is the right to be rid of human beings who make demands of time, money, and care on us, on both ends of the life spectrum.

Determining who lives and who dies is the ultimate power trip, and the anger and hostility of feminism’s leadership have morphed into full-blown malevolence, as infanticide is touted as an extension of abortion as a new civil right.

So, why now?

The answer lies in the current occupant of the White House.

Never before has the United States had such a pro-life president, one who has kept every pro-life promise he ever made, and has gone far beyond in appointing strict constitutionalist and pro-life judges and justices to the Federal bench. If that sounds nakedly partisan, consider the fact that New York’s governor, Andrew Cuomo, pushed hard for New York’s new abortion laws, seeking to make abortion a civil right under New York’s constitution, because he fears that the U.S. Supreme Court, under Trump’s appointees, will overturn Roe v. Wade and return the issue to the several states. If that happens, Cuomo wants there to be no issue here in New York.

They were heady days in the previous administration, when Catholic nuns were forced to pay for abortions and contraceptives for their employees. The feminists cheered Barack Obama as one group of women was stripped of their exercise of legitimate and moral autonomy because they would not engage in radicalized autonomy and power by participating in the death of innocents.

The architects of the Culture of Death are well-aware of the existential threat their movement faces if President Trump succeeds and is reelected, and that is why all the forces of hell have been unleashed.

We are at the watershed moment as a nation with the culture of death, just as Abraham Lincoln saw the nation with slavery in 1858 when he gave his “House Divided” speech:

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.

I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided.

It will become all one thing or all the other.

Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South.

Right now the Culture of Death is on a legislative roll. If this president is defeated the nation will have lost its very best champion for life, one who is fearless to call out the other side. Six years from today President Trump will have just completed his second term, and appointed 60% of the Federal Judiciary, or his Democratic successor will have completed his/her first term and will have largely wiped out our pro-life gains under Donald Trump.

If the Culture of Death wins in 2020, there will be no coming back for America.

Infanticide is only the beginning.

Read Full Post »

iStock_deletebutton.jpg.800x600_q96

The following is a post I made on FaceBook earlier today. It speaks for itself.

I’m sure the following will cause many to unfriend me. So be it.

No, Trump didn’t mention abortion. Do I wish that he had? I’m at the stage in life where I think it doesn’t matter. All the other Republicans mention abortion and most do nothing once they get into office. Reagan was willing to go to bat for a Constitutional Amendment that included a rape clause. This split the pro-life community so badly that Reagan walked away. At least 40 million humans would be with us today had such an amendment passed, and in the intervening years we could have been working to save the rest not covered in the initial amendment.

There is such a thing as making an idol of one’s conscience and blinding oneself to the wealth of good that can be done, all because one cannot get 100% of what their conscience demanded. Rather than see the 99 babies saved, if they can’t have 100, they’ll stand on conscience and reject the offer of the lives of the 99.

That’s not fidelity.

That’s idolatry.

Even Lincoln knew he couldn’t get everything he wanted for slaves in one Amendment, so he settled for abolishing slavery in the 13th Amendment, realizing that citizenship would have to wait for a later day. It came with the 14th Amendment.

In this election, either Trump or Clinton will be elected. We are called to limit evil and promote as much good as we can. After the past 8 years, there is little doubt what a Clinton Presidency will mean. The Democrats decided to elect a Messiah eight years ago, and it was a disaster. Now conservative intellectuals are making the same mistake in rejecting Trump and sitting it out.
We elect humans, with all of their frailties, not angels or saints. Trump wouldn’t have been my first, fifth, or tenth choice. But Trump at his worst is orders of magnitude better than Clinton at her best.

We are also not electing a king. We need to elect people to Congress who will actually use the system of checks and balances at their disposal to rein in whomever gets elected. So, to those who make the perfect the enemy of the good, I say that’s the litmus test for turning conscience into an idol.

Let the unfriending begin

Read Full Post »

image293

It is humbling to announce that following the untimely death this past May of Karen Malec, the 16-year president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, that I’ll be taking the helm to succeed my great mentor as president and CEO of the Coalition. Five years ago Karen spent a great deal of time educating me about the link between abortion and breast cancer, sharing with me all of the scientific papers, and informing me of the history of this issue and how it has all unfolded. She was utterly generous with her time and considerable knowledge, her talents, and her gracious good humor.

What Karen and the Coalition have done over the past 16 years has been truly remarkable. She built a website that is encyclopedic in nature, and was indefatigable in presenting the truth of peer reviewed paper after peer reviewed paper to any and all who would listen. Through it all she labored as a colon cancer survivor, only to be diagnosed with ovarian cancer last autumn. On 5 May of this year, God saw fit to bring this happy warrior home.

In discussions with the Board of Directors at the time of my election, I laid out a vision of where I think the work needs to go over the next ten years. At age 55, I am one of the youngest of the scientist/physician community who advance the understanding of this link between induced abortion and breast cancer. Do the math. Where will this community be in ten years? How easily this issue can fade away.

It is for that reason that the Coalition needs to build on the rock-solid foundations laid by Karen Malec, Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, Dr. Joel Brind, Dr. Chris Kahlenborn, and others. While keeping the issue alive in the pro-life movement, we need to reach out to young medical professionals in training: pre-med students, medical students, nursing students, and pharmacy students. Schools simply ignore this issue, and swallow wholesale the sham conference at the National Cancer Institute in 2003 that denied the link, in spite of consistent evidence since 1957. Indeed, papers are coming in from all around the world substantiating this link.

So, some of our larger goals going forward are these:

Hold regular conferences to update our knowledge about the link between abortion and breast cancer, and to teach the history of the issue to young medical professionals who desire to practice good, moral, Hippocratic medicine. We’ll name this conference series after Karen.

Karen Malec

Karen Malec

More immediately, redesign the website to make it more intuitive and user-friendly, and with a format that works well on mobile devices. The website will archive all of the relevant scientific papers, as well as video of the Malec Conference Series. It will also archive a series of short educational videos that will be readily grasped by the layperson, as well as medical professional.

As the estrogen/progestin birth control pill causes breast cancer by similar mechanism as induced abortion, and inasmuch as the combined pill and estrogen replacement therapy are listed by the World Health Organization as Group 1 Carcinogens, this work will become more a part of the Coalition’s work. Karen began this a couple of years ago, and we’ll continue in this direction.

The development of educational videos and materials for the public and for medical professionals in training will also be pursued.

All of this is more than possible. It’s very easy to do. There are many groups already serving pro-life students in colleges, nursing and medical schools. The work of this coalition will not be to compete with these groups, but to serve them. But all of this is going to require a solid base of pro-life people to join the Coalition and its donors to raise awareness, reach out to people, and help to fund the mission.

October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. I’ll be publishing all sorts of educational posts and making the rounds on radio shows. The Coalition is not the only group doing this work, either. Drs. Joel Brind and Angela Lanfranchi run the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, and Dr. Chris Kahlenborn runs the Polycarp Research Institute. With Karen, they have been the leaders in the field for decades.

All during September I’ll be offering ideas/suggestions for how people can raise awareness of the contributions of the birth control pill and abortion to the ranks of women with breast cancer, and offering the papers that give the consistent data substantiating the link. I’ll also be suggesting how people can raise money during this month of awareness to help the Coalition, and our two cousin organizations mentioned above in helping women to prevent this dread disease.

The nation is focused on the horrors of abortion as never before. We need to shine the light of truth on the real war on women. Join us in September and October as the Coalition advances the great work begun by Karen, and takes it to the place she was headed with it all. And most of all, pray for those of us who labor in this difficult field of getting people past the lies and accepting of the truth of science.

Blessings.

Read Full Post »

sandracano3

On the day that Roe v. Wade was handed down in 1973, a companion case, Doe v. Bolton was handed down as well. The Doe case made abortion legal in all nine months of pregnancy. Like Norma McCorvey of the Roe case, Bolton’s name was used without her knowledge or consent. From Lifesite News:

Cano told the Catholic Register, “It’s a nightmare to be connected to a case that I never wanted to be connected to. Doe v. Bolton allows abortion up to the ninth month. This case takes children’s lives.”

“Back in 1970,” Cano begins, “I had a very complicated marriage and had two children in foster care. I was pregnant and wanted to get my babies back from foster care. I was poor, uneducated and ignorant. My life was very unstable. I was in a survival state. I went to Atlanta Legal Aid to get a divorce. Whoever was there to try to help me, I trusted. That’s how I became unknowingly involved with Doe v. Bolton. Never once did I know that we were going to kill babies.

“I can’t understand how a case like this could go to the Supreme Court without anyone knowing or speaking to me to find out if what the attorney was presenting to the court was true. I was so ignorant I didn’t know that there were two cases that legalized abortion.

“I ran away to Oklahoma to keep from having an abortion. They knew I was against abortion. Grady Memorial Hospital said I had gone before a panel of nine doctors and nurses to seek an abortion. I never sought an abortion. The hospital has no records because I never went to the hospital.

“It was only later that I learned that, through Margie Pitt Hames, I had sued Georgia Baptist Hospital to have an abortion.”

The Register asked how she discovered the truth and she replied, “In 1974, I went to Georgia Right to Life to try to find someone to help me. I told them that I was the woman who was involved in the abortion law, but didn’t know what it was about. They sent me to Fayetteville to seek help. On and off over the years, I would come forward, but when you don’t have money or people willing to help, a lot of people think you’re someone off the nut wagon.

“In the 1980s, I talked to an Atlanta Journal and Constitution newspaper reporter. She told me I had to prove who I was. I asked, “How do you do that?” She told me I had to go down to the court to verify that I was the person involved in the case. When I did that, they told me I had to go to the Federal Archives building. When I did that, they gave me this humongous book to look through. I didn’t understand half of it. I was out of my league. There was also a sealed envelope. I wanted to open it, but couldn’t. They told me that I would have to go to the court to have my records unsealed. Someone at the court showed me how to petition the court to unseal the records.

“A week later, Judge Owen Foster called me. He told me, “I don’t normally do this, but think you need a lawyer. We’re going to be hearing your case.” I found an attorney and went down to the court to unseal the records. Margie Pitt Hames didn’t want me to open the records. After unsealing the records I wrote to the Supreme Court. They said that the statute of limitations had passed.”

“They connected my name to a case that I never knew about in the beginning, never participated in, never believed in. I carried a guilt for many, many years. I was just a pawn,” Cano told The Blaze.

Read the rest here.

Eternal Rest grant unto her, O Lord, and let Perpetual Light shine upon her.
May she rest in Peace, Amen.

Read Full Post »

dark-forest-night-nature-31000

Recently Richard Dawkins created a stir with some thoughtless tweets about aborting people with Down Syndrome, and Live Action has a column about the motives of some who abort their babies with Down Syndrome. With respect to author Sarah Terzo, it is an untempered treatment of deep complexities not at all explicated in the article, nor even hinted at. In the interest of truth and justice for many post-abortive mothers, here is a deeper exploration. It comes by way of my own experiences as the father of a special needs child.

When Regina became pregnant with Joseph (our first) it was pure magic. This child we feared might never be conceived after four years of prayers and disappointments, our first baby, was on the way. Early on we were offered the AFP, which tests for fetal anomalies and has many false-positive results.

We refused.

Why chance a positive result which would require amniocentesis to confirm, especially when amniocentesis kills one in every two hundred babies on which it is performed? There was no way that we would abort our baby, no matter what. “Besides,” I added to our bewildered Ob, “If God has X number of handicapped babies He needs to send into the world, we’ll take one. Children with needs require more love, not less.”

I never really thought He would take me up on that little bit of bravado.

It just didn’t make sense to have tests, to eat our hearts out if there were some potential anomaly that couldn’t be fixed. (Fetal surgery was just getting going at the time.)

Freeze frame. That’s an incredibly vulnerable time in every way for a woman. Physically she is immunocompromised, and increasingly uncomfortable toward the end. There’s the exhaustion of the first and third trimesters. There’s all sorts of concerns. At precisely the moment that a woman needs all the support she can get, when standing by her means everything for the father, for family and friends, she is hit with a devastating diagnosis.

Joseph was turning five when after years of misdiagnoses he was finally correctly diagnosed by some of the best minds in the field:

Autism, moderately profound.
ADHD
Mixed Expressive/Receptive Language Disorder (half of all tests he didn’t respond enough to establish a basal score)
Speech equivalent of 2.1 years
IQ tests: half very low average, half borderline.
Static Encephalopathy.
Cerebellar Defect.
Sensory Integration Disorder.

Shattering doesn’t begin to describe the pitch blackness I found myself in. It was a blackness so black that I couldn’t even see my wife’s pain and bewilderment. The upshot of it all was “What happens to Joseph when we’re gone?”

For the first time in my life I knew not only fear, but panic. So, I can relate to the parents who get the news when their baby is still in utero, when they are in a far more vulnerable state than we were. They also have an additional burden that I didn’t. I had Joseph for nearly five years. We had developed a relationship: I fed, bathed, changed, played with him. I dressed him, and took him everywhere I went. These parents know their child less concretely, more abstractly.

No one suggested that Regina and I kill our child. But it isn’t that way with poor prenatal diagnoses. I’ve met scores of women who were beset by the medical geneticists and their Ob’s to abort the baby. Far too many have recounted how they were burdened with blame:

“What do you mean you want to keep it? Why would you make your baby suffer that way?”

Lovely. Were that not bad enough, such news often comes when women have only one or two weeks left before they can no longer have an abortion (Statutory regulation).

Worse still are the fathers who pressure the mothers to abort, threatening financial, emotional and physical abandonment. “You’ll raise that freak on your own!” What a betrayal of trust and love, of all those little promises whispered when making love and begetting the baby.

More tragic still is the pressure from family and friends, and all too often, there stands the frightened, unsupported and completely besieged mother at precisely her most vulnerable moment.

So much for respecting women, for love and fidelity, for choice, for patient autonomy, for informed consent: Especially informed consent.

Parents are frequently not told of the surgeries, the therapies (medical, occupational, physical, speech, educational) that are available. They aren’t told of the Early Intervention program, of the advances made by those with Down Syndrome, of how many are now attending and graduating from college.

In other words, they are deprived of hope.

Comments made when they show up at an abortion center need to be evaluated in that light. In psychology the comments quoted by Terzo can be a good example of the defense mechanism called, “Reaction Formation,” which is the tendency to express the opposite of what one is feeling and threatened by, but cannot face.

So, how do we proceed?

Three years ago when I was National Director of Medical Students for Life, I approached some like-minded folks and with them brought to fruition a medical conference I had long envisioned as a means of enlightening the medical community. So, on January 21, 2012 at Family Research Council headquarters in Washington, DC, we held the first conference on Poor Prenatal Diagnoses and Therapeutic Interventions. It was live-cast and recorded and the entire conference can be viewed here. There will be more such conferences in the near future.

The purpose of the conference was to enlighten not only the medical community, but the rest of society; to give hope to those whose fear begets some of the ugly quotes in the Terzo article.

Regina and I were blessed with many beautiful and wonderful people who came into our lives and helped teach Joseph, most especially Mr. Robert Marinello who is one of the finest and most gifted speech therapists in the field. He got Joseph communicating in very short order, and gave me back my son. In the eleven years since we received the shattering diagnoses, Joseph has come into his own. He is poised to become an Eagle Scout in October at the age of fifteen, scored in the 98th percentile on his end of year testing this year, and is an accomplished athlete and dancer.

It took years, several years, to relax and trust that all would be well, to realize:

That God’s definition of well is not my own.

That God’s plans and dreams for Joseph are quite different from what I had envisioned when Regina gave birth.

That God was right beside me all of those sleepless nights I sat in the rocking chair beside Joseph’s bed, contemplating his future.

That God has an army of healers who do as a matter of routine what required the laying on of hands by Jesus two thousand years ago.

That God will use our fear and turn it into sacrificial love’s engine.

That God will then use special parents as the evangelists of this Gospel of Love.

In retrospect, what most made for the experience of being shattered was the fear of a loveless world and what it would do to our son. But God is faithful and He has shown us through our son an army of people who offer love, and hope, and opportunity.

Joseph is in good company among his peers with his particular style of learning and being in the world. The many therapists and professionals with whom he has worked have brought him and his peers not only into the realm of functionality, but of competitiveness with peers who are neurotypical. The same may be said of those with Down Syndrome.

News reports of parents seeking abortions for their special needs babies rightly anger and disgust us, but they don’t accurately portray all who receive these diagnoses. They also don’t delve into that pitch blackness in which I found myself, and in which these parents find themselves. The difference between us?

In my heart I knew that God would be faithful and what I was despairing of most of all was my own sense of smallness and inadequacy regarding the task before me. It was God’s fidelity as my father that empowered me.

I don’t judge these people quoted by Terzo. I agonize for them in their helplessness and hopelessness.

Take some time and watch the entire conference linked here. Then share this good news far and wide.

For many, all they need is the light of truth to begin to embrace their babies, to embrace their parenthood.

Read Full Post »

08_20aTrisomy21Karyotype-L

 

Recently, noted philosopher Richard Dawkins made ripples across the pond when he tweeted regarding babies in utero diagnosed with Down Syndrome:

Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.

While one doesn’t flinch at the suggestion of abortion coming from Dawkins, that’s an interesting invocation of morality coming from the celebrated atheist. Immoral based on what? Perhaps an Enlightenment rationale rooted in utilitarianism? Dawkins seems to suggest as much in another tweet when he writes of people on the autism spectrum juxtaposed with people who have Trisomy 21 (Down Syndrome):

People on that spectrum have a great deal to contribute, Maybe even an enhanced ability in some respects. DS not enhanced.

Actually, he might have that reversed in some respects. People with Down Syndrome tend to be the most happy and loving individuals on the planet. Their smiles, their affection are effusive, while whole swaths on the autism spectrum are noted for their lack of empathy and demonstrable affections. In this it is a safe bet to say that those with Down Syndrome are affectively enhanced. And what of using an Enlightenment approach to utilitarianism?

Dawkins and his ilk live outside of the Enlightenment, and even in reading the great authors of that several hundred year period, he seems to have missed the point of the movement entirely.

Thomas Jefferson lived in the Enlightenment, and apart from his own personal glaring contradictions, seems to have grasped its meaning rather well. This is not only evident in the Declaration of Independence, but also in a letter to his daughter, Patsy, where his Enlightenment utilitarianism shows all the humanity and warmth absent in Dawkins’ ice cold bastardization of that era. Jefferson writes:

Every human being must be viewed according to what it is good for; for none of us, no, not one, is perfect; and were we to love none who had imperfections, this world would be a desert for our love.

And there it is, the raison d’être of us all. We are here to love, to send out our love to be attached to another. Love, not in the romantic sense, but in the daily, self-sacrificial sense.

…and were we to love none who had imperfections, this world would be a desert for our love.

Dawkins’ morality is as arid as the loveless soil in which it is rooted. Judeo-Christian morality derives its life, its sustenance from the love in which it is rooted; Jefferson’s love, which has imperfect humanity as its object.

Jefferson’s utilitarianism sees the sender as imperfect, as well as the receiver. If one were to sit with Jefferson over a bottle of Madeira, he might well expound upon this advice to Patsy. He might well describe that it is the very imperfection of the recipient which requires our love, and in which our love takes root. He might well explain that our love cannot complete or complement in another those elements in the other which have already attained perfection, but rather, complement and complete the imperfections in the other.

Indeed, Jefferson might well have admonished that our perfection requires having a place to send our sacrificial love, a place where there is need of our love, a place where we find the healing of our own imperfection as humans by sacrificing for another.

One can scarce envision a population more given to unconditional love than the Down Syndrome community. Those such as Dawkins, who reject the very idea that there is a God who is love itself, who advocate the slaughter of babies for want of something that approximates normal function, are those most in need of love themselves. There is something in them that was frustrated along the way, perhaps the perception that their love was not welcome in those to whom it should have flowed, and from whom they should have received that love which could have completed what was lacking in them.

It is a frustration that has turned into a deadly philosophical rage, a world and worldview that has become a desert for Dawkins’ love.

Read Full Post »

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA


Americans United for Life Just released this analysis in an email, and has given permission for its dissemination. Here is AUL on the Hobby Lobby decision today:

Today’s decision: The “contraceptive” mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) by requiring three closely held corporations to provide health insurance coverage for life-ending contraception in violation of the sincerely held religious beliefs of the companies’ owners. Assuming that the government has a “compelling interest” in the mandate (which the Court does not hold, but just assumes for purposes of this case), there are less restrictive means to accomplish their goal.

Breakdown:

Today’s decision applies to closely held corporations (e.g. the Green and Hahn family businesses). The Court strongly explains that these corporations are people:
· “Corporations, ‘separate and apart from’ the human beings who own, run, and are employed by them cannot do anything at all” (36)
· “[P]rotecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga, and Mardel protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those companies.” (18)

It is based on the Court accepting as their sincere religious belief that these drugs and devices can destroy an embryo:
· “The owners of the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients. If the owners comply with the HHS mandate, they believe they will be facilitating abortions, and if they do not comply, they will pay a very heavy price . . . If these consequences do not amount to a substantial burden, it is hard to see what would.” (2)
· “Like the Hahns, the Greens believe that life begins at conception and that it would violate their religion to facilitate access to contraceptive drugs and devices that operate after that point” (14)
· “[T]he Hahns and Greens have a sincere religious belief that life begins at conception. They therefore object on religious grounds to providing health insurance that covers methods of birth control that, as HHS acknowledges [] may result in the destruction of an embryo. By requiring the Hahns and Greens and their companies to arrange for such coverage, the HHS mandate demands that they engage in conduct that seriously violates their religious beliefs.” (32)
· “the end that they find to be morally wrong (destruction of an embryo)…” (35)
· “HHS and the dissent note that providing the coverage itself would not result in the destruction of an embryo; that would occur only if an employee chose to take advantage of the coverage and to use one of the four methods at issue” (35)
· “The Hahns and Greens believe that providing the coverage demanded by the HHS regulations is connected to the destruction of an embryo in a way that is sufficient to make it immoral for them to provide the coverage.” (36)

The Court ruled the mandate failed the narrow-tailoring requirement of RFRA, pointing to the accommodation as a clearly less-restrictive means of accomplishing the Obama Administration’s stated goal. “HHS itself has demonstrated that it has at its disposal an approach that is less restrictive than requiring employers to fund contraceptive methods that violate their religious beliefs. . . . HHS has already established an accommodation for nonprofit organizations with religious objections.” (43)

The for-profit employers who object to all contraceptives (for example, many of the Catholic employers) should be protected by this ruling since the Mandate violates a sincere religious belief, even though it is not solely regarding the life-ending properties of some of these drugs and devices.
· The Court makes clear: “it is not for us to say that their religious beliefs are mistaken or insubstantial” (37) .
· And, most importantly, the Mandate (as applied to them) also clearly fails to be narrowly tailored means –e.g. non-profit Catholic employers are already “accommodated” with respect to all contraceptives.

The Court acknowledged the dangerous and radical view advanced by the Obama Administration: “Under HHS’s view, RFRA would permit the Government to require all employers to provide coverage for any medical procedure allowed by law in the jurisdiction in question—for instance, third-trimester abortions or assisted suicide. The owners of many closely held corporations could not in good conscience provide such coverage, and thus HHS would effectively exclude these people form full participation in the economic life of the Nation.” (45-46)

The decision does NOT decide the constitutionality/legality of the “accommodation.”
· “We do not decide today whether an approach of this type complies with RFRA for purposes of all religious claims.” (44)
· Footnote 40: “The principal dissent faults us for being ‘noncommital’ in refusing to decide a case that is not before us here. The less restrictive approach we describe accommodates the religious beliefs asserted in these cases, and that is the only question we are permitted to address.” (44)
· There is some troubling language. For example, there is this line on page 9 – “In addition, HHS has effectively exempted certain religious nonprofit organizations, described under HHS regulations as ‘eligible organizations,’ from the contraceptive mandate (emphasis added).”
o We do NOT think the “accommodation” is effectively an exemption – quite the opposite.
o Going forward the accommodation cases must emphasize that the “accommodation” still requires these companies to “arrange” for the coverage, given that they are providing the insurance plan.
· The Court does note that there could be another method (besides the “accommodation”) for achieving the government’s goal — namely, the government could provide the contraception coverage. That indicates that they could also find the accommodation fails to be narrowly tailored.
o “HHS has not shown that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion . . . . The most straight forward way of doing this would be for the Government to assume the cost of providing the four contraceptives at issue to any women who are unable to obtain them under their health-insurance policies due to their employers’ religious objections.” (40-41)

Importantly, the Court did NOT rule on whether or not the Obama Administration’s stated goal was a compelling interest.
· In order to impose a substantial burden, the government must have a “compelling interest”
· “We find it unnecessary to adjudicate this issue” (pg 40) since it was not narrowly-tailored.
· Acknowledging there are arguments against this being a compelling interest: “The objecting parties contend that HHS has not shown that the mandate serves a compelling government interest, and it is arguable that there are features of ACA that support that view.” (39)
· And the Court acknowledges that “tens of millions” (page 11) have been exempted from the Mandate for non-religious reasons (including grandfathering) – a fact that undermines the government’s claim that forcing this Mandate is compelling (i.e. if it was compelling, they wouldn’t make those millions of exemptions).

The accommodation – whether or not it satisfies RFRA and the Constitution— may be decided by the Court next term.

Since the effect of today’s ruling is that the Obama Administration cannot impose its Mandate on family businesses with sincere religious objections, which it has not exempted, we should be prepared for the Obama Administration to, very soon, extend its “accommodation” at least to closely-held corporations. Because the “accommodation” applies to objections to all contraceptives (not limited to those with life-ending properties), we would expect the Obama Administration to “accommodate” for-profit employers for all the drugs/devices as well. At that point, it will be for the Green and Hahn families, and other family businesses, to decide whether the accommodation violates their conscience and/or whether they pursue litigation over it.

Some other good language from the majority opinion:

· “If the Hahns and the Greens and their companies do not yield to this demand, the economic consequences will be severe.” But the Court also recognizes that the Green and Hahn families would not want to drop insurance coverage for their employees altogether, also because of their religious beliefs: “[T]he Hans and the Greens and their companies have religious reasons for providing health insurance to their employees.”

· Life-affirming healthcare severely punished by Mandate: “If they insist on providing insurance coverage in accordance with their religious beliefs, the mandate clearly imposes a substantial burden on those beliefs” (38)

· “The plain terms of RFRA make it perfectly clear that Congress did not discriminate [] against men and women who wish to run their businesses as for-profit corporations in the manner required by their religious beliefs.” (2)

· “As we have seen, RFRA was designed to provide very broad protection for religious liberty.” (17)

· The dissent, points out the majority, disagrees with RFRA. It doesn’t like the law that broadly protects religious liberty. “In its final pages, the principal dissent reveals that its fundamental objection to the claims of the plaintiffs is an objection to RFRA itself.” (48)

· “Our responsibility is to enforce RFRA as written, and under the standard that RFRA prescribes, the HHS contraceptive mandate is unlawful.” (49)

Read Full Post »

cogdis

In the latest school shooting, President Obama sums up what many of us believe. From the NY Daily News:

It was the 74th shooting at an American school since the December 2012 massacre at the Sandy Hook Elementary School — and the 37th just this year, according to a tally by Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America…

“This is not acceptable, this is not normal,” he said in a Tumblr chat. “We’re the only developed country on Earth where this happens and it happens now once a week and it’s a one-day story.”
Gun violence in America, Obama said, is “off the charts.”

“There’s no advanced, developed country on Earth that would put up with this,” he said. “This is becoming the norm and we take it for granted in ways that, as a parent, are terrifying to me . . . If public opinion does not demand change in Congress, it will not change.”

While some people think mental illness is the problem, Obama said, “The United States does not have a monopoly on crazy people.” The problem, Obama said, is the availability of guns and “this country has to do a lot of soul searching.”

They really are going by in a blur, all of these school shootings. But blaming the guns misses the mark by a mile.

WHY are these shootings taking place, and WHY now?

We have tighter restrictions on gun purchase and ownership than in any time in America. There is a seeming proportionality between restrictions and violence, but even that cannot explain the motives. Where motive is concerned, there is no one, single, prognosticator. It is rather akin to looking at a painting and taking it all in at once. The components defy logical analysis of themselves and only function in a unified and organic wholeness with one another.

Obama is too myopically focussed on the gun to see the coarsening to life that he himself has championed his whole adult life. He fails to see the 57 million babies torn apart in abortion.

He fails to see the overwhelming majority (~80%) of post-abortive mothers with psychological sequelae.

He fails to see an African American community decimated by 15 million missing members from abortion.

He fails to see the victims of his health legislation who have lost their physicians and their health policies and consequently their cancer therapies.

He fails to see violent video games that are virtual training academies for the real-life violence in our schools.

He fails to see a medical community increasingly lazy and given to passive and active euthanasia.

He fails to see his own failures at stemming the tide of illegal drugs.

He fails to see his Hollywood pals and their culpability in producing a river of filth.

He fails to see the effects of pornography on the devaluation of both men and women.

He fails to see his role in destroying the economic girders that produce jobs, which give young people hope and purpose.

He fails to see how rampant teenage promiscuity factors into young people regarding one another more as objects that exist solely for one’s personal pleasure than as peers to be cherished, and cheerleads Planned Parenthood as they prey upon our children.

He fails to see the abdication of parental responsibility in raising children and overseeing their progress in school.

He fails to see that he presides over a nation that has lost everything:

Standing in the world.

Prosperity.

Sense of mission and purpose.

And worst of all, the very thing he campaigned to restore… HOPE.

So myopically focussed on the guns in this portrait of modern America is our president, that he sees nothing else. The proximal and distal causes all collapse into one dimension with him. Such a man is incapable of leadership, and as we have seen since the beginning, can only blame everyone else for the difficulties over which he presides.

But blaming Obama is as myopic as the president’s vision.

We have brought all of this upon ourselves. We live in a constitutional republic: limited powers to government with elected officials. We have been too narcissistic and hedonistic to care about the destruction wrought by these men and women who come from us, and are a reflection of us. We have lived lives, as a people, that are out of control and have raised children in a coarsened and calloused environment of our own making.

We did this, collectively.

The gun is an afterthought.

The only difference between the victims of Columbine, Sandy Hook, the other school shootings, and the 57 million butchered babies is that these children in school were wanted children.

That’s how to spell “Calloused” and “Hedonistic”.

That’s the America Obama can’t see.

Read Full Post »

caduceus

This letter is addressed to every physician, scientist, and genetic counselor who believes in a eugenic agenda that targets the unborn specifically because of diagnosed genetic anomalies. It asks a series of penetrating questions that invite thoughtful response, and are not meant to be rhetorical.

The first question is: WHO?

Who taught you in medical school or graduate school that we doctors of science and medicine are the custodians of the human gene pool? Who was it that told you it was your job to keep that pool “clean?” They are serious questions, as I never encountered this philosophy, let alone mandate, in my premed studies at Columbia University, grad studies at St. John’s University, or post-doctoral studies at the City University of New York. Neither in the Ivies, Catholic, or Public universities did I ever encounter this mandate that has seized hold in our hospitals. Whence comes this thinking?

In my undergraduate studies in the 70’s and 80’s liberal arts professors taught extensively about the corruption of the Third Reich, and the eugenic agenda in Hitler’s camps. What we were never taught was that this agenda predated Hitler and arose within the medical community of the 1920’s in Germany. Regardless, the properly educated man or woman in American universities in the 70’s and 80’s was taught that eugenics was repugnant, Master Race and all of that stuff… It leads to the next question:

HOW?

How have we progressed from that understanding to where we are today? How is it that we have come to view genetic anomalies as so terrifyingly painful that those who bear them are deemed “incompatible with life,” which is strikingly similar to Hitler’s, “Life unworthy of Life?” On what basis do you make such an assessment, especially in the case of Down Syndrome? Is this rooted in firsthand clinical experience? It can’t be, as these children and adults are some of the most beautiful and happy individuals among us. How is it that we celebrate “diversity’ with near-fanaticism in society while we shoot for genetic homogeneity with similar near-fanaticism? That of course leads to the question:

WHAT?

What is it that you believe you have been entrusted with that leads to this neo-eugenics? When I went to graduate school, we were entrusted with great knowledge of biology across the spectrum of life, and in my course of studies, great knowledge of human and microbial physiology. We were entrusted with the knowledge and training in molecular biology, techniques so powerful that they have equal ability to destroy life on earth as well as advance the cause for life on earth. What we did not receive enough of was training in ethics, and not the sort of algorithm flow chart-based policy crap devoid of any training in metaphysics and human anthropology. I received all of that in undergrad, thank God. It was expected of us that we would use this great knowledge and power only for good, but therein lies the problem.

How do we define the good? Who defines the good? What is the good?

It’s easy for those of us who were obviously born with all of the genetic capability to earn doctorates to look down upon the disenfranchised with disdain. It comes from an insecurity within that says, “I can’t imagine living like that,” which is precisely the soil in which a eugenic mentality takes root. A little guilt added in to spice up the toxic brew, and here we are. But ask yourself this question.

If you rise above the genetics and epigenetics and consider the quality of life to which you appeal in your headlong pursuit of stamping out the unfit, what training do you have in anthropology, psychology, sociology, comparative religion, transcultural psychology, aesthetics, philosophy? How well did you apply yourself to these studies when you were in pre-med, or were these the B.S. courses you needed to endure on the way to medical or graduate school?

I would submit that most physicians and scientists I have met who are pro-choice are severely deficient in these areas, and as such cannot render an informed opinion as regards quality of life, and only speak from their very narrow and cramped worldview.

The new colonialism.

Of course, this all begs the further question:

When?

When was it that we stopped looking for cures and enhanced therapies, and started taking the cheap way out? When did death and non-existence become the answer, rather than healing and wholeness? When did we receive a mandate to kill every baby we could in order to aid the patient in avoidance of suffering?

I would submit that the answers reside in the radicalization of the liberal arts over the past thirty years, and in the watering down of the college curriculum in that time. It’s a formation issue, from my perspective, one that has left many of our finest and brightest physicians and scientists impoverished and without the necessary spiritual and intellectual protections against the power of our biotechnology to twist and distort its practitioners.

Do you disagree?

I’m open to feedback and answers to the questions

Read Full Post »

line-in-the-sand

News today from Joan Frawley Desmond in the National Catholic Register that Nancy Pelosi will be honored with Planned Parenthood’s highest honor, the Sanger Award. From the article:

SAN FRANCISCO — On March 27, Planned Parenthood will bestow its highest honor on Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., minority leader in the House of Representatives and a self-identifying Catholic. The Margaret Sanger Award, named for the organization’s founder, who was a known proponent of eugenics, will recognize Pelosi for her legacy of “excellence and outstanding contributions to the reproductive health and rights movement.”

Desmond chose the right word for the award. It is a “legacy” recognition. The recipients are often feted for their lifetime achievement in advancing the agenda set forth by Margaret Sanger. Desmond also wastes no time in the article in getting down to brass tacks:

“Abortion and Catholicism never go together. When a national leader, such as Speaker Pelosi, conflates the two, it, unfortunately, can lead other Catholics — who believe there is no issue with pro-abortion beliefs and the practice of their Catholic faith — to miss the opportunity to reconcile their views with Church teaching,” Scot Landry, the director of Catholic Voices USA, told the Register.

“That is sad, a tremendous scandal in our Church and a disservice to all those who follow her example.”

In 2013, Cardinal Raymond Burke, who heads the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, stated in a published interview that Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law “must be applied” to determine whether Pelosi should receive the Eucharist.

“This is a person who, obstinately, after repeated admonitions, persists in a grave sin — cooperating with the crime of procured abortion — and still professes to be a devout Catholic,” said Cardinal Burke.

Read it all.

Cardinal Burke was quite correct, but back here in the States his admonition seems to have gone unheeded.

No More.

Planned Parenthood has changed the game with this recognition, and in a way that goes far beyond just Pelosi. This is about all of Pelosi’s fellow travelers from the Church: Biden, the Cuomo’s, the Kennedy’s, etc. They play as a team, and they have been winning as a team for generations with over 57 million dead babies to their credit. Add to that Obamacare and its malignancy, the HHS mandate, loss of religious freedom, advancing the culture of death in our schools… Why shouldn’t Planned Parenthood applaud such a malignant record? There is no way this could have been achieved without the Catholic squad on the Democrat team. Catholics such as the late “Lion of the Senate,” Teddy Kennedy, and Speaker of the House Pelosi have made Cecile Richards’ organization wealthy, powerful, and deadly. The reception of this award cannot go unaddressed by the Church. It is the final, defiant finger in the eye to the bishops.

These Catholic leaders have been at war with the Church, with God, and with humanity for generations. Apart from a few lions through the years, the meek and timid response of the bishops in the face of the rising tide of the blood of innocents has been scandalous in itself. I have been told by some that the concern is a loss of our tax-exempt status. If the bishops can’t see that looming on the horizon anyway, then they are blind, indeed. The only hope to save that status, and the souls of countless Catholics is to rouse themselves at this turn of events.

We are beyond conversation about reception of the Eucharist at this point. The question is why we cannot acknowledge that legislators who vote specifically for abortion funding (not general budgets containing abortion funding) but specific legislation for protecting, funding, and facilitating abortion are formal cooperators in abortion, and as such have already incurred automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication as such? On the consequences of this there can be no more doubt or debate. None of the Catholics in the party of death have defended the Church against the Obama administration’s war on religion. They are all in, all the way.

We have nothing to lose that we have not already lost, or will lose soon enough. That said, what is most frightfully at stake is the very moral authority of the bishops themselves. Planned Parenthood and the pro-abortion Catholic legislators are celebrating a lifetime of malignant success in the middle of Lent. The time has come for the bishops to recognize that milestone with a pronouncement of their own, one that is long overdue.

We lift them up in prayer as we witness this mockery of all that is sacred.

Read Full Post »

ap_andrew_cuomo_mi_130109_wg

In a speech reported in the Times Union this past Friday, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo stated unequivocally that anyone who is pro-life, anti-homosexualist, and in favor of an undiluted Second Amendment has no place in the State of New York. From the Times Union:

You have a schism within the Republican Party. … They’re searching to define their soul, that’s what’s going on. Is the Republican party in this state a moderate party or is it an extreme conservative party? That’s what they’re trying to figure out. It’s a mirror of what’s going on in Washington. The gridlock in Washington is less about Democrats and Republicans. It’s more about extreme Republicans versus moderate Republicans.

… You’re seeing that play out in New York. … The Republican Party candidates are running against the SAFE Act — it was voted for by moderate Republicans who run the Senate! Their problem is not me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves. Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.

If they’re moderate Republicans like in the Senate right now, who control the Senate — moderate Republicans have a place in their state. George Pataki was governor of this state as a moderate Republican; but not what you’re hearing from them on the far right.”

Here the Governor has made the case for his own impeachment, if for no other reason than he has demonstrated both an ignorance of the founding political philosophy of this nation and its Constitution, and has engaged in the sort of stigmatizing political rhetoric aimed at stripping whole swaths of citizens of their political rights that every tin horn dictator has used throughout recorded history

There are two immediately troubling issues with Governor Cuomo’s comments.

The first is that he defines people acting in accord with the tenets of his own Church as extremist and unwelcome in the state. That is a declaration of war on religion by the governor. This incendiary rhetoric is meant to turn New Yorkers against one another, breeding into the political bone marrow a strain of hatred and intolerance that will take generations to purge.

The second follows on the first. Such rhetoric, aimed at the consolidation of political power by stigmatizing people of faith as the source of society’s woes, is reminiscent of the tactics and rhetoric in Germany during the 1930’s and 40’s. Lest we forget, a people of faith were ridiculed and demonized, and driven from their homeland all in an attempt to scapegoat them for society’s woes. We know how that story ended, and we are fools to think that we are immune from a similar ending here.

The truth of the matter is that abortion hurts women badly, and there is an abundance of scientific and medical literature that chronicles the harm. But facts don’t matter to bloated political hacks who trample the rights of man underfoot. In truth, the governor and his party have become a grotesque caricature of a party that was once filled with noble men and women for whom words like “tolerance” and “inclusivity” were the means by which the cry of “Never again!” could become reality in the wake of the Holocaust.

We have a governor who looks at the many peaceful, prayerful marches for life and sees lepers, while abortionists who maim and kill women and men clad in pink underwear or only thongs and Indian headdresses marching in the Gay Pride parades are citizens of the first order.

The confusion on the part of the Governor resides in the notion that there is a difference between being elected to serve in a pluralistic society with representative government, and being appointed to rule. Men and women are not cattle to be driven or disposed of by the state as the state sees fit. Our leaders are elected to represent us, and if there are leaders in Albany who hold to views Cuomo finds repellent, then that’s just too bad. Those leaders arrived in Albany because they represent a constituency. In his address, Cuomo stated,

“I believe in my heart and I believe the people of this state believe that — forget the money and the campaign contributions and what people give — I’m going to do what I believe is right for them, I’m going to make the decision that I’m proud of.”

That is the duty of every public servant, and not a luxury for the Governor and his pals. The “extremists,” whom he despises have the same moral obligation of conscience as Cuomo, and our Founders established an Assembly and a Senate where the great issues of the day are to be debated, where deals can be made, and where final legislation is referred to the Governor for approval or veto. It would seem that Cuomo has grown impatient with that system and has moved to inciting hatred and fomenting violence in its nascent stage: stigmatizing the opposition.

This is a very deadly serious turn that has been taken in Albany. If the liberals in the legislature have any integrity at all, they will vote to censure this dangerous demagogue.

If they really espouse tolerance, inclusivity, and patriotism, they’ll take a walk over to the Governor’s mansion and tell Cuomo that it’s time for him to go.

Real New Yorkers can take the heat of debate and opposition.

Cowards incite violence.

Read Full Post »

forgiveness1

To some of the finest people I’ve been privileged to know:

For decades I heard the call in prayer to stand up against the monstrous evil that has been unfolding in this nation since Roe v. Wade, which was handed down when I was twelve years old. For years I blinded myself to the horror welling up all about me. In part, the taunts of people outside of abortion clinics served to confuse my discernment. How could God be in such harsh and terrible language hurled at women about to do the unthinkable? For decades I simply could not wrap my mind around some of what I had heard in my youth.

So I sat it out on the sidelines and busied myself with becoming a scientist, husband, and father. I simply refused to consider the movement and tuned out anyone who approached me. All of that changed at Franciscan University in Steubenville, Ohio when I attended a summer conference and met a woman who was there with her infant son, encapsulated in their own bubble of love and devotion. People looked on and smiled at this pure beauty.

I was on the way into a talk by Dr. Scott Hahn when I stopped and told this woman how many of us were taken by the extraordinary depth of love we all were witnessing. I’m not sure how it all started, but the upshot is that she told me her witness story, how she had an abortion two decades ago that left her unable to have children, of the pain, the broken marriage that followed, the repentance, remarriage to a prince and this recent adoption, and of this ministry called Silent No More, of which she was her state’s coordinator. I was so fascinated, riveted, that I decided I could always get the CD of Dr. Hahn (Sorry, Scott). In one of those rare moments of spiritual clarity, I felt like the disciples on the road to Emmaus: “Were not our hearts burning within us as He walked with us on the road?”

I came away from my encounter with Nicole finally understanding that God was present in the movement in a way that is consistent with all I’ve ever known and experienced of Him. He was there in LOVE.

I took this woman’s phone number and in the ensuing years our families have become dear friends. I am Godfather to her second adopted son, and she has mentored me regarding post-abortive trauma. When I began the blog four years ago, she, Jill Stanek, and my wife were among a small circle of powerful women who encouraged and supported me every step of the way.

So what have I learned?

I can’t possibly put it all here. It’s all in the 800+ posts on the blog. However, there is one worth mentioning here. My friend has introduced me to other post-abortive women, and they to others… Women in the hundreds, and they all share one common trait.

They have a radiant beauty and joy about them that is unique. It is the unmistakeable beauty and radiance of a woman who has sinned against the core of her womanhood and who has been restored by Jesus to the fullness of her feminine beauty.

Every. Single. One.

They love much because their Lord has not only forgiven them, but revealed to them the fullness of their dignity, their great worth, and just how much He loves them.

Along the way, I’ve been stunned to see the depth of anguish they feel FOR abortionists. I’ve marveled at their prayers for the men and women who preyed on them in their fear and confusion, robbing them for profit of all that matters most in the world. They see beyond their own pain and loss, the hurt and agony inflicted on them, as well as their own roles. There is a relentless love in these women, a love that is infectious.

Some, it seems, are not so susceptible to the infectiousness.

Last week the notorious abortionist, Dr. Joseph Booker had a stroke in his shower and drowned. What a horrid death, symbolic on many levels. The outpouring of visceral hatred for this man on my blog, on Facebook, and at other pro-life outlets has been shocking. I began a Novena of Divine Mercy on my blog for Dr. Booker, and have been taken to task by several, including a Catholic Priest. Much of the language used by commenters could never be repeated here. However, it has shaken me to my core. For a jaded and cynical New Yorker, that’s quite an admission.

The hatred of what Dr. Booker did is definitely of God. The hatred of Dr. Booker is not.

I pray that Dr. Booker cried out to God for forgiveness and mercy as he lay drowning. Because I earnestly pray that he did so, I have set up the Novena of Divine Mercy for his soul. For some in our movement that is an affront to their sense of justice. How tragic. The vitriol has literally left me wondering how pervasive this sentiment is.

Only 30 people out of 5,000 FB friends joined in the Novena tonight. That says something.

Last month I was privileged to give a day of recollection at a seminary with Msgr. Phillip Reilly (fellow Brooklyn boy) of the Helpers of God’s Precious Infants. The man is a living saint, and reminded all that the main purpose of the pro-life movement is the salvation of souls, especially the mothers and abortionists. Why do some remain impervious to that? Why the hatred? Why wish the eternal horrors of hell on any human being? Do they really know what it is they seek?

There is a spiritual cancer in the body of this movement, one that I thought was pretty much dead, a death evidenced too by the love of the folks involved in 40 Days for Life and other sidewalk counselors. We need to eradicate this by identifying those with such bitter and angry hearts, and then minister to them until they heal. Whatever their anger is about, I suspect that it has roots elsewhere and that abortion is a proxy war for what is really going on. Whatever the cause it must be addressed.

How hard are such hearts that the radiant love and warmth of my post-abortive friends cannot thaw them? Since we are in Advent, a time of penance, when we are done with the Novena of Divine Mercy for Dr. Booker and his fellow abortionists I am doing one on the blog for all “pro-lifers” whose bitter sanctimony will land them in the same place they wish for Dr. Booker.

To Nicole, Georgette, Theresa, Mary, and all of the beautiful women of Silent No More and the other post-abortion healing ministries, this work thrives in no short measure because of you, your loving witness, and your willingness to build the body of Christ.

To the rest of the movement, we really need to take the time during Advent to pray for healing among our own. We simply cannot be so busy that we lose sight of the salvation of souls. If we are about God’s work, we had better be more than mere activists. 30 people out of 5,000 pro-life friends praying for an abortionist most in need of our prayers is as shocking and deplorable as the denunciations for doing so, especially contrasted with 10,000 hits in that same time on an article calling the bishops to task.

Our work loses a great deal if we lose sight of what Msgr. Reilly rightly points out as the purpose of it all:

The salvation of souls.

God Bless, and a Good Advent to All.

Read Full Post »

582420_4006027320429_1855871433_n

The great effort to outlaw late-term abortions in Albuquerque, NM fell short last night. The efforts on the part of pro-life groups were nothing short of Herculean, and great credit goes to all who played a part. While this means that older babies with more capacity for pain will continue to die horrendous deaths in the late-term abortion capital, all is not loss.

We’ll be back.

Again, and again, and again…

We’ll be back with the positive message of hope and beauty, and with the truth of science and medicine, with the great hope of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. One day, we shall overwhelm the good people of Albuquerque with that message of truth, and beauty, and hope; more than all of the money, and lies, and deceit of Planned Parenthood and Barak Obama. And when that day comes, when that great epiphany dawns on the city of Albuquerque, the city as a whole will begin to be transformed.

That day is coming.

So very many young people played a part. They are possessed of a passion, and vision, and moral courage that my generation never had, and never will.

save_terri_2

They’re warriors, and they’re beautiful.

Yesterday might have been a victory for the abortionists, but it was a costly one. It has roused even more young people, increased their determination, and steeled the resolve of the scientists and physicians such as myself who will no longer stay silent, play the game, and watch our disciplines cooped by activist thugs, corrupt politicians, and third-rate quacks in lab coats.

All of the clinical data are on our side, not theirs, and there are more and more of us stepping forward every day. The momentum is with us. That happens when truth begins to avalanche. It builds momentum and becomes irresistible. The days of hacking humans to death are numbered, and it will all happen nonviolently at the polls.

For now, words of comfort to those who fought this battle with fierce determination. They are from Theodore Roosevelt in an address he gave at the Sorbonne:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

God Bless you all.

Read Full Post »

lost-babies

It is well-known that women who receive so-called poor prenatal diagnoses are pressured by genetic counselors and obstetricians to abort the baby. Often, as in the case of Down syndrome, the diagnosis comes with just a week or two left before the legal limit to have an abortion. In the midst of the shock and bewilderment, the feelings of inadequacy in the face of certain special needs (Feelings which are completely normal), often comes severe coercion by physicians who will refuse to treat unless an abortion is obtained. Mothers and fathers are asked why they would make their child suffer. Family and babies’ fathers threaten physical, financial, and emotional abandonment.

With Down syndrome over 90% of babies are aborted within this crucible.

I have heard first-hand accounts that are horrid, accounts where the truth of therapeutic options for prenatal surgeries, post-partum surgeries and therapies often make for very functional children. Even when such is not the option, there is hardly ever a referral to a support group for a different perspective.

Then there are the frequent horror stories of the baby aborted and found to have been perfectly healthy and normal. Modern medicine is on a eugenic rampage and the stories of these mothers and fathers need to be told.

Therefore, I am beginning a project to collect the stories of parents who have been victims of abusive physicians and genetic counselors, whether they aborted or carried the child to term. Both the triumph and tragedy need to be told. Names will be kept anonymous and stories will be printed only by permission and in the parents’ own words in an upcoming book. Please reach out to anyone you know with such a story, and then email me at:

gerardnadal60@gmail.com

All names will be kept strictly confidential, and only those stories will be published where written authorization to do so has been obtained.

Feel free to contact me with any and all questions.

God Bless.

Read Full Post »

How times have changed. Planned Parenthood and the abortion lobby, once the champions of keeping abortions safe for women, now oppose legislative proposals such as the new law in Texas designed to accomplish those very noble-sounding sentiments used to justify legalized abortion. Specifically, they oppose the suggestion that abortionists need to be board certified Ob/Gyns in good standing and that they have admitting privileges at local hospitals. Worse still, they champion allowing nurses and physician assistants perform these inherently dangerous surgeries.

Lifesite News has an excellent article on this. From the article:

The American College of Surgeons released the “Statement on Patient Safety Principles for Office-based Surgery Utilizing Moderate Sedation/Analgesia, Deep Sedation/Analgesia, or General Anesthesia.” These are guidelines for all forms of outpatient surgery including eye surgery, plastic surgery, and, yes, “reproductive” surgery.

In 2003, an ACS/AMA (American College of Surgeons, American Medical Association) had a meeting which was chaired by LaMar S. McGinnis, Jr., MD, FACS, of the ACS and Clair Callan, MD, of the AMA. The participants unanimously came to the conclusion that:

“Physicians performing office-based surgery must have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, a transfer agreement with another physician who has admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, or maintain an emergency transfer agreement with a nearby hospital.”

The following groups all signed off on this regulation:

1. Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care
2. American Academy of Cosmetic Surgery,
3. American Academy of Dermatology,
4. American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery,
5. American Academy of Ophthalmology,
6. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons,
7. American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery,
8. American Academy of Pediatrics,
9. American Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory Surgery Facilities,
10. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,
11. American College of Surgeons,
12. American Medical Association,
13. American Osteopathic Association,
14. American Society for Dermatologic Surgery,
15. American Society for Reproductive Medicine,
16. American Society of Anesthesiologists,
17. American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery,
18. American Society of General Surgeons,
19. American Society of Plastic Surgeons,
20. American Urological Association,
21. Federation of State Medical Boards,
22. Indiana State Medical Society,
23. Institute for Medical Quality-California Medical Association,
24. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations,
25. Kansas Medical Society,
26. Massachusetts Medical Society,
27. Medical Association of the State of Alabama,
28. Medical Society of the State of New York,
29. Missouri State Medical Association,
30. National Committee for Quality Assurance,
31. Pennsylvania Medical Society, and
32. Society of Interventional Radiology.

In fact, there was not a single organization involved in the meeting that did not agree that board certification should be the standard for all outpatient surgery. It was unanimous.

Note that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists signed on to this, but will no doubt offer up an exception in the case of abortion. It’s always that way with abortion. The need for abortion and abortionists trumps the same set of humane standards practiced in every other branch of medicine. While there are an average of 1.2 million abortions annually in the US, all of which are elective surgeries, consider the following annaul numbers of US surgeries that are not elective, that are immediately life-saving:

Over 230,000 Coronary by-pass surgeries.
Average of 150,000 Breast Cancer Surgeries.
Over 100,000 colon and rectal cancer surgeries.

Just from that small sample, which does not include all other cancers, appendectomies, etc… do we see the surgeons militating for lower standards of care, less accountability, no admitting privileges? These are the truly essential, not optional, lifesaving surgeries.

And what of the cosmetic surgeons, whose procedures are elective? Do we see them militating for lower standards of accountability?

Why is it that the abortion lobby consistently militates for lower standards of care, of accountability? Could it be that a great many abortionists are failed physicians, common butchers?

Where is their care for women?

Where is their professional pride and self-respect?

Why not militate for the highest possible standard of care?

Wasn’t this supposed to be about taking abortions out of the hands of butchers and providing the highest standard of care for women?

Is there a reason why all abortionists should not only be PHYSICIANS (and not nurses and PA’s), but also trained OB’s who are board certified Ob/Gyns in GOOD STANDING?

When did it all change?

Would anyone from the other side care to engage in a dialogue by answering these questions?

Image via medicaldaily.com

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: