First time ever for the promotion
http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/strange/offbeat_wish_Gift_certificates_for_Planned_Parenthood2107729
Leslie Olsen
Edited by Hyacinth Williams
INDIANAPOLIS (WISH) - Gift certificates have become a popular holiday gift option, but a controversial new one, already has people talking.
For the first time, Planned Parenthood in Indiana is offering gift certificates. The organization said a big increase in calls and visits from newly unemployed and uninsured Hoosiers prompted what it calls the unusual, yet practical gift option.
"People are making really tough decisions about putting gas in their car and food on their table, so we know that many women especially put healthcare at the bottom of their list to do," said Chrystal Struben-Hall, Vice President of Planned Parenthood of Indiana.
The certificates come in $25 increments. They can be used for everything from birth control to $58 examinations that include breast exams and pap tests. Men who receive healthcare at Planned Parenthood can use them too.
"They can be seen for sexually transmitted disease screenings, HIV tests and general prostate exams and those kinds of things," said Struben-Hall.
Some Hoosiers 24-Hour News 8 talked to asked if the gift certificates could be used towards abortions. The answer is yes. But, Planned Parenthood said that's not the purpose of the gift certificates.
Struben-Hall said, "They really are intended for preventative healthcare. We decided not to put restrictions on the gift certificates so it's for whatever people feel they need the services for most."
Indiana Family Institute President Curt Smith said he is appalled by the certificates.
"I think the way to help family planning is to give the money where there's no agenda. So if somebody wants to help a woman at a time of crisis, they can support the life centers throughout Indiana," said Smith.
Planned Parenthood hopes philanthropists look at it differently. The organization hopes people might purchase the certificates, and then turn them back in for their patients who need reproductive healthcare, but can't pay for it.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Look out MTV, Here Come Pro-Life Ads which Have Been Shown to Decrease Abortion Numbers
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08112405.html
By John-Henry Westen
ROSWELL, GA, November 24, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Pro-life television commercials with a proven track record of substantially lowering abortion rates are set to air on MTV beginning the day after Christmas.
With more than 98% of US homes having televisions, and the average American spending over 5 hours every day consuming media, it is easy to see how VirtueMedia can reach millions of people each day using powerful broadcast commercials to positively affect culture.
Four U.S. regions with significant abortion-vulnerable populations recently reported a decrease in abortions in response to the airing of VirtueMedia's educational pro-life ads, partnered with other effective pro-life efforts.
- Abortion rates have dropped nearly 20% in Arizona (2004 vs. 2007). Since 2005, VirtueMedia began to air pro-life television ads year-round, in collaboration with the Diocese of Phoenix.
- Abortion rates decreased 12% in Montgomery County, OH (Dayton) since 2006, when VirtueMedia ads began airing in partnership with Dayton Right to Life.
- Since opening a second office in Georgia and beginning to air crisis pregnancy ads in Atlanta in 2005, abortion rates have declined nearly 10% in metro Atlanta. In just one month, VirtueMedia ads in Atlanta generated 2,646 calls for help from abortion vulnerable women. In contrast, abortion rates have increased in other areas of Georgia, where pro-life TV ads did not air.
- In Charlotte, abortions have declined 15% in the past year, since VirtueMedia commercials began airing in collaboration with North Carolina Right to Life and local churches. Abortions increased in other counties in North Carolina, where VirtueMedia ads did not air.
VirtueMedia, Inc., a 501C3 national non profit media organization founded in 1998 by Tom Peterson, is endorsed by the Vatican, Priests for Life, Focus on the Family, Silent No More, and many other organizations. The organization's TV and radio ads are licensed to pro-life groups and are available in both English and Spanish.
VirtueMedia's TV portfolio contains a number of messages utilized for sanctity of life education, crisis pregnancy outreach, post abortion-healing, as well as legislative issues such as embryonic stem cell experimentation and informed consent. Crisis pregnancy ads will air nationwide on MTV and BET beginning December 26th.
View the ads online here:
http://www.virtuemedia.org/television.htm
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Amazing Video Exposing Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood
American Life League has put together a great video exposing Margaret Sanger and her eugenic teachings. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEja-1emRic
Best books I have ever read... and you can get them for FREE!!!
Free Catholic Novels from Saint Jude Media
Pierced by a Sword
This heart-pounding classic is must-reading for every Catholic. Discover why America's best-loved Catholic novelist has thrilled, inspired, and surprised over one million readers who simply could not put this unforgettable epic down.
Conceived Without Sin
From the raging summer waters of the New Jersey shore to the peaceful solitude of cold winter nights on Lake Erie, you will plunge deep into a story about men and marriage with characters who will stay with you for a lifetime.
House of Gold
A life-changing adventure about courage, suffering, and redemption. A vision for all time. Take the "long walk" with Buzz Woodward on the way of the Cross through a world of darkness.
Order your free copies online now »
With three runaway bestsellers, a unique and creative distribution system, and over 700,000 books in print, Saint Jude Media has become America's leading publisher of contemporary Catholic fiction. We began in 1995 as the non-profit publishing division of the Mary Foundation and we operate by the same Principles of Conduct. We warmly invite you read the Story of Saint Jude Media and then to request one or all of our novels today–for yourself, your family and your friends.
Pierced by a Sword
This heart-pounding classic is must-reading for every Catholic. Discover why America's best-loved Catholic novelist has thrilled, inspired, and surprised over one million readers who simply could not put this unforgettable epic down.
Conceived Without Sin
From the raging summer waters of the New Jersey shore to the peaceful solitude of cold winter nights on Lake Erie, you will plunge deep into a story about men and marriage with characters who will stay with you for a lifetime.
House of Gold
A life-changing adventure about courage, suffering, and redemption. A vision for all time. Take the "long walk" with Buzz Woodward on the way of the Cross through a world of darkness.
Order your free copies online now »
With three runaway bestsellers, a unique and creative distribution system, and over 700,000 books in print, Saint Jude Media has become America's leading publisher of contemporary Catholic fiction. We began in 1995 as the non-profit publishing division of the Mary Foundation and we operate by the same Principles of Conduct. We warmly invite you read the Story of Saint Jude Media and then to request one or all of our novels today–for yourself, your family and your friends.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Blessed Miguel Agustín Pro
November 23, 2008
Blessed Miguel Agustín Pro
(1891-1927)
¡Viva Cristo Rey! (Long live Christ the King) were the last words Father Pro uttered before he was executed for being a Catholic priest and serving his flock.
Born into a prosperous, devout family in Guadalupe de Zacatecas, he entered the Jesuits in 1911 but three years later fled to Granada, Spain, because of religious persecution in Mexico. He was ordained in Belgium in 1925.
He immediately returned to Mexico, where he served a Church forced to go “underground.” He celebrated the Eucharist clandestinely and ministered the other sacraments to small groups of Catholics.
He and his brother Roberto were arrested on trumped-up charges of attempting to assassinate Mexico’s president. Roberto was spared but Miguel was sentenced to face a firing squad on November 23, 1927. His funeral became a public demonstration of faith. He was beatified in 1988.
In 1927 when Father Miguel Pro was executed, no one could have predicted that 52 years later the bishop of Rome would visit Mexico, be welcomed by its president and celebrate open-air Masses before thousands of people. Pope John Paul II made additional trips to Mexico in 1990, 1993 and 1999. Those who outlawed the Catholic Church in Mexico did not count on the deeply rooted faith of its people and the willingness of many of them, like Miguel Pro, to die as martyrs.
During his homily at the beatification Mass, Pope John Paul II said that Father Pro “is a new glory for the beloved Mexican nation, as well as for the Society of Jesus. His life of sacrificing and intrepid apostolate was always inspired by a tireless evangelizing effort. Neither suffering nor serious illness, neither the exhausting ministerial activity, frequently carried out in difficult and dangerous circumstances, could stifle the radiating and contagious joy which he brought to his life for Christ and which nothing could take away (see John 16:22). Indeed, the deepest root of self-sacrificing surrender for the lowly was his passionate love for Jesus Christ and his ardent desire to be conformed to him, even unto death.”
Blessed Miguel Agustín Pro
(1891-1927)
¡Viva Cristo Rey! (Long live Christ the King) were the last words Father Pro uttered before he was executed for being a Catholic priest and serving his flock.
Born into a prosperous, devout family in Guadalupe de Zacatecas, he entered the Jesuits in 1911 but three years later fled to Granada, Spain, because of religious persecution in Mexico. He was ordained in Belgium in 1925.
He immediately returned to Mexico, where he served a Church forced to go “underground.” He celebrated the Eucharist clandestinely and ministered the other sacraments to small groups of Catholics.
He and his brother Roberto were arrested on trumped-up charges of attempting to assassinate Mexico’s president. Roberto was spared but Miguel was sentenced to face a firing squad on November 23, 1927. His funeral became a public demonstration of faith. He was beatified in 1988.
In 1927 when Father Miguel Pro was executed, no one could have predicted that 52 years later the bishop of Rome would visit Mexico, be welcomed by its president and celebrate open-air Masses before thousands of people. Pope John Paul II made additional trips to Mexico in 1990, 1993 and 1999. Those who outlawed the Catholic Church in Mexico did not count on the deeply rooted faith of its people and the willingness of many of them, like Miguel Pro, to die as martyrs.
During his homily at the beatification Mass, Pope John Paul II said that Father Pro “is a new glory for the beloved Mexican nation, as well as for the Society of Jesus. His life of sacrificing and intrepid apostolate was always inspired by a tireless evangelizing effort. Neither suffering nor serious illness, neither the exhausting ministerial activity, frequently carried out in difficult and dangerous circumstances, could stifle the radiating and contagious joy which he brought to his life for Christ and which nothing could take away (see John 16:22). Indeed, the deepest root of self-sacrificing surrender for the lowly was his passionate love for Jesus Christ and his ardent desire to be conformed to him, even unto death.”
Friday, November 21, 2008
CATHOLICISM VS. 'OBAMAISM'
CATHOLICISM VS. 'OBAMAISM'
By Judie Brown
When the Catholic University of America's Tower reported that during a recent address at the university, His Eminence James Francis Cardinal Stafford criticized President-elect Barack Obama as "aggressive, disruptive and apocalyptic" and said he campaigned on an "extremist anti-life platform," I can only imagine the cheers that must have risen from the hall. The Tower continued,
"Because man is a sacred element of secular life," Stafford remarked, "man should not be held to a supreme power of state, and a person's life cannot ultimately be controlled by government."
"For the next few years, Gethsemane will not be marginal. We will know that garden," Stafford said, comparing America's future with Obama as president to Jesus' agony in the garden. "On November 4, 2008, America suffered a cultural earthquake."
Cardinal Stafford said Catholics must deal with the "hot, angry tears of betrayal' by beginning a new sentiment where one is 'with Jesus, sick because of love.'"
These inspired sentiments from such a beloved prelate should have been received with echoes of agreement, not only by the USCCB but the entire Church and pro-life movement. After all, this American cardinal is currently the major penitentiary of the Apostolic Penitentiary for the Tribunal of the Holy See and has staunchly defended Catholic teaching for years.
Well, I haven't heard much from my fellow pro-lifers, but I have seen the vitriol that has spewed forth from CNN.
On Tuesday's Situation Room, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer referred to a Catholic cardinal's criticism of Barack Obama's abortion position as a "scathing rant" and a "diatribe." A CNN graphic also used the "scathing rant" term, and Blitzer later referred to the cardinal's words as a "blistering rant."
As the Media Resource Center's Matthew Balan reported,
At the end of the segment, Blitzer misrepresented the Catholic Church's stances on various issues. He stated that the Church and Obama "do agree on some hot button issues, including opposition to the war in Iraq, greater access to health care, and more equitable tax codes," as a CNN graphic referred to the health care issues as "universal health care." On the last two issues, this is an oversimplification. Paragraph 2211 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church refers to the "political community's" duty to "honor the family, to assist it, and to ensure," among other things, "the right to private property, to free enterprise, to obtain work and housing, and the right to emigrate" and "in keeping with the country's institutions, the right to medical care, assistance for the aged, and family benefits." The same Catechism, which lists the official teachings of the Catholic Church, says nothing of "more equitable tax codes." It only states how it is "morally obligatory to pay taxes" (paragraph 2240) and that tax evasion is "morally illicit" (paragraph 2409).
On the other hand, Blitzer did correctly state that Obama and the Church "strongly disagree on embryonic stem cell research; abortion rights...and civil unions for gay couples, all of which Obama supports -- the Catholic Church opposes."
One can surmise from the above that there is more to this bashing of Cardinal Stafford than meets the eye. After all, the cardinal was not screaming, and he did make every effort to make sure his comments were understood in the proper context. But as we might have guessed, CNN is not going to attempt, even for the sake of appearances, to be objective about the president-elect.
Further, they can rely on many Catholic dissidents and alleged pro-lifers to shore up their inference that saying anything negative about Obama is always a very bad thing indeed. As the Catholic News Agency reports,
The pro-lifers reaching out to abortion rights supporters argue that legal challenges to permissive abortion laws will not be successful, especially following Barack Obama's election to the presidency, the Washington Post reports…
The coalition of pro-lifers seeking policy change rather than legal change includes Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference; Richard Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals; Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good; Catholics United, described as a progressive Catholic lay group; Sojourners, a progressive evangelical organization; and RealAbortionSolutions.org, a coalition of Catholics and evangelical leaders.
Rev. Thomas Reese, S.J., from Georgetown University's Woodstock Theological Center, has also allied himself with the effort, even though he has resigned himself to only commenting on politics in the past.
So too has Nicholas Cafardi, a former dean of the Duquesne University School of Law and a Catholic canon lawyer. He resigned from the board of Franciscan University of Steubenville in Ohio after writing a column supporting Obama and declaring the abortion battle lost, the Washington Post says.
My, what a tragic web is being woven – a labyrinth of half-truths designed to further entangle the American public into believing the media myth that when a Catholic prelate speaks out in defense of truth, it is always a bad thing for America. I can actually see a time when the hierarchy might, by law perhaps, be silenced similarly to the way the administrator of the Charleston, South Carolina diocese has silenced Father Jay Scott Newman.
The fullness of truth could even come to be regarded as the enemy of the common good. Who is to say where all this might lead, with the media in charge of preaching and teaching Catholic dogma to the not so faithful?
Now is the time for courageous leadership, unapologetic declarations of truth and much more honesty, such as that courageously displayed by Cardinal Stafford at the Catholic University of America.
We need to hear from the bishops, now more than ever. We should expect them to provide us with clarifications on anti-life measures such as the Freedom of Choice Act and the Prevention First Act. These bills would lead to more social chaos than anyone can imagine. It is tragic enough that abortion is ever committed, but to become a signed, sealed and delivered government program would be anathema to the future of this once-great nation.
Father Frank Pavone has written, "It is the role of bishops to herald the Gospel of Life by their preaching, teaching, and stirring into flame the gifts of God in the hearts of the laity."
Let us hope that the flame ignited by Cardinal Stafford, with his stirring comments, will be carried forth and burn intensely from every pulpit in the United States, Catholic and otherwise. The time is now!
Judie Brown is president of American Life League and a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life.
By Judie Brown
When the Catholic University of America's Tower reported that during a recent address at the university, His Eminence James Francis Cardinal Stafford criticized President-elect Barack Obama as "aggressive, disruptive and apocalyptic" and said he campaigned on an "extremist anti-life platform," I can only imagine the cheers that must have risen from the hall. The Tower continued,
"Because man is a sacred element of secular life," Stafford remarked, "man should not be held to a supreme power of state, and a person's life cannot ultimately be controlled by government."
"For the next few years, Gethsemane will not be marginal. We will know that garden," Stafford said, comparing America's future with Obama as president to Jesus' agony in the garden. "On November 4, 2008, America suffered a cultural earthquake."
Cardinal Stafford said Catholics must deal with the "hot, angry tears of betrayal' by beginning a new sentiment where one is 'with Jesus, sick because of love.'"
These inspired sentiments from such a beloved prelate should have been received with echoes of agreement, not only by the USCCB but the entire Church and pro-life movement. After all, this American cardinal is currently the major penitentiary of the Apostolic Penitentiary for the Tribunal of the Holy See and has staunchly defended Catholic teaching for years.
Well, I haven't heard much from my fellow pro-lifers, but I have seen the vitriol that has spewed forth from CNN.
On Tuesday's Situation Room, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer referred to a Catholic cardinal's criticism of Barack Obama's abortion position as a "scathing rant" and a "diatribe." A CNN graphic also used the "scathing rant" term, and Blitzer later referred to the cardinal's words as a "blistering rant."
As the Media Resource Center's Matthew Balan reported,
At the end of the segment, Blitzer misrepresented the Catholic Church's stances on various issues. He stated that the Church and Obama "do agree on some hot button issues, including opposition to the war in Iraq, greater access to health care, and more equitable tax codes," as a CNN graphic referred to the health care issues as "universal health care." On the last two issues, this is an oversimplification. Paragraph 2211 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church refers to the "political community's" duty to "honor the family, to assist it, and to ensure," among other things, "the right to private property, to free enterprise, to obtain work and housing, and the right to emigrate" and "in keeping with the country's institutions, the right to medical care, assistance for the aged, and family benefits." The same Catechism, which lists the official teachings of the Catholic Church, says nothing of "more equitable tax codes." It only states how it is "morally obligatory to pay taxes" (paragraph 2240) and that tax evasion is "morally illicit" (paragraph 2409).
On the other hand, Blitzer did correctly state that Obama and the Church "strongly disagree on embryonic stem cell research; abortion rights...and civil unions for gay couples, all of which Obama supports -- the Catholic Church opposes."
One can surmise from the above that there is more to this bashing of Cardinal Stafford than meets the eye. After all, the cardinal was not screaming, and he did make every effort to make sure his comments were understood in the proper context. But as we might have guessed, CNN is not going to attempt, even for the sake of appearances, to be objective about the president-elect.
Further, they can rely on many Catholic dissidents and alleged pro-lifers to shore up their inference that saying anything negative about Obama is always a very bad thing indeed. As the Catholic News Agency reports,
The pro-lifers reaching out to abortion rights supporters argue that legal challenges to permissive abortion laws will not be successful, especially following Barack Obama's election to the presidency, the Washington Post reports…
The coalition of pro-lifers seeking policy change rather than legal change includes Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference; Richard Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals; Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good; Catholics United, described as a progressive Catholic lay group; Sojourners, a progressive evangelical organization; and RealAbortionSolutions.org, a coalition of Catholics and evangelical leaders.
Rev. Thomas Reese, S.J., from Georgetown University's Woodstock Theological Center, has also allied himself with the effort, even though he has resigned himself to only commenting on politics in the past.
So too has Nicholas Cafardi, a former dean of the Duquesne University School of Law and a Catholic canon lawyer. He resigned from the board of Franciscan University of Steubenville in Ohio after writing a column supporting Obama and declaring the abortion battle lost, the Washington Post says.
My, what a tragic web is being woven – a labyrinth of half-truths designed to further entangle the American public into believing the media myth that when a Catholic prelate speaks out in defense of truth, it is always a bad thing for America. I can actually see a time when the hierarchy might, by law perhaps, be silenced similarly to the way the administrator of the Charleston, South Carolina diocese has silenced Father Jay Scott Newman.
The fullness of truth could even come to be regarded as the enemy of the common good. Who is to say where all this might lead, with the media in charge of preaching and teaching Catholic dogma to the not so faithful?
Now is the time for courageous leadership, unapologetic declarations of truth and much more honesty, such as that courageously displayed by Cardinal Stafford at the Catholic University of America.
We need to hear from the bishops, now more than ever. We should expect them to provide us with clarifications on anti-life measures such as the Freedom of Choice Act and the Prevention First Act. These bills would lead to more social chaos than anyone can imagine. It is tragic enough that abortion is ever committed, but to become a signed, sealed and delivered government program would be anathema to the future of this once-great nation.
Father Frank Pavone has written, "It is the role of bishops to herald the Gospel of Life by their preaching, teaching, and stirring into flame the gifts of God in the hearts of the laity."
Let us hope that the flame ignited by Cardinal Stafford, with his stirring comments, will be carried forth and burn intensely from every pulpit in the United States, Catholic and otherwise. The time is now!
Judie Brown is president of American Life League and a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life.
Arnold Schwarzenegger's Wife: I'm "a Catholic in Good Standing" But Also Pro-abortion and Pro-Homosexual
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08112007.html
By Kathleen Gilbert
LONG BEACH, California, November 19, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – California’s first lady, Maria Shriver, recently told Sally Quinn of the Washington Post that she considers herself "a Catholic in good standing" despite the fact that she openly advocates abortion.
"I find I don't spend a lot of time trying to square my own daily life with the institutional Church," said Shriver. "I pick and choose."
Shriver called herself a "cafeteria Catholic," a term that is most often used in a derogatory manner, referring to individuals who only selectively submit to Church teaching and authority while still calling themselves Catholic.
On the disparity between Church teaching and her belief on abortion, Shriver told Quinn, "I often talk to my daughters at the dinner table about the difference between being pro-abortion and being pro-choice." She explained that she believes supporting the right to choose an abortion is different from supporting abortion.
Shriver also pointed out her disagreement with the Church on the issue of homosexuality. She said she does not believe that "people who are gay shouldn't be accepted into the church." However, while the Catholic Church teaches that all sexual activity outside of marriage, including homosexual activity, is sinful, there is no prohibition against people with homosexual inclinations being welcomed into the Church. The Church strongly recommends loving acceptance of such persons and spiritual direction and other assistance to help them live celebate, faithful Catholic lives.
The office of Cardinal Mahoney, Shriver's bishop, did not respond to repeated calls from LifeSiteNews.com yestereday and today up to press time.
Both Shriver and her husband, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, claim a Catholic identity despite public disavowal of Church teaching on the sanctity of life.
"I always said that you should not have your religion interfere with government policies or with the policies of the people," Schwarzenegger said at a Toronto press conference last year, as he advocated research on human embryos.
"I am a Catholic and a very dedicated Catholic, but that does not interfere with my decision-making because I know that stem-cell research, the way we are doing it in California ... is the right way to go," he said as quoted by the Toronto Star.
More recently, Gov. Schwarzenegger put aside his professed faith when he publicly joined homosexualists in the fight against Proposition 8, California's amendment protecting legal marriage as between a man and a woman.
By Kathleen Gilbert
LONG BEACH, California, November 19, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – California’s first lady, Maria Shriver, recently told Sally Quinn of the Washington Post that she considers herself "a Catholic in good standing" despite the fact that she openly advocates abortion.
"I find I don't spend a lot of time trying to square my own daily life with the institutional Church," said Shriver. "I pick and choose."
Shriver called herself a "cafeteria Catholic," a term that is most often used in a derogatory manner, referring to individuals who only selectively submit to Church teaching and authority while still calling themselves Catholic.
On the disparity between Church teaching and her belief on abortion, Shriver told Quinn, "I often talk to my daughters at the dinner table about the difference between being pro-abortion and being pro-choice." She explained that she believes supporting the right to choose an abortion is different from supporting abortion.
Shriver also pointed out her disagreement with the Church on the issue of homosexuality. She said she does not believe that "people who are gay shouldn't be accepted into the church." However, while the Catholic Church teaches that all sexual activity outside of marriage, including homosexual activity, is sinful, there is no prohibition against people with homosexual inclinations being welcomed into the Church. The Church strongly recommends loving acceptance of such persons and spiritual direction and other assistance to help them live celebate, faithful Catholic lives.
The office of Cardinal Mahoney, Shriver's bishop, did not respond to repeated calls from LifeSiteNews.com yestereday and today up to press time.
Both Shriver and her husband, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, claim a Catholic identity despite public disavowal of Church teaching on the sanctity of life.
"I always said that you should not have your religion interfere with government policies or with the policies of the people," Schwarzenegger said at a Toronto press conference last year, as he advocated research on human embryos.
"I am a Catholic and a very dedicated Catholic, but that does not interfere with my decision-making because I know that stem-cell research, the way we are doing it in California ... is the right way to go," he said as quoted by the Toronto Star.
More recently, Gov. Schwarzenegger put aside his professed faith when he publicly joined homosexualists in the fight against Proposition 8, California's amendment protecting legal marriage as between a man and a woman.
Obama Selecting the Most Anti-Life, Anti-Family Radicals He Can Find for Administration
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08112009.html
President-elect unveils plans to dismantle federal legal protection for marriage
By Kathleen Gilbert
WASHINGTON, D.C., November 20, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In light of further actual and rumored appointments, Obama's future presidential administration is steadily emerging as a regime ominously packed with Obama insiders who promise to help roll out the carpet for the President-elect's radical anti-life and anti-family agenda.
Media outlets recently named Arizona governor Janet Napolitano as Obama's probable choice for secretary of Homeland Security.
An early Obama supporter and campaigner, Napolitano firmly established herself as an extreme abortion supporter by vetoing the partial birth abortion ban, and in one month she vetoed four anti-abortion bills. In 2005 NARAL warmly praised the governor for vetoing a bill that would have allowed Arizona pharmacies not to distribute the abortifacient morning-after pill due to a moral or religious objection.
Tom Dashcle has recently been named as the likely candidate for the next Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), an appointment Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council said gives pro-lifers a "frightening glimpse" into the new Cabinet.
The former Democratic Senate majority leader gained notoriety for his liberal views on abortion when he opposed the partial-birth abortion ban, endorsed taxpayer-funded military abortions, and supported taxpayer funding to provide morning-after pills to young public school girls. Perkins also lamented that Daschle, a man with no experience in public health, is on track to become the ultimate authority on federal health issues.
One of the national co-chairs for Obama's presidential campaign, Daschle warmed early on to Obama and in 2007 gushed that the Illinois senator "personifies the future of Democratic leadership in our country."
Another likely future HHS member is Dr. Robin Alta Charo, a highly liberal professor of law and bioethics and former member of Clinton's Bioethics Advisory Commission, who was appointed to Obama's transition team Friday. Charo had been a member of Obama's pre-election team, where she managed science and health policy matters.
Bioethicist Wesley J. Smith took Charo's appointment as a further sign that the Obama administration "is going to push full speed ahead" with destructive embryonic stem-cell research. Charo once called Smith, who is a prominent pro-life advocate in the world of bioethics, a leader of "the endarkenment."
"We are entering very dark days," said Smith on the appointment.
Pro-abortion juggernaut Sen. Hillary Clinton, whose liberal views on just about every possible social issue are no secret, has also emerged as Obama's favored choice for Secretary of State.
Meanwhile, Mr. Obama is quickly establishing his public solidarity with the homosexual movement.
Obama recently laid out on his website a "civil rights agenda" that includes, to the satisfaction of homosexual lobbyists, the dismantling of legal protections for marriage. He intends to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, the act that protects natural marriage that is currently enshrined in federal law, and accordingly opposes a federal Constitutional amendment to protect marriage.
Obama has also promised to expand "hate crime" enforcement and legislation by enacting the Matthew Shepard Act, which would allow a perceived bias against homosexuality to be prosecuted. Obama will also enforce non-discrimination in businesses regarding homosexuality, which could force business owners to hire a certain quota of homosexuals.
Finally, Obama's website confirms that the president-elect will push to open adoption to homosexual couples, and make military service more available to homosexuals.
According to gay news outlets, officials in the president-elect's transition team have so far assigned 7 openly homosexual individuals to transition review panels, 3 of which were high-ranking Clinton administration officials. Reports also say Obama is considering deputy campaign strategist and open homosexual Steve Hildebrand as the next Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, replacing Howard Dean.
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Obama Solidifies Pro-Abortion Agenda with "Attack Dog" Rahm Emanuel for Chief of Staff
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08110605.html
ABC 20/20 Report Says Matthew Shepard Killed During Robbery Not Anti-Gay Hate Crime
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/nov/04111208.html
CWA Claims Fake “Hate Crimes” Being Used to Force Legislation through Congress
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/apr/07041107.html
President-elect unveils plans to dismantle federal legal protection for marriage
By Kathleen Gilbert
WASHINGTON, D.C., November 20, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In light of further actual and rumored appointments, Obama's future presidential administration is steadily emerging as a regime ominously packed with Obama insiders who promise to help roll out the carpet for the President-elect's radical anti-life and anti-family agenda.
Media outlets recently named Arizona governor Janet Napolitano as Obama's probable choice for secretary of Homeland Security.
An early Obama supporter and campaigner, Napolitano firmly established herself as an extreme abortion supporter by vetoing the partial birth abortion ban, and in one month she vetoed four anti-abortion bills. In 2005 NARAL warmly praised the governor for vetoing a bill that would have allowed Arizona pharmacies not to distribute the abortifacient morning-after pill due to a moral or religious objection.
Tom Dashcle has recently been named as the likely candidate for the next Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), an appointment Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council said gives pro-lifers a "frightening glimpse" into the new Cabinet.
The former Democratic Senate majority leader gained notoriety for his liberal views on abortion when he opposed the partial-birth abortion ban, endorsed taxpayer-funded military abortions, and supported taxpayer funding to provide morning-after pills to young public school girls. Perkins also lamented that Daschle, a man with no experience in public health, is on track to become the ultimate authority on federal health issues.
One of the national co-chairs for Obama's presidential campaign, Daschle warmed early on to Obama and in 2007 gushed that the Illinois senator "personifies the future of Democratic leadership in our country."
Another likely future HHS member is Dr. Robin Alta Charo, a highly liberal professor of law and bioethics and former member of Clinton's Bioethics Advisory Commission, who was appointed to Obama's transition team Friday. Charo had been a member of Obama's pre-election team, where she managed science and health policy matters.
Bioethicist Wesley J. Smith took Charo's appointment as a further sign that the Obama administration "is going to push full speed ahead" with destructive embryonic stem-cell research. Charo once called Smith, who is a prominent pro-life advocate in the world of bioethics, a leader of "the endarkenment."
"We are entering very dark days," said Smith on the appointment.
Pro-abortion juggernaut Sen. Hillary Clinton, whose liberal views on just about every possible social issue are no secret, has also emerged as Obama's favored choice for Secretary of State.
Meanwhile, Mr. Obama is quickly establishing his public solidarity with the homosexual movement.
Obama recently laid out on his website a "civil rights agenda" that includes, to the satisfaction of homosexual lobbyists, the dismantling of legal protections for marriage. He intends to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, the act that protects natural marriage that is currently enshrined in federal law, and accordingly opposes a federal Constitutional amendment to protect marriage.
Obama has also promised to expand "hate crime" enforcement and legislation by enacting the Matthew Shepard Act, which would allow a perceived bias against homosexuality to be prosecuted. Obama will also enforce non-discrimination in businesses regarding homosexuality, which could force business owners to hire a certain quota of homosexuals.
Finally, Obama's website confirms that the president-elect will push to open adoption to homosexual couples, and make military service more available to homosexuals.
According to gay news outlets, officials in the president-elect's transition team have so far assigned 7 openly homosexual individuals to transition review panels, 3 of which were high-ranking Clinton administration officials. Reports also say Obama is considering deputy campaign strategist and open homosexual Steve Hildebrand as the next Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, replacing Howard Dean.
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Obama Solidifies Pro-Abortion Agenda with "Attack Dog" Rahm Emanuel for Chief of Staff
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08110605.html
ABC 20/20 Report Says Matthew Shepard Killed During Robbery Not Anti-Gay Hate Crime
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/nov/04111208.html
CWA Claims Fake “Hate Crimes” Being Used to Force Legislation through Congress
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/apr/07041107.html
Thursday, November 20, 2008
10-year-old's abortion is center of Tiller hearing
http://www.kansas.com/news/story/603723.html
BY RON SYLVESTER
The Wichita Eagle
A 10-year-old girl who received an abortion became the center of a Kansas attorney general's argument to obtain patient records from a Wichita clinic.
Here was a possible child-rape victim, officers for then-Attorney General Phill Kline told a Topeka judge in 2006 -- and a crime that abortion provider George Tiller didn't report, as required by law.
They wanted to find out whether Tiller hadn't reported other crimes, and they needed his records to do that.
But their claims about Tiller weren't true, his attorneys argued Wednesday in Wichita.
Tiller's lawyers are in Sedgwick County District Court this week arguing that 19 misdemeanor charges he faces should be dismissed. They contend the charges are based on evidence obtained by Kline and his officers through false pretenses and abuses of power.
The hearing is also making public for the first time details of a secret investigation conducted for three years by the state's top prosecutor against Kansas abortion providers.
The case of the 10-year-old girl who received a late-term abortion has become the center of Tiller's defense team's argument.
Documents produced by lawyer Dan Monnat showed:
The girl came with her mother from another state, carrying a letter from their local prosecutor's office. The letter said the girl needed "an immediate medical procedure that (could) only be done" at Tiller's Women's Health Care Services clinic.
The relative who raped her had already been charged.
Prosecutor Steve Maxwell and investigator Tom Williams would repeat the story of the girl's abortion, and Tiller's supposed failure to report it, to Shawnee County Judge Richard Anderson, court transcripts showed. But that was more than a year after they learned of the prosecution in the girl's home state.
Another document indicated Tiller had reported the girl's abortion to Kansas Child Protective Services. But Williams said that wasn't clear to him at the time.
"There was never any intentional misrepresentations made in this case," Williams testified. "It was very straightforward."
Williams also said that in more than two decades of work in law enforcement, he'd never been involved in an investigation that faced such legal scrutiny -- until he started asking for abortion records.
"Not even federal wiretaps," Williams told Assistant Attorney General Barry Disney on cross-examination. Williams had formerly worked for the U.S. Treasury Department.
Battle over records
The records request started a court battle that lasted a year and went all the way to the Kansas Supreme Court.
As the Supreme Court contemplated whether Kline should receive patient records, his top administrator appealed to other states.
Eric Rucker, Kline's chief of staff, testified that he wrote an e-mail to Ed Zielinski, general counsel for Texas-based anti-abortion group Life Dynamics, seeking help to get other attorneys general to request Kansas abortion records.
Rucker reasoned that if other states asked for the records, it would help influence Kansas' highest court.
Kline's office did get the records, weeks before he lost a re-election bid to Paul Morrison in 2006.
That December, before leaving office, Kline tried to file charges against Tiller in Sedgwick County. But a judge here dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds.
Johnson County Republicans appointed Kline to fill the district attorney's post vacated by Morrison.
Rucker testified that Kline then instructed him to have Williams and investigator Jared Reed move the abortion records out of the attorney general's office to his new office in Johnson County.
The way the investigation had been going made Reed nervous, however.
He testified Wednesday that rumors in Kline's new office indicated Morrison would investigate the abortion case for possible wrongdoing. Reed went to the new attorney general and offered to talk if he was offered immunity from prosecution.
"My personal opinion was they were willing to do whatever it takes to get a conviction against an abortion provider," Reed testified of his former colleagues, "up to and including breaking the law."
Maxwell is expected to testify today before Judge Clark Owens. Morrison, who filed the present charges before resigning amid a sex scandal, is also expected to take the stand.
Kline will get a chance to answer accusations over how he handled the investigations when he returns to court next week.
BY RON SYLVESTER
The Wichita Eagle
A 10-year-old girl who received an abortion became the center of a Kansas attorney general's argument to obtain patient records from a Wichita clinic.
Here was a possible child-rape victim, officers for then-Attorney General Phill Kline told a Topeka judge in 2006 -- and a crime that abortion provider George Tiller didn't report, as required by law.
They wanted to find out whether Tiller hadn't reported other crimes, and they needed his records to do that.
But their claims about Tiller weren't true, his attorneys argued Wednesday in Wichita.
Tiller's lawyers are in Sedgwick County District Court this week arguing that 19 misdemeanor charges he faces should be dismissed. They contend the charges are based on evidence obtained by Kline and his officers through false pretenses and abuses of power.
The hearing is also making public for the first time details of a secret investigation conducted for three years by the state's top prosecutor against Kansas abortion providers.
The case of the 10-year-old girl who received a late-term abortion has become the center of Tiller's defense team's argument.
Documents produced by lawyer Dan Monnat showed:
The girl came with her mother from another state, carrying a letter from their local prosecutor's office. The letter said the girl needed "an immediate medical procedure that (could) only be done" at Tiller's Women's Health Care Services clinic.
The relative who raped her had already been charged.
Prosecutor Steve Maxwell and investigator Tom Williams would repeat the story of the girl's abortion, and Tiller's supposed failure to report it, to Shawnee County Judge Richard Anderson, court transcripts showed. But that was more than a year after they learned of the prosecution in the girl's home state.
Another document indicated Tiller had reported the girl's abortion to Kansas Child Protective Services. But Williams said that wasn't clear to him at the time.
"There was never any intentional misrepresentations made in this case," Williams testified. "It was very straightforward."
Williams also said that in more than two decades of work in law enforcement, he'd never been involved in an investigation that faced such legal scrutiny -- until he started asking for abortion records.
"Not even federal wiretaps," Williams told Assistant Attorney General Barry Disney on cross-examination. Williams had formerly worked for the U.S. Treasury Department.
Battle over records
The records request started a court battle that lasted a year and went all the way to the Kansas Supreme Court.
As the Supreme Court contemplated whether Kline should receive patient records, his top administrator appealed to other states.
Eric Rucker, Kline's chief of staff, testified that he wrote an e-mail to Ed Zielinski, general counsel for Texas-based anti-abortion group Life Dynamics, seeking help to get other attorneys general to request Kansas abortion records.
Rucker reasoned that if other states asked for the records, it would help influence Kansas' highest court.
Kline's office did get the records, weeks before he lost a re-election bid to Paul Morrison in 2006.
That December, before leaving office, Kline tried to file charges against Tiller in Sedgwick County. But a judge here dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds.
Johnson County Republicans appointed Kline to fill the district attorney's post vacated by Morrison.
Rucker testified that Kline then instructed him to have Williams and investigator Jared Reed move the abortion records out of the attorney general's office to his new office in Johnson County.
The way the investigation had been going made Reed nervous, however.
He testified Wednesday that rumors in Kline's new office indicated Morrison would investigate the abortion case for possible wrongdoing. Reed went to the new attorney general and offered to talk if he was offered immunity from prosecution.
"My personal opinion was they were willing to do whatever it takes to get a conviction against an abortion provider," Reed testified of his former colleagues, "up to and including breaking the law."
Maxwell is expected to testify today before Judge Clark Owens. Morrison, who filed the present charges before resigning amid a sex scandal, is also expected to take the stand.
Kline will get a chance to answer accusations over how he handled the investigations when he returns to court next week.
“Scheme to cover up a fraud”
http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=e9f8ba3c-2f62-48ff-bb21-073f9774e149
At 5:38 p.m. on Monday, Jan. 26, 2004, Mark Salo, then chief executive of Planned Parenthood of San Diego and Riverside Counties, sent a panicked email to his colleagues at Planned Parenthood’s eight other California affiliates. The email contained a dire warning – and hinted at the need for a possible cover-up. The state Department of Health Services had begun an audit in San Diego, with similar audits planned at every other affiliate. The results, said Salo, “could kill many of us.”
The problem? For years, Planned Parenthood of San Diego and other affiliates elsewhere in the state had been over-billing the government by millions of dollars for contraceptives purchased at deep discounts – a policy specifically prohibited by state and federal regulations governing the program, called FPACT – “Family Planning, Access, Care and Treatment.” Rules for the program, jointly funded with state and federal funds, specifically required that providers of services under the program be reimbursed only for the cost of acquiring the contraceptives, but Planned Parenthood had been billing far in excess of cost, in some instances more than 20 times what they paid.
In an email the same day to executives of Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles, PPLA vice president Martha Swiller had just three words in response: “This is bad.”
On Oct. 30, ruling in a federal whistleblower’s suit brought in the overbilling case, U.S. District Court Judge A. Howard Matz took note of what was implied in Salo’s email: “Although the Planned Parenthood affiliates are incorporated as independent entities, each affiliate had interests identical to those of the San Diego-Riverside affiliate that were threatened by the DHS audit. The very purpose of the e-mail was to alert other Planned Parenthood affiliates to the common threat that they all faced and to initiate a coordinated response. The e-mail even alluded to the protection of internal information concerning the alleged fraud, ‘invoices for our oral contraceptives purchases,’ pending consultation with legal counsel.”
The whistleblower’s suit was filed by Victor Gonzalez, who served as chief financial officer at Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles from December 2002 to March 2004, when he says he was fired for warning his superiors of the illegal overbilling. Named in the suit, filed under the federal False Claims Act, were all nine Planned Parenthood affiliates in California, along with the organization’s political lobbying arm in Sacramento known as Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California (PPAC), its president, Kathy Kneer, and Mary Jane Wagle, chief executive officer of PPLA, and Swiller.
Although Judge Matz ruled against Gonzalez, finding that he did not qualify as a whistleblower under federal law because he was not the “original source” of bringing the alleged wrongdoing to light, his ruling contained references to emails by various players in the alleged fraudulent overbilling, PPAC’s Kneer in particular. The emails reveal how Kneer plotted a strategy, with the help of state Secretary of Health and Human Services Kim Belshé, to keep the billing controversy out of the public eye, halt the audits in their tracks and change the law to allow Planned Parenthood to legally bill over cost – even though it was the federal government paying the lion’s share of the excess charges. Belshé, a longtime bureaucrat in state health agencies dating back to the administration of Gov. Pete Wilson, was named to her current post by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in November 2003, just months before Salo sent out his email alarm over the DHS audits.
In that email, Salo said he had contacted Lily Spitz, Planned Parenthood’s lawyer in Sacramento, who then contacted Kneer. The judge makes mention of a Feb. 5, 2004 email from Kneer to the executives of all Planned Parenthood affiliates in the state in which Kneer wrote, “I want to reiterate that Kim (Belshé) is willing to discuss the policy implications of requiring clinics to bill the acquisition cost -- however, she did state that DHS legal office has advised her that the law requires us to bill at acquisition cost… We have asked each affiliate to provide our office with information about your affiliate's billing practice for nominal and 340B priced contraceptive methods. I will assure you that this information will not be used publicly except in a state aggregate and to assure we are accurately reflecting the depth of the impact and to insure we are fully covering ourselves with any statute change... At this time we are asking that no further public action be taken -- quietly resolving this as a policy issue within the administration is the best strategy at this time.”
Said Judge Matz of the Kneer email, “…the Planned Parenthood CEOs who received the e-mail had ‘a strong economic incentive to protect the information from outsiders, [so] revelation of information to [them] does not trigger the potential for corrective action presented by other forms of disclosure…’ Indeed, instead of triggering corrective action, the e-mail alert set off a coordinated defense against the audit under the leadership of PPAC, the affiliates’ political action committee in Sacramento.”
In the meantime, on Feb. 16, 2004, Gonzalez, then chief financial officer at Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles, sent an email to Wagle and Swiller, his bosses. He expressed concern about the over-billing and recommended that other attorneys review the matter. Gonzalez had been asked to assess the impact of over-billing at PPLA, and concluded that the Los Angeles affiliate alone was overcharging by $2 million per year. “The issue that has the largest impact for the Agency is the DHS audit started mid-January 2004,” wrote Gonzalez. “The audit focused on the markup for the Medications being sold and dispensed. Our supply contracts enable us deep discounts, and therefore the markups constitute not only a significant Revenue item, but virtually the only reason PPLA has been able to stay in business. This applies to all affiliates conducting business the same way PPLA does… I would also add that PPAC obviously did not handle this issue well and as a result left the entire system exposed.” On March 9, 2004, Planned Parenthood Los Angeles fired Gonzalez -- and continued with the strategy set in motion by Kneer.
As Kneer had noted in her email to Planned Parenthood CEOs, Belshé was sympathetic, despite legal advice that billing over cost was not permitted, and apparently put up no fight for what was about to happen next. Kneer turned to powerful allies in the state legislature, specifically then-Sen. Deborah Ortiz, a liberal pro-abortion Democrat from Sacramento who had received political campaign support from Planned Parenthood and, in the summer of 2004 was chairwoman of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee. According to a history of the bill, AB 2151, the measure’s “source” was Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, and its supporters included, among others, NARAL Pro-Choice California, Planned Parenthood Golden Gate, Planned Parenthood Los Angeles, Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino Counties, Planned Parenthood of San Diego & Riverside Counties, Planned Parenthood of Santa Barbara, Ventura, and San Luis Obispo Counties, and Planned Parenthood of Shasta-Diablo.
In effect, the bill undid the regulations requiring Planned Parenthood to bill the state and federal governments at cost. Nowhere in the bill’s legislative analysis, however, was any mention made of the over-billing discovered by DHS auditors – only the financial harm that would befall Planned Parenthood should the measure not pass. In a rushed summer session, the last-minute bill cleared the legislature and was signed into law by Gov. Schwarzenegger. Ortiz, who has since left the legislature, is now vice president for public affairs of Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, working out of their regional office in Sacramento. According to Planned Parenthood Mar Monte’s 2008 annual report, $39,458,481 of the organization’s annual budget of more than $70.4 million comes from FPACT.
On Nov. 19, 2004, Belshé subordinate Stan Rosenstein, deputy director of medical care services for DHS, wrote to Bob Coles, chief financial officer for Planned Parenthood of San Diego and Riverside Counties, with some good news and some bad news. The bad news: state auditors had determined that Planned Parenthood of San Diego and Riverside Counties had over-billed the government more than $5.2 million between July 1, 2002 and June 30, 2003. The good news: Planned Parenthood would not have to pay back a penny of the overcharges. Rosenstein said in his letter that the regulations were not clear about the meaning of “at cost.” As a consequence, said Rosenstein, “no demand will issue pursuant to the audit…”
At the same time, DHS ordered a halt to audits at all other Planned Parenthood affiliates in California.
Despite the judge’s ruling, which was opposed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in a friend of the court brief, Gonzalez’s federal whistleblower suit is not over. Attorney Jack Schuler, who represents Gonzalez, said he has already begun preparing an appeal based on errors in Judge Matz’s ruling. “The federal government was the one defrauded and the federal government was not noticed until Mr. Gonzalez blew the whistle,” he said. “This was a scheme by Planned Parenthood and its allies to cover up a fraud and Mr. Gonzalez blew the whistle.” Gonzalez also filed a wrongful termination civil suit against Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles in state court that was settled before trial by Planned Parenthood. Schuler said a non-disclosure agreement that was part of the settlement prevented him from providing details, but did say, “It was very favorable to Mr. Gonzalez.”
Former Yugoslav abortionist embraces life
http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=29347
BELGRADE, Serbia (BP)--A physician once considered a champion of abortion in the former Yugoslavia now defends the lives of unborn children.
Sotjan Adasevic said he performed a total of 48,000 abortions, sometimes as many as 35 a day in Yugoslav hospitals under the former communist regime, until a dream caused him to have second thoughts about what he was doing.
Adasevic told the Spanish newspaper La Razon that he "dreamed about a beautiful field full of children and young people who were playing and laughing, from 4 to 24 years of age, but who ran away from him in fear. A man dressed in a black and white habit stared at him in silence." The man identified himself to Adasevic as Thomas Aquinas, the great 13th-century Roman Catholic theologian. The man in his dream told Adasevic the young people were individuals Adasevic had killed in abortions.
The dream repeated each night, awakening Adasevic in a cold sweat, and he began to think he should stop performing abortions, according to a report in the Catholic News Agency Nov. 12. It took a dramatic experience during an abortion, however, to finally end his 26 years as an abortionist.
A cousin brought his girlfriend, who was four months pregnant, into Adasevic's clinic to get an abortion -- her ninth. Adasevic agreed to conduct the procedure but when he removed the fetus, the baby's heart was still beating. Adasevic was stunned to realize he had killed a human being. When he told the hospital he would no longer perform abortions, his salary was cut in half, his daughter was fired from her job and his son was barred from entering the university.
Adasevic found himself under a great deal of pressure to resume conducting abortions and was on the verge of giving in when he had yet another dream about Aquinas, according to the Catholic News Agency article. "You are my good friend, keep going,' the man in his dream told him. Adasevic returned to the Orthodox faith of his childhood and actively joined the pro-life movement in his country. He persuaded Yugoslav television to twice air the classic anti-abortion film "The Silent Scream" featuring Bernard Nathanson.
Today, the article noted, Adasevic is "the most important pro-life leader in Serbia."
--30--
Compiled by Baptist Press assistant editor Mark Kelly.
BELGRADE, Serbia (BP)--A physician once considered a champion of abortion in the former Yugoslavia now defends the lives of unborn children.
Sotjan Adasevic said he performed a total of 48,000 abortions, sometimes as many as 35 a day in Yugoslav hospitals under the former communist regime, until a dream caused him to have second thoughts about what he was doing.
Adasevic told the Spanish newspaper La Razon that he "dreamed about a beautiful field full of children and young people who were playing and laughing, from 4 to 24 years of age, but who ran away from him in fear. A man dressed in a black and white habit stared at him in silence." The man identified himself to Adasevic as Thomas Aquinas, the great 13th-century Roman Catholic theologian. The man in his dream told Adasevic the young people were individuals Adasevic had killed in abortions.
The dream repeated each night, awakening Adasevic in a cold sweat, and he began to think he should stop performing abortions, according to a report in the Catholic News Agency Nov. 12. It took a dramatic experience during an abortion, however, to finally end his 26 years as an abortionist.
A cousin brought his girlfriend, who was four months pregnant, into Adasevic's clinic to get an abortion -- her ninth. Adasevic agreed to conduct the procedure but when he removed the fetus, the baby's heart was still beating. Adasevic was stunned to realize he had killed a human being. When he told the hospital he would no longer perform abortions, his salary was cut in half, his daughter was fired from her job and his son was barred from entering the university.
Adasevic found himself under a great deal of pressure to resume conducting abortions and was on the verge of giving in when he had yet another dream about Aquinas, according to the Catholic News Agency article. "You are my good friend, keep going,' the man in his dream told him. Adasevic returned to the Orthodox faith of his childhood and actively joined the pro-life movement in his country. He persuaded Yugoslav television to twice air the classic anti-abortion film "The Silent Scream" featuring Bernard Nathanson.
Today, the article noted, Adasevic is "the most important pro-life leader in Serbia."
--30--
Compiled by Baptist Press assistant editor Mark Kelly.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Glenn Beck: Drinking the Kool-Aid
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/18391/
GLENN: Yesterday was a big anniversary. Most people didn't celebrate it. I didn't have my Jim Jones tree up. You remember Jim Jones, right? When I say Jim Jones and drink the Kool-Aid, when I say drink the Kool-Aid, what kind of movement comes to mind? If you've drank the Kool-Aid, most -- you know what? I bet we have some younger listeners that are thinking, "I've heard that before" but they don't even know who Jim Jones is. They don't know where "Drink the Kool-Aid" came from. I'm going to turn your world upside down unless you happen to really know the truth behind Jim Jones, and most people don't.
Yesterday was the anniversary. November 17th, 1978, Jim Jones was a hero to some. November 18th, 1978, Jones had orchestrated the killings of 918 people. He was a leftist. Did you know that? Did you know what he really stood for, or are you just thinking that Jim Jones is a Christian cult leader? The parallels on Jim Jones and today are staggering.
November 18, 1978, after he killed 918 people, somehow or another he went from what he was known as especially in his home area of San Francisco, he moved in the eyes of Americans from an American leftist to an evangelical Christian fanatic. It was the Christian in him that did it. We've seen this happen over and over and over again, socialist dreams ending in ghoulish nightmares and then conveniently shifted. They shift everything into a commentary on organized religion and how evil organized religion is. It's important for those who have eyes and those who have ears to hear and eyes to see that they see history beginning to repeat itself. Even the Nation magazine represented at the time, the Temple -- Jim Jones' Temple -- was as much of a left wing political crusade as a church. Let me say that again. "The Temple was as much a left wing political crusade as a church." I want you to see if you can put any of the people that you are currently seeing out in today's political landscape into any of these characters from 1978. In the course of the 1970s the Jim Jones church social program grew steadily more disaffiliated from what Jim Jones came to regard as fascist America. Jim Jones was against fascist America and their social programs drifted rapidly towards outspoken communist sympathies, so much that the last will and testament of the people's temple, the people's temple and its individual members left notes. They bequeathed millions of dollars in assets to... do you know? The people, 918 of them that were killed by that crazy religious Christian preacher, after they drank the Kool-Aid, who did they leave their millions to? The Soviet Union. As Jones expressed to a Soviet diplomat upon his visit to Jonestown months before the suicides took place, quote: For many years we have let our sympathies be quite publicly known that the United States government is not our mother but the Soviet Union was our spiritual mother land.
I'm trying to get my arms around the spirituality of the former Soviet Union. "Jim Jones was an evangelical communist who became a minister only to infiltrate the church with the gospel according to Marx and Lenin. He was an atheist missionary. He knew he could bring the message of socialist redemption to Christians. Quote: I decided how can I demonstrate my Marxism. This is Jim Jones speaking. "The thought was infiltrate the church."
Try to think back. Is there anybody that you have heard that is preaching Marxist philosophies in church? Is there anyone who is bringing the Marxist philosophies and doing it with anger and bitterness against the United States? Have you seen anyone like that on the horizon? Have you seen anyone who is influencing others, whoever those others may be? Unless one counts his drug induced bouts with claiming that he was the Messiah, Jones didn't believe in God. A people's temple. At one point the people in the people's temple were a little shocked because, you know, a lot of them believed in God. But he dramatically threw the people down on the ground at one point and he said, no one's going to come out of the sky; no one is in heaven; there is no heaven up there; we'll have to make heaven down here ourselves.
Now here's the real tragedy of all of this. It could have been avoided. Thousands of miles north outside of the jungles, for years leading up to Jonestown, the good people and the officials of San Francisco, California looked the other way. Journalists looked the other way. Jones acted as a law unto himself in San Francisco. "So what if he abused children. So what if he sodomized a follower. So what if he tortured and held temple members at gunpoint, defrauded the government and the people of welfare and Social Security checks. He believes in socialism. Ends justify the means." The mayor of San Francisco at the time who was assassinated just days after the Jonestown tragedy actually appointed Jones to the city housing authority in 1975. Jim Jones, that crazy preacher in San Francisco, was appointed by the mayor of San Francisco to be a part of the housing authority. You see, his Marxist message really, he wasn't an extremist. He wasn't dangerous. He believed in many of the things that others believed in. He certainly wasn't dangerous. He could help us. He could help our community.
Does this sound like anyone else? Does this sound at all like -- does the name William Ayers come into it at this point? I think I've already seen the same kind of teachings from a preacher. Now is there a William Ayers character here that has been involved? In fact, they gave him all kinds of awards. He was a very popular guy. But the press was useless because the press agreed with a lot of what he said. Those members of the press that did -- well, there was one guy, Les Kinsolving, he did an eight part investigative report on the temple for the People's Examiner, 1972. His editors were pressured by Jones and the political leaders and they killed the report halfway through. The reporter said the temple was the best armed house of God in the land. He detailed the kidnapping and possible murder of disgruntled members, he exposed Jones' phony faith healing, he highlighted Jones' vile school sanctioned sex talk with children, he directed attention to the people's temple, massive welfare fraud that funded its operations. He showed how they were bilking the taxpayer and the United States government through fraud, more than six years before the tragedy in the jungle, but the press buckled and killed the story. A few years later after Jones had moved operations out of San Francisco and into the jungles of Guyana, a writer for the San Francisco Chronicle penned an expose on the people's temple. Chronicle editor sympathetic to Jones spiked that piece as well. Ultimately made its way to New West magazine which, of course, everybody reads and so alarmed Jones that he departed San Francisco for his agricultural experiment because he knew how he could make a better world through Marxism. Oh, by the way, he was also not alone. I mean, it wasn't just the media. It was also -- let me see if I can name some names here. He had rent-free rent-a-rallies for liberal politicians. Jim Jones, because a lot of people could actually, he could just make people turn out, he could bring a lot of people to their alleys. So San Francisco political people like Harvey Milk never seemed to care how Jones could snap his fingers and direct hundreds of people to stack a public meeting or volunteer for a campaign. He was a community leader. He was a community activist. He was a community -- oh, yeah -- organizer. And it wasn't just hacks from San Francisco. He met with first lady Rosalyn Carter, vice presidential candidate Walter Mondale. He was with California governor Jerry Brown. Here's a man who killed more African-Americans than the KKK and he was awarded a local Martin Luther King, Jr. humanitarian award. He also won the praise of California lieutenant governor Mervyn Dymally, a state assemblyman Willie Brown. You heard that name? Angela Davis. Jesse Jackson. The Black Panthers were also with him.
You know, it's worth remembering today that long before anybody was in the jungle drinking that Kool-Aid, long before anybody was sucking that back, there's a lot of people in Washington and the political circles and the media that drank that Kool-Aid. And by the way, just in case you think I've made all of this up and just in case you think, "Oh, well, he doesn't know what he's talking about. Marxism, he doesn't know what a Marx -- he was a Christian zealot!" Let's let the words of some of those who didn't die but were there in the jungle, there were with him in San Francisco, let's let their words speak.
GLENN: By the way, this information just beautifully laid out by Dan Flynn and we're going to include this in our newsletter today. You must read it, absolutely amazing in the parallels. To me at least, to me the Marxist preacher, the Marxist hero of the city, the guy who's going to help turn everything around, William Ayers, just completely dismissed. The media, not paying attention at all. Dismissing, "Oh, it's no danger, it's no danger." And then, of course, the turning on Christians. That's the only piece that's still remaining. That's the only piece that's out there. I mean, it's coming. And this is why I've been saying you've got to know who you are. This is why I've been saying for a while please, please, Catholics, Jews, Muslims that actually are, you know, not trying to kill people, Mormons, Baptists, Lutherans, all of, everybody, Hindus, we must come together as a people of faith. There is an attack coming on religion. There is an attack on traditional values. There is an attack that is coming on people who believe in the Constitution. You don't have to believe what I believe. That's okay. But every time these socialist nightmares go bad, it ends in millions of deaths. Every time one of these socialist nightmares go down, all, you know, anybody who's following from 10 to 918 to 50 million in Stalin's case, dead. And it's always blamed. Always, always blamed on people of faith. I put my faith in people, at least leaders.
GLENN: I don't want anybody left with the wrong impression that I think there isn't anybody preaching about drinking poison Kool-Aid right now and cyanide. What I think that they are preaching right now is just as deadly and that is dependence, and dependence on others and dependence on the government and Marxism. Listen to this audio again and put it into that context.
VOICE: We turned our paychecks over every time we got paid and then we got an allowance, $5 a week.
VOICE: If I had to go to the doctor, it was taken care of. If I had to go to the dentist, it was taken care of. If I needed clothes, that was taken care of.
VOICE: You tend to not really think for yourself, and I did allow Jones to think for me because I figured if he had the better plan. I gave my rights up to him, as many others did.
GLENN: You hear that, we had healthcare, we had a dentist. They thought for us. How many people do you know that aren't thinking for themselves? Think for yourself. Believe in yourself. Where are we as a nation? Where are we as a people? We've come so far. And in the last 100 years we have just, just started to just say, "Okay, well, whatever, they can take that; I don't have to think about." Why are there homeless on the streets in New York? Why are things so bad in New York? Because we let the government of New York take care of everything. When you're living in a small town, you see a problem, you pick it up. You fix it yourself. You do something. Here the government is going to take. We just think they've got the better answer. How many times have you heard about the bailout? I don't know what to do. They know better than I do. And they're robbing us, in the middle of the night. It is just as deadly as anything you could drink out of a bucket of Kool-Aid. It is the dangers of Marxism. It's poison.
New Metro ads likely to stir up controversy
My friend Cristin has a brave brother, Jonathan (who we call Bubba), who is currently serving in the Air Force in Afghanistan. He send this email the day of the election:
In Afghanistan, after talking to people who are Muslim, I've found that they're not offended if someone says "Merry Christmas" to them. They're more offended by us trying to minimize our own religion in front of them for fear of hurting their feelings. Think about it.
That fact that this issue is brought up is because of our own insecurities. We are so afraid of hurting someones feelings that we accept deleting everything we believe, which actually makes things worse.
I couldn't agree more, Bub.
http://wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1515427
Adam Tuss, WTOP Radio
WASHINGTON - It wouldn't be the holiday season without a little controversy concerning God.
Starting next week, Metro will roll out a set of advertisements on its buses sponsored by the American Humanist Association (AHA), a non-theist group. The ads will show a picture of a fake Santa Claus and read: "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake."
"The idea being 'why believe in a god?' It is just not necessary," says Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the AHA. "And 'just be good for goodness' sake' meaning, why not truly do what we can to be good for the sake of goodness."
The ads will be displayed on the sides and taillights of more than 200 Metro buses starting on Nov. 18. The interior posters will go up Dec. 1. The campaign is costing the AHA about $40,000.
"For the most part, we are reaching out to non-theists, to atheists who thought they were alone and now realize there is a way to connect with like minded folks," Spekhardt says. "But this will also give those people on the fence something to think about."
The AHA thought about campaigns in other cities, but chose D.C. because they believe the message will reach the widest swath of people without getting lost in the mix of other ads. The group defines humanism as "a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism, affirms our responsibility to lead ethical lives of value to self and humanity.
The timing of the ads is also intentional.
"We really are hoping to reach out during the holidays. When Thanksgiving comes, and everyone gets around to say grace, maybe the non-theist in the room can say, 'maybe I should be excused,' or 'maybe I can say something this time' and say something that doesn't give credit to something that doesn't exist for all that we have done on this planet."
The AHA says it will think about expanding the ad campaign, based upon the reaction it gets.
The campaign comes as conservative Christian groups gear up their efforts to keep Christ in Christmas. In the past five years, groups such as the American Family Association and the Catholic League have criticized or threatened boycotts of retailers who use generic "holiday" greetings.
In mid-October, the American Family Association started selling buttons that say "It's OK to say Merry Christmas." The humanists' entry into the marketplace of ideas did not impress AFA president Tim Wildmon.
"It's a stupid ad," he said. "How do we define 'good' if we don't believe in God? God in his word, the Bible, tells us what's good and bad and right and wrong. If we are each ourselves defining what's good, it's going to be a crazy world."
Also on Tuesday, the Orlando, Fla.-based Liberty Counsel, a conservative Christian legal group, launched its sixth annual "Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign." Liberty Counsel has intervened in disputes over nativity scenes and government bans on Christmas decorations, among other things.
"It's the ultimate grinch to say there is no God at a time when millions of people around the world celebrate the birth of Christ," said Mathew Staver, the group's chairman and dean of the Liberty University School of Law. "Certainly, they have the right to believe what they want but this is insulting."
Best-selling books by authors such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have fueled interest in "the new atheism" - a more in-your-face argument against God's existence.
Yet few Americans describe themselves as atheist or agnostic; a Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life poll from earlier this year found 92 percent of Americans believe in God.
There was no debate at the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority over whether to take the ad. Spokeswoman Lisa Farbstein said the agency accepts ads that aren't obscene or pornographic.
The Associated Press contributed to this report
(Copyright 2008 by WTOP. All Rights Reserved.)
In Afghanistan, after talking to people who are Muslim, I've found that they're not offended if someone says "Merry Christmas" to them. They're more offended by us trying to minimize our own religion in front of them for fear of hurting their feelings. Think about it.
That fact that this issue is brought up is because of our own insecurities. We are so afraid of hurting someones feelings that we accept deleting everything we believe, which actually makes things worse.
I couldn't agree more, Bub.
http://wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1515427
Adam Tuss, WTOP Radio
WASHINGTON - It wouldn't be the holiday season without a little controversy concerning God.
Starting next week, Metro will roll out a set of advertisements on its buses sponsored by the American Humanist Association (AHA), a non-theist group. The ads will show a picture of a fake Santa Claus and read: "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake."
"The idea being 'why believe in a god?' It is just not necessary," says Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the AHA. "And 'just be good for goodness' sake' meaning, why not truly do what we can to be good for the sake of goodness."
The ads will be displayed on the sides and taillights of more than 200 Metro buses starting on Nov. 18. The interior posters will go up Dec. 1. The campaign is costing the AHA about $40,000.
"For the most part, we are reaching out to non-theists, to atheists who thought they were alone and now realize there is a way to connect with like minded folks," Spekhardt says. "But this will also give those people on the fence something to think about."
The AHA thought about campaigns in other cities, but chose D.C. because they believe the message will reach the widest swath of people without getting lost in the mix of other ads. The group defines humanism as "a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism, affirms our responsibility to lead ethical lives of value to self and humanity.
The timing of the ads is also intentional.
"We really are hoping to reach out during the holidays. When Thanksgiving comes, and everyone gets around to say grace, maybe the non-theist in the room can say, 'maybe I should be excused,' or 'maybe I can say something this time' and say something that doesn't give credit to something that doesn't exist for all that we have done on this planet."
The AHA says it will think about expanding the ad campaign, based upon the reaction it gets.
The campaign comes as conservative Christian groups gear up their efforts to keep Christ in Christmas. In the past five years, groups such as the American Family Association and the Catholic League have criticized or threatened boycotts of retailers who use generic "holiday" greetings.
In mid-October, the American Family Association started selling buttons that say "It's OK to say Merry Christmas." The humanists' entry into the marketplace of ideas did not impress AFA president Tim Wildmon.
"It's a stupid ad," he said. "How do we define 'good' if we don't believe in God? God in his word, the Bible, tells us what's good and bad and right and wrong. If we are each ourselves defining what's good, it's going to be a crazy world."
Also on Tuesday, the Orlando, Fla.-based Liberty Counsel, a conservative Christian legal group, launched its sixth annual "Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign." Liberty Counsel has intervened in disputes over nativity scenes and government bans on Christmas decorations, among other things.
"It's the ultimate grinch to say there is no God at a time when millions of people around the world celebrate the birth of Christ," said Mathew Staver, the group's chairman and dean of the Liberty University School of Law. "Certainly, they have the right to believe what they want but this is insulting."
Best-selling books by authors such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have fueled interest in "the new atheism" - a more in-your-face argument against God's existence.
Yet few Americans describe themselves as atheist or agnostic; a Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life poll from earlier this year found 92 percent of Americans believe in God.
There was no debate at the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority over whether to take the ad. Spokeswoman Lisa Farbstein said the agency accepts ads that aren't obscene or pornographic.
The Associated Press contributed to this report
(Copyright 2008 by WTOP. All Rights Reserved.)
CNN Labels Catholic Cardinal's Criticism of Obama a 'Diatribe'
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2008/cyb20081119-5.asp#3
On Tuesday's Situation Room, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer referred to a Catholic cardinal's criticism of Barack Obama's abortion position as a "scathing rant" and a "diatribe." A CNN graphic also used the "scathing rant" term, and Blitzer later referred to the cardinal's words as a "blistering rant."
All three of these terms came during Blitzer's promos for a report by CNN correspondent Brian Todd, which focused on recent comments made by Cardinal James Francis Stafford, who referred to Obama's pro-abortion stance as "aggressive, disruptive, and apocalyptic." Just before the top of the 5 pm Eastern hour, Blitzer gave the following promo for the segment: "Also, a scathing rant against Barack Obama from a rather surprising source, a Roman Catholic cardinal -- the story behind his diatribe against the President-elect." Ten minutes later, the CNN anchor gave another promo for Todd's report, in which he stated that the cardinal unleashed "a blistering rant on the President-elect."
[This item, by the MRC's Matthew Balan, was posted Tuesday night on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]
Cardinal Stafford, who is the former archbishop of Denver and now works in the Vatican, critiqued President-elect Barack Obama's pro-abortion position during a lecture at Catholic University of America on November 14. During his introduction to the actual report, Blitzer quoted the cardinal's "apocalyptic" comment, and called these words "surprisingly-harsh." Todd, who had interviewed the Catholic prelate over the comment, then gave his own introduction: "Wolf, this cardinal told me he wants to make sure that his words are not taken out of context, but he is not backing down from some very strong criticism of Mr. Obama, specifically over his willingness to sign pro-choice legislation when he becomes President."
It seems the cardinal's concerns about being taken out of context were justified. The soundbite from his lecture that Todd played during the report didn't provide some of the context of his words. The clip was taken from a YouTube posting by The Tower, the student newspaper at CUA, which included audio excerpts from Cardinal Stafford's lecture. Just before making his "apocalyptic" statement, Cardinal Stafford quoted from a speech Barack Obama gave to Planned Parenthood on July 17, 2007, in which the Democrat asserted that the "first thing I will do as president is to sign the Freedom of Choice Act." The act, if passed, would overturn most, if not all laws regulating abortion in the U.S. The prelate then labeled Obama's promise, among other comments he made during the speech, "post-modernist" rhetoric, and that they point to "an agenda and vision that are aggressive, disruptive, and apocalyptic." During this portion of his lecture, Cardinal Stafford used a calm tone of voice, contrary to the "blistering" impression Blitzer had given earlier.
For The Tower's YouTube posting containing excerpts from Cardinal Stafford's lecture at Catholic University, and their accompanying article, see their November 14 item, "Cardinal at CUA: Obama is 'Aggressive, Disruptive and Apocalyptic,'" at: www.cuatower.com
For excerpts of Obama's July 17, 2007 speech to Planned Parenthood, see the YouTube.com item, "Barack Obama Promises to Sign FOCA," at: www.youtube.com
At the end of the segment, Blitzer misrepresented the Catholic Church's stances on various issues. He stated that the Church and Obama "do agree on some hot button issues, including opposition to the war in Iraq, greater access to health care, and more equitable tax codes," as a CNN graphic referred to the health care issues as "universal health care." On the last two issues, this is an oversimplification. Paragraph 2211 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church refers to the "political community's" duty to "honor the family, to assist it, and to ensure," among other things, "the right to private property, to free enterprise, to obtain work and housing, and the right to emigrate" and "in keeping with the country's institutions, the right to medical care, assistance for the aged, and family benefits." The same Catechism, which lists the official teachings of the Catholic Church, says nothing of "more equitable tax codes." It only states how it is "morally obligatory to pay taxes" (paragraph 2240) and that tax evasion is "morally illicit" (paragraph 2409).
On the other hand, Blitzer did correctly state that Obama and the Church "strongly disagree on embryonic stem cell research; abortion rights...and civil unions for gay couples, all of which Obama supports -- the Catholic Church opposes."
On Tuesday's Situation Room, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer referred to a Catholic cardinal's criticism of Barack Obama's abortion position as a "scathing rant" and a "diatribe." A CNN graphic also used the "scathing rant" term, and Blitzer later referred to the cardinal's words as a "blistering rant."
All three of these terms came during Blitzer's promos for a report by CNN correspondent Brian Todd, which focused on recent comments made by Cardinal James Francis Stafford, who referred to Obama's pro-abortion stance as "aggressive, disruptive, and apocalyptic." Just before the top of the 5 pm Eastern hour, Blitzer gave the following promo for the segment: "Also, a scathing rant against Barack Obama from a rather surprising source, a Roman Catholic cardinal -- the story behind his diatribe against the President-elect." Ten minutes later, the CNN anchor gave another promo for Todd's report, in which he stated that the cardinal unleashed "a blistering rant on the President-elect."
[This item, by the MRC's Matthew Balan, was posted Tuesday night on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]
Cardinal Stafford, who is the former archbishop of Denver and now works in the Vatican, critiqued President-elect Barack Obama's pro-abortion position during a lecture at Catholic University of America on November 14. During his introduction to the actual report, Blitzer quoted the cardinal's "apocalyptic" comment, and called these words "surprisingly-harsh." Todd, who had interviewed the Catholic prelate over the comment, then gave his own introduction: "Wolf, this cardinal told me he wants to make sure that his words are not taken out of context, but he is not backing down from some very strong criticism of Mr. Obama, specifically over his willingness to sign pro-choice legislation when he becomes President."
It seems the cardinal's concerns about being taken out of context were justified. The soundbite from his lecture that Todd played during the report didn't provide some of the context of his words. The clip was taken from a YouTube posting by The Tower, the student newspaper at CUA, which included audio excerpts from Cardinal Stafford's lecture. Just before making his "apocalyptic" statement, Cardinal Stafford quoted from a speech Barack Obama gave to Planned Parenthood on July 17, 2007, in which the Democrat asserted that the "first thing I will do as president is to sign the Freedom of Choice Act." The act, if passed, would overturn most, if not all laws regulating abortion in the U.S. The prelate then labeled Obama's promise, among other comments he made during the speech, "post-modernist" rhetoric, and that they point to "an agenda and vision that are aggressive, disruptive, and apocalyptic." During this portion of his lecture, Cardinal Stafford used a calm tone of voice, contrary to the "blistering" impression Blitzer had given earlier.
For The Tower's YouTube posting containing excerpts from Cardinal Stafford's lecture at Catholic University, and their accompanying article, see their November 14 item, "Cardinal at CUA: Obama is 'Aggressive, Disruptive and Apocalyptic,'" at: www.cuatower.com
For excerpts of Obama's July 17, 2007 speech to Planned Parenthood, see the YouTube.com item, "Barack Obama Promises to Sign FOCA," at: www.youtube.com
At the end of the segment, Blitzer misrepresented the Catholic Church's stances on various issues. He stated that the Church and Obama "do agree on some hot button issues, including opposition to the war in Iraq, greater access to health care, and more equitable tax codes," as a CNN graphic referred to the health care issues as "universal health care." On the last two issues, this is an oversimplification. Paragraph 2211 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church refers to the "political community's" duty to "honor the family, to assist it, and to ensure," among other things, "the right to private property, to free enterprise, to obtain work and housing, and the right to emigrate" and "in keeping with the country's institutions, the right to medical care, assistance for the aged, and family benefits." The same Catechism, which lists the official teachings of the Catholic Church, says nothing of "more equitable tax codes." It only states how it is "morally obligatory to pay taxes" (paragraph 2240) and that tax evasion is "morally illicit" (paragraph 2409).
On the other hand, Blitzer did correctly state that Obama and the Church "strongly disagree on embryonic stem cell research; abortion rights...and civil unions for gay couples, all of which Obama supports -- the Catholic Church opposes."
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
The shameful betrayal of a courageos pastor
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=284
St. Mary's church in Greenville, South Carolina, is a model Catholic parish, with an outstanding young pastor. The liturgy is beautiful and reverent; the religious instruction is meticulous and orthodox; the lay people are numerous and active. There is a busy school (run by the Nashville Dominicans), and each year there are dozens of adults welcomed into the Catholic Church at the Easter Vigil.
But that's not why you've heard so much about St. Mary's in the past two weeks. In fact, the success of the parish is not why I'm writing about it today.
St. Mary's has suddenly become the focus of nationwide attention because of what the pastor said-- or rather, what the media said he had said-- about people who had voted for Barack Obama.
Before going any further, let's set the record straight. Father Jay Scott Newman did not say that he would deny the Eucharist to Obama supporters. In a message that he placed in the parish bulletin, he strongly recommended prayers for the incoming President, and reminded the parishioners that Obama had been duly elected by the American people and deserves their respect. However, he took note of Obama's strong support for unrestricted legal abortion, and made the following observation:
Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exits constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ's Church and under the judgment of divine law. Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation.
Notice that this pastoral observation does not mention Obama by name. It could apply to voters who supported any other pro-abortion candidate. Moreover Father Newman did not threaten to deny Communion to anyone. Quite on the contrary, in response to a reporter's question he categorically stated: "I cannot and will not refuse Holy Communion to anyone because of his or her political opinions or choices."
In light of the pastor's clear statement, it is shameful that an AP story carried the thoroughly misleading headline: " SC priest: No communion for Obama supporters." And it is still more shameful that some reputable Catholics, who had full access to the original text of Father Newman's statement and to his clarification as well, helped to spread the false impression that the AP story created, reporting that the pastor had voiced the intention of denying the Eucharist to Obama supporters.
Regrettably, the Diocese of Charleston contributed to the confusion. When Father Newman's statement first hit the headlines, the diocese issued a clear statement of support. But two days later the acting administrator of the diocese repudiated his pastor, in a public statement that lent further credence to the error contained in the AP headline.
"Christ gives us freedom to explore our own conscience and to make our own decisions while adhering to the law of God and the teachings of the faith," said Msgr. Martin Laughlin, the diocesan administrator. "Therefore, if a person has formed his or her conscience well, he or she should not be denied Communion, nor be told to go to confession before receiving Communion."
Again, Father Newman had not denied Communion to anyone, and had said clearly that he did not intend to do so. Msgr. Laughlin was aware of this; he had received Father Newman's original statement and his later (written) response to the reporter's queries.
Father Newman had pointed out that voting to support abortion is a serious sin-- a point made by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops in their election-year statement, Faithful Citizenship-- and he had reminded parishioners that if they were guilty of serious sin they should refrain from the Eucharist until receiving sacramental absolution-- the constant teaching of the Catholic Church. He had brought the debate from the abstract to the concrete level, forcefully reminding parishioners that it is possible to sin-- even to sin gravely-- by casting a ballot, and that those who sin gravely endanger their own souls.
Certainly it is true, as Msgr. Laughlin says, that every individual has the right to follow his own conscience. But every pastor has the right-- indeed the moral duty-- to help his parishioners inform their consciences. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (#1783): "The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings."
A partisan political campaign furnishes plenty of "negative influences" to sway opinions and introduce temptations. Now, with the electioneering finished and passions beginning to cool, Father Newman was asking his people to examine their consciences.
Could the pastor's original statement have been inappropriately worded? Certainly. In this blog entry, my colleague Jeff Mirus argues persuasively that the original statement, as it appeared in the parish bulletin, contained a potentially serious distortion of Church teaching. Father Newman was writing at first for a restricted audience of his own parishioners, and perhaps they might have been expected to understand how much he had compressed the argument. But since he was addressing a hot political topic he should have anticipated the likely public reaction, and realized that his statement was a dangerous oversimplification.
To his credit, once he realized how much commotion he had caused, Father Newman wrote a longer message-- this time addressed not only to his parish but to all interested parties-- seeking to allay any potential confusion. This new, longer statement spelled out the crucial moral distinctions between a vote cast for legal abortion and a vote cast for a candidate who, among other things, favors legal abortion. If the first statement was defective, this clarification was an appropriate remedy, accurately conveying the full and nuanced teaching of the Churchas Jeff Mirus acknowledges. Unfortunately the Charleston diocese ordered Father Newman not to release that clarification, and the excellent statement that was posted on the St. Mary's parish web site has been removed. So the confusion endures.
This campaign season saw the debate over abortion, and more particularly, over the duty of Catholic voters to resist legal abortion. Imagine if Father Newman had issued the same sort of pastoral warning regarding some immoral behavior that does not carry such strong political implications. Suppose, for instance, he had said that men who use pornography, or women who have undergone voluntary sterilization, should not receive Communion before making a good Confession. Would such a warning draw a rebuke from the chancery, too? If a pastor cannot warn his people about the moral consequences of their behavior, then the Church cannot instruct the faithful.
Father Newman's statement was a powerful challenge, not only to his own parishioners, but to countless thousands of Catholics and even non-Catholics who read it. He forcefully reminded us all that abortion is not an abstraction (as those who pound home the slogan of "choice" would have us believe) but a concrete reality. Our attitude toward abortion is not only a matter of personal opinion but a moral decision, for which we shall all be held to account.
St. Mary's church in Greenville, South Carolina, is a model Catholic parish, with an outstanding young pastor. The liturgy is beautiful and reverent; the religious instruction is meticulous and orthodox; the lay people are numerous and active. There is a busy school (run by the Nashville Dominicans), and each year there are dozens of adults welcomed into the Catholic Church at the Easter Vigil.
But that's not why you've heard so much about St. Mary's in the past two weeks. In fact, the success of the parish is not why I'm writing about it today.
St. Mary's has suddenly become the focus of nationwide attention because of what the pastor said-- or rather, what the media said he had said-- about people who had voted for Barack Obama.
Before going any further, let's set the record straight. Father Jay Scott Newman did not say that he would deny the Eucharist to Obama supporters. In a message that he placed in the parish bulletin, he strongly recommended prayers for the incoming President, and reminded the parishioners that Obama had been duly elected by the American people and deserves their respect. However, he took note of Obama's strong support for unrestricted legal abortion, and made the following observation:
Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exits constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ's Church and under the judgment of divine law. Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation.
Notice that this pastoral observation does not mention Obama by name. It could apply to voters who supported any other pro-abortion candidate. Moreover Father Newman did not threaten to deny Communion to anyone. Quite on the contrary, in response to a reporter's question he categorically stated: "I cannot and will not refuse Holy Communion to anyone because of his or her political opinions or choices."
In light of the pastor's clear statement, it is shameful that an AP story carried the thoroughly misleading headline: " SC priest: No communion for Obama supporters." And it is still more shameful that some reputable Catholics, who had full access to the original text of Father Newman's statement and to his clarification as well, helped to spread the false impression that the AP story created, reporting that the pastor had voiced the intention of denying the Eucharist to Obama supporters.
Regrettably, the Diocese of Charleston contributed to the confusion. When Father Newman's statement first hit the headlines, the diocese issued a clear statement of support. But two days later the acting administrator of the diocese repudiated his pastor, in a public statement that lent further credence to the error contained in the AP headline.
"Christ gives us freedom to explore our own conscience and to make our own decisions while adhering to the law of God and the teachings of the faith," said Msgr. Martin Laughlin, the diocesan administrator. "Therefore, if a person has formed his or her conscience well, he or she should not be denied Communion, nor be told to go to confession before receiving Communion."
Again, Father Newman had not denied Communion to anyone, and had said clearly that he did not intend to do so. Msgr. Laughlin was aware of this; he had received Father Newman's original statement and his later (written) response to the reporter's queries.
Father Newman had pointed out that voting to support abortion is a serious sin-- a point made by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops in their election-year statement, Faithful Citizenship-- and he had reminded parishioners that if they were guilty of serious sin they should refrain from the Eucharist until receiving sacramental absolution-- the constant teaching of the Catholic Church. He had brought the debate from the abstract to the concrete level, forcefully reminding parishioners that it is possible to sin-- even to sin gravely-- by casting a ballot, and that those who sin gravely endanger their own souls.
Certainly it is true, as Msgr. Laughlin says, that every individual has the right to follow his own conscience. But every pastor has the right-- indeed the moral duty-- to help his parishioners inform their consciences. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (#1783): "The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings."
A partisan political campaign furnishes plenty of "negative influences" to sway opinions and introduce temptations. Now, with the electioneering finished and passions beginning to cool, Father Newman was asking his people to examine their consciences.
Could the pastor's original statement have been inappropriately worded? Certainly. In this blog entry, my colleague Jeff Mirus argues persuasively that the original statement, as it appeared in the parish bulletin, contained a potentially serious distortion of Church teaching. Father Newman was writing at first for a restricted audience of his own parishioners, and perhaps they might have been expected to understand how much he had compressed the argument. But since he was addressing a hot political topic he should have anticipated the likely public reaction, and realized that his statement was a dangerous oversimplification.
To his credit, once he realized how much commotion he had caused, Father Newman wrote a longer message-- this time addressed not only to his parish but to all interested parties-- seeking to allay any potential confusion. This new, longer statement spelled out the crucial moral distinctions between a vote cast for legal abortion and a vote cast for a candidate who, among other things, favors legal abortion. If the first statement was defective, this clarification was an appropriate remedy, accurately conveying the full and nuanced teaching of the Churchas Jeff Mirus acknowledges. Unfortunately the Charleston diocese ordered Father Newman not to release that clarification, and the excellent statement that was posted on the St. Mary's parish web site has been removed. So the confusion endures.
This campaign season saw the debate over abortion, and more particularly, over the duty of Catholic voters to resist legal abortion. Imagine if Father Newman had issued the same sort of pastoral warning regarding some immoral behavior that does not carry such strong political implications. Suppose, for instance, he had said that men who use pornography, or women who have undergone voluntary sterilization, should not receive Communion before making a good Confession. Would such a warning draw a rebuke from the chancery, too? If a pastor cannot warn his people about the moral consequences of their behavior, then the Church cannot instruct the faithful.
Father Newman's statement was a powerful challenge, not only to his own parishioners, but to countless thousands of Catholics and even non-Catholics who read it. He forcefully reminded us all that abortion is not an abstraction (as those who pound home the slogan of "choice" would have us believe) but a concrete reality. Our attitude toward abortion is not only a matter of personal opinion but a moral decision, for which we shall all be held to account.
VOTE for CareNet of Waco Texas and help them get a $25,000 make-over!
Perry Office Supply is holding a $25,000 Charity Office Makeover, and YOUR vote will decide who wins. CareNet will use the makeover for a new office opening across the street from the Waco Planned Parenthood abortuary, so be sure to vote before 5pm today!!!
Here is how you vote:
1. Go to this web address www.perryop.com
2. Click on "See the finalists and vote now"
3. Click on "Go Vote" and then vote for CareNet.
4. Please forward this message to your e-list!!!
Baby's Life in Jeapordy
The life of an unborn baby is in jeopardy as Chinese authorities prepare to force the mother to undergo an abortion. Guards are holding captive Arzigul Tursun, who is six months pregnant with her third child, at a hospital in China’s northwestern Xinjiang region.
Late on Sunday, Tursun fled the hospital that she was staying at while awaiting her abortion. But she was tracked down by police Monday afternoon at a relative’s house and was again taken to the hospital for an abortion, according to Radio Free Asia.
“The police found my wife,” Nurmemet Tohtasin, the woman’s husband, said in a telephone interview from the Women and Children’s Welfare Hospital, to RFA. “My wife’s father was already at the hospital. They will probably do the abortion today.”
The village chief and party secretary had forced her husband to find Tursun after she escaped from the hospital on Sunday. Nurmemet took officials to two of Tursun’s relatives’ homes and to her parents’ home.
“They said if we don’t find Arzigul, they would take our house and our farmland,” he said.
International protest about the case had initially stalled the abortion. Republican Chris Smith of New Jersey, the House Ranking Member on the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, said human rights groups and the U.S. government will be watching closely to see what happens: “The Chinese Government is notorious for this barbaric practice, but to forcibly abort a woman while the world watches in full knowledge of what is going on would make a mockery of its claim that the central government disapproves of the practice, and of the UN Population Fund pretense that it has moderated the Chinese population planners’ cruelty.”
http://online.worldmag.com/2008/11/18/babys-life-in-jeopardy/
Late on Sunday, Tursun fled the hospital that she was staying at while awaiting her abortion. But she was tracked down by police Monday afternoon at a relative’s house and was again taken to the hospital for an abortion, according to Radio Free Asia.
“The police found my wife,” Nurmemet Tohtasin, the woman’s husband, said in a telephone interview from the Women and Children’s Welfare Hospital, to RFA. “My wife’s father was already at the hospital. They will probably do the abortion today.”
The village chief and party secretary had forced her husband to find Tursun after she escaped from the hospital on Sunday. Nurmemet took officials to two of Tursun’s relatives’ homes and to her parents’ home.
“They said if we don’t find Arzigul, they would take our house and our farmland,” he said.
International protest about the case had initially stalled the abortion. Republican Chris Smith of New Jersey, the House Ranking Member on the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, said human rights groups and the U.S. government will be watching closely to see what happens: “The Chinese Government is notorious for this barbaric practice, but to forcibly abort a woman while the world watches in full knowledge of what is going on would make a mockery of its claim that the central government disapproves of the practice, and of the UN Population Fund pretense that it has moderated the Chinese population planners’ cruelty.”
http://online.worldmag.com/2008/11/18/babys-life-in-jeopardy/
Thank you note to Senator McCain and Governor Palin
Dear Senator McCain and Governor Palin,
You are great Americans. I want to thank you for your courageous fight for the White House, you both did a great job speaking for me and battling for the things I stand for. I am proud that I voted for you and hope to see you again in a major race in the future.
May God bless you and your families abundantly.
Thank you,
Angie
I wrote these letters and mailed them. You can write your own letter to the Senator and Governor too. Their addresses are:
Governor Sarah Palin
Alaska State Capitol Building
Third Floor
PO Box 110001
Juneau, AK 99811-0001
Senator John McCain
5353 North 16th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85016
You are great Americans. I want to thank you for your courageous fight for the White House, you both did a great job speaking for me and battling for the things I stand for. I am proud that I voted for you and hope to see you again in a major race in the future.
May God bless you and your families abundantly.
Thank you,
Angie
I wrote these letters and mailed them. You can write your own letter to the Senator and Governor too. Their addresses are:
Governor Sarah Palin
Alaska State Capitol Building
Third Floor
PO Box 110001
Juneau, AK 99811-0001
Senator John McCain
5353 North 16th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Fight the Freedom of Choice Act!
Freedom of Choice Act info:
http://www.fightfoca.com
Please sign the petition and encourage others to do the same.
http://www.fightfoca.com
Please sign the petition and encourage others to do the same.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Another 'champion of abortion' becomes defender of life: the story of Stojan Adasevic
Madrid, Nov 12, 2008 / 09:21 pm (CNA).- The Spanish daily “La Razon” has published an article on the pro-life conversion of a former “champion of abortion.” Stojan Adasevic, who performed 48,000 abortions, sometimes up to 35 per day, is now the most important pro-life leader in Serbia, after 26 years as the most renowned abortion doctor in the country.
“The medical textbooks of the Communist regime said abortion was simply the removal of a blob of tissue,” the newspaper reported. “Ultrasounds allowing the fetus to be seen did not arrive until the 80s, but they did not change his opinion. Nevertheless, he began to have nightmares.”
In describing his conversion, Adasevic “dreamed about a beautiful field full of children and young people who were playing and laughing, from 4 to 24 years of age, but who ran away from him in fear. A man dressed in a black and white habit stared at him in silence. The dream was repeated each night and he would wake up in a cold sweat. One night he asked the man in black and white who he was. ‘My name is Thomas Aquinas,’ the man in his dream responded. Adasevic, educated in communist schools, had never heard of the Dominican genius saint. He didn’t recognize the name”
“Why don’t you ask me who these children are?” St. Thomas asked Adasevic in his dream.
“They are the ones you killed with your abortions,’ St. Thomas told him.
“Adasevic awoke in amazement and decided not to perform any more abortions,” the article stated.
“That same day a cousin came to the hospital with his four months-pregnant girlfriend, who wanted to get her ninth abortion—something quite frequent in the countries of the Soviet bloc. The doctor agreed. Instead of removing the fetus piece by piece, he decided to chop it up and remove it as a mass. However, the baby’s heart came out still beating. Adasevic realized then that he had killed a human being,”
After this experience, Adasevic “told the hospital he would no longer perform abortions. Never before had a doctor in Communist Yugoslavia refused to do so. They cut his salary in half, fired his daughter from her job, and did not allow his son to enter the university.”
After years of pressure and on the verge of giving up, he had another dream about St. Thomas.
“You are my good friend, keep going,’ the man in black and white told him. Adasevic became involved in the pro-life movement and was able to get Yugoslav television to air the film ‘The Silent Scream,’ by Doctor Bernard Nathanson, two times.”
Adasevic has told his story in magazines and newspapers throughout Eastern Europe. He has returned to the Orthodox faith of his childhood and has studied the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas.
“Influenced by Aristotle, Thomas wrote that human life begins forty days after fertilization,” Adasevic wrote in one article. La Razon commented that Adasevic “suggests that perhaps the saint wanted to make amends for that error.” Today the Serbian doctor continues to fight for the lives of the unborn.
“The medical textbooks of the Communist regime said abortion was simply the removal of a blob of tissue,” the newspaper reported. “Ultrasounds allowing the fetus to be seen did not arrive until the 80s, but they did not change his opinion. Nevertheless, he began to have nightmares.”
In describing his conversion, Adasevic “dreamed about a beautiful field full of children and young people who were playing and laughing, from 4 to 24 years of age, but who ran away from him in fear. A man dressed in a black and white habit stared at him in silence. The dream was repeated each night and he would wake up in a cold sweat. One night he asked the man in black and white who he was. ‘My name is Thomas Aquinas,’ the man in his dream responded. Adasevic, educated in communist schools, had never heard of the Dominican genius saint. He didn’t recognize the name”
“Why don’t you ask me who these children are?” St. Thomas asked Adasevic in his dream.
“They are the ones you killed with your abortions,’ St. Thomas told him.
“Adasevic awoke in amazement and decided not to perform any more abortions,” the article stated.
“That same day a cousin came to the hospital with his four months-pregnant girlfriend, who wanted to get her ninth abortion—something quite frequent in the countries of the Soviet bloc. The doctor agreed. Instead of removing the fetus piece by piece, he decided to chop it up and remove it as a mass. However, the baby’s heart came out still beating. Adasevic realized then that he had killed a human being,”
After this experience, Adasevic “told the hospital he would no longer perform abortions. Never before had a doctor in Communist Yugoslavia refused to do so. They cut his salary in half, fired his daughter from her job, and did not allow his son to enter the university.”
After years of pressure and on the verge of giving up, he had another dream about St. Thomas.
“You are my good friend, keep going,’ the man in black and white told him. Adasevic became involved in the pro-life movement and was able to get Yugoslav television to air the film ‘The Silent Scream,’ by Doctor Bernard Nathanson, two times.”
Adasevic has told his story in magazines and newspapers throughout Eastern Europe. He has returned to the Orthodox faith of his childhood and has studied the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas.
“Influenced by Aristotle, Thomas wrote that human life begins forty days after fertilization,” Adasevic wrote in one article. La Razon commented that Adasevic “suggests that perhaps the saint wanted to make amends for that error.” Today the Serbian doctor continues to fight for the lives of the unborn.
Vitae Caring Foundation Launches New Website
Vitae Launches New Wesite:
www.youroptions.com
Consumer psychologist Dr. Charles Kenny has conducted right-brain research for Vitae Caring Foundation since the early 1990s. As director of The Right Brain People, Inc., his research provides the base of information for all of Vitae’s message development. Now it provides the bedrock for Vitae’s newest website, www.youroptions.com. Read an interview with Dr. Kenny explaining the new website project and how his research played an integral role.
www.youroptions.com
Consumer psychologist Dr. Charles Kenny has conducted right-brain research for Vitae Caring Foundation since the early 1990s. As director of The Right Brain People, Inc., his research provides the base of information for all of Vitae’s message development. Now it provides the bedrock for Vitae’s newest website, www.youroptions.com. Read an interview with Dr. Kenny explaining the new website project and how his research played an integral role.
Some basics about abortion, and what you can do to fight it.
The Priests for Life website, receiving over 35,000 visitors a day, has become one of the leading resources for information. Visit them at www.PriestsForLife.org
On this site you will find facts about abortion and what you can do to stop it. You will be able to listen to talks by our director, Fr. Frank Pavone, and hear from many other leaders as well. In particular, you will be able to see what abortion looks like. Visit www.PriestsForLife.org/images
Although abortion is the most common surgery in America, most people never see what it looks like. The hearts and minds of most people who see it are changed forever. See for yourself!
According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, in 2005, 1.21 million abortions took place in the United States. Some 42,350 of these occurred on women who were 16 to 20 weeks pregnant; over 13,310 occurred on women who were 21 weeks or more into their pregnancy. According to CDC government data, over 64,000 abortions in a year are performed on women who had had three or more previous abortions.
From 1973 through 2005, more than 45 million legal abortions occurred in our country.
Abortions are done mostly for non-medical reasons. As the abortion industry itself admits on the website of the Alan Guttmacher Institute, "[T]hree-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner."
As the University of Detroit Law Review points out, "The Supreme Court's decisions…allowed abortion on demand throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy" (Paul B. Linton, Enforcement of State Abortion Statutes after Roe: A State-by-State Analysis, Vol. 67, Issue 2, Winter 1990).
Quotes from Abortion supporters
"...The abortion-rights folks know it, the anti-abortion folks know it, and so probably, does everyone else. One of the facts of abortion is that women enter abortion clinics to kill their fetuses. It is a form of killing ...you're ending a life." Ron Fitzsimmons, Executive Director, National Coalition of Abortion Providers, New York Times, 26 February 1997
Dr. Fredrik Broekhuizen performs abortions and testified under oath in US District Court on April 5, 2004 about how he does abortions. The following describes legal activity: "I will then, while holding on to the fetus … try and ease those parts through the cervix … The fetus will either continue to come or will begin to break apart. It will break apart wherever or whatever it is. It may be in the middle of the leg, it may be at the abdomen, it may be at the chest…' (Planned Parenthood v. Ashcroft)
Other Suggested Activities to Stop Abortion
(Click here if you would like our help in getting more involved in the pro-life movement.)
1) Pray daily for an end to abortion. Join the ongoing novena to end abortion at www.prayercampaign.org. Pray for women tempted to have abortions, for doctors and nurses, for legislators, for clergy, for those who work in the movement, and for those who do not realize how wrong abortion is. Form pro-life prayer teams or prayer groups in homes or parishes.
2) Read! Be more informed about abortion from such books as Abortion: Question and Answers, by Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke (Available from Hayes publishing 513-681-7559.)
3) Wear pink and blue ribbons as a sign of support for pre-born boys and girls. Put the ribbons on cars, trees, etc.
4) Wear the "Precious Feet" pin that shows the baby’s feet at 10 weeks after conception. (Order from Heritage House 1-800-858-3040, www.hh76.com.)
5) Use pro-life pins, decals, envelopes, bumper stickers, T-shirts, posters, etc. (Order from Heritage House). Place posters and literature on public bulletin boards in supermarkets and other facilities.
6) Take part in First Amendment activities such as Life Chains (National Life Chain (CA), 530-671-5500), prayer vigils (Helpers of God’s Precious Infants (NY), 718-853-2789), literature distribution, pickets, and sidewalk counseling. Attend the Annual January 22 March for Life in Washington DC (202-Life-377). Place pro-life yard signs on your property.
7) Use checks which carry a pro-life message. Contact Promise Checks, 1-800-977-6647.
8) Send letters or articles to newspapers, to your elected officials, and other persons, institutions, and publications regarding respect for life. Have a group of people willing to sign letters that others write. For samples, visit www.priestsforlife.org/letters.
9) Speak up with courage and charity in defense of pre-born babies.
10) Encourage your priest, minister, or rabbi, to speak out against abortion. Priests for Life has resources (1-888-PFL-3448, ext. 237).
11) Book announced Masses for the intention of an end to abortion, and write such intentions on the prayer intention cards that various organizations may mail to you.
12) Take part in local projects and pro-life activities. For information, contact your parish or local pro-life group. Join in pro-life Scripture or rosary services or prayer groups.
13) Leave pro-life literature wherever you can: in public places, at restaurants, as inserts in the mail you send, on cars, etc. Give literature to friends. Send it also in prepaid business reply envelopes that come in the mail. Include it in cards you send for Christmas, birthdays, and other occasions.
14) Get on the mailing list of pro-life organizations. Donate to them. Volunteer for them. See links to many organizations on this website.
15) Find out whether candidates running for public office support abortion, and tell others. Send pro-abortion politicians the US Bishops' document "Living the Gospel of Life." Help with voter registration and distribution of voter guides. Become involved, as citizens, in political campaigns. Vote in such a way that will advance the protection of life.
16) Use paid advertising, in the Yellow pages and elsewhere, to spread pro-life information.
17) Encourage mothers who have been harmed by abortion to bring suits against the abortion industry. For advice, call 1-800-U-CAN-SUE (Legal Action for Women).
18) Donate pro-life books to your local libraries, schools, colleges, and Churches. Request such books at your libraries and bookstores.
19) Get pro-life programs onto local cable TV stations.
20) Promote adoption. For information, call the National Council For Adoption in Alexandria, VA (703-299-6633) or the Catholic Counseling Services at 1-800-BABY-DUE.
21) Publicize pro-life events that groups are holding.
22) Keep informed of national legislative efforts by calling the National Right to Life legislative hotline in Washington DC at 202-626-8800 x120. Visit www.nrlc.org.
23) Fly the flag at half-mast in respect for the babies killed by abortion.
24) Conduct fundraising efforts for pro-life groups: car-washes, bake-sales, raffles, dinners, penny drives, etc.
25) Run a pro-life booth at fairs, rallies, conventions.
26) Establish a memorial stone to the preborn in a local cemetery or on Church grounds.
27) Do pro-life work on a full-time basis. Inquire at Priests for Life, 888-735-3448.
28) Do not use the terms, "going to be a mother (or father)", "expecting a child" or "a child on the way" when speaking of pregnancy. The child is already there in the womb!
29) Attend annual pro-life conventions, such as March for Life (202-LIFE-377) or National Right to Life (202-626-8800). Sponsor a student to attend such conferences. Recommend speakers to other groups and invite them to your community organizations.
30) Get to know reporters and producers in the media. Inform them. Call in to radio and TV talk shows, and ask questions of the pro-life speakers so as to give them more chance to talk.
31) Gather friends in your home and show pro-life videos, such as "Life Talk" from Life Dynamics (1-800-800-LIFE), the "Be Not Afraid" Holy Hours provided by the Apostolate for Family Consecration (Ohio) 800-77-FAMILY, or videos from Priests for Life (888-735-3448). Show these videos to your children's friends.
32) Do scholarly study and research.
33) In graduation ceremonies, include a remembrance of those who would have been graduating but were aborted.
34) Use the Internet to spread the message. Put a pro-life signature on your emails. Send pro-life messages to your email lists. Visit and learn from pro-life websites. Start a pro-life website.
35) For more ideas, see the books, Closed: 99 Ways to Stop Abortion (available through the Pro-Life Action League, 6160 N. Cicero Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60646, 773-777-2900, www.prolifeaction.org).
Become a "Missionary of the Gospel of Life!" These are our lay associates of Priests for Life! Whatever pro-life work you do, you can do it in union with the Church. Join to learn and practice the spirituality of the pro-life movement. For more information visit www.MissionariesoftheGospelofLife.org
***
For free pro-life literature call 1-888-735-3448 x237
***
Priests for Life is an approved, national Catholic pro-life organization. Its goal is to equip priests, and deacons, and everyone in the Church to take a more vocal and active role in the pro-life movement. Priests for Life publishes a regular newsletter and offers a wide range of educational materials.
Want to keep up to date about abortion and the pro-life movement? You can join the more than 50,000 people who receive Fr. Frank's email commentary every two weeks. Just ask for it at
subscribe@priestsforlife.org
Contact Us: Priests for Life PO Box 141172 Staten Island, NY 10314 Tel: 888-735-3448 or 718-980-4400 Fax: 718-980-6515 Email: mail@priestsforlife.org
General Website: www.priestsforlife.org Deacons: www.deaconsforlife.org Youth: www.abortionaborted.org Healing after Abortion: www.silentnomoreawareness.org or www.rachelsvineyard.org Visit us on You Tube at www.YouTube.com/frfrankpavone
Priests for Life speakers are ready to come to your parish! Call us to arrange a visit! 1-888-735-3448 x258
Save lives by donating to our work!
Priests for Life is funded completely from committed individuals like you. Every dollar is used to save lives and educate the public. Donate online at www.priestsforlife.org/donate, or send checks payable to "Priests for Life" to PO Box 141172, Staten Island, NY 10314
Father Frank A. Pavone is a priest of the Diocese of Amarillo, TX. He serves full-time as National Director of Priests for Life, traveling to an average of four states a week. Cardinal John O’Connor allowed him to begin this work in 1993. He has spoken in all 50 states and five continents, helping priests and others fight abortion. He produces TV and radio programs for EWTN, Vatican Radio, and numerous other outlets. His writings on pro-life topics are published worldwide. Mother Teresa asked him to speak in India on life issues, and he was invited to address the pro-life caucus of the United States House of Representatives. The Vatican appointed him to the Pontifical Council for the Family, which coordinates the pro-life activities of the Catholic Church. He received the Proudly Pro-life Award from the National Right to Life Committee. He is the President of the National Pro-life Religious Council, and the Chairman of the Board of Rachel's Vineyard, the largest ministry in the world for healing after abortion.
[tambien en español]
On this site you will find facts about abortion and what you can do to stop it. You will be able to listen to talks by our director, Fr. Frank Pavone, and hear from many other leaders as well. In particular, you will be able to see what abortion looks like. Visit www.PriestsForLife.org/images
Although abortion is the most common surgery in America, most people never see what it looks like. The hearts and minds of most people who see it are changed forever. See for yourself!
According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, in 2005, 1.21 million abortions took place in the United States. Some 42,350 of these occurred on women who were 16 to 20 weeks pregnant; over 13,310 occurred on women who were 21 weeks or more into their pregnancy. According to CDC government data, over 64,000 abortions in a year are performed on women who had had three or more previous abortions.
From 1973 through 2005, more than 45 million legal abortions occurred in our country.
Abortions are done mostly for non-medical reasons. As the abortion industry itself admits on the website of the Alan Guttmacher Institute, "[T]hree-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner."
As the University of Detroit Law Review points out, "The Supreme Court's decisions…allowed abortion on demand throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy" (Paul B. Linton, Enforcement of State Abortion Statutes after Roe: A State-by-State Analysis, Vol. 67, Issue 2, Winter 1990).
Quotes from Abortion supporters
"...The abortion-rights folks know it, the anti-abortion folks know it, and so probably, does everyone else. One of the facts of abortion is that women enter abortion clinics to kill their fetuses. It is a form of killing ...you're ending a life." Ron Fitzsimmons, Executive Director, National Coalition of Abortion Providers, New York Times, 26 February 1997
Dr. Fredrik Broekhuizen performs abortions and testified under oath in US District Court on April 5, 2004 about how he does abortions. The following describes legal activity: "I will then, while holding on to the fetus … try and ease those parts through the cervix … The fetus will either continue to come or will begin to break apart. It will break apart wherever or whatever it is. It may be in the middle of the leg, it may be at the abdomen, it may be at the chest…' (Planned Parenthood v. Ashcroft)
Other Suggested Activities to Stop Abortion
(Click here if you would like our help in getting more involved in the pro-life movement.)
1) Pray daily for an end to abortion. Join the ongoing novena to end abortion at www.prayercampaign.org. Pray for women tempted to have abortions, for doctors and nurses, for legislators, for clergy, for those who work in the movement, and for those who do not realize how wrong abortion is. Form pro-life prayer teams or prayer groups in homes or parishes.
2) Read! Be more informed about abortion from such books as Abortion: Question and Answers, by Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke (Available from Hayes publishing 513-681-7559.)
3) Wear pink and blue ribbons as a sign of support for pre-born boys and girls. Put the ribbons on cars, trees, etc.
4) Wear the "Precious Feet" pin that shows the baby’s feet at 10 weeks after conception. (Order from Heritage House 1-800-858-3040, www.hh76.com.)
5) Use pro-life pins, decals, envelopes, bumper stickers, T-shirts, posters, etc. (Order from Heritage House). Place posters and literature on public bulletin boards in supermarkets and other facilities.
6) Take part in First Amendment activities such as Life Chains (National Life Chain (CA), 530-671-5500), prayer vigils (Helpers of God’s Precious Infants (NY), 718-853-2789), literature distribution, pickets, and sidewalk counseling. Attend the Annual January 22 March for Life in Washington DC (202-Life-377). Place pro-life yard signs on your property.
7) Use checks which carry a pro-life message. Contact Promise Checks, 1-800-977-6647.
8) Send letters or articles to newspapers, to your elected officials, and other persons, institutions, and publications regarding respect for life. Have a group of people willing to sign letters that others write. For samples, visit www.priestsforlife.org/letters.
9) Speak up with courage and charity in defense of pre-born babies.
10) Encourage your priest, minister, or rabbi, to speak out against abortion. Priests for Life has resources (1-888-PFL-3448, ext. 237).
11) Book announced Masses for the intention of an end to abortion, and write such intentions on the prayer intention cards that various organizations may mail to you.
12) Take part in local projects and pro-life activities. For information, contact your parish or local pro-life group. Join in pro-life Scripture or rosary services or prayer groups.
13) Leave pro-life literature wherever you can: in public places, at restaurants, as inserts in the mail you send, on cars, etc. Give literature to friends. Send it also in prepaid business reply envelopes that come in the mail. Include it in cards you send for Christmas, birthdays, and other occasions.
14) Get on the mailing list of pro-life organizations. Donate to them. Volunteer for them. See links to many organizations on this website.
15) Find out whether candidates running for public office support abortion, and tell others. Send pro-abortion politicians the US Bishops' document "Living the Gospel of Life." Help with voter registration and distribution of voter guides. Become involved, as citizens, in political campaigns. Vote in such a way that will advance the protection of life.
16) Use paid advertising, in the Yellow pages and elsewhere, to spread pro-life information.
17) Encourage mothers who have been harmed by abortion to bring suits against the abortion industry. For advice, call 1-800-U-CAN-SUE (Legal Action for Women).
18) Donate pro-life books to your local libraries, schools, colleges, and Churches. Request such books at your libraries and bookstores.
19) Get pro-life programs onto local cable TV stations.
20) Promote adoption. For information, call the National Council For Adoption in Alexandria, VA (703-299-6633) or the Catholic Counseling Services at 1-800-BABY-DUE.
21) Publicize pro-life events that groups are holding.
22) Keep informed of national legislative efforts by calling the National Right to Life legislative hotline in Washington DC at 202-626-8800 x120. Visit www.nrlc.org.
23) Fly the flag at half-mast in respect for the babies killed by abortion.
24) Conduct fundraising efforts for pro-life groups: car-washes, bake-sales, raffles, dinners, penny drives, etc.
25) Run a pro-life booth at fairs, rallies, conventions.
26) Establish a memorial stone to the preborn in a local cemetery or on Church grounds.
27) Do pro-life work on a full-time basis. Inquire at Priests for Life, 888-735-3448.
28) Do not use the terms, "going to be a mother (or father)", "expecting a child" or "a child on the way" when speaking of pregnancy. The child is already there in the womb!
29) Attend annual pro-life conventions, such as March for Life (202-LIFE-377) or National Right to Life (202-626-8800). Sponsor a student to attend such conferences. Recommend speakers to other groups and invite them to your community organizations.
30) Get to know reporters and producers in the media. Inform them. Call in to radio and TV talk shows, and ask questions of the pro-life speakers so as to give them more chance to talk.
31) Gather friends in your home and show pro-life videos, such as "Life Talk" from Life Dynamics (1-800-800-LIFE), the "Be Not Afraid" Holy Hours provided by the Apostolate for Family Consecration (Ohio) 800-77-FAMILY, or videos from Priests for Life (888-735-3448). Show these videos to your children's friends.
32) Do scholarly study and research.
33) In graduation ceremonies, include a remembrance of those who would have been graduating but were aborted.
34) Use the Internet to spread the message. Put a pro-life signature on your emails. Send pro-life messages to your email lists. Visit and learn from pro-life websites. Start a pro-life website.
35) For more ideas, see the books, Closed: 99 Ways to Stop Abortion (available through the Pro-Life Action League, 6160 N. Cicero Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60646, 773-777-2900, www.prolifeaction.org).
Become a "Missionary of the Gospel of Life!" These are our lay associates of Priests for Life! Whatever pro-life work you do, you can do it in union with the Church. Join to learn and practice the spirituality of the pro-life movement. For more information visit www.MissionariesoftheGospelofLife.org
***
For free pro-life literature call 1-888-735-3448 x237
***
Priests for Life is an approved, national Catholic pro-life organization. Its goal is to equip priests, and deacons, and everyone in the Church to take a more vocal and active role in the pro-life movement. Priests for Life publishes a regular newsletter and offers a wide range of educational materials.
Want to keep up to date about abortion and the pro-life movement? You can join the more than 50,000 people who receive Fr. Frank's email commentary every two weeks. Just ask for it at
subscribe@priestsforlife.org
Contact Us: Priests for Life PO Box 141172 Staten Island, NY 10314 Tel: 888-735-3448 or 718-980-4400 Fax: 718-980-6515 Email: mail@priestsforlife.org
General Website: www.priestsforlife.org Deacons: www.deaconsforlife.org Youth: www.abortionaborted.org Healing after Abortion: www.silentnomoreawareness.org or www.rachelsvineyard.org Visit us on You Tube at www.YouTube.com/frfrankpavone
Priests for Life speakers are ready to come to your parish! Call us to arrange a visit! 1-888-735-3448 x258
Save lives by donating to our work!
Priests for Life is funded completely from committed individuals like you. Every dollar is used to save lives and educate the public. Donate online at www.priestsforlife.org/donate, or send checks payable to "Priests for Life" to PO Box 141172, Staten Island, NY 10314
Father Frank A. Pavone
Father Frank A. Pavone is a priest of the Diocese of Amarillo, TX. He serves full-time as National Director of Priests for Life, traveling to an average of four states a week. Cardinal John O’Connor allowed him to begin this work in 1993. He has spoken in all 50 states and five continents, helping priests and others fight abortion. He produces TV and radio programs for EWTN, Vatican Radio, and numerous other outlets. His writings on pro-life topics are published worldwide. Mother Teresa asked him to speak in India on life issues, and he was invited to address the pro-life caucus of the United States House of Representatives. The Vatican appointed him to the Pontifical Council for the Family, which coordinates the pro-life activities of the Catholic Church. He received the Proudly Pro-life Award from the National Right to Life Committee. He is the President of the National Pro-life Religious Council, and the Chairman of the Board of Rachel's Vineyard, the largest ministry in the world for healing after abortion.
[tambien en español]
Emergency Contraception Fails to Reduce Unintended Pregnancy and Abortion
Supporters of Plan B and other types of “emergency contraception” (EC) used to claim that easier access to EC could “result in a greater than 50% reduction in abortion rates.” J. Trussell et al., “Emergency Contraception: A Simple Proposal to Reduce Unintended Pregnancies,” Family Planning Perspectives 24 (Nov/Dec 1992): 6.
However, that estimate came from a hypothetical “modeling exercise.” Last year, Plan B supporters began to admit that the hard data tell a different story:
“[T]he experts had estimated that we would see a drop by up to half in the rates of unintended pregnancy and the rates of abortion. And in fact in the real world we're not seeing that.” Kirsten Moore, President and CEO of Reproductive Health Technologies Project, quoted in A.W. Schachter, “‘Plan B’: What Science Can't Tell Us,” New York Post Online Edition, Aug. 11, 2006.
Now even the author of the “greater than 50% reduction” claim, James Trussell, has conceded that 23 published studies from 10 countries disprove his claim. According to every one of the 23 studies, published between 1998 and 2006, easier access to EC fails to achieve any statistically significant reduction in rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion. E. Raymond et al., “Population Effect of Increased Access to Emergency Contraceptive Pills,” Obstetrics & Gynecology 109 (2007): 181-8.
Some of these studies reviewed country-wide statistics on unintended pregnancy and abortion after EC became inexpensive (or free) and widely available in health clinics or over-the-counter in pharmacies. Other studies compared results between women given packets of EC for future use, and a control group of women who had to acquire EC on their own. In the latter type of study, women given EC in advance were more likely to use it, but no statistically significant difference in unintended pregnancy or abortion was found between the two groups.
These studies from the U.S., Europe, and China are among those demonstrating the complete failure of EC to reduce rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion:
Sixteen months after 18,000 sexually active women in a health district in Scotland were each given 5 packets of EC, researchers concluded: “No effect on abortion rates was demonstrated with advance provision of EC. The results of this study suggest that wide-spread distribution of advanced supplies of EC through health services may not be an effective way to reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancy in the UK.” A. Glasier et al., “Advanced provision of emergency contraception does not reduce abortion rates," Contraception 69 (May 2004): 361-6 (www.cwfa.org/images/content/scotland0905.pdf; visited Feb. 14, 2007).
Over 2,000 women in the San Francisco Bay area were randomly assigned to one of three groups. The first group was given packets of EC; the second was told how to obtain EC free from pharmacies; the third had to return to the clinic for EC. Over 80% of the women were also using another form of contraception. After six months, 7-8% of women in each group were pregnant. “We did not observe a difference in pregnancy rates in women with either pharmacy access or advance provision [of EC]; the adjusted risk of pregnancy for both treatment groups was not significantly less than 1. Previous studies also failed to show significant differences in pregnancy or abortion rates among women with advance provisions of EC. It is possible that the effect of increased access on pregnancy rates is truly negligible because EC is not as effective as found in the single-use clinical trials, or because women at highest risk do not use EC frequently enough or at all.” T. Raine et al., “Direct Access to Emergency Contraception Through Pharmacies and Effect on Unintended Pregnancy and STIs,” Journal of the American Medical Association 293 (2005): 54-62 (www.dph.sf.ca.us/sfcityclinic/providers/Directaccesscontraception.pdf; visited Feb. 14, 2007).
Hu et al. conducted a randomized, controlled trial of 2,000 postpartum women in Shanghai, China (who would have a strong incentive not to become pregnant within a year of giving birth because this is forbidden by the government). Half were given 3 courses of mifepristone to use at home as emergency contraception (EC) “as needed.” The other half (control group) had to see a doctor to obtain mifepristone. Both groups could also purchase a Plan B-type emergency contraceptive at supermarkets. Women in the first group used EC twice as frequently as those in the control group, but there was no difference in pregnancy or abortion rates after one year. “This study adds to the growing literature casting doubt on the increased use of EC as a quick fix for rising abortion rates. That is not to say that EC will not prevent pregnancy for some women, sometimes, but rather that it may not make much difference to public health.” Xiaoyu Hu et al., “Advanced provision of emergency contraception to postnatal women in China makes no difference in abortion rates: a randomized controlled trial,” Contraception 72 (2005): 111-6.
Examining the impact of free, over-the-counter EC for teenagers in England, researchers reported: “We find little evidence that pharmacy [EC] schemes have led to lower under-18 pregnancy rates in England.” S. Girma and D. Paton, "Matching Estimates of the Impact of Over-the-Counter Emergency Birth Control on Teenage Pregnancy," University of Nottingham School of Business Occasional Paper Series, No. 2005-15 (October 2005) (www.nottingham.ac.uk/%7Elizecon/RePEc/pdf/matching.pdf; visited Feb. 14, 2007).
EC researcher Anna Glasier seconds that observation in a September 2006 editorial in the British Medical Journal: “[D]espite the clear increase in the use of emergency contraception, abortion rates have not fallen in the U.K. They have risen from 11 per 1000 women ... in 1984 ... to 17.8 per 1000 in 2004.” She adds: “Ten studies in different countries have shown that giving women a supply of emergency contraception to keep at home ... increases use by twofold to threefold ... but [has] had no measurable effect on rates of pregnancy or abortion.” She concludes: “If you are looking for an intervention that will reduce abortion rates, emergency contraception may not be the solution.” Anna Glasier, Editorial, “Emergency Contraception: Is it worth all the fuss?”, British Medical Journal 333 (2006): 560-1.
“Another commonly held view for which there is no documented evidence is that improving knowledge about and access to Emergency Contraception will reduce the number of teenage pregnancies. ... Experience of use so far does not give any evidence of effectiveness. Prescribing rates of the morning-after pill have multiplied steadily in Scotland while there has been no observed decline in the rate of teenage pregnancies or abortions.” A. Williams, "The Morning-After Pill," Scottish Council of Human Bioethics (Nov. 2005) (www.schb.org.uk, click on "Publications" then "Sexual Health").
“Despite the fact that emergency contraceptive pills (ECP) have become easily available across the country during recent years, abortion numbers continue to rise in Sweden, especially in the young age groups (<25).” T. Tyden et al., “No reduced number of abortions despite easily available emergency contraceptive pills,” Lakartidningen 99 (2002): 4730-2, 4735 (abstract at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12523048&dopt=Citation; visited Feb. 14, 2007).
Summarizing findings of the Washington State Pilot Project, which allowed pharmacies to dispense EC without a prescription from February 1998 to June 1999, researchers noted: “If the increased accessibility of emergency contraception reduces unintended pregnancy, there should be evidence of reduced pregnancy and abortion rates. To be sure, abortions in Washington reached the lowest level in two decades, dropping by 5% from 1997 to 1998. ... However, the national abortion rates also were declining during this period. ... In 1999, both pregnancy rates and rates of induced abortion increased slightly in Washington State.” J. Gardner et al., “Increasing Access to Emergency Contraception Through Community Pharmacies: Lessons from Washington State,” Family Planning Perspectives 33 (2001): 172-5 (www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3317201.pdf; visited Feb. 14, 2007). Note: The Guttmacher Institute reports a 5% decline nationally in the abortion rate between 1996 and 2000, compared to a drop of only 3% in Washington state.
Anna Glasier concedes in her above-cited study that “EC may be less effective than we belief [sic]. Estimates of efficacy are unsubstantiated by randomized trials. Efficacy is based on rather unreliable data and a great many assumptions and have been questioned both in the past and more recently. ... While advanced provision of EC probably prevents some pregnancies for some women some of the time, the strategy did not produce the public health breakthrough hoped for.” A. Glasier, Contraception, op. cit., at 365.
The new 2007 study by Raymond, Trussell and others, cited above, even casts doubt on the usual claims made for EC’s effectiveness for the individual user: “[W]e can be 95% confident that it reduces pregnancy risk by more than 23%. But just how much more remains poorly defined; the published efficacy figures … – on average, approximately 80% – may overstate actual efficacy, possibly quite substantially. Clearly, if the method is weakly efficacious, it is unlikely to produce a major reduction in unintended pregnancy no matter how often women use it.” E. Raymond et al., Obstetrics & Gynecology, op cit., at 187.
Email us at prolife@usccb.orgPro-Life Activities 3211 4th Street, N.E., Washington DC 20017-1194 (202) 541-3000 © USCCB. All rights reserved.
However, that estimate came from a hypothetical “modeling exercise.” Last year, Plan B supporters began to admit that the hard data tell a different story:
“[T]he experts had estimated that we would see a drop by up to half in the rates of unintended pregnancy and the rates of abortion. And in fact in the real world we're not seeing that.” Kirsten Moore, President and CEO of Reproductive Health Technologies Project, quoted in A.W. Schachter, “‘Plan B’: What Science Can't Tell Us,” New York Post Online Edition, Aug. 11, 2006.
Now even the author of the “greater than 50% reduction” claim, James Trussell, has conceded that 23 published studies from 10 countries disprove his claim. According to every one of the 23 studies, published between 1998 and 2006, easier access to EC fails to achieve any statistically significant reduction in rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion. E. Raymond et al., “Population Effect of Increased Access to Emergency Contraceptive Pills,” Obstetrics & Gynecology 109 (2007): 181-8.
Some of these studies reviewed country-wide statistics on unintended pregnancy and abortion after EC became inexpensive (or free) and widely available in health clinics or over-the-counter in pharmacies. Other studies compared results between women given packets of EC for future use, and a control group of women who had to acquire EC on their own. In the latter type of study, women given EC in advance were more likely to use it, but no statistically significant difference in unintended pregnancy or abortion was found between the two groups.
These studies from the U.S., Europe, and China are among those demonstrating the complete failure of EC to reduce rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion:
Sixteen months after 18,000 sexually active women in a health district in Scotland were each given 5 packets of EC, researchers concluded: “No effect on abortion rates was demonstrated with advance provision of EC. The results of this study suggest that wide-spread distribution of advanced supplies of EC through health services may not be an effective way to reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancy in the UK.” A. Glasier et al., “Advanced provision of emergency contraception does not reduce abortion rates," Contraception 69 (May 2004): 361-6 (www.cwfa.org/images/content/scotland0905.pdf; visited Feb. 14, 2007).
Over 2,000 women in the San Francisco Bay area were randomly assigned to one of three groups. The first group was given packets of EC; the second was told how to obtain EC free from pharmacies; the third had to return to the clinic for EC. Over 80% of the women were also using another form of contraception. After six months, 7-8% of women in each group were pregnant. “We did not observe a difference in pregnancy rates in women with either pharmacy access or advance provision [of EC]; the adjusted risk of pregnancy for both treatment groups was not significantly less than 1. Previous studies also failed to show significant differences in pregnancy or abortion rates among women with advance provisions of EC. It is possible that the effect of increased access on pregnancy rates is truly negligible because EC is not as effective as found in the single-use clinical trials, or because women at highest risk do not use EC frequently enough or at all.” T. Raine et al., “Direct Access to Emergency Contraception Through Pharmacies and Effect on Unintended Pregnancy and STIs,” Journal of the American Medical Association 293 (2005): 54-62 (www.dph.sf.ca.us/sfcityclinic/providers/Directaccesscontraception.pdf; visited Feb. 14, 2007).
Hu et al. conducted a randomized, controlled trial of 2,000 postpartum women in Shanghai, China (who would have a strong incentive not to become pregnant within a year of giving birth because this is forbidden by the government). Half were given 3 courses of mifepristone to use at home as emergency contraception (EC) “as needed.” The other half (control group) had to see a doctor to obtain mifepristone. Both groups could also purchase a Plan B-type emergency contraceptive at supermarkets. Women in the first group used EC twice as frequently as those in the control group, but there was no difference in pregnancy or abortion rates after one year. “This study adds to the growing literature casting doubt on the increased use of EC as a quick fix for rising abortion rates. That is not to say that EC will not prevent pregnancy for some women, sometimes, but rather that it may not make much difference to public health.” Xiaoyu Hu et al., “Advanced provision of emergency contraception to postnatal women in China makes no difference in abortion rates: a randomized controlled trial,” Contraception 72 (2005): 111-6.
Examining the impact of free, over-the-counter EC for teenagers in England, researchers reported: “We find little evidence that pharmacy [EC] schemes have led to lower under-18 pregnancy rates in England.” S. Girma and D. Paton, "Matching Estimates of the Impact of Over-the-Counter Emergency Birth Control on Teenage Pregnancy," University of Nottingham School of Business Occasional Paper Series, No. 2005-15 (October 2005) (www.nottingham.ac.uk/%7Elizecon/RePEc/pdf/matching.pdf; visited Feb. 14, 2007).
EC researcher Anna Glasier seconds that observation in a September 2006 editorial in the British Medical Journal: “[D]espite the clear increase in the use of emergency contraception, abortion rates have not fallen in the U.K. They have risen from 11 per 1000 women ... in 1984 ... to 17.8 per 1000 in 2004.” She adds: “Ten studies in different countries have shown that giving women a supply of emergency contraception to keep at home ... increases use by twofold to threefold ... but [has] had no measurable effect on rates of pregnancy or abortion.” She concludes: “If you are looking for an intervention that will reduce abortion rates, emergency contraception may not be the solution.” Anna Glasier, Editorial, “Emergency Contraception: Is it worth all the fuss?”, British Medical Journal 333 (2006): 560-1.
“Another commonly held view for which there is no documented evidence is that improving knowledge about and access to Emergency Contraception will reduce the number of teenage pregnancies. ... Experience of use so far does not give any evidence of effectiveness. Prescribing rates of the morning-after pill have multiplied steadily in Scotland while there has been no observed decline in the rate of teenage pregnancies or abortions.” A. Williams, "The Morning-After Pill," Scottish Council of Human Bioethics (Nov. 2005) (www.schb.org.uk, click on "Publications" then "Sexual Health").
“Despite the fact that emergency contraceptive pills (ECP) have become easily available across the country during recent years, abortion numbers continue to rise in Sweden, especially in the young age groups (<25).” T. Tyden et al., “No reduced number of abortions despite easily available emergency contraceptive pills,” Lakartidningen 99 (2002): 4730-2, 4735 (abstract at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12523048&dopt=Citation; visited Feb. 14, 2007).
Summarizing findings of the Washington State Pilot Project, which allowed pharmacies to dispense EC without a prescription from February 1998 to June 1999, researchers noted: “If the increased accessibility of emergency contraception reduces unintended pregnancy, there should be evidence of reduced pregnancy and abortion rates. To be sure, abortions in Washington reached the lowest level in two decades, dropping by 5% from 1997 to 1998. ... However, the national abortion rates also were declining during this period. ... In 1999, both pregnancy rates and rates of induced abortion increased slightly in Washington State.” J. Gardner et al., “Increasing Access to Emergency Contraception Through Community Pharmacies: Lessons from Washington State,” Family Planning Perspectives 33 (2001): 172-5 (www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3317201.pdf; visited Feb. 14, 2007). Note: The Guttmacher Institute reports a 5% decline nationally in the abortion rate between 1996 and 2000, compared to a drop of only 3% in Washington state.
Anna Glasier concedes in her above-cited study that “EC may be less effective than we belief [sic]. Estimates of efficacy are unsubstantiated by randomized trials. Efficacy is based on rather unreliable data and a great many assumptions and have been questioned both in the past and more recently. ... While advanced provision of EC probably prevents some pregnancies for some women some of the time, the strategy did not produce the public health breakthrough hoped for.” A. Glasier, Contraception, op. cit., at 365.
The new 2007 study by Raymond, Trussell and others, cited above, even casts doubt on the usual claims made for EC’s effectiveness for the individual user: “[W]e can be 95% confident that it reduces pregnancy risk by more than 23%. But just how much more remains poorly defined; the published efficacy figures … – on average, approximately 80% – may overstate actual efficacy, possibly quite substantially. Clearly, if the method is weakly efficacious, it is unlikely to produce a major reduction in unintended pregnancy no matter how often women use it.” E. Raymond et al., Obstetrics & Gynecology, op cit., at 187.
Email us at prolife@usccb.orgPro-Life Activities 3211 4th Street, N.E., Washington DC 20017-1194 (202) 541-3000 © USCCB. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
