Washington D.C., Aug 23, 2010 / 06:19 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Pro-life groups lauded the decision of a federal court ruling on Monday which prevents the Obama administration from carrying out its embryonic stem cell research policy. One legal fund reacted by saying, the “American people should not be forced to pay for experiments – prohibited by federal law – that destroy human life.”
The ruling comes after the National Institutes of Health (NIH) issued new guidelines last year that permitted federal funding for research on stem cell lines that had already been created.
On August 23, however, a federal judge concluded that the policy likely violates a federal law known as the “Dickey/Wicker Amendment.” The amendment has been part of the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services every year since 1996.
The amendment bars federal funding for the creation of a human embryo for research purposes as well as for research in which a human embryo or embryos are “destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death.”
U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth temporarily blocked the Obama administration on Monday from using federal dollars to fund expanded human embryonic stem cell research while a lawsuit against the NIH policy – filed last year by the Christian Medical Association (CMA) and Nightlight Christian Adoptions – proceeds.
Pro-life groups praised the ruling on Monday.
The Alliance Defense Fund, which helped represent CMA and Nightlight, saying that the “American people should not be forced to pay for experiments – prohibited by federal law – that destroy human life.”
“The court is simply enforcing an existing law passed by Congress that prevents Americans from paying another penny for needless research on human embryos,” continued ADF Senior Legal Counsel Steven H. Aden. “No one should be allowed to decide that an innocent life is worthless.”
“Experimentation on embryonic stem cells isn’t even necessary because adult stem cell research has been enormously successful,” Aden said. “In economic times like we are in now, it doesn’t make sense for the federal government to use precious taxpayer dollars for this illegal and unethical purpose.”
Family Research Council president Tony Perkins also weighed in on the ruling Monday, saying that the judge's decision was “a stinging rebuke to the Obama Administration and its attempt to circumvent sound science and federal law, which clearly prohibits federal funding for research that involves the destruction of human embryos.”
“Rather than fund additional embryo-destructive research, the government should focus its resources on adult stem cells that are already improving health and saving the lives of patients with cancer, heart disease, diabetes, spinal cord injury and many other conditions,” he added. “There is great potential in this country for stem cell research and treatments for many diseases, while maintaining ethical standards.”
This can be found at: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pro-life-groups-laud-decision-to-block-embryonic-stem-cell-research/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Abortion Practitioner James Pendergraft Loses Florida License a Fourth Time
Orlando, FL (LifeNews.com) -- Embattled Florida abortion practitioner James Pendergraft recently saw his medical license suspended for a fourth time by the Florida Board of Medicine. On Saturday, the board suspended his license for one year and placed it on probation for three years after that.
Pendergraft, who has subjected women to botched legal abortions, was ordered to pay a $10,000 fine and take a course on record keeping.
The medical board suspended his license after it found Pendergraft had allowed an unlicensed employee to order and administer drugs even though she was unqualified and had a known history of drug abuse. Pendergraft also was disciplined for prescribing steroids to her for unknown reasons.
"This is a case that should outrage everyone," said Operation Rescue president Troy Newman, who brought the suspension to the attention of LifeNews.com.
"Here is a proven quack that has served three previous license suspensions, yet continues to offend," he said. "Even a stint in prison hasn't helped Pendergraft amend his ways. Nevertheless, the Board will allow this man to continue the practice of medicine after he serves his fourth suspension. It is irresponsible to place women at repeated risk from this guy."
According to news reports, Aaron Liberman, the chairman of the Department of Health Management and Informatics at the University of Central Florida, agreed with Newman in objecting to the leniency the board showed the abortion practitioner.
"I think it's a wake-up call for us all when we have an individual who is allowed to practice medicine in a way that draws question as to both his credibility and capability," he said.
Pendergraft faced previous suspensions, one as recently as January, 2010, for botched legal abortions and illegal late-term abortions, and dispensing drugs without a license.
The first suspension was the result of a complaint filed April 14, 2008, that states Pendergraft illegally prescribed controlled substances without proper DEA licensing. The board also said Pendergraft committed medical malpractice in a botched abortion of a 19-week-old unborn child in February 2006.
The botched abortion saw Pendergraft inadequately dilating a patient's cervix for a D&E abortion. He then ruptured her uterus and shoved the unborn child's body into the abdominal cavity.
The mother was rushed to the hospital where she received an emergency hysterectomy along with the removal of the dead unborn child, who was missing an arm after the abortion attempt. OR indicates the arm was later found at Pendergraft’s EPOC abortion clinic.
The pro-life group maintains that Pendergraft's not reporting that he had removed the arm caused a delay in her care at the hospital as surgeons futilely attempted to locate the missing appendage.
The Board ruled on Saturday that Pendergraft's two active suspensions would run concurrently.
Pendergraft owns five abortion clinics in Florida. While on suspension, his abortion centers continue to operate with other abortion practitioners, at least one of which has had his own problems with the law.
Newman says abortion practitioner Randall Whitney has had his license suspended twice and placed on probation for violations according to the Florida Health Department.
"Pendergraft's clinics are a menace to the public. They should be closed, and perhaps if he was in another state, they would be. It is simply outrageous that these people who have proven that they cannot comport themselves within the law are allowed the opportunity to continue to prey on an unsuspecting public," he said.
"The Florida Board of Medicine seriously dropped the ball by not revoking Pendergraft and forcing the closure of his clinics," he concluded.
Last year, a Florida appeals court upheld the suspension of Pendergraft's license.
He was fined $10,000 and had his licensed revoked for one year over an illegal late-term abortion he did in 2005. The Florida Board of Medicine handed down the decision in December 2007.
this can be found at: http://www.lifenews.com/state5339.html
Pendergraft, who has subjected women to botched legal abortions, was ordered to pay a $10,000 fine and take a course on record keeping.
The medical board suspended his license after it found Pendergraft had allowed an unlicensed employee to order and administer drugs even though she was unqualified and had a known history of drug abuse. Pendergraft also was disciplined for prescribing steroids to her for unknown reasons.
"This is a case that should outrage everyone," said Operation Rescue president Troy Newman, who brought the suspension to the attention of LifeNews.com.
"Here is a proven quack that has served three previous license suspensions, yet continues to offend," he said. "Even a stint in prison hasn't helped Pendergraft amend his ways. Nevertheless, the Board will allow this man to continue the practice of medicine after he serves his fourth suspension. It is irresponsible to place women at repeated risk from this guy."
According to news reports, Aaron Liberman, the chairman of the Department of Health Management and Informatics at the University of Central Florida, agreed with Newman in objecting to the leniency the board showed the abortion practitioner.
"I think it's a wake-up call for us all when we have an individual who is allowed to practice medicine in a way that draws question as to both his credibility and capability," he said.
Pendergraft faced previous suspensions, one as recently as January, 2010, for botched legal abortions and illegal late-term abortions, and dispensing drugs without a license.
The first suspension was the result of a complaint filed April 14, 2008, that states Pendergraft illegally prescribed controlled substances without proper DEA licensing. The board also said Pendergraft committed medical malpractice in a botched abortion of a 19-week-old unborn child in February 2006.
The botched abortion saw Pendergraft inadequately dilating a patient's cervix for a D&E abortion. He then ruptured her uterus and shoved the unborn child's body into the abdominal cavity.
The mother was rushed to the hospital where she received an emergency hysterectomy along with the removal of the dead unborn child, who was missing an arm after the abortion attempt. OR indicates the arm was later found at Pendergraft’s EPOC abortion clinic.
The pro-life group maintains that Pendergraft's not reporting that he had removed the arm caused a delay in her care at the hospital as surgeons futilely attempted to locate the missing appendage.
The Board ruled on Saturday that Pendergraft's two active suspensions would run concurrently.
Pendergraft owns five abortion clinics in Florida. While on suspension, his abortion centers continue to operate with other abortion practitioners, at least one of which has had his own problems with the law.
Newman says abortion practitioner Randall Whitney has had his license suspended twice and placed on probation for violations according to the Florida Health Department.
"Pendergraft's clinics are a menace to the public. They should be closed, and perhaps if he was in another state, they would be. It is simply outrageous that these people who have proven that they cannot comport themselves within the law are allowed the opportunity to continue to prey on an unsuspecting public," he said.
"The Florida Board of Medicine seriously dropped the ball by not revoking Pendergraft and forcing the closure of his clinics," he concluded.
Last year, a Florida appeals court upheld the suspension of Pendergraft's license.
He was fined $10,000 and had his licensed revoked for one year over an illegal late-term abortion he did in 2005. The Florida Board of Medicine handed down the decision in December 2007.
this can be found at: http://www.lifenews.com/state5339.html
Monday, July 26, 2010
Kenya Residents Support New Pro-Abortion Constitution, Polling Results Show
Nairobi, Kenya (LifeNews.com) -- Two new polls released today reveal Kenya residents plan to support the proposed constitution on an August 4 vote. The constitution has become an international debate as the Obama administration has come under heavy criticism for spending as much as $23 million to support it.
The polling firm Synovate conducted a survey with more than 6,000 Kenyans and found 58 percent of those interviewed say they plan to vote for the constitution while just 22 percent said no and the rest were undecided or said they would not vote.
The poll also found just three percent of those surveyed worried violence would break out if the constitution is defeated, as happened the last time Kenyans rejected one at the polls. That appears to undermine some of the arguments government officials are using to request a Yes vote.
"The numbers are quite low, which therefore means that there is that level of tolerance of each other's position," said George Waititu, the managing director of the polling firm, told AP.
The new poll also found abortion is the main reason Kenyans cited for potentially voting no -- with 62 percent of those saying they will oppose the constitution naming abortion as the top reason.
Meanwhile, AP indicates a second poll conducted by the firm Infotrack with 1,200 people found 65 percent of Kenyans planned to vote Yes on the constitution and 25 percent said they would vote no, while the rest remained undecided.
Rev. Peter Karanja, the secretary general of the National Council of Churches of Kenya, told the Associated Press he thinks the numerous polls are part of the Yes campaign's plan to pressure Kenyans to vote Yes. AP notes Infotrack is believed to be owned and operated by associates of Prime Minister Raila Odinga.
"We really haven't had objective polls published," Karanja said. "Even some of the companies that conduct polls have more than a casual relationship with some of the key politicians who would want to manipulate opinions. We have been on the campaign trail all over Kenya ... and our impressions do not appear to relate in any way with the kind of figures we see published."
The results of the new surveys track with a prior poll conducted by Synovate in June showing 57 percent of Kenyans will support the pro-abortion constitution while 20 percent said they would vote No.
Although the draft contains language advocating the right to life for unborn children, it contains a section with a health exception that essentially opens the nation to unlimited abortions throughout pregnancy for any reason.
Parliamentary Network for Critical Issues director Marie Smith told LifeNews.com, “Regrettably, this final draft contains some of the most deceptive and dangerous language on abortion ever seen in a constitution."
"It presents constitutional protection for the unborn child by acknowledging in section 26 on Right to Life that 'Every person has the right to life' and that 'The life of a person begins at conception,'" she explained. “However, the next statement completely reverses protection for the unborn by allowing abortion when in the 'opinion of a trained health professional, there is need for emergency treatment, or the life or health of the mother is in danger, or if permitted by any other written law.'”
Smith continues, “The reversal of previous policy on abortion- which required the opinion of two medical doctors who agreed that abortion was necessary for the life of the mother— will likely open the door to abortion on demand if the broad US definition of health is used in Kenya.”
Before the revised constitution can come into force, it must be approved by popular vote.
If Kenyans vote for the new constitution it won't be because they suddenly support abortion.
A poll conducted March 21–26 by Synovate, formerly known as Steadman, shows the citizens of Kenya are overwhelmingly pro-life.
“Thinking about abortion, which of the following is closest to your view?” the firm asked respondents.
Some 69 percent of Kenya residents are against legalizing abortions while just 9 percent support it. Another 16 percent say it doesn't matter while 6 percent said they had no opinion.
Answering the question, “When do you believe human life begins?” 77 percent of Kenyans stated that life begins at conception, while 19 percent stated that human life begins at the time of birth.
Scott Fischbach, the director of MCCL Go, an international pro-life outreach, provided the polling results to LifeNews.com.
"Currently, advocates of abortion are using the issue of maternal mortality and illegal abortions to argue for legalization of the procedure. However, the answer to illegal abortions and high maternal mortality rates is very simple: provide hope, opportunity and support for pregnant women by insuring a clean water supply, clean blood supply and adequate health care," he said.
"Kenya is a pro-life country and ought not to head toward an abortion-on-demand policy in its new Constitution," he added.
American lawmakers are seeking an investigation into the Obama administration to determine whether it violated federal law that says taxpayer dollars can't be used to lobby for abortion in other nations
this can be found at: http://www.lifenews.com/int1604.html
The polling firm Synovate conducted a survey with more than 6,000 Kenyans and found 58 percent of those interviewed say they plan to vote for the constitution while just 22 percent said no and the rest were undecided or said they would not vote.
The poll also found just three percent of those surveyed worried violence would break out if the constitution is defeated, as happened the last time Kenyans rejected one at the polls. That appears to undermine some of the arguments government officials are using to request a Yes vote.
"The numbers are quite low, which therefore means that there is that level of tolerance of each other's position," said George Waititu, the managing director of the polling firm, told AP.
The new poll also found abortion is the main reason Kenyans cited for potentially voting no -- with 62 percent of those saying they will oppose the constitution naming abortion as the top reason.
Meanwhile, AP indicates a second poll conducted by the firm Infotrack with 1,200 people found 65 percent of Kenyans planned to vote Yes on the constitution and 25 percent said they would vote no, while the rest remained undecided.
Rev. Peter Karanja, the secretary general of the National Council of Churches of Kenya, told the Associated Press he thinks the numerous polls are part of the Yes campaign's plan to pressure Kenyans to vote Yes. AP notes Infotrack is believed to be owned and operated by associates of Prime Minister Raila Odinga.
"We really haven't had objective polls published," Karanja said. "Even some of the companies that conduct polls have more than a casual relationship with some of the key politicians who would want to manipulate opinions. We have been on the campaign trail all over Kenya ... and our impressions do not appear to relate in any way with the kind of figures we see published."
The results of the new surveys track with a prior poll conducted by Synovate in June showing 57 percent of Kenyans will support the pro-abortion constitution while 20 percent said they would vote No.
Although the draft contains language advocating the right to life for unborn children, it contains a section with a health exception that essentially opens the nation to unlimited abortions throughout pregnancy for any reason.
Parliamentary Network for Critical Issues director Marie Smith told LifeNews.com, “Regrettably, this final draft contains some of the most deceptive and dangerous language on abortion ever seen in a constitution."
"It presents constitutional protection for the unborn child by acknowledging in section 26 on Right to Life that 'Every person has the right to life' and that 'The life of a person begins at conception,'" she explained. “However, the next statement completely reverses protection for the unborn by allowing abortion when in the 'opinion of a trained health professional, there is need for emergency treatment, or the life or health of the mother is in danger, or if permitted by any other written law.'”
Smith continues, “The reversal of previous policy on abortion- which required the opinion of two medical doctors who agreed that abortion was necessary for the life of the mother— will likely open the door to abortion on demand if the broad US definition of health is used in Kenya.”
Before the revised constitution can come into force, it must be approved by popular vote.
If Kenyans vote for the new constitution it won't be because they suddenly support abortion.
A poll conducted March 21–26 by Synovate, formerly known as Steadman, shows the citizens of Kenya are overwhelmingly pro-life.
“Thinking about abortion, which of the following is closest to your view?” the firm asked respondents.
Some 69 percent of Kenya residents are against legalizing abortions while just 9 percent support it. Another 16 percent say it doesn't matter while 6 percent said they had no opinion.
Answering the question, “When do you believe human life begins?” 77 percent of Kenyans stated that life begins at conception, while 19 percent stated that human life begins at the time of birth.
Scott Fischbach, the director of MCCL Go, an international pro-life outreach, provided the polling results to LifeNews.com.
"Currently, advocates of abortion are using the issue of maternal mortality and illegal abortions to argue for legalization of the procedure. However, the answer to illegal abortions and high maternal mortality rates is very simple: provide hope, opportunity and support for pregnant women by insuring a clean water supply, clean blood supply and adequate health care," he said.
"Kenya is a pro-life country and ought not to head toward an abortion-on-demand policy in its new Constitution," he added.
American lawmakers are seeking an investigation into the Obama administration to determine whether it violated federal law that says taxpayer dollars can't be used to lobby for abortion in other nations
this can be found at: http://www.lifenews.com/int1604.html
Friday, July 23, 2010
Obama Ambassador to Kenya Openly Endorses Proposed Pro-Abortion Constitution
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- After initially saying the Obama administration is not technically supporting the proposed pro-abortion constitution in Kenya and insisting it is merely supporting the voting process itself, United States Ambassador to Kenya Michael Ranneberger is now openly supporting it.
The Kenya Broadcasting Corporation issued a new report today saying Ranneberger has announced "his support for the proposed new constitution saying the document caters the needs of all Kenyans."
Ranneberger said the Obama administration will respect the outcome of the vote on the pro-abortion constitution on August 4, but he is now "under heavy criticism from the 'No' camp for his open support for the proposed law."
The envoy said, "We have made it clear that a new constitution is absolutely essential for the future, security and prosperity of this great nation."
"As our Vice President said during his recent visit, the country will only attract foreign investments unless the country deals with issues of corruption. This will only come about with a new constitution in place," Ranneberger added, applying economic pressure to Kenyans to approve the document.
"I therefore urge all Kenyans to take advantage of this opportunity. Kenya is poised at the most important moment of change since independence." he said.
Ranneberger said he will not be drawn into a political war of words with the No camp and the Kenyan elected officials and church leaders who are heading up its campaign against the constitution.
Nor will he respond to charges from pro-life Congressman Chris Smith and other members of Congress who have charged the Obama administration is illegally funding groups that are promoting the Yes vote, to the tune of $23 million.
"I have neither responded to the Congressmen nor to the opponents of the draft law nor do I plan to," he said.
Meanwhile, Kenya Catholic Church leaders say there is still time to remove the pro-abortion provisions from the document before it receives a vote next month.
"We, the Catholic bishops, have sought advice on legal and medical issues regarding the right to life, and are convinced that the constitution will result in liberalisation of abortion laws," said a statement from conference chairman John Cardinal Njue, according to AllAfrica.
They said they did not agree with political leaders who support the constitution and say it should be passed and then changed later.
They said they did not believe that a document that is fundamentally flawed should be passed "only with a vague hope that it will be amended later, especially when the process of amendment is more difficult after than before."
As LifeNews.com reported earlier this month, the United States embassy in Kenya issued a statement saying the administration of President Barack Obama is not spending taxpayer dollars funding a campaign to support a pro-abortion Constitution Kenya voters will consider at the polls next month.
But Smith, one of three U.S. lawmakers who have requested an investigation into U.S. activities leading up to the referendum, tells LifeNews.com he has evidence the Obama administration is funding the Yes campaign.
Smith says Obama is doing so by providing taxpayer dollars for the Yes campaign via organizations that are actively supporting it on the ground in Kenya.
“There is no doubt that the Obama Administration is funding the ‘yes’ campaign in Kenya,” he said. “By funding NGOs charged with obtaining ‘yes’ votes, the Administration has crossed the line."
"Directly supporting efforts to register ‘yes’ voters and ‘get out the yes vote’ means the U.S. government is running a political campaign in Kenya. U.S. taxpayer funds should not be used to support one side or the other," he added.
As part of ongoing discussions with the Office of the Inspector General of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), Representatives Smith and Florida Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and California Rep. Darrell Issa received a chart listing USAID funding recipients and a summary of their agreements.
Two organizations are receiving over $150,000 form the U.S. government to “contribute to an ‘overrepresentation’ of the Yes voters,” and five organizations have been charged with registering a total of 100,000 “for a Yes vote” at the referendum.
Other Kenyan groups are being given funding for similar Yes vote efforts, Smith said.
Smith said these Obama administration-funded grants for organizations actively involved in persuading Kenyan voters to adopt a constitution that will legalize abortions is inappropriate.
“The draft constitution, with its controversial provisions expanding access to abortion, is a matter for the Kenyan people to consider and decide,” Smith said. “The Obama Administration should immediately withdraw all U.S. taxpayer funding used to buy votes and influence the outcome on the referendum.”
While Obama and Vice President Joe Biden have lent their support to the voting process, they have carefully couched their language in terms of supporting the constitutional review process rather than urging support for the document itself.
The proposed new Kenyan constitution concerns pro-life and church groups both locally and around the world because provisions in it would overturn the current legal protections women and unborn children enjoy and would essentially authorize unlimited abortions despite the pro-life cultural views of most Kenyans.
The United States embassy in Nairobi said it is not providing financial support for the Yes campaign for the August 4 vote on the proposed constitution.
“These claims are categorically false, and those making such allegations are lying,” the statement said, according to APA News. “The US Government is supporting the constitutional review process as the centerpiece of the broad reform agenda agreed to following the post-election crisis."
That mirrors language coming last week from a representative of Biden.
After publishing a news story compiling the developments over the last two months that LifeNews.com has chronicled, Fox News received a response from Biden's office.
"Requests for comment sent to the vice president’s office were not initially returned, but following the original publication of this story, Biden's press secretary, in an e-mail, stressed that while in Kenya the vice president reiterated that it is up the people to decide about their country's constitution," the television news station indicated.
That came after Biden told prominent Kenya government officials that passage will "allow money to flow" to the African nation.
"The United States strongly supports the process of constitutional reform. ... Dare to reach for transformative change, the kind of change that might come around only once in a lifetime," he said. "If you make these changes, I promise you, new foreign private investment will come in like you've never seen."
Whether the Obama administration is directly supporting the constitution is a critical question because lobbying for or against abortion is prohibited under a provision of federal law known as the Siljander Amendment annually included in the State, Foreign Operations Appropriations Act.
The amendment reads, “None of the funds made available under this Act may be used to lobby for or against abortion,” and violations are subject to civil and criminal penalties under the Antideficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341."
Obama himself has promoted the new constitution in an interview in early June with the Kenya Broadcasting Corporation (KBC).
He called voting for the document a "singular opportunity to put the government of Kenya on solid footing" and urged Kenyans to"take advantage of the moment."
Obama tried to couch his language in neutral impartiality, saying "Regardless of whether they vote Yes or No I just want to make sure that they participate,' but he extolled the virtues of the document to the KBC saying it will promote human rights.
And in May, US Ambassador to Kenya Michael Ranneberger called on the African nation's political leaders to rally the people to pass the referendum.
Ranneberger issued a statement praising the Kenya parliament for passing the proposed constitution and urging President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga to rally support for it.
He also suggested the Obama administration would fund a national campaign to persuade the people to adopt the document.
Although the draft contains language advocating the right to life for unborn children, it contains a section with a health exception that essentially opens the nation to unlimited abortions throughout pregnancy for any reason.
Joseph Meaney of Human Life International weighed in on the constitution saying it violates the views of most Kenyans who are pro-life.
"Kenyans are pro-life," he said. "When we see the new articles added to the constitution and approved by parliament under heavy pressure from Western elites, we are seeing an assault on the very heart of the Kenyan people."
"Perhaps the greatest insult is that this attack is happening under the banner of 'improving women's health'. The only ones who believe that killing an unborn child is good for a woman's health are those who will profit from the slaughter, Western powers who are pouring untold millions of dollars into measures to keep Africa's children from being born," he told LifeNews.com.
"This is nothing but population control, an imperialist assault intended to rob Africa of its future by eliminating her children. It is a disgrace," he said.
A poll conducted March 21–26 by the polling firm Synovate, formerly known as Steadman, shows the citizens of Kenya are overwhelmingly pro-life.
“Thinking about abortion, which of the following is closest to your view?” the firm asked respondents.
Some 69 percent of Kenya residents are against legalizing abortions while just 9 percent support it. Another 16 percent say it doesn't matter while 6 percent said they had no opinion.
Answering the question, “When do you believe human life begins?” 77 percent of Kenyans stated that life begins at conception, while 19 percent stated that human life begins at the time of birth.
Respondents were also asked about their views concerning the new Kenyan Constitution and the question found only 19 percent support it as currently written, while a majority, 52 percent, want Parliament to revise the document before passage.
Scott Fischbach, the director of MMCL Go, an international pro-life outreach, provided the polling results to LifeNews.com.
"Currently, advocates of abortion are using the issue of maternal mortality and illegal abortions to argue for legalization of the procedure. However, the answer to illegal abortions and high maternal mortality rates is very simple: provide hope, opportunity and support for pregnant women by insuring a clean water supply, clean blood supply and adequate health care," he said.
"Kenya is a pro-life country and ought not to head toward an abortion-on-demand policy in its new Constitution," he added
This can be found at http://www.lifenews.com/int1602.html
The Kenya Broadcasting Corporation issued a new report today saying Ranneberger has announced "his support for the proposed new constitution saying the document caters the needs of all Kenyans."
Ranneberger said the Obama administration will respect the outcome of the vote on the pro-abortion constitution on August 4, but he is now "under heavy criticism from the 'No' camp for his open support for the proposed law."
The envoy said, "We have made it clear that a new constitution is absolutely essential for the future, security and prosperity of this great nation."
"As our Vice President said during his recent visit, the country will only attract foreign investments unless the country deals with issues of corruption. This will only come about with a new constitution in place," Ranneberger added, applying economic pressure to Kenyans to approve the document.
"I therefore urge all Kenyans to take advantage of this opportunity. Kenya is poised at the most important moment of change since independence." he said.
Ranneberger said he will not be drawn into a political war of words with the No camp and the Kenyan elected officials and church leaders who are heading up its campaign against the constitution.
Nor will he respond to charges from pro-life Congressman Chris Smith and other members of Congress who have charged the Obama administration is illegally funding groups that are promoting the Yes vote, to the tune of $23 million.
"I have neither responded to the Congressmen nor to the opponents of the draft law nor do I plan to," he said.
Meanwhile, Kenya Catholic Church leaders say there is still time to remove the pro-abortion provisions from the document before it receives a vote next month.
"We, the Catholic bishops, have sought advice on legal and medical issues regarding the right to life, and are convinced that the constitution will result in liberalisation of abortion laws," said a statement from conference chairman John Cardinal Njue, according to AllAfrica.
They said they did not agree with political leaders who support the constitution and say it should be passed and then changed later.
They said they did not believe that a document that is fundamentally flawed should be passed "only with a vague hope that it will be amended later, especially when the process of amendment is more difficult after than before."
As LifeNews.com reported earlier this month, the United States embassy in Kenya issued a statement saying the administration of President Barack Obama is not spending taxpayer dollars funding a campaign to support a pro-abortion Constitution Kenya voters will consider at the polls next month.
But Smith, one of three U.S. lawmakers who have requested an investigation into U.S. activities leading up to the referendum, tells LifeNews.com he has evidence the Obama administration is funding the Yes campaign.
Smith says Obama is doing so by providing taxpayer dollars for the Yes campaign via organizations that are actively supporting it on the ground in Kenya.
“There is no doubt that the Obama Administration is funding the ‘yes’ campaign in Kenya,” he said. “By funding NGOs charged with obtaining ‘yes’ votes, the Administration has crossed the line."
"Directly supporting efforts to register ‘yes’ voters and ‘get out the yes vote’ means the U.S. government is running a political campaign in Kenya. U.S. taxpayer funds should not be used to support one side or the other," he added.
As part of ongoing discussions with the Office of the Inspector General of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), Representatives Smith and Florida Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and California Rep. Darrell Issa received a chart listing USAID funding recipients and a summary of their agreements.
Two organizations are receiving over $150,000 form the U.S. government to “contribute to an ‘overrepresentation’ of the Yes voters,” and five organizations have been charged with registering a total of 100,000 “for a Yes vote” at the referendum.
Other Kenyan groups are being given funding for similar Yes vote efforts, Smith said.
Smith said these Obama administration-funded grants for organizations actively involved in persuading Kenyan voters to adopt a constitution that will legalize abortions is inappropriate.
“The draft constitution, with its controversial provisions expanding access to abortion, is a matter for the Kenyan people to consider and decide,” Smith said. “The Obama Administration should immediately withdraw all U.S. taxpayer funding used to buy votes and influence the outcome on the referendum.”
While Obama and Vice President Joe Biden have lent their support to the voting process, they have carefully couched their language in terms of supporting the constitutional review process rather than urging support for the document itself.
The proposed new Kenyan constitution concerns pro-life and church groups both locally and around the world because provisions in it would overturn the current legal protections women and unborn children enjoy and would essentially authorize unlimited abortions despite the pro-life cultural views of most Kenyans.
The United States embassy in Nairobi said it is not providing financial support for the Yes campaign for the August 4 vote on the proposed constitution.
“These claims are categorically false, and those making such allegations are lying,” the statement said, according to APA News. “The US Government is supporting the constitutional review process as the centerpiece of the broad reform agenda agreed to following the post-election crisis."
That mirrors language coming last week from a representative of Biden.
After publishing a news story compiling the developments over the last two months that LifeNews.com has chronicled, Fox News received a response from Biden's office.
"Requests for comment sent to the vice president’s office were not initially returned, but following the original publication of this story, Biden's press secretary, in an e-mail, stressed that while in Kenya the vice president reiterated that it is up the people to decide about their country's constitution," the television news station indicated.
That came after Biden told prominent Kenya government officials that passage will "allow money to flow" to the African nation.
"The United States strongly supports the process of constitutional reform. ... Dare to reach for transformative change, the kind of change that might come around only once in a lifetime," he said. "If you make these changes, I promise you, new foreign private investment will come in like you've never seen."
Whether the Obama administration is directly supporting the constitution is a critical question because lobbying for or against abortion is prohibited under a provision of federal law known as the Siljander Amendment annually included in the State, Foreign Operations Appropriations Act.
The amendment reads, “None of the funds made available under this Act may be used to lobby for or against abortion,” and violations are subject to civil and criminal penalties under the Antideficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341."
Obama himself has promoted the new constitution in an interview in early June with the Kenya Broadcasting Corporation (KBC).
He called voting for the document a "singular opportunity to put the government of Kenya on solid footing" and urged Kenyans to"take advantage of the moment."
Obama tried to couch his language in neutral impartiality, saying "Regardless of whether they vote Yes or No I just want to make sure that they participate,' but he extolled the virtues of the document to the KBC saying it will promote human rights.
And in May, US Ambassador to Kenya Michael Ranneberger called on the African nation's political leaders to rally the people to pass the referendum.
Ranneberger issued a statement praising the Kenya parliament for passing the proposed constitution and urging President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga to rally support for it.
He also suggested the Obama administration would fund a national campaign to persuade the people to adopt the document.
Although the draft contains language advocating the right to life for unborn children, it contains a section with a health exception that essentially opens the nation to unlimited abortions throughout pregnancy for any reason.
Joseph Meaney of Human Life International weighed in on the constitution saying it violates the views of most Kenyans who are pro-life.
"Kenyans are pro-life," he said. "When we see the new articles added to the constitution and approved by parliament under heavy pressure from Western elites, we are seeing an assault on the very heart of the Kenyan people."
"Perhaps the greatest insult is that this attack is happening under the banner of 'improving women's health'. The only ones who believe that killing an unborn child is good for a woman's health are those who will profit from the slaughter, Western powers who are pouring untold millions of dollars into measures to keep Africa's children from being born," he told LifeNews.com.
"This is nothing but population control, an imperialist assault intended to rob Africa of its future by eliminating her children. It is a disgrace," he said.
A poll conducted March 21–26 by the polling firm Synovate, formerly known as Steadman, shows the citizens of Kenya are overwhelmingly pro-life.
“Thinking about abortion, which of the following is closest to your view?” the firm asked respondents.
Some 69 percent of Kenya residents are against legalizing abortions while just 9 percent support it. Another 16 percent say it doesn't matter while 6 percent said they had no opinion.
Answering the question, “When do you believe human life begins?” 77 percent of Kenyans stated that life begins at conception, while 19 percent stated that human life begins at the time of birth.
Respondents were also asked about their views concerning the new Kenyan Constitution and the question found only 19 percent support it as currently written, while a majority, 52 percent, want Parliament to revise the document before passage.
Scott Fischbach, the director of MMCL Go, an international pro-life outreach, provided the polling results to LifeNews.com.
"Currently, advocates of abortion are using the issue of maternal mortality and illegal abortions to argue for legalization of the procedure. However, the answer to illegal abortions and high maternal mortality rates is very simple: provide hope, opportunity and support for pregnant women by insuring a clean water supply, clean blood supply and adequate health care," he said.
"Kenya is a pro-life country and ought not to head toward an abortion-on-demand policy in its new Constitution," he added
This can be found at http://www.lifenews.com/int1602.html
Friday, July 16, 2010
Abortion clinic in Colombia closed for trafficking children
Bogotá, Colombia, Jul 16, 2010 / 05:47 pm (CNA).- A top health official in Colombia said this week that three abortion clinics in the capital city of Bogota have been closed, with the latest case involving the trafficking of children.
The district Secretary of Health, Hector Zambrano told Colombian radio that the latest clinic, shut down last weekend, “was not equipped to provide ultrasounds,” and “was hiding illicit activity such as illegal abortions and trafficking of minors.”
He added that the clinic also “employed unlicensed medical personnel.”
Zambrano noted that so far this year, officials have closed down three clinics, thanks to help from nearby residents.
In 2006, Colombia’s Constitutional Court legalized abortion in the country allowing it in three cases: rape, fetal deformation or to save the life of the mother
This can be found at: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/abortion-clinic-in-colombia-closed-for-trafficking-children/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29
The district Secretary of Health, Hector Zambrano told Colombian radio that the latest clinic, shut down last weekend, “was not equipped to provide ultrasounds,” and “was hiding illicit activity such as illegal abortions and trafficking of minors.”
He added that the clinic also “employed unlicensed medical personnel.”
Zambrano noted that so far this year, officials have closed down three clinics, thanks to help from nearby residents.
In 2006, Colombia’s Constitutional Court legalized abortion in the country allowing it in three cases: rape, fetal deformation or to save the life of the mother
This can be found at: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/abortion-clinic-in-colombia-closed-for-trafficking-children/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29
CHA declines comment on potential federal funding of abortion
Washington D.C., Jul 16, 2010 / 12:46 am (CNA).- Responding to reports that new federal high-risk insurance pool programs are covering abortions, the Catholic Health Association (CHA) said it would not comment on the issue. The organization referred inquiries to the federal government.
The CHA backed recent federal health care legislation over the objection of the U.S. Catholic bishops and other pro-life groups who said its abortion funding restrictions were insufficient. CHA president Sr. Carol Keehan also received one of the pens President Barack Obama used to sign the bill.
In a Thursday phone call, CNA spoke with Fred Caesar, special assistant to Sr. Keehan.
Asked CHA’s reaction to claims that high-risk insurance pools in Pennsylvania and New Mexico are covering abortions, Caesar referred CNA to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) statement on the issue.
When asked if he could comment on several questions, including what CHA will do if it is proven that abortion funding restrictions are not airtight, Caesar said he could not.
“We’ll pass,” he said.
The National Right to Life Committee has reported that Pennsylvania’s high-risk insurance pool program, created by the federal health care legislation passed earlier this year, says that it does not cover “elective abortions.” However, “elective abortion” is not defined and Pennsylvania law allows legal abortion if a physician believes that is “necessary” based on “all factors (physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age) relevant to the well-being of the woman.”
The New Mexico Medical Insurance Pool initially reported it would cover “elective termination of pregnancy.” This policy was changed following media attention.
HHS issued a statement on the issue saying “abortions will not be covered in the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan except in the cases of rape or incest, or where the life of the woman would be endangered.”
This can be found at: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/cha-declines-comment-on-potential-federal-funding-of-abortion/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29
The CHA backed recent federal health care legislation over the objection of the U.S. Catholic bishops and other pro-life groups who said its abortion funding restrictions were insufficient. CHA president Sr. Carol Keehan also received one of the pens President Barack Obama used to sign the bill.
In a Thursday phone call, CNA spoke with Fred Caesar, special assistant to Sr. Keehan.
Asked CHA’s reaction to claims that high-risk insurance pools in Pennsylvania and New Mexico are covering abortions, Caesar referred CNA to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) statement on the issue.
When asked if he could comment on several questions, including what CHA will do if it is proven that abortion funding restrictions are not airtight, Caesar said he could not.
“We’ll pass,” he said.
The National Right to Life Committee has reported that Pennsylvania’s high-risk insurance pool program, created by the federal health care legislation passed earlier this year, says that it does not cover “elective abortions.” However, “elective abortion” is not defined and Pennsylvania law allows legal abortion if a physician believes that is “necessary” based on “all factors (physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age) relevant to the well-being of the woman.”
The New Mexico Medical Insurance Pool initially reported it would cover “elective termination of pregnancy.” This policy was changed following media attention.
HHS issued a statement on the issue saying “abortions will not be covered in the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan except in the cases of rape or incest, or where the life of the woman would be endangered.”
This can be found at: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/cha-declines-comment-on-potential-federal-funding-of-abortion/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Illinois professor fired for giving Catholic teaching on homosexuality
Champaign, Ill., Jul 9, 2010 / 06:20 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The University of Illinois has fired an adjunct professor for teaching in a class on Catholicism that homosexual acts violate natural moral law.
Dr. Kenneth Howell was informed that he could no longer teach in the university's department of religion. The decision came after a student complained that Howell's statements were “hate speech.”
In response to his firing, Howell wrote a letter to friends explaining the events surrounding his dismissal.
Howell said in the letter, which was obtained by CNA, that he first came to teach at the St. John's Catholic Newman Center in 1998. At the time, courses on the Catholic faith were taught through the Newman Center, he explained, but in 2000, an agreement was made with the University of Illinois' department of religion, and he became an adjunct professor in the department and taught classes on Catholicism.
“Since the Fall of 2001, I have been regularly teaching two courses in the department of religion,” Howell explained. One of the classes, “Introduction to Catholicism,” includes an explanation of Natural Moral Law as affirmed by the Church as well as an application of Natural Law Theory to a disputed social issue.
“Most of those semesters, my chosen topic was the moral status of homosexual acts,” he explained.
Howell said he taught the Catholic Church's position on homosexuality. He summed it up by saying, “A homosexual orientation is not morally wrong just as no moral guilt can be assigned to any inclination that a person has. However, based on natural moral law, the Church believes that homosexual acts are contrary to human nature and therefore morally wrong.”
To show how homosexual behavior would be considered under competing moral systems, Howell sent an e-mail to the students contrasting utilitarianism with natural moral law. “I tried to show them that under utilitarianism, homosexual acts would not be considered immoral whereas under natural moral law they would,” Howell said. “This is because natural moral law, unlike utilitarianism, judges morality on the basis of the acts themselves.”
A complaint about Howell's statement was sent in a May 13 e-mail to Robert McKim, head of the religion department. The e-mail was sent by a student who was not in Howell's class, but said he was writing on behalf of a friend who was in the class and wished to remain anonymous. The e-mail complained about Howell's statements on homosexuality, calling them “hate speech.”
"Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing," said the e-mail, according to The News-Gazette. "Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another. The courses at this institution should be geared to contribute to the public discourse and promote independent thought; not limit one's worldview and ostracize people of a certain sexual orientation."
Howell said that at the end of the semester, he was called into Robert McKim's office and told that he would no longer be permitted to teach for the department. Howell objected that to dismiss him for teaching the Catholic position in a class on Catholicism was a violation of academic freedom and first amendment rights. “This made no difference,” he said. “After that conversation and a couple of emails, Professor McKim insisted that this decision to dismiss me stood firm.”
According to the local paper The News-Gazette, Howell said he has had students disagree with him in the past, but never in such a manner.
"My responsibility on teaching a class on Catholicism is to teach what the Catholic Church teaches," he said. "I have always made it very, very clear to my students they are never required to believe what I'm teaching and they'll never be judged on that."
The News-Gazette reported that Howell also said he was open with students about his own beliefs as a practicing Catholic. "It's not a violation of academic freedom to advocate a position, if one does it as an appeal on rational grounds and it's pertinent to the subject," he said.
Later, Howell said, Msgr. Gregory Ketcham, the current Director of the St. John’s Catholic Newman Center, informed him that the Center would not be able to continue employing him since there was no longer any teaching for him to do.
“I suggested that we work together to have courses on Catholicism taught at the Newman Center that could be accredited by a Catholic university and that could be transferred into the University of Illinois for credit,” Howell said. “In this way, the students whom we had been called to serve could continue to be instructed in the Catholic Faith.”
However, Monsignor Ketcham said that he had no interest in such a plan, according to Howell.
Howell is currently working with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) to seek legal redress.
David French, senior counsel for the ADF said in a written statement, "A university cannot censor professors' speech – including classroom speech related to the topic of the class – merely because some students find that speech 'offensive.' Professors have the freedom to challenge students and to educate them by exposing them to different views. The Alliance Defense Fund is working with Professor Howell because the defense of academic freedom is essential on the university campus."
this can be found at: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/illinois-professor-fired-for-giving-catholic-teaching-on-homosexuality/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29
Dr. Kenneth Howell was informed that he could no longer teach in the university's department of religion. The decision came after a student complained that Howell's statements were “hate speech.”
In response to his firing, Howell wrote a letter to friends explaining the events surrounding his dismissal.
Howell said in the letter, which was obtained by CNA, that he first came to teach at the St. John's Catholic Newman Center in 1998. At the time, courses on the Catholic faith were taught through the Newman Center, he explained, but in 2000, an agreement was made with the University of Illinois' department of religion, and he became an adjunct professor in the department and taught classes on Catholicism.
“Since the Fall of 2001, I have been regularly teaching two courses in the department of religion,” Howell explained. One of the classes, “Introduction to Catholicism,” includes an explanation of Natural Moral Law as affirmed by the Church as well as an application of Natural Law Theory to a disputed social issue.
“Most of those semesters, my chosen topic was the moral status of homosexual acts,” he explained.
Howell said he taught the Catholic Church's position on homosexuality. He summed it up by saying, “A homosexual orientation is not morally wrong just as no moral guilt can be assigned to any inclination that a person has. However, based on natural moral law, the Church believes that homosexual acts are contrary to human nature and therefore morally wrong.”
To show how homosexual behavior would be considered under competing moral systems, Howell sent an e-mail to the students contrasting utilitarianism with natural moral law. “I tried to show them that under utilitarianism, homosexual acts would not be considered immoral whereas under natural moral law they would,” Howell said. “This is because natural moral law, unlike utilitarianism, judges morality on the basis of the acts themselves.”
A complaint about Howell's statement was sent in a May 13 e-mail to Robert McKim, head of the religion department. The e-mail was sent by a student who was not in Howell's class, but said he was writing on behalf of a friend who was in the class and wished to remain anonymous. The e-mail complained about Howell's statements on homosexuality, calling them “hate speech.”
"Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing," said the e-mail, according to The News-Gazette. "Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another. The courses at this institution should be geared to contribute to the public discourse and promote independent thought; not limit one's worldview and ostracize people of a certain sexual orientation."
Howell said that at the end of the semester, he was called into Robert McKim's office and told that he would no longer be permitted to teach for the department. Howell objected that to dismiss him for teaching the Catholic position in a class on Catholicism was a violation of academic freedom and first amendment rights. “This made no difference,” he said. “After that conversation and a couple of emails, Professor McKim insisted that this decision to dismiss me stood firm.”
According to the local paper The News-Gazette, Howell said he has had students disagree with him in the past, but never in such a manner.
"My responsibility on teaching a class on Catholicism is to teach what the Catholic Church teaches," he said. "I have always made it very, very clear to my students they are never required to believe what I'm teaching and they'll never be judged on that."
The News-Gazette reported that Howell also said he was open with students about his own beliefs as a practicing Catholic. "It's not a violation of academic freedom to advocate a position, if one does it as an appeal on rational grounds and it's pertinent to the subject," he said.
Later, Howell said, Msgr. Gregory Ketcham, the current Director of the St. John’s Catholic Newman Center, informed him that the Center would not be able to continue employing him since there was no longer any teaching for him to do.
“I suggested that we work together to have courses on Catholicism taught at the Newman Center that could be accredited by a Catholic university and that could be transferred into the University of Illinois for credit,” Howell said. “In this way, the students whom we had been called to serve could continue to be instructed in the Catholic Faith.”
However, Monsignor Ketcham said that he had no interest in such a plan, according to Howell.
Howell is currently working with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) to seek legal redress.
David French, senior counsel for the ADF said in a written statement, "A university cannot censor professors' speech – including classroom speech related to the topic of the class – merely because some students find that speech 'offensive.' Professors have the freedom to challenge students and to educate them by exposing them to different views. The Alliance Defense Fund is working with Professor Howell because the defense of academic freedom is essential on the university campus."
this can be found at: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/illinois-professor-fired-for-giving-catholic-teaching-on-homosexuality/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Argentinean bishop condemns mid term abortion, stresses that Church 'cannot remain silent'
Buenos Aires, Argentina, Jun 17, 2010 / 06:22 pm (CNA).- An Argentinian Bishop condemned a court ruling allowing a local woman who was five months pregnant to undergo an abortion, stressing that the “Church cannot remain silent because her vocation is to defend man against everything that degrades him.”
The abortion was carried out last weekend in a hospital in Mar del Plata after doctors said the child had no chance of surviving after birth.
In a statement, Bishop Juan Alberto Puiggari of Mar del Plata in Argentina condemned the act questioned if the dramatic nature of the situation led those involved to forget that an innocent human life was at stake.
“Can the gravity of the case justify the deliberate taking of an innocent human life at the beginning of its existence? Should the pressure that such difficult circumstances cause exempt us from defending the first of all human rights, which is life, and reminding administrators and health care workers of the grave responsibility they have to care for that life?” the bishop asked.
“The great contradiction of today’s culture is that on the one hand we proclaim human rights but on the other we violate the rights of the most defenseless,” Bishop Puiggari said, adding that the country’s Constitution establishes the protection of life from the moment of conception.
“As a Church we are aware of the suffering of a mother who finds herself in such a painful and dramatic situation, but we also know that the consequence of an abortion is a wound in the heart that is difficult to heal.”
“We must not judge anyone, and much less on the basis of the faith,” the bishop qualified. “But it is good to remember that the administration of justice is only just when it is exercised in conformity with the truth and the moral good.”
Reaffirming the inalienable right to life, Bishop Puiggari said women who are in crisis pregnancies need a commitment from society to reach out them and provide them the means they need to face their difficulties and overcome them.
This can be found at: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/argentinean-bishop-condemns-mid-term-abortion-stresses-that-church-cannot-remain-silent/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29
The abortion was carried out last weekend in a hospital in Mar del Plata after doctors said the child had no chance of surviving after birth.
In a statement, Bishop Juan Alberto Puiggari of Mar del Plata in Argentina condemned the act questioned if the dramatic nature of the situation led those involved to forget that an innocent human life was at stake.
“Can the gravity of the case justify the deliberate taking of an innocent human life at the beginning of its existence? Should the pressure that such difficult circumstances cause exempt us from defending the first of all human rights, which is life, and reminding administrators and health care workers of the grave responsibility they have to care for that life?” the bishop asked.
“The great contradiction of today’s culture is that on the one hand we proclaim human rights but on the other we violate the rights of the most defenseless,” Bishop Puiggari said, adding that the country’s Constitution establishes the protection of life from the moment of conception.
“As a Church we are aware of the suffering of a mother who finds herself in such a painful and dramatic situation, but we also know that the consequence of an abortion is a wound in the heart that is difficult to heal.”
“We must not judge anyone, and much less on the basis of the faith,” the bishop qualified. “But it is good to remember that the administration of justice is only just when it is exercised in conformity with the truth and the moral good.”
Reaffirming the inalienable right to life, Bishop Puiggari said women who are in crisis pregnancies need a commitment from society to reach out them and provide them the means they need to face their difficulties and overcome them.
This can be found at: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/argentinean-bishop-condemns-mid-term-abortion-stresses-that-church-cannot-remain-silent/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29
Monday, May 10, 2010
PRAYER REQUEST: 5.10.10 - Letter from HLI Philippiness
Easter greetings!
At the outset, I would like to request for the most wanted prayers for the coming national elections here in the Philippines on Monday, May 10, 2010 from 7am to 6pm.
50.4 million registered voters (49.6% of the voters are from the ages of 18-27) are expected to vote for a new president, a vice president, 12 senators, 222 congressmen.plus thousands of local spots from governors to mayors.
Of the nine candidates for president, only four are expected to survive the race or with the real fighting chances.They are Manuel Villar, Benigno Aquino II, Joseph Ejercito Estrada and Gilbert Teodoro Jr.
While prayer vigils are being offered in many parts of the country today and tomorrow, we hope that HLI Central thru your most able leadership Father, will able to convey this very important and equally urgent intentions for a peaceful and successful national
elections. And top of all, that a pro-life president and a predominantly pro-life senate and congress will emerge next week.
May the best man with lightest political baggage and with a pro-life stand win the highest political position in the country on Monday.
At the outset, I would like to request for the most wanted prayers for the coming national elections here in the Philippines on Monday, May 10, 2010 from 7am to 6pm.
50.4 million registered voters (49.6% of the voters are from the ages of 18-27) are expected to vote for a new president, a vice president, 12 senators, 222 congressmen.plus thousands of local spots from governors to mayors.
Of the nine candidates for president, only four are expected to survive the race or with the real fighting chances.They are Manuel Villar, Benigno Aquino II, Joseph Ejercito Estrada and Gilbert Teodoro Jr.
While prayer vigils are being offered in many parts of the country today and tomorrow, we hope that HLI Central thru your most able leadership Father, will able to convey this very important and equally urgent intentions for a peaceful and successful national
elections. And top of all, that a pro-life president and a predominantly pro-life senate and congress will emerge next week.
May the best man with lightest political baggage and with a pro-life stand win the highest political position in the country on Monday.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Pope: The sick are integral part of God's beautiful mosaic
Turin, Italy, May 3, 2010 / 07:07 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- During the Pope's visit to Turin on Sunday to venerate the Shroud and confirm the people of the city in the faith, the Holy Father stopped to see the sick and residents of the Little House of Divine Providence, founded by St. Joseph Benedict Cottolengo. He reminded the sick of their important contribution and highlighted the new life that "flowers" from Christ's passion.
The encounter was the last of the day and took place just after the Pope venerated the Shroud at the Cathedral of Turin, where he taught that the Icon "speaks to us," through blood, of the darkness and the light of Holy Saturday.
Remembering the founder of the "Little House" and the three religious families that have been born from it, the Holy Father expressed his gratitude to the sick as "the precious treasure of this house and of this work."
St. Cottolengo worked with the conviction that "the poor are Jesus, not his image," said Pope Benedict, remembering also that he referred to the poor as "our patrons." Moved by a love of Christ and man, he worked in "complete devotion to the service of the smallest and forgotten," recounted the Holy Father.
Speaking to the sick, the Pope said, "you carry out an important task: living your sufferings in union with Christ crucified and risen, you participate in the mystery of his suffering for the salvation of the world.
"Offering our pain to God through Christ," he taught, "we can collaborate in the victory of good over evil, because God makes our offering, our act of love, fruitful."
He implored the residents not to feel "foreign to the destiny of the world," but to see themselves as "precious pieces of a beautiful mosaic that God, as a great artist, is forming day by day.”
Christ died on the cross, said the Pope, so that "from that wood, from that sign of death, life could flower in all of its splendor.
"This House,” Benedict XVI said, referring to their residence, “is one of the mature fruits born of the Cross and the Resurrection of Christ, and it manifests that suffering, evil (and) death don't have the last word, because from death and suffering life can rise again."
Pope Benedict closed with a prayer, asking the Christ "illuminate our daily pilgrimage with the light of his Face; illuminate our life, the present and the future, the sorrow and the joy, the worry and the hope of all of humanity."
From the Little House of Divine Providence the Holy Father went to the airport for his return to Rome.
This can be found at: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope_the_sick_are_integral_part_of_gods_beautiful_mosaic/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29
The encounter was the last of the day and took place just after the Pope venerated the Shroud at the Cathedral of Turin, where he taught that the Icon "speaks to us," through blood, of the darkness and the light of Holy Saturday.
Remembering the founder of the "Little House" and the three religious families that have been born from it, the Holy Father expressed his gratitude to the sick as "the precious treasure of this house and of this work."
St. Cottolengo worked with the conviction that "the poor are Jesus, not his image," said Pope Benedict, remembering also that he referred to the poor as "our patrons." Moved by a love of Christ and man, he worked in "complete devotion to the service of the smallest and forgotten," recounted the Holy Father.
Speaking to the sick, the Pope said, "you carry out an important task: living your sufferings in union with Christ crucified and risen, you participate in the mystery of his suffering for the salvation of the world.
"Offering our pain to God through Christ," he taught, "we can collaborate in the victory of good over evil, because God makes our offering, our act of love, fruitful."
He implored the residents not to feel "foreign to the destiny of the world," but to see themselves as "precious pieces of a beautiful mosaic that God, as a great artist, is forming day by day.”
Christ died on the cross, said the Pope, so that "from that wood, from that sign of death, life could flower in all of its splendor.
"This House,” Benedict XVI said, referring to their residence, “is one of the mature fruits born of the Cross and the Resurrection of Christ, and it manifests that suffering, evil (and) death don't have the last word, because from death and suffering life can rise again."
Pope Benedict closed with a prayer, asking the Christ "illuminate our daily pilgrimage with the light of his Face; illuminate our life, the present and the future, the sorrow and the joy, the worry and the hope of all of humanity."
From the Little House of Divine Providence the Holy Father went to the airport for his return to Rome.
This can be found at: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope_the_sick_are_integral_part_of_gods_beautiful_mosaic/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Mexican woman raped at age 13 explains why she never considered abortion
Mexico City, Mexico, Apr 23, 2010 / 05:59 pm (CNA).- Liana Rebolledo is a 33-year-old Mexican woman. In a recent television interview she recounted that after she was raped at the age of 13 and became pregnant, she never considered aborting her daughter, who is now 20.
In an interview on the Telestai network, Rebolledo explained how difficult it was to experience the trauma of a rape. “I had my daughter at 13” and it was her life that “saved me.”
“In my case abortion was never an option, it was never considered. It was a difficult situation but she was the one who gave me the will to keep living,” Rebolledo said.
Rebolledo added that getting past the rape was “a process more difficult than you can imagine. You always think it could happen to anyone else, but not to you … I didn’t understand. At that age you don’t understand why you are experiencing such a situation.”
After revealing that she tried to commit suicide because of the rape, and not because of the pregnancy, Rebolledo said, “The doctor told me, don’t worry, you won’t be able to continue the pregnancy, your womb is very young, you have lost a lot of weight, it is going to be a high-risk pregnancy.” The doctor also said, “your life is in danger so I will talk to your mom.”
But Rebolledo said, hearing the heartbeat of her baby was crucial. “I realized I had something with me, something mine, that belonged to me.” She knew that she “was not going to be alone.”
“There was something that said to me: ‘Now I have someone to live for’.”
Sometimes, she said, people say to her, “You gave life to such a special person. I reply: She gave life to me because after what I experienced, I should have ended up psychologically harmed. I don’t know how I would have ended up, but I wouldn’t be here today telling you what the life of my daughter has meant to me.”
“I came from a dysfunctional home where there was a lot of domestic violence. There was no foundation and we were not raised with values or faith,” she said. Rebolledo then added that what gave her strength during the pregnancy was “the fact of knowing that I had to fight for that life and I had to protect her and care for her so that what happened to me would not happened to her”
“I didn’t want her to suffer the emotional abandonment that I did.”
“I don’t regret anything,” she continued. “She is the only thing that brings me consolation.” “Today I think, how is it possible that people think these little ones don’t have the right to live? They bring you so much joy, they are full of life, they are with you in the most difficult moments.”
“I don’t think abortion is an option. If you don’t want the child, you can give him up for adoption,” she said. “Pregnancy is not the problem. The problem is, what is going on that is leading such little girls to end up pregnant at such a young age.”
Speaking about her pro-life activism and volunteer work, Rebolledo said she goes to abortion clinics “on Saturdays and I try to speak to the women to make them see that there is a solution, there is hope, there is a way. In all the times I have gone, I have only seen one case of rape.”
Rebolledo encouraged girls in similar situations to believe in themselves. “You can find a way to move forward. Have faith and hope that you can do it. Visualize your goal. When you have these little ones at your side, you can do it, they support you. At the end of the day you realize everything was worth it.”
“If I had to go through it again, I would do it just to be able to meet her,” she said, referring to her daughter.
this can be found at: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/mexican_woman_raped_at_age_13_explains_why_she_never_considered_abortion/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29
In an interview on the Telestai network, Rebolledo explained how difficult it was to experience the trauma of a rape. “I had my daughter at 13” and it was her life that “saved me.”
“In my case abortion was never an option, it was never considered. It was a difficult situation but she was the one who gave me the will to keep living,” Rebolledo said.
Rebolledo added that getting past the rape was “a process more difficult than you can imagine. You always think it could happen to anyone else, but not to you … I didn’t understand. At that age you don’t understand why you are experiencing such a situation.”
After revealing that she tried to commit suicide because of the rape, and not because of the pregnancy, Rebolledo said, “The doctor told me, don’t worry, you won’t be able to continue the pregnancy, your womb is very young, you have lost a lot of weight, it is going to be a high-risk pregnancy.” The doctor also said, “your life is in danger so I will talk to your mom.”
But Rebolledo said, hearing the heartbeat of her baby was crucial. “I realized I had something with me, something mine, that belonged to me.” She knew that she “was not going to be alone.”
“There was something that said to me: ‘Now I have someone to live for’.”
Sometimes, she said, people say to her, “You gave life to such a special person. I reply: She gave life to me because after what I experienced, I should have ended up psychologically harmed. I don’t know how I would have ended up, but I wouldn’t be here today telling you what the life of my daughter has meant to me.”
“I came from a dysfunctional home where there was a lot of domestic violence. There was no foundation and we were not raised with values or faith,” she said. Rebolledo then added that what gave her strength during the pregnancy was “the fact of knowing that I had to fight for that life and I had to protect her and care for her so that what happened to me would not happened to her”
“I didn’t want her to suffer the emotional abandonment that I did.”
“I don’t regret anything,” she continued. “She is the only thing that brings me consolation.” “Today I think, how is it possible that people think these little ones don’t have the right to live? They bring you so much joy, they are full of life, they are with you in the most difficult moments.”
“I don’t think abortion is an option. If you don’t want the child, you can give him up for adoption,” she said. “Pregnancy is not the problem. The problem is, what is going on that is leading such little girls to end up pregnant at such a young age.”
Speaking about her pro-life activism and volunteer work, Rebolledo said she goes to abortion clinics “on Saturdays and I try to speak to the women to make them see that there is a solution, there is hope, there is a way. In all the times I have gone, I have only seen one case of rape.”
Rebolledo encouraged girls in similar situations to believe in themselves. “You can find a way to move forward. Have faith and hope that you can do it. Visualize your goal. When you have these little ones at your side, you can do it, they support you. At the end of the day you realize everything was worth it.”
“If I had to go through it again, I would do it just to be able to meet her,” she said, referring to her daughter.
this can be found at: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/mexican_woman_raped_at_age_13_explains_why_she_never_considered_abortion/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29
Saturday, April 17, 2010
After distorted interview, Brazilian archbishop reaffirms Catholic teaching on abortion
Recife, Brazil, Apr 17, 2010 / 07:16 am (CNA/EWTN News).- After an interview with a Brazilian newspaper appeared to indicate he supported abortion, Archbishop of Olanda y Recife Fernando Saburido has said there was “a misunderstanding” and that he may have been insufficiently clear. He said he fully adheres to Catholic teaching that life is a “gift from God.”
Last year the then-archbishop of his diocese, Jose Cardoso-Sobrinho, said that anyone who performed or facilitated an abortion would incur an automatic excommunication. Archbishop Sobrinho's remarks came in response to the case of an abortion performed on a nine-year-old pregnant with twins after being raped by her mother’s companion.
Recently a forced abortion was performed on a 10-year-old girl, who became pregnant after being raped by her stepfather.
Archbishop Saburido responded to the new case by reiterating Catholic teaching that life must be defended at all points. However, during an interview with a local Brazilian newspaper, Diario de Pernambuco, he appeared to imply that abortion was permitted if deemed necessary by a physician.
In a statement provided to CNA, Archbishop Saburido said there was a “misunderstanding.”
“I adhere, in fullness; to the teaching of our Holy Church which defends life and does not admit, under any circumstances, its destruction because it is a gift from God that only He can take away,” he explained.
Noting that there are some specific cases in Brazil in which abortion is not penalized, he said: “With the Church, I believe that this law is contrary to the basic principles of Christian ethics and cannot be accepted, because it is a law that kills.”
He said he disagreed with the case of the pregnant girl, saying he believes it to be “anti-Christian for taking away a life that could have perfectly been saved.”
“A family willing to adopt the baby would have not been missing, providing affection and dignity,” he continued.
He said his comments to the press corps on April 10 would verify his position against abortion in any circumstances.
“In the specific case of the Diario de Pernambuco, I believe the interview was biased, with repetitive questions, and I admit I may have not been sufficiently clear, leaving room for doubts that I want to clarify by means of this statement,” he continued.
“I believe that all those who know me and know my history, will never have doubts regarding my love for the Church and my fidelity to her Magisterium,” Archbishop Saburido’s statement concluded.
This can be seen at: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/after_distorted_interview_brazilian_archbishop_reaffirms_catholic_teaching_on_abortion/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29
Last year the then-archbishop of his diocese, Jose Cardoso-Sobrinho, said that anyone who performed or facilitated an abortion would incur an automatic excommunication. Archbishop Sobrinho's remarks came in response to the case of an abortion performed on a nine-year-old pregnant with twins after being raped by her mother’s companion.
Recently a forced abortion was performed on a 10-year-old girl, who became pregnant after being raped by her stepfather.
Archbishop Saburido responded to the new case by reiterating Catholic teaching that life must be defended at all points. However, during an interview with a local Brazilian newspaper, Diario de Pernambuco, he appeared to imply that abortion was permitted if deemed necessary by a physician.
In a statement provided to CNA, Archbishop Saburido said there was a “misunderstanding.”
“I adhere, in fullness; to the teaching of our Holy Church which defends life and does not admit, under any circumstances, its destruction because it is a gift from God that only He can take away,” he explained.
Noting that there are some specific cases in Brazil in which abortion is not penalized, he said: “With the Church, I believe that this law is contrary to the basic principles of Christian ethics and cannot be accepted, because it is a law that kills.”
He said he disagreed with the case of the pregnant girl, saying he believes it to be “anti-Christian for taking away a life that could have perfectly been saved.”
“A family willing to adopt the baby would have not been missing, providing affection and dignity,” he continued.
He said his comments to the press corps on April 10 would verify his position against abortion in any circumstances.
“In the specific case of the Diario de Pernambuco, I believe the interview was biased, with repetitive questions, and I admit I may have not been sufficiently clear, leaving room for doubts that I want to clarify by means of this statement,” he continued.
“I believe that all those who know me and know my history, will never have doubts regarding my love for the Church and my fidelity to her Magisterium,” Archbishop Saburido’s statement concluded.
This can be seen at: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/after_distorted_interview_brazilian_archbishop_reaffirms_catholic_teaching_on_abortion/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29
Monday, April 12, 2010
Woman rejects pressure from employer to have abortion
Gerona, Spain, Apr 12, 2010 / 12:11 pm (CNA/Europa Press).- A criminal court in the Spanish city of Gerona has sentenced a restaurant owner to 19 months in prison and ordered him to pay over $6,000 for pressuring a waitress to undergo an abortion in order to keep her job. The woman refused and decided to keep her baby.
According to the court, the restaurant owner insisted the waitress have an abortion after learning she was pregnant.
Europa Press reported that the ruling said the woman was “about to interrupt” her pregnancy but that after “many doubts,” she decided to carry her child to term. When her employment contract was not renewed, she was presented with a pink slip without severance pay.
After assistance from a local union, she was given severance pay in the amount of approximately $2,500. The union also provided the woman’s legal defense and called the ruling a “model sentence” in the fight against workplace harassment.
The court praised the woman's “high level of maturity” in response to the harassment, noting that the owner failed to adopt necessary measures to support her and was guilty of making the woman move heavy boxes, creating a “hostile” working environment.
This can be found at: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/woman_rejects_pressure_from_employer_to_have_an_abortion/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29
According to the court, the restaurant owner insisted the waitress have an abortion after learning she was pregnant.
Europa Press reported that the ruling said the woman was “about to interrupt” her pregnancy but that after “many doubts,” she decided to carry her child to term. When her employment contract was not renewed, she was presented with a pink slip without severance pay.
After assistance from a local union, she was given severance pay in the amount of approximately $2,500. The union also provided the woman’s legal defense and called the ruling a “model sentence” in the fight against workplace harassment.
The court praised the woman's “high level of maturity” in response to the harassment, noting that the owner failed to adopt necessary measures to support her and was guilty of making the woman move heavy boxes, creating a “hostile” working environment.
This can be found at: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/woman_rejects_pressure_from_employer_to_have_an_abortion/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29
Saturday, April 10, 2010
ACP: Schools should not affirm students' perceived sexual orientation
Gainesville, Fla., Apr 10, 2010 / 08:02 am (CNA).- In a recent letter sent to school superintendents throughout the country, the American College of Pediatricians (ACP) cautioned that it is “not a school’s role to 'affirm' a student’s perceived personal sexual orientation.” The ACP also said that “rigorous studies” show that children and adolescents who initially experience gender confusion or same sex attraction no longer do so by the age of 25.
On March 31, ACP president Dr. Tom Benton wrote to schools across the U.S., saying that he and his staff are “increasingly concerned” that “many cases and efforts to help students who exhibit same sex attractions and/or gender confusion are based on incomplete or inaccurate information.”
“Adolescence is a time of upheaval and impermanence,” Benton wrote. “Adolescents experience confusion about many things, including sexual orientation and gender identity, and they are particularly vulnerable to environmental influences.”
“Rigorous studies demonstrate that most adolescents who initially experience same-sex attraction, or are sexually confused, no longer experience such attractions by age 25,” he added. In one study, Benton said as many as 26% of 12-year-olds reported being unsure of their sexual orientation but only 2-3% of adults actually identify themselves as homosexual. “Therefore, the majority of sexually-questioning youth ultimately adopt a heterosexual identity,” Benton deduced.
“Even children with Gender Identity Disorder (when a child desires to be the opposite sex) will typically lose this desire by puberty, if the behavior is not reinforced,” he told the school superintendents.
Benton wrote that researchers “also maintain that when parents or others allow or encourage a child to behave and be treated as the opposite sex, the confusion is reinforced and the child is conditioned for a life of unnecessary pain and suffering. Even when motivated by noble intentions, schools can ironically play a detrimental role if they reinforce this disorder.”
Furthermore, “in dealing with adolescents experiencing same-sex attraction,” Benton advised, “it is essential to understand there is no scientific evidence that an individual is born 'gay' or 'transgender.' Instead, the best available research points to multiple factors - primarily social and familial – that predispose children and adolescents to homosexual attraction and/or gender confusion. It is also critical to understand that these conditions can respond well to therapy.”
Benton cited a recently released “landmark” survey by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) which compiled analysis of 125 years of scientific studies and clinical experience dealing with homosexuality.
According to Benton, the NARTH report, titled “What Research Shows,” makes three significant observations. The first is that “individuals with unwanted same sex attraction often can be successfully treated,” and the second is that “there is no undue risk to patients from embarking on such therapy.” The third observation, wrote the ACP president, is that “as a group, homosexual experience significantly higher levels of mental and physical health problems compared to heterosexuals.”
“Among adolescents who claim a 'gay' identity,” Benton noted, “the health risks include higher rates of sexually transmitted infections, alcoholism, substance abuse, anxiety, depression and suicide. Encouragingly, the longer students delay self-labeling as 'gay,' the less likely they are to experience these health risks. In fact, for each year an adolescent delays, the risk of suicide alone decreases by 20%.”
“In light of these facts,” he warned, “it is clear that when well-intentioned but misinformed school personnel encourage students to 'comeout as gay' and be 'affirmed,' there is a serious risk of erroneously labeling students (who may merely be experiencing transient sexual confusion and/or engaging in sexual experimentation).”
“Premature labeling may then lead some adolescents into harmful homosexual behaviors that they otherwise would not pursue.”
Drawing his letter to a close, the ACP president said, it “is the school’s legitimate role to provide a safe environment for respectful self-expression for all students.” However, it “is not the school’s role to diagnose and attempt to treat any student’s medical condition, and certainly not a school’s role to 'affirm' a student’s perceived personal sexual orientation,” he added. “It is critical to the health of your students that you and your staff rely on accurate information regarding sexual orientation and gender confusion issues.”
Welcoming the facts cited in the letter, Christine de Vollmer, president of Alliance for the Family, said on Friday that it “is wonderful to have this made absolutely clear, and so much well-meaning but ill-placed ‘acceptance’ put into proper perspective.”
De Vollmer serves as leader of ALAFA (Alianza Latino Americano para la Familia), which has created a 12-year curriculum for students called Alive to the World to provide “clear guidelines for understanding and accompanying children and adolescents through the various psychological stages to maturity.”
this can be found at: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/acp_schools_should_not_affirm_students_perceived_sexual_orientation/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29
On March 31, ACP president Dr. Tom Benton wrote to schools across the U.S., saying that he and his staff are “increasingly concerned” that “many cases and efforts to help students who exhibit same sex attractions and/or gender confusion are based on incomplete or inaccurate information.”
“Adolescence is a time of upheaval and impermanence,” Benton wrote. “Adolescents experience confusion about many things, including sexual orientation and gender identity, and they are particularly vulnerable to environmental influences.”
“Rigorous studies demonstrate that most adolescents who initially experience same-sex attraction, or are sexually confused, no longer experience such attractions by age 25,” he added. In one study, Benton said as many as 26% of 12-year-olds reported being unsure of their sexual orientation but only 2-3% of adults actually identify themselves as homosexual. “Therefore, the majority of sexually-questioning youth ultimately adopt a heterosexual identity,” Benton deduced.
“Even children with Gender Identity Disorder (when a child desires to be the opposite sex) will typically lose this desire by puberty, if the behavior is not reinforced,” he told the school superintendents.
Benton wrote that researchers “also maintain that when parents or others allow or encourage a child to behave and be treated as the opposite sex, the confusion is reinforced and the child is conditioned for a life of unnecessary pain and suffering. Even when motivated by noble intentions, schools can ironically play a detrimental role if they reinforce this disorder.”
Furthermore, “in dealing with adolescents experiencing same-sex attraction,” Benton advised, “it is essential to understand there is no scientific evidence that an individual is born 'gay' or 'transgender.' Instead, the best available research points to multiple factors - primarily social and familial – that predispose children and adolescents to homosexual attraction and/or gender confusion. It is also critical to understand that these conditions can respond well to therapy.”
Benton cited a recently released “landmark” survey by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) which compiled analysis of 125 years of scientific studies and clinical experience dealing with homosexuality.
According to Benton, the NARTH report, titled “What Research Shows,” makes three significant observations. The first is that “individuals with unwanted same sex attraction often can be successfully treated,” and the second is that “there is no undue risk to patients from embarking on such therapy.” The third observation, wrote the ACP president, is that “as a group, homosexual experience significantly higher levels of mental and physical health problems compared to heterosexuals.”
“Among adolescents who claim a 'gay' identity,” Benton noted, “the health risks include higher rates of sexually transmitted infections, alcoholism, substance abuse, anxiety, depression and suicide. Encouragingly, the longer students delay self-labeling as 'gay,' the less likely they are to experience these health risks. In fact, for each year an adolescent delays, the risk of suicide alone decreases by 20%.”
“In light of these facts,” he warned, “it is clear that when well-intentioned but misinformed school personnel encourage students to 'comeout as gay' and be 'affirmed,' there is a serious risk of erroneously labeling students (who may merely be experiencing transient sexual confusion and/or engaging in sexual experimentation).”
“Premature labeling may then lead some adolescents into harmful homosexual behaviors that they otherwise would not pursue.”
Drawing his letter to a close, the ACP president said, it “is the school’s legitimate role to provide a safe environment for respectful self-expression for all students.” However, it “is not the school’s role to diagnose and attempt to treat any student’s medical condition, and certainly not a school’s role to 'affirm' a student’s perceived personal sexual orientation,” he added. “It is critical to the health of your students that you and your staff rely on accurate information regarding sexual orientation and gender confusion issues.”
Welcoming the facts cited in the letter, Christine de Vollmer, president of Alliance for the Family, said on Friday that it “is wonderful to have this made absolutely clear, and so much well-meaning but ill-placed ‘acceptance’ put into proper perspective.”
De Vollmer serves as leader of ALAFA (Alianza Latino Americano para la Familia), which has created a 12-year curriculum for students called Alive to the World to provide “clear guidelines for understanding and accompanying children and adolescents through the various psychological stages to maturity.”
this can be found at: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/acp_schools_should_not_affirm_students_perceived_sexual_orientation/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Planned Parenthood head thanks religious sisters for ‘critical support’ of health care bill
Washington D.C., Mar 27, 2010 / 07:28 am (CNA).- Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards has praised the Catholic religious sisters who endorsed the Senate health care bill, claiming they deserve gratitude for making “a critical demonstration of support” for a bill that significantly increased coverage of “reproductive health care.”
Writing for the Huffington Post Wednesday in her capacity as president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Richards claimed that it was Catholic nuns who “most importantly broke with the bishops and the Vatican to announce their support for health care reform.”
“This brave and important move, demonstrating that they cared as much about the health care of families in America as they did about church hierarchy, was a critical demonstration of support.”
The group NETWORK claimed in a March 17 letter to the House of Representatives that it represented 59,000 women religious across the U.S. It urged members of Congress to support the bill.
Their statement was uncritically reported by the Associated Press. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and others working to pass the legislation invoked the sisters’ endorsement for support.
On March 18 U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) spokeswoman Sr. Mary Ann Walsh said NETWORK “grossly overstated” their numbers.
“The letter had 55 signatories, some individuals, some groups of three to five persons. One endorser signed twice,” she added. “There are 793 religious communities in the United States,” Sr. Walsh said.
Another group of women religious, the Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious (CMSWR), issued a statement saying it represented 10,000 sisters and supported the U.S. bishops’ criticisms of the Senate health care bill.
In her Huffington Post essay, Richards said in the last days of the debate over the health care bill, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and the USCCB “threatened to bring down health care completely over their narrow demands.”
“Bart Stupak may not ask the nuns for advice, as he recently announced to the press, but maybe next time she should,” Richards jabbed.
She praised Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) for fighting against an “abortion ban” in the House Energy and Commerce Committee Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) gathered 41 signatures of members who pledged to vote against any final bill with the “Stupak ban.”
“These women stood in the way of plenty of men in Congress who were ready to cut a deal, whether with Bart Stupak or the National Conference of Catholic Bishops,” she continued.
Richards said Planned Parenthood was “committed” to changing the “egregious” Nelson language in the bill that President Obama signed into law on Tuesday. She claimed the bill unjustly treats abortion coverage differently than all other health care.
However, she also said the bill was a “huge victory for women’s reproductive health” because it significantly increased insurance coverage of “reproductive health care, including family planning.”
“Reproductive health care” and “women’s rights” are euphemisms common among abortion advocates.
Richards, the daughter of former Democratic Texas governor Ann Richards, noted that some in Congress opposed her agenda.
“The simple and discouraging truth is that we have an anti-choice House of Representatives,” she claimed.
She lamented that 64 Democrats voted in favor of the Stupak Amendment and that there are “too many” Republicans and Democrats in Congress opposed to “women’s rights.”
“We need more than health care; we need women and men elected to office who will stand up for our health and our rights, even when it's hard. So here's to the women leaders in Congress -- and to the nuns -- and to the women everywhere who were counting on them. They need our gratitude and our support,” Richards’ Huffington Post essay concluded.
This can be found at. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/planned_parenthood_head_thanks_religious_sisters_for_critical_support_of_health_care_bill/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29
Writing for the Huffington Post Wednesday in her capacity as president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Richards claimed that it was Catholic nuns who “most importantly broke with the bishops and the Vatican to announce their support for health care reform.”
“This brave and important move, demonstrating that they cared as much about the health care of families in America as they did about church hierarchy, was a critical demonstration of support.”
The group NETWORK claimed in a March 17 letter to the House of Representatives that it represented 59,000 women religious across the U.S. It urged members of Congress to support the bill.
Their statement was uncritically reported by the Associated Press. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and others working to pass the legislation invoked the sisters’ endorsement for support.
On March 18 U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) spokeswoman Sr. Mary Ann Walsh said NETWORK “grossly overstated” their numbers.
“The letter had 55 signatories, some individuals, some groups of three to five persons. One endorser signed twice,” she added. “There are 793 religious communities in the United States,” Sr. Walsh said.
Another group of women religious, the Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious (CMSWR), issued a statement saying it represented 10,000 sisters and supported the U.S. bishops’ criticisms of the Senate health care bill.
In her Huffington Post essay, Richards said in the last days of the debate over the health care bill, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and the USCCB “threatened to bring down health care completely over their narrow demands.”
“Bart Stupak may not ask the nuns for advice, as he recently announced to the press, but maybe next time she should,” Richards jabbed.
She praised Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) for fighting against an “abortion ban” in the House Energy and Commerce Committee Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) gathered 41 signatures of members who pledged to vote against any final bill with the “Stupak ban.”
“These women stood in the way of plenty of men in Congress who were ready to cut a deal, whether with Bart Stupak or the National Conference of Catholic Bishops,” she continued.
Richards said Planned Parenthood was “committed” to changing the “egregious” Nelson language in the bill that President Obama signed into law on Tuesday. She claimed the bill unjustly treats abortion coverage differently than all other health care.
However, she also said the bill was a “huge victory for women’s reproductive health” because it significantly increased insurance coverage of “reproductive health care, including family planning.”
“Reproductive health care” and “women’s rights” are euphemisms common among abortion advocates.
Richards, the daughter of former Democratic Texas governor Ann Richards, noted that some in Congress opposed her agenda.
“The simple and discouraging truth is that we have an anti-choice House of Representatives,” she claimed.
She lamented that 64 Democrats voted in favor of the Stupak Amendment and that there are “too many” Republicans and Democrats in Congress opposed to “women’s rights.”
“We need more than health care; we need women and men elected to office who will stand up for our health and our rights, even when it's hard. So here's to the women leaders in Congress -- and to the nuns -- and to the women everywhere who were counting on them. They need our gratitude and our support,” Richards’ Huffington Post essay concluded.
This can be found at. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/planned_parenthood_head_thanks_religious_sisters_for_critical_support_of_health_care_bill/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29
Monday, March 22, 2010
We Stood with Stupak: He Didn't Stand for Life.
By Jennifer Hartline
3/22/2010
Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)
Is there anyone who will simply stand for LIFE, period, no matter the cost, no matter the fallout, no matter the sweet deal they're offered? Is there anyone who will not compromise?
WASHINGTON, D.C. (Catholic Online) - I have had some time to recover from what occurred on Sunday evening, but I still feel sick to my stomach. I always knew there was a chance that Bart Stupak would change his vote for some reason other than securing his amendment, but I honestly thought he would hold his ground and not waver in his defense of unborn children. Senator Nelson's betrayal last year was very upsetting, but this... this is just so painful.
The trouble is, we citizens have no choice but to believe in our politicians. We must risk trusting them to be true to their word, to their principles, to the promises they've made. You and I cannot walk down to the front of that Chamber and cast a vote, so we must rally behind our Reps and Senators and ask everyone who shares our values to do the same. "Stand with Stupak!" we cried. "Let him know we're with him and we appreciate all he's doing!" He's the only thing left standing between life and federally-funded death right now! And so, it seemed, he was.
Does this make us fools now? Well, it sure makes me feel a little foolish, but I realize this morning that I did what I had to do, and what I will do again when there's a candidate who says he will stand up for the unborn. We have no choice but to take the chance, knowing there's always the possibility that we will be betrayed. Again, you and I cannot cast a legislative vote. Our votes come later.
What happened Sunday night sure felt like betrayal. Not with a kiss, but with a slap across the face and a knife to the heart. I never expected Stupak to do what he did, especially not at the very.last.minute. It makes absolutely no sense to me that he would put his faith in an order that almost everyone else agrees isn't worth the paper it's printed on (particularly given the man who signed it.) Executive Orders cannot trump statutory law. Surely Stupak knows this. Surely he understands how easily the order can be rescinded and challenged in court. He must understand all that because every one of his colleagues does.
So, what gives? I wondered if it went something like this: Stupak began to realize that Pelosi would have the votes she needed without him and his group and the bill would pass for sure. He scrambled to find some way of mitigating the damage, lessening the power of the Senate language, putting up some kind of sandbag against the tide. An Executive Order requiring Hyde be upheld... it was the last-ditch effort and he went for it. A somewhat noble scenario, I suppose, but I still would rather have had him just stick to voting NO.
Then I watched as the vote happened, and I saw that the final count was only 219. Stupak and his group made a difference, alright. In the wrong direction! The noble scenario I imagined went right out the window. The final blow came when I watched him on CSPAN as the Republicans put forth the Motion to Recommit. Stupak stood up and turned on his pro-life Republican colleagues in a way that left my jaw in my lap. He called the motion an attempt to politicize unborn life rather than protect it. He said it was Democrats who have stood up for the protection of unborn children, Democrats who have stood up for the principle of life, and he slammed his friends on the other side for attempting to derail the health care bill yet again.
He looked and sounded like a true party - line Democrat; no longer a champion of the voiceless and powerless and innocent. Just a politician who had made a deal. It was crushing to watch. Gone was the smiling, steady, principled man I've been watching all these months, and there instead was a man who seemed very defensive, angry, and defiant.
Once again, someone we trusted has let us down. And once again, cynicism and resentment grows where optimism and hope once lived. I wonder if there really is anyone left in Washington who has honor and will not relinquish it for the right deal. Is there anyone who will simply stand for LIFE, period, no matter the cost, no matter the fallout, no matter the sweet deal they're offered? When it's not politically expedient to do so, is there anyone who will not compromise?
It's good to remember that the only man who ever lived that way was our Savior. In Him, there is honor without compromise; in Him there is no risk of betrayal; in Him there is steadfast hope; in Him, there is LIFE.
In each of us, is the possibility of Judas. I know for certain I have betrayed Him over and over. I know for certain I have broken the trust of people who love me and believed in me. I know I have caused others to regret having supported me in some way.
It just seems like Judas is alive and well everywhere in Washington. It seems he shows himself every day, with every deal that's made. Sunday night, however, was a truly heartbreaking appearance, with devastating consequences. And we, the electorate have very significant choices to make in the future. When next we have the opportunity to vote, we must start voting more carefully and more bravely.
But we also must risk trusting again. We have to believe, again and again, that those we send to that awesome Chamber will find the courage to be true. We will surely be let down again. But cynicism will be a greater threat to our cause than Judas. We can be sorrowful and even rightfully angry, but we will have to take a chance again on someone who says, "I'll stand and fight with you." We'll have to rally ourselves again, lend our support again, then watch with guarded hope to see what happens.
And when our hopes are dashed once more, we have to simply start all over again. Dust off the cynicism and resentment, and remember that He who sits on the throne is still in control. "We trust in the name of the Lord our God." "We know that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him."
I'm not sorry I stood with Stupak. I'm sorry he didn't stand for Life.
This can be found at. http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=35889&wf=rsscol
3/22/2010
Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)
Is there anyone who will simply stand for LIFE, period, no matter the cost, no matter the fallout, no matter the sweet deal they're offered? Is there anyone who will not compromise?
WASHINGTON, D.C. (Catholic Online) - I have had some time to recover from what occurred on Sunday evening, but I still feel sick to my stomach. I always knew there was a chance that Bart Stupak would change his vote for some reason other than securing his amendment, but I honestly thought he would hold his ground and not waver in his defense of unborn children. Senator Nelson's betrayal last year was very upsetting, but this... this is just so painful.
The trouble is, we citizens have no choice but to believe in our politicians. We must risk trusting them to be true to their word, to their principles, to the promises they've made. You and I cannot walk down to the front of that Chamber and cast a vote, so we must rally behind our Reps and Senators and ask everyone who shares our values to do the same. "Stand with Stupak!" we cried. "Let him know we're with him and we appreciate all he's doing!" He's the only thing left standing between life and federally-funded death right now! And so, it seemed, he was.
Does this make us fools now? Well, it sure makes me feel a little foolish, but I realize this morning that I did what I had to do, and what I will do again when there's a candidate who says he will stand up for the unborn. We have no choice but to take the chance, knowing there's always the possibility that we will be betrayed. Again, you and I cannot cast a legislative vote. Our votes come later.
What happened Sunday night sure felt like betrayal. Not with a kiss, but with a slap across the face and a knife to the heart. I never expected Stupak to do what he did, especially not at the very.last.minute. It makes absolutely no sense to me that he would put his faith in an order that almost everyone else agrees isn't worth the paper it's printed on (particularly given the man who signed it.) Executive Orders cannot trump statutory law. Surely Stupak knows this. Surely he understands how easily the order can be rescinded and challenged in court. He must understand all that because every one of his colleagues does.
So, what gives? I wondered if it went something like this: Stupak began to realize that Pelosi would have the votes she needed without him and his group and the bill would pass for sure. He scrambled to find some way of mitigating the damage, lessening the power of the Senate language, putting up some kind of sandbag against the tide. An Executive Order requiring Hyde be upheld... it was the last-ditch effort and he went for it. A somewhat noble scenario, I suppose, but I still would rather have had him just stick to voting NO.
Then I watched as the vote happened, and I saw that the final count was only 219. Stupak and his group made a difference, alright. In the wrong direction! The noble scenario I imagined went right out the window. The final blow came when I watched him on CSPAN as the Republicans put forth the Motion to Recommit. Stupak stood up and turned on his pro-life Republican colleagues in a way that left my jaw in my lap. He called the motion an attempt to politicize unborn life rather than protect it. He said it was Democrats who have stood up for the protection of unborn children, Democrats who have stood up for the principle of life, and he slammed his friends on the other side for attempting to derail the health care bill yet again.
He looked and sounded like a true party - line Democrat; no longer a champion of the voiceless and powerless and innocent. Just a politician who had made a deal. It was crushing to watch. Gone was the smiling, steady, principled man I've been watching all these months, and there instead was a man who seemed very defensive, angry, and defiant.
Once again, someone we trusted has let us down. And once again, cynicism and resentment grows where optimism and hope once lived. I wonder if there really is anyone left in Washington who has honor and will not relinquish it for the right deal. Is there anyone who will simply stand for LIFE, period, no matter the cost, no matter the fallout, no matter the sweet deal they're offered? When it's not politically expedient to do so, is there anyone who will not compromise?
It's good to remember that the only man who ever lived that way was our Savior. In Him, there is honor without compromise; in Him there is no risk of betrayal; in Him there is steadfast hope; in Him, there is LIFE.
In each of us, is the possibility of Judas. I know for certain I have betrayed Him over and over. I know for certain I have broken the trust of people who love me and believed in me. I know I have caused others to regret having supported me in some way.
It just seems like Judas is alive and well everywhere in Washington. It seems he shows himself every day, with every deal that's made. Sunday night, however, was a truly heartbreaking appearance, with devastating consequences. And we, the electorate have very significant choices to make in the future. When next we have the opportunity to vote, we must start voting more carefully and more bravely.
But we also must risk trusting again. We have to believe, again and again, that those we send to that awesome Chamber will find the courage to be true. We will surely be let down again. But cynicism will be a greater threat to our cause than Judas. We can be sorrowful and even rightfully angry, but we will have to take a chance again on someone who says, "I'll stand and fight with you." We'll have to rally ourselves again, lend our support again, then watch with guarded hope to see what happens.
And when our hopes are dashed once more, we have to simply start all over again. Dust off the cynicism and resentment, and remember that He who sits on the throne is still in control. "We trust in the name of the Lord our God." "We know that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him."
I'm not sorry I stood with Stupak. I'm sorry he didn't stand for Life.
This can be found at. http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=35889&wf=rsscol
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Planned Parenthood distributes sexually explicit brochures at Girl Scout meeting
New York City, N.Y., Mar 14, 2010 / 05:47 pm (CNA).- Early this week, the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts hosted a panel in which Planned Parenthood was allowed to distribute brochures containing sexually explicit material to the young girls. The panel served as part of the annual U.N. Commission on the Status of Women (CSW).
According to the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), the brochures titled, “Happy, Healthy and Hot,” are aimed at young people with HIV and give graphic details on sex, encouraging a casual approach to sexual experimentation. The brightly colored pamphlets feature silhouettes of young people and state, “Many people think sex is just about vaginal or anal intercourse… But, there are lots of different ways to have sex and lots of different types of sex. There is no right or wrong way to have sex. Just have fun, explore and be yourself!”
The pamphlet continues by encouraging adolescents to “Improve your sex life by getting to know your own body. Play with yourself! Masturbation is a great way to find out more about your body and what you find sexually stimulating. Mix things up by using different kinds of touch from very soft to hard. Talk about or act out your fantasies. Talk dirty to (your sexual partner).”
C-FAM also reports that the CSW event also held a young women's caucus that was co-moderated by the Girl Scouts and the YMCA. Part of the caucus included an “Intergenerational conversation” that addressed “reproductive health” as well as a recent Girl Scout project aimed “at securing the right of women, men and adolescents aged between ten and twenty-five, to better reproductive and sexual health.”
Several leaders of U.N. organizations also released a joint statement at the CSW this week called the “U.N. Adolescent Girls Task Force” which encourages U.N. agencies to support initiatives “that empower … adolescent girls, particularly those aged 10 to 14 years.” One aspect of this “empowerment” is providing these young girls with “life-skills based sexuality education, HIV prevention, and sexual and reproductive health.”
According to C-FAM's Friday Fax, Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women of America argued that Planned Parenthood’s initiatives are motivated with the intent of increasing their revenue. “Governments and NGOs should be aware of Planned Parenthood’s insidious plan to work with U.N. agencies and girls’ organizations in order to profit from encouraging kids to be sexually active,” Wright stated.
This can be found at: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/planned_parenthood_distributes_sexually_explicit_brochures_at_girl_scout_meeting/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29
According to the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), the brochures titled, “Happy, Healthy and Hot,” are aimed at young people with HIV and give graphic details on sex, encouraging a casual approach to sexual experimentation. The brightly colored pamphlets feature silhouettes of young people and state, “Many people think sex is just about vaginal or anal intercourse… But, there are lots of different ways to have sex and lots of different types of sex. There is no right or wrong way to have sex. Just have fun, explore and be yourself!”
The pamphlet continues by encouraging adolescents to “Improve your sex life by getting to know your own body. Play with yourself! Masturbation is a great way to find out more about your body and what you find sexually stimulating. Mix things up by using different kinds of touch from very soft to hard. Talk about or act out your fantasies. Talk dirty to (your sexual partner).”
C-FAM also reports that the CSW event also held a young women's caucus that was co-moderated by the Girl Scouts and the YMCA. Part of the caucus included an “Intergenerational conversation” that addressed “reproductive health” as well as a recent Girl Scout project aimed “at securing the right of women, men and adolescents aged between ten and twenty-five, to better reproductive and sexual health.”
Several leaders of U.N. organizations also released a joint statement at the CSW this week called the “U.N. Adolescent Girls Task Force” which encourages U.N. agencies to support initiatives “that empower … adolescent girls, particularly those aged 10 to 14 years.” One aspect of this “empowerment” is providing these young girls with “life-skills based sexuality education, HIV prevention, and sexual and reproductive health.”
According to C-FAM's Friday Fax, Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women of America argued that Planned Parenthood’s initiatives are motivated with the intent of increasing their revenue. “Governments and NGOs should be aware of Planned Parenthood’s insidious plan to work with U.N. agencies and girls’ organizations in order to profit from encouraging kids to be sexually active,” Wright stated.
This can be found at: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/planned_parenthood_distributes_sexually_explicit_brochures_at_girl_scout_meeting/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29
Friday, March 12, 2010
What are Dems saying
in an article found at http://ow.ly/1irMs we see the following quote.
"What are Democratic leaders saying? “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says. “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue — come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.”"
"What are Democratic leaders saying? “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says. “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue — come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.”"
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Archbishop Chaput suggests ‘Dos and Don’ts’ for pro-life advocates
Cleveland, Ohio, Mar 9, 2010 / 10:24 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Calling pro-life advocates and all Christians to courage and virtue, Archbishop of Denver Charles J. Chaput provided a list of “dos and don’ts” for the pro-life movement on Tuesday evening. He urged an end to divisions and false oppositions, encouraging pro-lifers to be joyous and hopeful witnesses through public action and new technologies.
Delivering the keynote speech for Cleveland Right to Life's symposium "Bringing America Back to Life" on March 9, the archbishop said pro-life unity is a sign of God’s Spirit, while division is the sign of “Someone very different.”
“As a bishop, I've been baffled by the energy wasted on internal pro-life bickering. We can never allow our differences to become personal.”
“Don’t create or accept false oppositions,” he added, criticizing efforts to drop the legal fight to end abortion by seeking “common ground.”
In his view, Americans have not taken such gradualist approaches to reducing injustices such as racism or sexual assault.
“We make sexual assault illegal -- even though we know it will sometimes still tragically occur -- because it’s gravely evil. It’s an act of violence, and the law should proscribe it.”
If abortion is really an “intimate act of violence,” an end to it is necessary through law. Pro-lifers cannot be satisfied with “mere ‘reductions’ in the body count,” he continued, adding that a legal approach combined with support for pregnant women is needed.
“Don't hate the adversary,” Archbishop Chaput reminded his audience, saying that few supporters of abortion understand the “full gravity” of the act.
“Our enemy is the Evil One, not other human beings,” he explained. “We need to trust in the power of love; the true power of God.”
As positive advice, he urged his audience to become “martyrs,” that is, witnesses about human dignity in their daily actions.
“But public witness can be costly. We need to be ready to pay a price for our convictions. We may never be asked to bleed for what we believe. But we do see character assassination, contempt and calumny against good people every day in our public media. We need to prepare for that. Nothing, not even our good name, should stop us from doing what we know to be right.”
The Archbishop of Denver likened simplistic political slogans to viruses transmitted so quickly a person cannot respond to them intelligently.
He criticized a common complaint against those who “impose” their morals on others, explaining that all law is the public expression of moral conviction. The central question in public debate is which moral convictions of which people shall guide the laws.
“If you and I as citizens don’t do the shaping, then somebody else will,” he cautioned. “That’s the nature of a democracy.”
Citizens who fail to bring their moral beliefs into the public conversation and work for their advancement help ensure the defeat of those beliefs.
Efforts to wall off religious beliefs from political behavior are illogical and encourage self-deceit, the archbishop warned.
“God sees that our duplicity is really a kind of cowardice; and that our lack of courage does a lot more damage than simply compromising our own integrity. It also undermines the courage of other good people who really do try to publicly witness to what they believe. And that compounds a sin of dishonesty with a sin of injustice.”
“We can’t build a just society, and at the same time legally sanctify the destruction of generations of unborn human life. The rights of the poor and the rights of the unborn child flow from exactly the same human dignity guaranteed by the God who created us.”
“Do keep hope alive,” he continued, explaining that joy is not self-deception but the acknowledgment that God truly is on the side of “human life and dignity.”
“Nothing is more inspiring than happy warriors,” Archbishop Chaput commented. “I've never in my life seen a joy-filled pro-abortion event. And I've always found that instructive.”
He also encouraged the use of the “best means” for the pro-life message, especially new technologies.
“Many of the traditional, mainline media are losing influence. But blogs, social networks, and YouTube channels are thriving. They offer huge pro-life opportunities.”
His final exhortation reiterated that cultural renewal, not grasping power, is the real goal.
“Culture can be changed in small but powerful ways. But achieving that change demands from each of us a lifelong commitment to education; to studying and really understanding the issues that face us in science, medicine, technology and law; to deepening the character formation of our children and ourselves; and ultimately, to personal action and personal witness in the public square. Nobody will do these things for us.”
No defense of the human person, no matter how small, is “unfruitful or forgotten,” he commented. God loves the “ordinary, simple, everyday people” who keep His Word and are faithful to His commandments in leavening the world with goodness.
“If you speak up for the unborn child in this life, someone will speak up for you in the next, when we meet God face to face.”
He closed his comments by quoting an “unofficial motto” of the Texas Rangers: “No man in the wrong can stand up against a fella that’s in the right, and keeps a-comin.”
“Courage and humility, justice and perseverance, do have power. Good does win. And the sanctity of human life will endure,” Archbishop Chaput said.
If people remember that God so loved the world that He gave His only son, he noted, “then the odds look pretty good, and it’s worth fighting for what’s right.”
this can be found at: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/archbishop_chaput_suggests_dos_and_donts_for_pro-life_advocates/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29
Delivering the keynote speech for Cleveland Right to Life's symposium "Bringing America Back to Life" on March 9, the archbishop said pro-life unity is a sign of God’s Spirit, while division is the sign of “Someone very different.”
“As a bishop, I've been baffled by the energy wasted on internal pro-life bickering. We can never allow our differences to become personal.”
“Don’t create or accept false oppositions,” he added, criticizing efforts to drop the legal fight to end abortion by seeking “common ground.”
In his view, Americans have not taken such gradualist approaches to reducing injustices such as racism or sexual assault.
“We make sexual assault illegal -- even though we know it will sometimes still tragically occur -- because it’s gravely evil. It’s an act of violence, and the law should proscribe it.”
If abortion is really an “intimate act of violence,” an end to it is necessary through law. Pro-lifers cannot be satisfied with “mere ‘reductions’ in the body count,” he continued, adding that a legal approach combined with support for pregnant women is needed.
“Don't hate the adversary,” Archbishop Chaput reminded his audience, saying that few supporters of abortion understand the “full gravity” of the act.
“Our enemy is the Evil One, not other human beings,” he explained. “We need to trust in the power of love; the true power of God.”
As positive advice, he urged his audience to become “martyrs,” that is, witnesses about human dignity in their daily actions.
“But public witness can be costly. We need to be ready to pay a price for our convictions. We may never be asked to bleed for what we believe. But we do see character assassination, contempt and calumny against good people every day in our public media. We need to prepare for that. Nothing, not even our good name, should stop us from doing what we know to be right.”
The Archbishop of Denver likened simplistic political slogans to viruses transmitted so quickly a person cannot respond to them intelligently.
He criticized a common complaint against those who “impose” their morals on others, explaining that all law is the public expression of moral conviction. The central question in public debate is which moral convictions of which people shall guide the laws.
“If you and I as citizens don’t do the shaping, then somebody else will,” he cautioned. “That’s the nature of a democracy.”
Citizens who fail to bring their moral beliefs into the public conversation and work for their advancement help ensure the defeat of those beliefs.
Efforts to wall off religious beliefs from political behavior are illogical and encourage self-deceit, the archbishop warned.
“God sees that our duplicity is really a kind of cowardice; and that our lack of courage does a lot more damage than simply compromising our own integrity. It also undermines the courage of other good people who really do try to publicly witness to what they believe. And that compounds a sin of dishonesty with a sin of injustice.”
“We can’t build a just society, and at the same time legally sanctify the destruction of generations of unborn human life. The rights of the poor and the rights of the unborn child flow from exactly the same human dignity guaranteed by the God who created us.”
“Do keep hope alive,” he continued, explaining that joy is not self-deception but the acknowledgment that God truly is on the side of “human life and dignity.”
“Nothing is more inspiring than happy warriors,” Archbishop Chaput commented. “I've never in my life seen a joy-filled pro-abortion event. And I've always found that instructive.”
He also encouraged the use of the “best means” for the pro-life message, especially new technologies.
“Many of the traditional, mainline media are losing influence. But blogs, social networks, and YouTube channels are thriving. They offer huge pro-life opportunities.”
His final exhortation reiterated that cultural renewal, not grasping power, is the real goal.
“Culture can be changed in small but powerful ways. But achieving that change demands from each of us a lifelong commitment to education; to studying and really understanding the issues that face us in science, medicine, technology and law; to deepening the character formation of our children and ourselves; and ultimately, to personal action and personal witness in the public square. Nobody will do these things for us.”
No defense of the human person, no matter how small, is “unfruitful or forgotten,” he commented. God loves the “ordinary, simple, everyday people” who keep His Word and are faithful to His commandments in leavening the world with goodness.
“If you speak up for the unborn child in this life, someone will speak up for you in the next, when we meet God face to face.”
He closed his comments by quoting an “unofficial motto” of the Texas Rangers: “No man in the wrong can stand up against a fella that’s in the right, and keeps a-comin.”
“Courage and humility, justice and perseverance, do have power. Good does win. And the sanctity of human life will endure,” Archbishop Chaput said.
If people remember that God so loved the world that He gave His only son, he noted, “then the odds look pretty good, and it’s worth fighting for what’s right.”
this can be found at: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/archbishop_chaput_suggests_dos_and_donts_for_pro-life_advocates/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29
Monday, March 1, 2010
We must pray without tiring, for the salvation of mankind does not depend on material success; nor on sciences that cloud the intellect. Neither does
NEW YORK, NY (LifeSiteNews.com) - Following a period of relative silence since his installation last year, New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan eagerly took an opportunity to set forth Church teaching on controversial points, including the forbidding of public honors for pro-abortion politicians, in a recent interview with NY1. The bishop also asserted that his outspokenness on such issues was simply part of his job as shepherd and teacher of the faith.
When NY1 News reporter Roma Torre asked whether a pro-abortion Catholic should be invited to a "Catholic event" such as the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner, Dolan's response was unequivocal.
"Actually, Roma, I don't think we should invite anybody that would take a stance [in favor of] abortion, because this is not a Catholic issue," he replied.
The archbishop later clarified that his answer pertained to giving public honors to such persons.
"In our mind, being opposed to abortion, is a civil rights issue, it's a natural law issue, it's not a Catholic issue," Dolan continued. "We'd be uncomfortable in anybody that would, say, promote a stand that would be for bigotry, or against civil rights, because that's contrary not only to the teaching of the Church but to what we would call civil rights and the natural law."
The archbishop said that a pro-abortion Catholic such as New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo would be "welcome" to a Catholic event - but "there's a difference between everybody being welcome, and providing somebody who is dramatically, radically, publically at odds with the Church on a particularly given issue to have a place of prominence and to receive an award."
When the University of Notre Dame announced last year that the pro-abortion President Obama would offer the commencement address and receive an honorary law degree at the school, the New York archbishop condemned the invitation as a "big mistake."
Dolan, who has earned a reputation for outspokenness promoting Catholic orthodoxy on life and family issues, explained that his goal is not to "look for headlines." It was because of his office as teacher, he said, that he "won't duck the tough issues."
"It's not like I sit down and say: How can I grab some headlines, how can I really cause a splash," Dolan said. "You just try to do your work, and sometimes things get attention. ...
"If people ask me, I feel obliged as a teacher, as the official teacher of the Archdiocese of New York, to try my best to give the Church's wisdom here."
Dolan noted that he was "grateful" that the New York legislature struck down a same-sex "marriage" bill last year. He also affirmed that the St. Patrick's Day Parade should continue disallowing a gay pride banner, which would conflict with the parade's "strong Christian identity."
But, he said, it would be a mistake to understand the Church's stance against such matters as mere naysaying.
Instead, he said: "the Church in a way is one big yes: one big yes to human life, one big yes to anything that advances, lifts up, enlightens, liberates legitimate human identity. We're in the 'yes' business, not the 'no' business.
"So I get frustrated sometimes, when that's interpreted as being 'anti-gay,' that's where we kinda cringe," he continued, "because believe it or not, we get attacked from the other extreme for defending the rights of gays and for the strong Church teaching that every single human being ... is a child of God, deserving of dignity and respect."
Dolan called the late John Cardinal O'Connor of New York, who was outspokenly pro-life, his "hero" - and acknowledged that his office calls for a "prophetic" voice, although he prefers using a persuasive tone when possible.
"There's always a little bit of tension between those two," said Dolan. "But occasions might call that I'll have to be prophetic. I'm sure there's gonna be times ... that I'm gonna have to be a bit of a pitbull. In general, I like to be an Irish Setter."
this can be found at: http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=35609&wf=rsscol
When NY1 News reporter Roma Torre asked whether a pro-abortion Catholic should be invited to a "Catholic event" such as the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner, Dolan's response was unequivocal.
"Actually, Roma, I don't think we should invite anybody that would take a stance [in favor of] abortion, because this is not a Catholic issue," he replied.
The archbishop later clarified that his answer pertained to giving public honors to such persons.
"In our mind, being opposed to abortion, is a civil rights issue, it's a natural law issue, it's not a Catholic issue," Dolan continued. "We'd be uncomfortable in anybody that would, say, promote a stand that would be for bigotry, or against civil rights, because that's contrary not only to the teaching of the Church but to what we would call civil rights and the natural law."
The archbishop said that a pro-abortion Catholic such as New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo would be "welcome" to a Catholic event - but "there's a difference between everybody being welcome, and providing somebody who is dramatically, radically, publically at odds with the Church on a particularly given issue to have a place of prominence and to receive an award."
When the University of Notre Dame announced last year that the pro-abortion President Obama would offer the commencement address and receive an honorary law degree at the school, the New York archbishop condemned the invitation as a "big mistake."
Dolan, who has earned a reputation for outspokenness promoting Catholic orthodoxy on life and family issues, explained that his goal is not to "look for headlines." It was because of his office as teacher, he said, that he "won't duck the tough issues."
"It's not like I sit down and say: How can I grab some headlines, how can I really cause a splash," Dolan said. "You just try to do your work, and sometimes things get attention. ...
"If people ask me, I feel obliged as a teacher, as the official teacher of the Archdiocese of New York, to try my best to give the Church's wisdom here."
Dolan noted that he was "grateful" that the New York legislature struck down a same-sex "marriage" bill last year. He also affirmed that the St. Patrick's Day Parade should continue disallowing a gay pride banner, which would conflict with the parade's "strong Christian identity."
But, he said, it would be a mistake to understand the Church's stance against such matters as mere naysaying.
Instead, he said: "the Church in a way is one big yes: one big yes to human life, one big yes to anything that advances, lifts up, enlightens, liberates legitimate human identity. We're in the 'yes' business, not the 'no' business.
"So I get frustrated sometimes, when that's interpreted as being 'anti-gay,' that's where we kinda cringe," he continued, "because believe it or not, we get attacked from the other extreme for defending the rights of gays and for the strong Church teaching that every single human being ... is a child of God, deserving of dignity and respect."
Dolan called the late John Cardinal O'Connor of New York, who was outspokenly pro-life, his "hero" - and acknowledged that his office calls for a "prophetic" voice, although he prefers using a persuasive tone when possible.
"There's always a little bit of tension between those two," said Dolan. "But occasions might call that I'll have to be prophetic. I'm sure there's gonna be times ... that I'm gonna have to be a bit of a pitbull. In general, I like to be an Irish Setter."
this can be found at: http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=35609&wf=rsscol
Thursday, February 25, 2010
U.K. Passes Sex-Ed Bill Forcing Schools to Promote Homosexuality, Abortion
Under the bill, all schools will be required to give children information on homosexual relationships as well as artificial contraception and abortion.
LONDON, England (LifeSiteNews.com) – The House of Commons voted 68 to 177 last night to pass third reading of the government´s sex-education bill in a vote that pro-life and pro-family advocates have called "deplorable."
Under the bill, schools, both religious and secular, will be required to give children information on homosexual relationships as well as artificial contraception and abortion. The government has confirmed that these programs will specifically include information for children on how to obtain abortions and contraceptives.
Under current rules, parents have the right to withdraw their child from sex and relationship education (SRE) classes up until the age of 19. But the bill will lower that to 15, ensuring that students receive at least one year of sex-education. The BBC notes that currently, only 0.04 per cent of parents use the opt-out.
The bill now goes to the House of Lords.
While the bill has been called "controversial," the controversy in the media has focused on a promise made by the government, with an amendment, that religious schools could teach the new sex-ed curriculum according to their religious "ethos."
After an outcry by the homosexualist lobby and secular humanist organizations, the bill´s principle supporters, the government quickly backpedalled, assuring the public that the amendment was not an opt-out for faith schools.
This week, while his department issued a public statement to confirm, Children´s Minister Ed Balls told media that the amendment will not change the requirement of Catholic and Anglican schools to promote abortion, contraception, "civil partnerships" and homosexuality as "normal and harmless."
Even with the amendment, Balls told the BBC, religious schools "must explain civil partnership. They must give a balanced view on abortion, they must give both sides of the argument, they must explain how to access an abortion, the same is true on contraception as well."
The BBC reports that with 1/3 of Britain´s schools being faith schools, the government is aware that the support and cooperation of both the Church of England and the Catholic Church is crucial to the success of the programs.
This support has been assured by the Catholic Education Service (CES), which helped draft the bill and has defended it against criticisms from parent groups and pro-family advocates. CES claimed credit for the tabling of the faith schools amendment that pro-life and family groups have called "worthless" and Ed Balls himself said would change nothing.
On a BBC radio program Balls specifically thanked Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Westminster, the head of the Catholic bishops´ conference of England and Wales, and the Catholic Education Service for their support of his bill.
"To have the support of the Catholic Church and Archbishop Nichols in these changes is, I think, very, very important, is a huge step forward."
Paul Tully, general secretary of the Society for the Protection of Unborn children, which has lobbied heavily against the bill, said last night, "This is a dire result for school-children and for unborn children who are in the firing-line of this bill."
Tully said that Balls had made it clear that the government´s intention was to force all schools, regardless of religious "ethos," to teach children how to use and where to obtain birth control and abortions.
"These are the key ´advertising´ messages that the pro-abortion lobby is fighting to have promoted throughout the education system – where children can be influenced and corrupted without parental guidance or protection."
SPUC has been heavily critical of the involvement of CES, saying that the bishops´ education group has been complicit in creating anti-life and anti-Catholic legislation, that will usher in a new "totalitarianism," suppressing religious freedoms.
Greg Hurst, writing in the opinion pages of the Times, added that the sex-education bill was all about boosting Labour´s reputation in time for the upcoming general elections, in which Gordon Brown´s Labour party is widely expected to lose. The point of such legislation, Hurst wrote today, is to continue the already massive socialist re-adjustment of Britain.
"Labour politicians want to entrench a change in social attitudes regardless of who wins. Leaving behind a more liberal Britain would be part of Labour´s legacy of achievements. If there were to be a change of government, their successors would have to live with such changes or risk looking reactionary by unpicking them one by one."
A media release from the Department of Children Schools and Families (DCF) described the kind of cooperation that is expected from Britain´s faith schools, citing a Catholic school in Bedford as a good example.
St. Thomas More school, the DCF said, has developed a "successful balance" between the "faith ethos" and the sex education curriculum. The school teaches that restricting sex to marriage is "the ideal" but it "explicitly recognises the reality that some young people may choose to be sexually active" and will need contraception and abortion.
"The school nurse provides students with clear accurate information" on contraception and "details of local services." These include "pregnancy options" that include abortion, which is "discussed in a non-judgemental way."
Paul Tully remarked, "Many people will be especially appalled that both the National Society of the Church of England and the education service of the Catholic Bishops´ Conference have endorsed the provisions of the bill. Mr. Balls made much of the support for the bill by Archbishop Nichols, and we have called upon the Archbishop, and other faith leaders to reconsider their support even at this late stage."
This can be found at: http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=35567&wf=rsscol
LONDON, England (LifeSiteNews.com) – The House of Commons voted 68 to 177 last night to pass third reading of the government´s sex-education bill in a vote that pro-life and pro-family advocates have called "deplorable."
Under the bill, schools, both religious and secular, will be required to give children information on homosexual relationships as well as artificial contraception and abortion. The government has confirmed that these programs will specifically include information for children on how to obtain abortions and contraceptives.
Under current rules, parents have the right to withdraw their child from sex and relationship education (SRE) classes up until the age of 19. But the bill will lower that to 15, ensuring that students receive at least one year of sex-education. The BBC notes that currently, only 0.04 per cent of parents use the opt-out.
The bill now goes to the House of Lords.
While the bill has been called "controversial," the controversy in the media has focused on a promise made by the government, with an amendment, that religious schools could teach the new sex-ed curriculum according to their religious "ethos."
After an outcry by the homosexualist lobby and secular humanist organizations, the bill´s principle supporters, the government quickly backpedalled, assuring the public that the amendment was not an opt-out for faith schools.
This week, while his department issued a public statement to confirm, Children´s Minister Ed Balls told media that the amendment will not change the requirement of Catholic and Anglican schools to promote abortion, contraception, "civil partnerships" and homosexuality as "normal and harmless."
Even with the amendment, Balls told the BBC, religious schools "must explain civil partnership. They must give a balanced view on abortion, they must give both sides of the argument, they must explain how to access an abortion, the same is true on contraception as well."
The BBC reports that with 1/3 of Britain´s schools being faith schools, the government is aware that the support and cooperation of both the Church of England and the Catholic Church is crucial to the success of the programs.
This support has been assured by the Catholic Education Service (CES), which helped draft the bill and has defended it against criticisms from parent groups and pro-family advocates. CES claimed credit for the tabling of the faith schools amendment that pro-life and family groups have called "worthless" and Ed Balls himself said would change nothing.
On a BBC radio program Balls specifically thanked Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Westminster, the head of the Catholic bishops´ conference of England and Wales, and the Catholic Education Service for their support of his bill.
"To have the support of the Catholic Church and Archbishop Nichols in these changes is, I think, very, very important, is a huge step forward."
Paul Tully, general secretary of the Society for the Protection of Unborn children, which has lobbied heavily against the bill, said last night, "This is a dire result for school-children and for unborn children who are in the firing-line of this bill."
Tully said that Balls had made it clear that the government´s intention was to force all schools, regardless of religious "ethos," to teach children how to use and where to obtain birth control and abortions.
"These are the key ´advertising´ messages that the pro-abortion lobby is fighting to have promoted throughout the education system – where children can be influenced and corrupted without parental guidance or protection."
SPUC has been heavily critical of the involvement of CES, saying that the bishops´ education group has been complicit in creating anti-life and anti-Catholic legislation, that will usher in a new "totalitarianism," suppressing religious freedoms.
Greg Hurst, writing in the opinion pages of the Times, added that the sex-education bill was all about boosting Labour´s reputation in time for the upcoming general elections, in which Gordon Brown´s Labour party is widely expected to lose. The point of such legislation, Hurst wrote today, is to continue the already massive socialist re-adjustment of Britain.
"Labour politicians want to entrench a change in social attitudes regardless of who wins. Leaving behind a more liberal Britain would be part of Labour´s legacy of achievements. If there were to be a change of government, their successors would have to live with such changes or risk looking reactionary by unpicking them one by one."
A media release from the Department of Children Schools and Families (DCF) described the kind of cooperation that is expected from Britain´s faith schools, citing a Catholic school in Bedford as a good example.
St. Thomas More school, the DCF said, has developed a "successful balance" between the "faith ethos" and the sex education curriculum. The school teaches that restricting sex to marriage is "the ideal" but it "explicitly recognises the reality that some young people may choose to be sexually active" and will need contraception and abortion.
"The school nurse provides students with clear accurate information" on contraception and "details of local services." These include "pregnancy options" that include abortion, which is "discussed in a non-judgemental way."
Paul Tully remarked, "Many people will be especially appalled that both the National Society of the Church of England and the education service of the Catholic Bishops´ Conference have endorsed the provisions of the bill. Mr. Balls made much of the support for the bill by Archbishop Nichols, and we have called upon the Archbishop, and other faith leaders to reconsider their support even at this late stage."
This can be found at: http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=35567&wf=rsscol
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Pro-life doctors challenge proposed New Zealand abortion guidelines
Aukland, New Zealand, Feb 21, 2010 / 06:09 pm (CNA).- Pro-life doctors have gone to court to challenge new medical guidelines that require doctors to advise patients who have doubts about continuing a pregnancy that abortion is one of their options.
One of the doctors challenging the guidelines is believed to be Mary English, who is a General Practitioner from Wellington and the wife of Deputy Prime Minister Bill English. According to The New Zealand Herald, Dr. English is a Catholic whose opposition to abortion is widely known. She and her husband have six children.
The doctors filed an application in the country’s High Court concerning the New Zealand Medical Council guidelines, which are titled “Beliefs and Medical Practice.”
The current guidelines note that the law allows doctors to conscientiously refuse to provide a service or give advice on contraception, sterilization or “other reproductive health services.”
The proposed guideline reads:
"While the council recognizes that you are entitled to hold your own beliefs, it remains your responsibility to ensure that a pregnant woman who comes to you for medical care and expresses doubt about continuing with the pregnancy is provided with or is offered access to objective information or assistance to enable her to make informed decisions on all available options for her pregnancy, including termination."
According to The New Zealand Herald, the final version of the document is not available. A spokesman for the Medical Council said changes have been made since the release of the draft but the final text cannot be provided because of the ongoing court action.
The case marks the first time the issue of personal beliefs and abortion has been addressed in Medical Council guidelines. The action follows a similar move in Britain.
Guidelines also cover areas where spiritual, cultural or religious beliefs could conflict with what the Council considers to be patients’ rights. The rules say doctors should set aside their own beliefs where necessary and must make the care of the patient their first concern.
Under New Zealand law, abortions can be performed only if two certifying consultants agree certain factors are present. According to the Herald, these factors include cases of incest or if the mental or physical well-being of the mother or unborn child is at risk.
The country’s Abortion Supervisory Committee appoints the consultants who authorize abortions to take place. Pro-life groups and a High Court judge have questioned the legality of many of these authorized abortions.
This can be found at: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pro-life_doctors_challenge_proposed_new_zealand_abortion_guidelines/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29
One of the doctors challenging the guidelines is believed to be Mary English, who is a General Practitioner from Wellington and the wife of Deputy Prime Minister Bill English. According to The New Zealand Herald, Dr. English is a Catholic whose opposition to abortion is widely known. She and her husband have six children.
The doctors filed an application in the country’s High Court concerning the New Zealand Medical Council guidelines, which are titled “Beliefs and Medical Practice.”
The current guidelines note that the law allows doctors to conscientiously refuse to provide a service or give advice on contraception, sterilization or “other reproductive health services.”
The proposed guideline reads:
"While the council recognizes that you are entitled to hold your own beliefs, it remains your responsibility to ensure that a pregnant woman who comes to you for medical care and expresses doubt about continuing with the pregnancy is provided with or is offered access to objective information or assistance to enable her to make informed decisions on all available options for her pregnancy, including termination."
According to The New Zealand Herald, the final version of the document is not available. A spokesman for the Medical Council said changes have been made since the release of the draft but the final text cannot be provided because of the ongoing court action.
The case marks the first time the issue of personal beliefs and abortion has been addressed in Medical Council guidelines. The action follows a similar move in Britain.
Guidelines also cover areas where spiritual, cultural or religious beliefs could conflict with what the Council considers to be patients’ rights. The rules say doctors should set aside their own beliefs where necessary and must make the care of the patient their first concern.
Under New Zealand law, abortions can be performed only if two certifying consultants agree certain factors are present. According to the Herald, these factors include cases of incest or if the mental or physical well-being of the mother or unborn child is at risk.
The country’s Abortion Supervisory Committee appoints the consultants who authorize abortions to take place. Pro-life groups and a High Court judge have questioned the legality of many of these authorized abortions.
This can be found at: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pro-life_doctors_challenge_proposed_new_zealand_abortion_guidelines/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29
Thursday, February 18, 2010
IPPF Africa Conference Pushes Abortion and Youth Sex
By Terrence McKeegan, J.D.
(NEW YORK – C-FAM) Last week in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) hosted the 4th Africa Conference on Sexual Health and Rights. Plenary speakers included a United Nations (UN) Under-Secretary General, the Chairperson of the African Union Commission, the Executive Director of UNAIDS, the Chief of the UN Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) Africa Section, and the director of the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) Liaison Office, as well as Dr. Jacqueline Sharpe, IPPF's President.
Major conference themes included promoting sexual education and sexual rights for young people, establishing closer links between “sexual rights” and “reproductive health rights,” transforming traditional cultural and religious norms about human sexuality, and advocating for legal abortion on demand throughout Africa.
Organizers focused on youth participation, hosting a “Youth Sexuality Institute” immediately prior to the conference, as well as homosexual lifestyle promotion. The steering committee report called for a “strong focus on issues of sexual pleasure/positive sexuality” and “strong involvement and engagement of LGBTIS” [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, and Intersex individuals].
Papers presented at the conference included “A Boy Can't Marry Another Boy: Adolescents [sic] boys talk about gay boys and men,” “'Good Catholics Use Condoms,” “Heterosexual anal sex in the age of HIV,” “MSM [men who have sex with men], Sex and the Internet in Nigeria,” and “Sexuality Life-Size: Body Mapping With Young Women and Men from the LGBTQI [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, Queer, Intersex] Community in Kenya.”
Abortion advocacy was another conference theme. The Center for Reproductive Rights launched the second volume of “Legal Grounds: Reproductive and Sexual Rights in Africa Commonwealth Courts,” an advocacy guide pushing abortion liberalization and alternative sexual lifestyles in Africa.
Despite the controversial topics, the conference had the apparent support of the host government. Ethiopian President Girma Wolde-Giorgis stressed in his keynote speech that “education curricula had to be opened up to include sexuality education to enable young people to know their bodies at an early age and to take responsible choices and decisions on issues related to sexual health.”
Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Minister of Health for Ethiopia, was the “Patron” of the conference. Ghebreyesus was recently elected as Chairman of the Board of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, an enormous public/private partnership with over $18 billion dollars in committed funding. The Global Fund was the third largest worldwide donor of condoms in 2005-2006, behind UNFPA and the United States Agency for International Development.
Financial sponsors included the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the International Women’s Health Coalition (IWHC) – a group backed by several European governments and American foundations whose roots are with the population control movement – and Nigeria's Action Health Incorporated, which promotes "comprehensive" youth sexual education.
Ethiopia has been praised by the global pro-abortion lobby for liberalizing its laws on abortion in 2006, with the ostensible goal of lowering rates of maternal mortality. Despite having liberalized its laws, Ethiopia has among the worst rates of maternal mortality on the African continent, according to World Health Organization statistics.
this can be found at: http://www.c-fam.org/publications/pub_detail.asp?id=1575
(NEW YORK – C-FAM) Last week in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) hosted the 4th Africa Conference on Sexual Health and Rights. Plenary speakers included a United Nations (UN) Under-Secretary General, the Chairperson of the African Union Commission, the Executive Director of UNAIDS, the Chief of the UN Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) Africa Section, and the director of the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) Liaison Office, as well as Dr. Jacqueline Sharpe, IPPF's President.
Major conference themes included promoting sexual education and sexual rights for young people, establishing closer links between “sexual rights” and “reproductive health rights,” transforming traditional cultural and religious norms about human sexuality, and advocating for legal abortion on demand throughout Africa.
Organizers focused on youth participation, hosting a “Youth Sexuality Institute” immediately prior to the conference, as well as homosexual lifestyle promotion. The steering committee report called for a “strong focus on issues of sexual pleasure/positive sexuality” and “strong involvement and engagement of LGBTIS” [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, and Intersex individuals].
Papers presented at the conference included “A Boy Can't Marry Another Boy: Adolescents [sic] boys talk about gay boys and men,” “'Good Catholics Use Condoms,” “Heterosexual anal sex in the age of HIV,” “MSM [men who have sex with men], Sex and the Internet in Nigeria,” and “Sexuality Life-Size: Body Mapping With Young Women and Men from the LGBTQI [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, Queer, Intersex] Community in Kenya.”
Abortion advocacy was another conference theme. The Center for Reproductive Rights launched the second volume of “Legal Grounds: Reproductive and Sexual Rights in Africa Commonwealth Courts,” an advocacy guide pushing abortion liberalization and alternative sexual lifestyles in Africa.
Despite the controversial topics, the conference had the apparent support of the host government. Ethiopian President Girma Wolde-Giorgis stressed in his keynote speech that “education curricula had to be opened up to include sexuality education to enable young people to know their bodies at an early age and to take responsible choices and decisions on issues related to sexual health.”
Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Minister of Health for Ethiopia, was the “Patron” of the conference. Ghebreyesus was recently elected as Chairman of the Board of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, an enormous public/private partnership with over $18 billion dollars in committed funding. The Global Fund was the third largest worldwide donor of condoms in 2005-2006, behind UNFPA and the United States Agency for International Development.
Financial sponsors included the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the International Women’s Health Coalition (IWHC) – a group backed by several European governments and American foundations whose roots are with the population control movement – and Nigeria's Action Health Incorporated, which promotes "comprehensive" youth sexual education.
Ethiopia has been praised by the global pro-abortion lobby for liberalizing its laws on abortion in 2006, with the ostensible goal of lowering rates of maternal mortality. Despite having liberalized its laws, Ethiopia has among the worst rates of maternal mortality on the African continent, according to World Health Organization statistics.
this can be found at: http://www.c-fam.org/publications/pub_detail.asp?id=1575
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Same-sex ´marriage´ Law Forces D.C. Catholic Charities to Close Adoption Program
Catholic News Agency (www.catholicnewsagency.com)
The D.C. City Council´s law recognizing same-sex "marriage" required religious entities which serve the general public to provide services to homosexual couples, even if doing so violated their religious beliefs..
WASHINGTON, D.C. (CNA) - Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington announced today that it is shutting down its foster care and public adoption program. The District of Columbia said the charity would be ineligible for service because of the new law recognizing same-sex "marriage."
"Although Catholic Charities has an 80-year legacy of high quality service to the vulnerable in our nation´s capital, the D.C. Government informed Catholic Charities that the agency would be ineligible to serve as a foster care provider due to the impending D.C. same-sex marriage law," the organization said in a statement.
The Catholic Charities affiliate transitioned its foster and adoption program to the National Center for Children and Families (NCCF) on Feb. 1. The transition includes seven staff, 43 children and their biological families, and 35 foster families. The transition was scheduled to coincide with the expiration of the current contract between Catholic Charities and D.C.´s Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA).
"Foster care has been an important ministry for us for many decades. We worked very hard to be able to continue to provide these services in the District," said Ed Orzechowski, president and CEO of Catholic Charities D.C.
"We regret that our efforts to avoid this outcome were not successful."
Orzechowski expressed gratitude to the staff and foster families involved in the program.
The D.C. City Council´s law recognizing same-sex "marriage" required religious entities which serve the general public to provide services to homosexual couples, even if doing so violated their religious beliefs. Exemptions were allowed only for performing marriages or for those entities which do not serve the public.
The archdiocese and legal experts criticized the exemptions for being too narrow.
D.C. law also now requires partners with the city to provide benefits for same-sex couples. This also poses a problem for Catholic Charities, though the Washington Post reports that the organization is optimistic it can structure benefits in a way that would allow it to remain in partnerships with the city.
Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, slammed the District´s actions.
"Archbishop Donald Wuerl is a man of principle and prudence: he did not want to end the foster-care program, but he was left with no realistic option," Donohue said Wednesday. "District lawmakers could have granted the kind of religious exemptions that would have ensured a continuation of services, but instead they sought to create a Catch-22 situation for the archdiocese.
"Surely they knew that Archbishop Wuerl was not going to negotiate Catholic Church teachings on marriage, yet that hardly mattered to them. The real losers are the children who were served by the Catholic Church."
Those who characterized the Catholic Church´s actions on the issue as neglectful of the children, Donohue claimed, were "phonies."
"Archbishop Wuerl isn't about to allow the state to run roughshod over Catholic doctrine, and that is why he is being forced to drop the foster-care program."
CNA sought comment from Archbishop of Louisville Joseph E. Kurtz, chairman of the U.S. Bishops´ Ad Hoc Committee for the Defense of Marriage. He was unavailable for an interview.
Catholic Charities of Boston was forced to close its adoption services in 2006 because it would no longer place children with homosexual couples, as required by state law. Laws have also forced Catholic adoption societies in Britain either to close or to disaffiliate from the Church
This can be found at: http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=35456&wf=rsscol
The D.C. City Council´s law recognizing same-sex "marriage" required religious entities which serve the general public to provide services to homosexual couples, even if doing so violated their religious beliefs..
WASHINGTON, D.C. (CNA) - Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington announced today that it is shutting down its foster care and public adoption program. The District of Columbia said the charity would be ineligible for service because of the new law recognizing same-sex "marriage."
"Although Catholic Charities has an 80-year legacy of high quality service to the vulnerable in our nation´s capital, the D.C. Government informed Catholic Charities that the agency would be ineligible to serve as a foster care provider due to the impending D.C. same-sex marriage law," the organization said in a statement.
The Catholic Charities affiliate transitioned its foster and adoption program to the National Center for Children and Families (NCCF) on Feb. 1. The transition includes seven staff, 43 children and their biological families, and 35 foster families. The transition was scheduled to coincide with the expiration of the current contract between Catholic Charities and D.C.´s Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA).
"Foster care has been an important ministry for us for many decades. We worked very hard to be able to continue to provide these services in the District," said Ed Orzechowski, president and CEO of Catholic Charities D.C.
"We regret that our efforts to avoid this outcome were not successful."
Orzechowski expressed gratitude to the staff and foster families involved in the program.
The D.C. City Council´s law recognizing same-sex "marriage" required religious entities which serve the general public to provide services to homosexual couples, even if doing so violated their religious beliefs. Exemptions were allowed only for performing marriages or for those entities which do not serve the public.
The archdiocese and legal experts criticized the exemptions for being too narrow.
D.C. law also now requires partners with the city to provide benefits for same-sex couples. This also poses a problem for Catholic Charities, though the Washington Post reports that the organization is optimistic it can structure benefits in a way that would allow it to remain in partnerships with the city.
Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, slammed the District´s actions.
"Archbishop Donald Wuerl is a man of principle and prudence: he did not want to end the foster-care program, but he was left with no realistic option," Donohue said Wednesday. "District lawmakers could have granted the kind of religious exemptions that would have ensured a continuation of services, but instead they sought to create a Catch-22 situation for the archdiocese.
"Surely they knew that Archbishop Wuerl was not going to negotiate Catholic Church teachings on marriage, yet that hardly mattered to them. The real losers are the children who were served by the Catholic Church."
Those who characterized the Catholic Church´s actions on the issue as neglectful of the children, Donohue claimed, were "phonies."
"Archbishop Wuerl isn't about to allow the state to run roughshod over Catholic doctrine, and that is why he is being forced to drop the foster-care program."
CNA sought comment from Archbishop of Louisville Joseph E. Kurtz, chairman of the U.S. Bishops´ Ad Hoc Committee for the Defense of Marriage. He was unavailable for an interview.
Catholic Charities of Boston was forced to close its adoption services in 2006 because it would no longer place children with homosexual couples, as required by state law. Laws have also forced Catholic adoption societies in Britain either to close or to disaffiliate from the Church
This can be found at: http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=35456&wf=rsscol
Sunday, February 14, 2010
A new human being is created at conception
From the instant the male gamete (sperm) fuses with the female gamete (egg), a unique human being with his or her own DNA, different from those of his mother and father, is present. After fertilization, there are 46 chromosomes (or 47 in the case of Down Syndrome) where there were two sets of 23 chromosomes before. The resulting being is genetically human and alive, and therefore, by standard biological definition, a human being. From fertilization to natural death, there exists an unbroken and smooth continuum of human development during which the person needs only oxygen, water, and nutrients to live and develop physically.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Proposed textbook implies abortion opposition is wrong, N. Carolina bishops warn
Charlotte, N.C., Feb 13, 2010 / 05:04 pm (CNA).- A proposed school textbook that describes Roe v. Wade as a ruling against government oppression of rights should be opposed by Catholics, the bishops of North Carolina have said. They argue the text implies that opposition to abortion is wrong.
Bishop of Raleigh Michael F. Burbidge and Bishop of Charlotte Peter J. Jugis reported the problem with the textbook in a Feb. 11 letter to Catholics.
They said the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction is considering a proposal for a revised textbook on Civics and Economics. The proposed text asserts that Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that mandated permissive abortion laws nationwide, is an example of the Supreme Court upholding rights “against oppressive government.”
If the text is approved, the bishops warned, children will be taught the textbook’s interpretation is the correct one.
“The implication of this proposed text is that opposition to Roe v. Wade is wrong,” the bishops said. “As a voice united on behalf of the unborn who have a right to life, a fundamental human right, we oppose this draft statement.”
They asked Catholics to inform the Department of Public Instruction of their opposition and to ask that any reference to Roe v. Wade be removed from the text.
After supplying contact information, the bishops provided a sample opposition letter that calls the proposed text “reprehensible.”
“As a teaching objective that explains individual liberties, I cannot fathom how removing the right to life for someone who does not possess the power to fight for that right is an example of oppressive government,” the sample letter reads.
The deadline for feedback is Monday, Feb. 15.
“We are grateful for all you do to support the unborn and the formation of our children in the values that support and defend life,” the bishops’ letter concluded.
this can be found at: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/proposed_textbook_implies_abortion_opposition_is_wrong_n._carolina_bishops_warn/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29
Bishop of Raleigh Michael F. Burbidge and Bishop of Charlotte Peter J. Jugis reported the problem with the textbook in a Feb. 11 letter to Catholics.
They said the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction is considering a proposal for a revised textbook on Civics and Economics. The proposed text asserts that Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that mandated permissive abortion laws nationwide, is an example of the Supreme Court upholding rights “against oppressive government.”
If the text is approved, the bishops warned, children will be taught the textbook’s interpretation is the correct one.
“The implication of this proposed text is that opposition to Roe v. Wade is wrong,” the bishops said. “As a voice united on behalf of the unborn who have a right to life, a fundamental human right, we oppose this draft statement.”
They asked Catholics to inform the Department of Public Instruction of their opposition and to ask that any reference to Roe v. Wade be removed from the text.
After supplying contact information, the bishops provided a sample opposition letter that calls the proposed text “reprehensible.”
“As a teaching objective that explains individual liberties, I cannot fathom how removing the right to life for someone who does not possess the power to fight for that right is an example of oppressive government,” the sample letter reads.
The deadline for feedback is Monday, Feb. 15.
“We are grateful for all you do to support the unborn and the formation of our children in the values that support and defend life,” the bishops’ letter concluded.
this can be found at: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/proposed_textbook_implies_abortion_opposition_is_wrong_n._carolina_bishops_warn/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29
Friday, February 12, 2010
Pro-abortion NARAL report suggests pro-life efforts are succeeding
Washington D.C., Feb 12, 2010 / 08:07 pm (CNA).- A pro-abortion group’s 2009 report giving a “D” grade to the United States on abortion suggests pro-life progress at the state level. The report’s description of a murdered late-term abortionist as a hero may even be a sign of desperation, pro-life leaders say.
NARAL Pro-Choice America’s report, “Who Decides: The Status of Women's Reproductive Rights in the United States,” laments the decreasing number of abortion providers in the country. It claims various states enacted 29 pro-life laws but only passed 21 “pro-choice” bills.
According to the report’s analysis of governors and state legislators, states are pro-life by a 2 to 1 margin.
Fr. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, told CNSNews.com that the report shows the failure of efforts to make abortion acceptable.
"They can't take the stigma out of abortion, even if the legality of it is protected," Fr. Pavone commented. "As a result, they face a shortage of practitioners."
The news about individual states’ actions and sympathies also shows the importance of fighting abortion at the state level, he added.
NARAL President Nancy Keenan in her introduction to the report blamed “restrictive laws and outbreaks of violence” for the diminishing numbers of abortion providers. She characterized pro-lifers as “opponents of freedom” who are trying to “construct roadblocks on our path to progress.”
She cited the debate over health care legislation as an example.
Keenan lauded President Barack Obama for his abortion policies and personnel decisions, specifically mentioning Dawn Johnsen. Johnsen, a former NARAL legal counsel, is nominated to become the head of the influential Office of Legal Counsel but she has yet to be confirmed.
She also praised the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Within days of taking office, she said, President Obama “began to undo eight years of damage” to NARAL’s cause.
"He repealed the global gag rule, fixed the birth-control price crisis, re-funded the U.N. population program, and took steps to repeal Bush's eleventh-hour attack on reproductive rights, the Federal Refusal Rule,” Keenan continued.
The “refusal rule” proposed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services would have clarified the rights of health care providers to decline to participate in services to which they object in conscience. The rule would have helped protect individuals and institutions in the medical field who object to abortion.
Federal restrictions on partial-birth abortion and the Stupak-Pitts Amendment against federal abortion funding in health care were also criticized in the report.
NARAL praised California for passing a law that would permit some abortions even if Roe v. Wade were overturned. The group also praised New Mexico’s state funding of family planning for low-income women, including “emergency contraception.”
The abortion advocacy group criticized states that barred state funding of abortions or required parental and spousal notification for abortions. It also objected to Virginia’s provision of a “Choose Life” license plates for car owners.
NARAL’s report was dedicated to the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass), crediting him with writing a 1994 law restricting pro-life activists’ access to abortion clinics.
A second dedication of the report was made NARAL to the deceased late-term abortionist George Tiller, who was murdered at his church last year by a mentally disturbed man who opposed Tiller’s practice.
NARAL claimed that Tiller “compassionately and heroically served women from all across the country in order to ensure their right to reproductive-health services.” The report praised him for “kindness, courtesy, justice, love and respect.”
Before his death Tiller was acquitted on charges of performing illegal abortions. His abortion practice was under investigation by Kansas authorities at the time of his death.
Fr. Pavone said the dedication was consistent with NARAL’s efforts to portray abortionists as “heroes” while depicting pro-life activists as “dangerous or fanatical.”
"With the pro-abortion movement continuing to decline in this country, they are becoming desperate for heroes," Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, told CNSNews.com. "Any organization that advocates for women's health would be opposed to abortions and all its consequences."
This story can be found at: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pro-abortion_naral_report_suggests_pro-life_efforts_are_succeeding/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29
NARAL Pro-Choice America’s report, “Who Decides: The Status of Women's Reproductive Rights in the United States,” laments the decreasing number of abortion providers in the country. It claims various states enacted 29 pro-life laws but only passed 21 “pro-choice” bills.
According to the report’s analysis of governors and state legislators, states are pro-life by a 2 to 1 margin.
Fr. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, told CNSNews.com that the report shows the failure of efforts to make abortion acceptable.
"They can't take the stigma out of abortion, even if the legality of it is protected," Fr. Pavone commented. "As a result, they face a shortage of practitioners."
The news about individual states’ actions and sympathies also shows the importance of fighting abortion at the state level, he added.
NARAL President Nancy Keenan in her introduction to the report blamed “restrictive laws and outbreaks of violence” for the diminishing numbers of abortion providers. She characterized pro-lifers as “opponents of freedom” who are trying to “construct roadblocks on our path to progress.”
She cited the debate over health care legislation as an example.
Keenan lauded President Barack Obama for his abortion policies and personnel decisions, specifically mentioning Dawn Johnsen. Johnsen, a former NARAL legal counsel, is nominated to become the head of the influential Office of Legal Counsel but she has yet to be confirmed.
She also praised the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Within days of taking office, she said, President Obama “began to undo eight years of damage” to NARAL’s cause.
"He repealed the global gag rule, fixed the birth-control price crisis, re-funded the U.N. population program, and took steps to repeal Bush's eleventh-hour attack on reproductive rights, the Federal Refusal Rule,” Keenan continued.
The “refusal rule” proposed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services would have clarified the rights of health care providers to decline to participate in services to which they object in conscience. The rule would have helped protect individuals and institutions in the medical field who object to abortion.
Federal restrictions on partial-birth abortion and the Stupak-Pitts Amendment against federal abortion funding in health care were also criticized in the report.
NARAL praised California for passing a law that would permit some abortions even if Roe v. Wade were overturned. The group also praised New Mexico’s state funding of family planning for low-income women, including “emergency contraception.”
The abortion advocacy group criticized states that barred state funding of abortions or required parental and spousal notification for abortions. It also objected to Virginia’s provision of a “Choose Life” license plates for car owners.
NARAL’s report was dedicated to the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass), crediting him with writing a 1994 law restricting pro-life activists’ access to abortion clinics.
A second dedication of the report was made NARAL to the deceased late-term abortionist George Tiller, who was murdered at his church last year by a mentally disturbed man who opposed Tiller’s practice.
NARAL claimed that Tiller “compassionately and heroically served women from all across the country in order to ensure their right to reproductive-health services.” The report praised him for “kindness, courtesy, justice, love and respect.”
Before his death Tiller was acquitted on charges of performing illegal abortions. His abortion practice was under investigation by Kansas authorities at the time of his death.
Fr. Pavone said the dedication was consistent with NARAL’s efforts to portray abortionists as “heroes” while depicting pro-life activists as “dangerous or fanatical.”
"With the pro-abortion movement continuing to decline in this country, they are becoming desperate for heroes," Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, told CNSNews.com. "Any organization that advocates for women's health would be opposed to abortions and all its consequences."
This story can be found at: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pro-abortion_naral_report_suggests_pro-life_efforts_are_succeeding/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
