Report: Obama meets with Catholic reporters

As I reported earlier today, this morning Obama met with representatives of Catholic newspapers, and CNS has a report.

The list of organizations in attendance was a who's-who list of liberal Catholic print publications, with just enough Conservative publishers to appear balanced (actually, just one - the National Catholic Register, because Vatican Radio isn't American and CNS is USCCB-sponsored, and therefore an obvious choice). 

Anyway, not only were liberal publications National Catholic Reporter and America magazine invited (which I predicted), but also Commonweal and Catholic Digest. A religion reporter from Washington Post was invited as well. Of course, no invitation was extended to Catholic World Report or Our Sunday Visitor - they might ask awkward questions, you see. 

As for what was said, it is so discouraging to see that Obama continues to bring up the example of Cardinal Bernardin unchallenged. Today he told the Catholic reporters that "his encounters with the cardinal continue to influence him, particularly [the cardinal's] "seamless garment" approach to a multitude of social justice issues." 

Obviously, Obama is choosing to be selectively influenced, because Cardinal Bernardin himself went on record with the National Catholic Register in 1988 and said: ""I don't see how you can subscribe to the consistent ethic and ... [feel] that abortion is a 'basic right' of the individual."

Cardinal Bernardin went on to say in that same interview:

"I know that some people on the left, if I may use that label, have used the consistent ethic to give the impression that the abortion issue is not all that important anymore, that you should be against abortion in a general way but that there are more important issues, so don't hold anybody's feet to the fire just on abortion. That's a misuse of the consistent ethic, and I deplore it."

Now, if ever there was a golden opportunity to ask Obama what he would say in response to these words of Cardinal Bernardin's, it was this morning when the current publisher of the same magazine which originally published the Cardinal's words - Fr. Owen Kearns of the National Catholic Register - was seated at a table where Obama, once again, began to claim the mantle of Cardinal Bernardin.

... but I bet you it didn't happen. And that's why people like me are not invited to Obama's meetings. Because there are some questions he can't handle, and his team knows who to invite to ensure those questions don't get asked.

Some "listening session."

update: National Catholic Register's Tim Drake with Fr. Owen Kearns take on the meeting. Each participant was allowed to ask one question. I'd like to hear what was asked, and how Obama responded.

On APP: How abortion might be snuck into government health care

Over at the American Principles Project blog, I explain how I think abortion coverage might be included in the new government health care plan being debated in the House of Representatives. Scary stuff. 

I also include information on how to contact the members of the Senate Finance Committee who could make sure it isn't included. Abortions aren't "basic coverage", and we shouldn't have to pay for them.

Offered as "common ground": How a Late-Term Abortion Saved My Life

I might not do this perfectly, but I think it needs to be done.

I've been keeping tabs on Reproductive Health Reality Check (RHRC) since they announced a "common ground" forum on abortion.

Problem is, if pro-lifers want to head East towards life and pro-aborts want to move West towards the death of unborn children, any turning to the center of common ground by pro-lifers is movement in the wrong direction.

My patience and sincere attempt to be understanding and open to RHRC's common ground forum is about out. What might be the breaking point is a piece by Cecily Kellogg, who describes herself on her blog as a "foul-mouthed liberal, feminist, fat, recovering alcoholic, mother, wife, woman and writer."

So what did this individual contribute to RHRC?

"How a Late-Term Abortion Saved My Life"

It turns out to be yet another eulogy for late-term abortionist George Tiller, and a defense of late-term abortions in general. Now, because she makes her case based on her own personal experience, I have to talk about that to make my points.

Tiller, she claims "was committed to his work." Why? She says, "because he believed 'abortion is a matter of survival for women.'" I'd like to find out how many of his abortions saved women's lives. I know every one of his abortions killed a child. But that's not fair for me to say, apparently. That's not acceptable common ground. And yet it is acceptable for Kellogg to claim that Tiller "saved" lives.

She proceeds to narrate her nightmare story of succumbing to sever preeclampsia, which resulted in her doctors saying if she did not "terminate" her pregnancy, she was going to die "immediately."

After this experience (she had her son killed through "intact dialation and extraction") she "searched and found other women like me -- women whose lives were saved by the late-term medical termination of a pregnancy. I also met women who chose to spare their children from agonizing health conditions and birth defects by having an abortion."

... wait a second though, Kellogg just jumped from abortions which aim to preserve the life of the mother over into abortions for genetic disease and birth defects. That's called eugenics. And who wishes to be "spared" from their problems through death? When she came down with severe preeclampsia - an "agonizing health condition" (in her own words) - would she have wished to be "spared" from it ... by death? This sort of thinking isn't merely unacceptable common ground, it's insane and inhuman.

Kellogg, in her ideological quest to eulogize Tiller and all the evil things he stood for, jumps more logical tracks: "... doctors only perform [late term abortions] in cases of extreme medical need. Dr. Tiller himself never performed a late term abortion without counseling the parents -- and getting a second opinion from another doctor. My doctor described the day of my surgery as the worst in his professional career."

And yet Dr. Tiller did not only perform late term abortions in "extreme medical need." He did them at will. And what does Kellogg mean by Tiller "counseling the parents"? Of course he "counseled" them; late-term abortion is a major medical procedure! Kellogg's doctor might have had a hard day, but Tiller did this every day - he chose it. And just what, might I ask, is so hard about this decision, if Kellogg truly made the "right" one? If late-term abortion is medically "necessary", what need can there be for second opinions, counseling of options, etc?

Kellogg's last sentence is especially deceptive and indeed, manipulative:

"My doctor knew the procedure and was willing to perform it; something that has already become rare and will be rarer still if doctors have to put their lives on the line to perform this life saving medical procedure. If it's you or your daughter, will you be so lucky?"

Quite honestly: how dare she say that. She paints abortionists as heroes who "put their lives on the line to perform this live saving medical procedure." However, medical situations in which the woman's life can only be saved by a late-term abortion are incredibly rare. They represent a failure in medicine. The answer to "medically necessary" abortions is to make them medically unnecessary. That is the challenge. Her manipulative "if it's you or your daughter, will you be so lucky?" is about as honest as claiming we need to kill all the sharks in the world because one of them might take a bite out of you or your daughter.

Finally, at a deeper level, Kellogg's argument is one of exception. And honestly, you could not find a more extreme exception than the personal one she describes. Through this exception, where she chose to have her son half-birthed, and have his brains vacuumed out, she proceeds to argue that George Tiller was a hero for doing this to dozens (if not hundreds) of children, and then she even has the nerve to scare her readers into wanting this "right" to be preserved for mothers and their daughters.

This is not common ground. It's a repulsive trick.

It's especially repulsive because Kellogg is presuming that no one will dare disagree with her because, by inference, she can claim they "want" her to die or would "be okay" with it. 

Well of course I don't want her to die. I desperately want her, and all innocent human beings, to live. But I cannot condone her killing of another person to ensure the continuation of her own life. And I will not stand by and allow her to use the choice she made to preserve her life as a false justification for killing other innocent lives, including and up to those lives which are in no way threatening another person - such as the sick and disabled.

As I said at the outset, there are pro-abortionists who want me to move West, but I wish to move East. Meeting her in the "common ground" she offers of allowing late-term abortions, is a step in the wrong direction. It's a step towards death.

Related: Mary Davenport, MD asks "Is Late-Term Abortion Ever Necessary?"

In new plan, White House faces choice between Catholics or abortion groups

Dan Gilgoff, with his dependable, informative coverage of things religious/political, notes that as the White House prepares to debut its abortion plan, "packing" is becoming a "major issue":

As the White House readies its plan for finding "common ground" on reproductive health issues and reducing the need for abortion, a major debate has emerged over how to package the plan's two major components: preventing unwanted pregnancies and reducing the need for abortion.

Many abortion rights advocates and some Democrats who want to dial down the culture wars want the White House to package the two parts of the plan together, as a single piece of legislation. The plan would seek to reduce unwanted pregnancies by funding comprehensive sex education and contraception and to reduce the need for abortion by bolstering federal support for pregnant women. Supporters of the approach say it would force senators and members of Congress on both sides of the abortion battle to compromise their traditional positions, creating true common ground that mirrors what President Obama has called for.

But more conservative religious groups working with the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships say they would be forced to oppose such a plan—even though they support the abortion reduction part—because they oppose federal dollars for contraception and comprehensive sex education. This camp, which includes such formidable organizations as the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops and the Southern Baptist Convention, is pressuring the White House to decouple the two parts of the plan into separate bills. One bill would focus entirely on preventing unwanted pregnancy, while the other would focus on supporting pregnant women.

The White House declined a request for comment. Advocates for both plans say the administration has offered no hint about how it will come down on the matter. But with the White House expected to announce its plan on abortion and related issues this summer, advocates on both sides are strenuously lobbying for the plan, arguing that it offers the only true hope for common ground on very thorny issues. (Read full article here.)

The Obama team is silent about what it plans to do.

Bottom line:

For the White House, the decision about which tack to take is largely a question of whom it feels more comfortable alienating: religious groups like the Catholic bishops, which it has been trying hard to win over, or abortion rights groups, a key part of the Democratic base that it doesn't want to lose.

As I said in my extended look at Reproductive Health Reality Check's "common ground forum", the new pro-abortion tactic is "[not to] reduce abortion, [but] to reduce the "need" for abortion, often through recourse to contraception." And they will never rule out abortion. In fact, the RHRC's twitter feed yesterday promoted "ensuring universal access to family planning" (a euphemism for contraception and abortion) as common ground!

So what does this "new way" boil down to for us? Catholics giving in on contraception. The radical abortion agenda will not back down one step, so their "common ground" is a mask for us to compromise our principles.

Just look at the thoughts expressed in the ultra-liberal Daily Kos, which specifically targets Catholics:

On the subject of Reproductive Freedom, there can be no common ground between the militant anti-abortion religious right, including the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) and those of us who believe that people have the right to use any method of birth control they choice, up to and including safe, legal abortion.

While most of Catholics in this country and much of the rest of the world believe as I do, that girls, women and their sexual partners should have this right, the Roman Catholic hierarchy would rather women die of AIDS, and they and their children die of hunger, rather than a sexual partner use condoms or themselves use artificial methods of birth control or be able to attain a safe, legal abortion.

This sort of thinking is the same type that is held by the owners of Planned Parenthood, and the powerful pro-abortion interests in this country.

Secondly, it's a liberal orthodoxy that universal access to contraception (and honestly, pushing contraceptives on sexually active people, starting young) will reduce the need for abortions.

However, I've heard it argued that the actual data reveals that countries with expanded access to contraception actually have more need for abortions. I would tend to agree with this analysis, because who of us thinks that American youth *don't* have enough access to contraception?! Frankly, the people who don't use contraception for religious reasons are the same people who are far, far less likely to seek an abortion.

But it would help if I had the research at my finger tips. So if you know where it is online, please send me the link and I'll post it on AmP.

There is currently a lobbying battle waging between pro-abortion groups and the USCCB over which plan the Obama team chooses, as Gilgoff reports. We need to be active in supporting the USCCB and combating the tactics of the pro-abortion groups, who only offer a common ground that hurts Americans, born and unborn.

Quote of the Day - Nixon on Abortion

Just nasty:

“There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white,” he told an aide, before adding, “Or a rape.”

The background:

On Jan. 23, 1973, when the Supreme Court struck down laws criminalizing abortion in Roe v. Wade, President Richard M. Nixon made no public statement. But privately, newly released tapes reveal, he expressed ambivalence. (NYT)

I'm not sure if "ambivalence" is the first description that comes to my mind.

RHRealityCheck offers abortion "common ground" ... on the edge of a cliff

Dan Gilgoff on the oddity (my description) of a "Major Abortion Rights Site [Launching an] Online 'Common Ground' Forum":

"Coinciding with the Obama administration's move to ready a plan for "reducing the need for abortion," a major abortion rights website has launched an online forum aimed at finding what it calls "common ground" in the abortion debate. The forum, called On Common Ground, is hosted by RHRealityCheck.com and went live yesterday.

The unusual project—moderator Cristina Page, a prominent abortion rights advocate, calls it an experiment—already includes posts by Third Way's Rachel Laser, Beliefnet cofounder Steven Waldman, Faith in Public Life's Katie Paris, and others.

One of the striking features of the project's launch is that it uses the recent murder of abortion provider George Tiller to argue that the abortion debate must be wrested away from extremists. It will be fascinating to watch how antiabortion rights groups respond. Some will almost surely brand On Common Ground a cynical attempt by abortion rights supporters to co-opt the antiabortion movement. It will be interesting to see how some of the more moderate antiabortion groups react."

I take Gilgoff's line about "it will be fascinating to watch how antiabortion rights groups respond" as an invitation to take a look at RHRealityCheck.org's "common ground" forum. I don't want to immediately fulfill Gilgoff's prediction that "some [pro-life groups] will almost surely brand On Common Ground a cynical attempt by abortion rights supporters to co-opt the antiabortion movement" ... so let's look at the facts first.

First of all, RHRealityCheck is a radical, pro-abortion organization which specializes in attacking groups, bills and politicians who do not stand up to their litmus test. Just take a look at their profile of Fr. Frank Pavone's Priests for Life, where they claim: "Despite claims of being opposed to violent tactics such as bombing of clinics or murdering doctors, Pavone has long had ties to some of the most extreme anti-abortion activists who sanction such activities."

So, Fr. Pavone hangs out with bomb-throwers? Check.

Another gem from RHRealityCheck's profile of Priests for life: "While their primary mission is to educate and mobilize Catholic clergy as anti-family planning activists, their tactics are often aggressive and overtly political."

So, Priests for Life is essentially a republican front organization? Check.

I could go on and on, but time is short, space is precious, and let's get right to the main points.

Point #1: RHRealityCheck's "common ground" is not an attempt to reduce abortion, it's an attempt to reduce the "need" for abortion, often through recourse to contraception. And they will never rule out abortion.

Christina Page, the front-woman for RHRC's common ground initiative, is also an active blogger at Birth Control Watch.org, where she writes about Alexia Kelley, co-founder of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, and new Director of Faith-based and Community Partnerships at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS):

"Kelley is a new style pro-lifer, one who believes a progressive agenda will produce pro-life results...

...Make no mistake, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good is a Catholic organization that accepts the Church's position on abortion and contraception. But under Kelley's leadership, its efforts were spent exploring an array of policies that succeed at reducing the need for abortion. The organization has taken a notably passive role towards the church's dictates. It has not worked to restrict abortion or make contraception less available, approaches most other anti-abortion and Catholic groups focus on exclusively.

... pro-choice people need to improve the national dialogue on the abortion issue. We can lower the vitriol. We can expose the anti-abortion groups that oppose all the proven ways to reduce the need for abortion. We must isolate those that only stoke the coals of hatred in this conflict and, especially those who create the inflamed environment that inspired Dr. Tiller's murderer. The vast majority of self-described "pro-life" Americans abhor the violence, want to move past the conflict and have both sides work together to find common ground. The American pro-life public has longed for leaders like Kelley and, the truth is, so have we."

Page literally wrote the book on radical access to abortion in American politics. She titled it "How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America: Freedom, Politics and the War on Sex". I highlighted one line in red above to make a simple point: contraception technically reduces the "need" for abortions, but it is an unacceptable "solution" for Catholics, for many reasons grounded in faith and reason. Page's line highlighted in red is classic wedge-politics.

Point #2: RHRC has pre-defined the terms of debate in an unacceptable way. 

Page's operating framework is that the only type of acceptable "pro-lifer" is an apologetic one, who admits the necessity of abortion and contraception, and only from WITHIN that framework, works to reduce the instances of abortion. That's simply unacceptable, to me.

Point #3: Only such "apologetic" pro-lifers are invited to Page's common ground table. 

The profiles of those involved features people who are either militantly pro-choice or covertly pro-choice, with Serrin Foster of Feminists for Life of America being the only exception I can see. But Chris Korzen of Catholics United? Sarah Stoesz, a Planned Parenthood CEO? Why are such individuals included, who have a clear bent to one side of the debate, when there is not a fair representation of the other side? In other words, if those who will always support abortion are invited, why aren't those invited who will never support abortion? (Elsewhere RHRC contributor Rachel Laser basically admits you have to "Find the Right People" to engage in dialogue. Well that's right in a twisted way: you probably won't like the outcome if you try to engage people who aren't willing to meet your unreasonable demands.)

As for the proposals offered by RHRC's common ground, the Prevention First Act "aim[s] to improve access to family planning and encourage the development of effective state-level sex education initiatives." Note, family planning includes both contraception and abortion. This is, again, a wedge move: it implicitly attempts to paint pro-lifers as hypocrites when they do not endorse the proliferation of contraceptives and condoms. The proposal of contraception as "common ground" is poison to faithful, practicing Catholics. 

The other proposals, from what I can see, are not as problematic. But I welcome others to do the leg work on researching the nuts and bolts of them. Sadly, the devil often hides in the details of these "common ground" proposals. 

Point #4: The viewpoints of the RHRC-sanctioned contributors are toxic to faithful Catholics. As I was saying about nuts and bolts, let's take a look at what the contributors to this forum are actually saying. Debra Haffner:

"Here is my suggestion: Let's stop talking about reducing abortions as a goal in itself. Let's keep talking about reducing unintended pregnancies. This is not only the better public health position; it is a faithful and moral one as well."

Okay, so wanting to reduce the destruction of unborn human life is always off the table? Check.

Steve Waldman of Belief Net:

"... pro-lifers need to decide which of their beliefs is more important: their concern for the unborn or their concerns about the nature of premarital sex."

This is slippery, he's actually making an argument that Catholics should quit worrying about contraception. He just can't bring himself to actually say it:

"It’s hard for pro-choicers to take pro-life “common grounders” seriously if they won’t budge on birth control; it’s equally hard for pro-lifers to take pro-choice common grounders seriously if they won’t accept the basic premise of the exercise. So who will be the brave souls to break that conceptual logjam?"

Waldman, if he is sincerely trying to present a Catholic position, shouldn't be challenging Catholics to "budge" on birth control. Catholics cannot budge on intrinsically-evil choices. That's NEVER common ground.

The path to common ground in abortion involves Catholics fudging on contraception? Check.

Sarah Stoesz, a Planned Parenthood CEO, meanwhile takes a swing at recent poll numbers suggesting that America is becoming a more pro-life country: "Read deeper into the results of this and other recent polls and you'll find that, no matter what the label, most Americans want to keep abortion legal."

Oh, so of course we should always have abortion. Most Americans will always want abortion? Check.

Conclusion: So, going back to Gilgoff's prediction, do you think there are reasonable grounds for thinking this innitiative is a "cynical attempt by abortion rights supporters to co-opt the antiabortion movement"? 

As a Catholic who is striving to live out the commands of Jesus Christ when it comes to respecting the dignity of the human person, and as a reasonable fellow who cannot abide any solution which unjustly destroys the rights of the innocent, and who will not accept common ground that results in the destruction of human life, in RHRC's common ground initiative, I see no room at the inn for me, but rather a trap door into a precipice.

Heartbreaking: NYT on "Choosing not to keep the baby"

Over at the New York Times blog "Motherlode: Adventures in Parenting", a heartbreaking story:

When asked for advice, Motherlode readers come through, and last week more than 700 of you poured out your thoughts to Emmie, a young woman unexpectedly pregnant as she is about to start a grueling and prestigious Master’s degree program.

I heard from her yesterday. I will let her explain in her own words what she decided and why. Then I ask you to please return later today to brainstorm ideas on how to transform the surge of compassion that rose up here toward Emmie into real action that can help the many young women who find themselves in her shoes.

Emmie sent me a number of emails laying out her thoughts, and asked me to combine them into one.

[Click here to see what she wrote.]

What is heartbreaking for me is not only the "choice" she has made, but how very close she was to making the right one. If there is anything that should inspire us to try harder to provide for young women experiencing problems in their pregnancy, it is a story like this. Let us pray for Emmie and her soon-to-be-ended young child.

Huh? Abortion center offered "free abortions" in memory of Tiller

Just sick:

An abortion business in Pennsylvania is drawing criticism for giving away free abortions on Tuesday in honor of slain late-term abortion practitioner George Tiller. The Philadelphia Women's Center said the free abortions were meant to show appreciation for Tiller, who was allegedly killed by extremist gunman Scott Roeder.

Town Hall columnist Jillian Bandes said a staff member at the abortion center said an unspecified number of free abortions were done yesterday for Tiller's “memory and legacy.”

However, by the end of the day, the center stopped doing free abortions and indicated it wouldn't likely do it again. (LifeNews)

I'm trying to grasp what sort of thinking could have led to the decision reported above. 

But I really lack the incentive, for some reason.

Boston Archdiocese-affiliate health-care to offer abortion coverage

Sad. Embarrassing. Wrong:

Caritas Christi, the health-care system affiliated with the Archdiocese of Boston, has entered into a partnership that will provide coverage for abortion, sterilization, and contraception under the terms of a state government contract. Celticare Health Plan-- a new offering, which describes itself as “a partnership between Celtic Group, a subsidiary of Centene Corporation, and Caritas Christi Health Care”-- is now offering several options for health-care coverage, with all of the available plans advertising abortion coverage. (Catholic Culture brief)

I blogged about this possibility about a couple weeks ago.

AmP Challenge: No more claiming the US Bishops are "partisan" on abortion

In the interest of dialogue with our liberal Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ, I challenge them to explicitly and totally repudiate the pernicious claim that US Bishops, when they speak about abortion, are engaging in "partisan politics." This same claim is similarly made about American Catholics when they, essentially, mimic the talking points of the US Bishops.

The claim that US Bishops, and those who agree with them, are "partisan" when it comes to abortion is deeply hypocritcal, because such a claim is, itself, a partisan charge made exclusively by liberals.

How common is this theme of calling US Bishops and their supporters "partisan" when they speak about abortion? Well, it is very common (see below). Most recently, these liberal partisans have taken to using recent L'Osservatore Romano articles as proof that "their" side is the right one. Well, they are in for a surprise, as I will demonstrate.

Here are some of the chief offenders (note how they all claim L'Osservatore Romano is on their side):

• Joe Feuerherd at National Catholic Reporter: "Less than four months into the new administration we don’t plan a mea culpa. Rather, we agree with L'Osservatore Romano, that the administration has demonstrated thoughtfulness and moderation, even as some of its less temperate Catholic critics declare, "We are at War!"
• Michael Sean Winters of American Magazine: "Chaput sneers at Jenkins. He sneers at Obama. (I am assuming he sneers at L'Osservatore Romano which had a far different interpretation of the President's visit to Notre Dame.)"

And yet in L'Osservatore Romano's own June 5th edition, it said this:

"Obviously the Holy See and L’Osservatore Romano have been, are and will be fully at the side of the U.S. bishops in their commitment in favor of the inviolability of human life in whatever stage of its existence.

Other interpretations have no foundation, especially those that have wanted to use the newspaper’s articles to make it appear that the teachings of the U.S. episcopate on the inherent evil of abortion were an exercise in partisan politics, supposedly in contrast with a different strategy of the Holy See."

L'OR is crystal clear: the interpretation that "the teachings of the U.S. episcopate on the inherent evil of abortion [is] an exercise in partisan politics" ... has "no foundation".

With that said, will Joe Feuerherd again "agree with L'Osservatore Romano" on this point about US Bishops and those who agree with them? Will Michael Sean Winters cease his sniping at Archbishop Chaput and other teaching bishops, or will he do a 180 and himself "sneer at L'OR" now that the newspaper isn't agreeing with his liberal talking points?

If they don't take up this challenge, we can be sure of three things:

1. The entire time they were agreeing with L'Osservatore Romano, it wasn't because they were trying to be faithful Catholics, it was because L'OR was agreeing (they thought) with their liberal talking points
2. They are in fact selectively picking-and-choosing what things they agree with the Vatican on, again filtering what they hear and agree with through a partisan, liberal a priori position
3. They themselves are guilty of engaging in the sort of "partisan politics" which they have accused the US Bishops and those who agree with them of embracing. This is text-book hypocrisy.

To make my case even stronger, I'd ask AmP readers to send me examples of Catholic columnists claiming that the US Bishops are engaging in partisan politics, and especially of recent examples where they claim L'Osservatore Romano is in effect "taking their side." I'd also ask AmP readers to note when this claim is made, in its various forms, from this point forward. I intend to call them on it every time they do it.

Why am I being so blunt about this? Well, certainly there here are many, many things wrong with the current state of debate between liberal Catholics and other Catholics when it comes to the issue of abortion and politics in America, but with this challenge, I hope to begin systematically rooting-out and definitively putting-to-rest one of the most pernicious and offensive of these errors.

I think such charges against our bishops are corrosive to constructive dialogue. Let's at least agree that when they speak about abortion, they are speaking from the heart of the Church, not a partisan talking-points page.

update: readers have asked for more proof of my claim that some notable individuals have systematically set themselves up against the bishops on the issue of abortion, along partisan lines. I have removed my quotation from Stephen Schneck for lack of further evidence. More proof for the other two:

• Joe Feuerherd (Feb 22, 2008 - Washington Post): "[Bishop Doran] is not alone among Catholic bishops in his attempt to anathematize the Democrats, to make the party and its candidates illegitimate in the mind of the electorate." ... "Sounds like I'll be voting for the Democrat -- and the bishops be damned."
• Michael Sean Winters (April 30, 2008 - America Magazine): "I hope the bishops who are in such high dudgeon about Obama will demand that Dr. Glendon be forbidden from receiving any Catholic honors until she renounces her association with the Bush administration."

And for good measure, I've re-added a third:

• Fr. Thomas Reese, SJ (November 7, 2008 - Washington Post): "This division between the vocal, partisan bishops and the silent, nonpartisan bishops will be a major issue at the Baltimore meeting."

A clarification from L'OR about its favorable Obama coverage?

Maybe, but not enough yet:

The Vatican newspaper has once again emphasized that when it comes to the Obama administration and pro-life issues, the Vatican and the U.S. bishops are in full agreement and that no compromise is possible on the right to life.

The newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, said it was a mistake to view its press coverage of Obama — which has been positive on many issues — as evidence that the Vatican is following a “different strategy” than the U.S. bishops in dealing with the new administration.

The comments came in the newspaper’s June 5 edition, in an article criticizing the Obama administration’s restoration of federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research.

The newspaper appeared to be defending itself against accusations by some U.S. Catholic commentators that its editorial line was too soft on Obama. (CNS Blog)

I wouldn't say "too soft". I'd say "out of touch with reality." But here is L'OR's clarification:

"It is appropriate to underline that in reporting on recent statements and initiatives of the president of the United States, L’Osservatore Romano has certainly not intended to express appreciation for his positions on questions of ethical importance.

... Obviously the Holy See and L’Osservatore Romano have been, are and will be fully at the side of the U.S. bishops in their commitment in favor of the inviolability of human life in whatever stage of its existence. Other interpretations have no foundation, especially those that have wanted to use the newspaper’s articles to make it appear that the teachings of the U.S. episcopate on the inherent evil of abortion were an exercise in partisan politics, supposedly in contrast with a different strategy of the Holy See.

... President Obama has shown himself to be open to dialogue and the U.S. bishops have welcomed this possibility in a positive manner. But in doing so, they have reaffirmed, and quite rightly, that in dialogue no compromise is ever possible on the fundamental question of the right to life."

Three replies, one for each of the paragraphs quoted above:

1) What L'OR has said certainly leaves it open to exactly that question. What could it have been praising except questions of ethical importance?

2) L'OR expressly denies the claim made by some (mostly pro-Obama liberal Catholics) that "the teachings of the U.S. episcopate on the inherent evil of abortion were an exercise in partisan politics". I'm waiting for pro-Obama liberal Catholics to apologize for continually making this charge. Now is a time for them to prove that they themselves weren't engaging in partisan politics. I'm not holding my breath.

3) Again we are confronted with the problem of dialogue. President Obama has "shown himself to be open to dialogue", L'OR claims. Well, no he hasn't. Because he has shown no openness to re-examining his position that abortion is a fundamental right of women. The technical description for this state of affairs is a dead-lock. It will continue as long as the bishops maintain their position (i.e., forever), and as long as Obama maintains his (forever, barring our vigorous activity to promote a culture of life at every level of our society and also ... well, prayer and fasting).

I'll limit myself to these thoughts at present. But I am happy to see some clarification come from L'OR. Their statement creates the possibility for charitable correction as well as honestly assessing the facts.

Statistics: Pro-Life States Have Lower Abortion Rates

If you have a culture of life, less babies die:

It seems, however, that people do practice what they preach. For each increase of about 10 percent in the number of residents who identify themselves as pro-life, the percentage of pregnancies ending in abortion is reduced by about 5 percent.

Also important to note, states with more ready access to abortion ... have more abortions:

"According to the Guttmacher Institute, approximately one-third of American women live in a county where there is no abortion provider. There is a very strong (inverse) relationship, additionally, between having access to an abortion provider in one's county, and the pro-life leanings of that state."

Much more at FiveThirtyEight.com.

Sometimes its easier to convince people about common sense when you can show them the numbers.

CNN Video: Mother says no to abortion in AC360 interview

In the same breath that I say "Good job for airing this, CNN" I have to say "But how can you continue to support abortion in other cases, CNN?!" Here is the touching interview:



"Do you regret [having the baby], looking back?"

"Not one minute of it."

Matthew Balan at NewsBusters has the full transcript + commentary.

QOTD: Cardinal Bernardin on using his consistent ethic to support abortion

Cardinal Bernadin, on the front page of the National Catholic Register in 1988, said:

"I don't see how you can subscribe to the consistent ethic and then vote for someone who feels that abortion is a 'basic right' of the individual. I know that some people on the left, if I may use that label, have used the consistent ethic to give the impression that the abortion issue is not all that important anymore, that you should be against abortion in a general way but that there are more important issues, so don't hold anybody's feet to the fire just on abortion. That's a misuse of the consistent ethic, and I deplore it."

As quoted by Elizabeth Lev, daughter of Mary Ann Glendon, reflecting on Obama's choice to quote Cardinal Bernadin in the speech he delivered last month at Notre Dame's commencement. What an ironic choice.

Will the Boston Archdiocese really allow abortion referrals?

Back in March:

After more than a week of controversy, state regulators voted yesterday to accept a bid by a Massachusetts Catholic hospital chain and a secular health organization to provide health insurance to thousands of low-income residents.

The Connector Authority board, which oversees the Commonwealth Care program, voted unanimously in favor of the joint venture proposed by Centene Corp., a St. Louis-based health organization, and Caritas Christi Health Care Network.

The vote followed several closed-door sessions in which officials from Centene and Caritas, the minority partner in the joint venture, assured regulators that women will have "ready access" to family planning and reproductive services, an issue that sparked concerns from abortion foes and reproductive rights activists. (Boston Globe)

Despite attention from the American Life League and Catholic Action League, as of last week - no change:

Brian Delaney, communications director for CeltiCare, owned by Centene, confirmed that the joint venture will be operational by July 1 and that it "will meet all the state’s requirements under the Commonwealth Care program, including providing family planning services as appropriate.”

... “It is clear that the Caritas/Centene partnership is proceeding with all deliberate speed towards the July 1st start-up date of the Commonwealth Care contract," he said.

"Catholics need to keep the pressure up on the Archdiocese to cancel the contract," he added. (LifeNews)

Here is a good way to start:

ACTION: Contact Caritas Christi and urge it not to begin doing abortions or referring for them. Caritas Christi Health Care, 736 Cambridge Street, Boston, MA 02135, (p) 617-789-2500, CCR.Webmaster@CaritasChristi.org

Catholic institutions simply cannot be complicit with abortion.

Why did Obama use "children" over "fetus" to describe the unborn?

Dan Gilgoff spots something interesting in Obama's ND speech:

One line in particular in President Obama's Notre Dame speech really jumped out at me: "Let's provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term."

Obama used the word children as opposed to fetus, employing the nomenclature of antiabortion activists as opposed to that of the pro-abortion-rights movement. If the fetus is a child, antiabortion advocates say, how can you justify abortion?

... Is the president subtly invoking the antiabortion lexicon in addressing conservative religious audiences? Or am I reading too much into this? (US News)

I have to respond that, sadly, I think Gilgoff is reading too much into this.

You see, abortion advocates are happy to use the term "child" to describe a "wanted" child. In other words, for them, a child is not a "child" until the mother has made a choice to keep it. Otherwise a "child" remains a "fetus" until he or she takes their first breath of air.

What changes for that child at that moment - besides location - escapes me, but so goes the illogical logic of abortion supporters.

Besides, Obama spoke about his desire to eliminate "offending" words from the public discourse on abortion (funny that he chose a term commonly used against pro-lifers - "ideologue"). Can one imagine how jarring it would be, considering the audience, to have called an unborn child a "fetus"? Especially considering how often the word is used in the phrase "terminate a fetus"?

I would hope somewhat jarring.

Graphic: More americans pro-life than pro-choice for first time

This is a picture of hope:

Gallup:

A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion and 42% "pro-choice." This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.

Now look at this line:

It is possible that, through his abortion policies, Obama has pushed the public's understanding of what it means to be "pro-choice" slightly to the left, politically. While Democrats may support that, as they generally support everything Obama is doing as president, it may be driving others in the opposite direction.

Let's hope opinion catches up to voting.

I will be updating this post soon, but wanted to have this out there ASAP.

Update with related links:

• SBA: Obama and Congress on Collision Course with Public Opinion on Abortion
• LifeNews: Majority of Americans Pro-Life on Abortion, Highest Levels in 15 Years

Text: Archbishop Burke's Keynote Address on the teachings of the Catholic Church

Life Site News has the full text of Archbishop Burke's keynote address delivered yesterday at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast. As I said yesterday: "I think Abp. Burke has provided Catholics in America with a comprehensive manifesto for action in the coming year. I think his speech will have wide, beneficial consequences, or at least I pray that it does." I think it's required reading for Catholics in America.

Albacete: on Abortion/Torture, Catholic Church "only coherent position in debate"

Monsignor Lorenzo Albacete is a priest-scientist and one of the leaders of the movement Communion and Liberation in the United States.

In his column of yesterday, Msgr. Albacete makes an excellent point which I think is very topical to several ongoing AmP debates:

"The only coherent position in the debate about these two issues [of abortion and torture] is that of the Catholic Church. On the one hand, religious conservatives tend to be more open to the possibility of approving torture in special circumstances, while the secularists concede no such possibility of compromise. Only those who embrace the position of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church condemn equally both abortion and torture in all cases. Other Catholics (many serving in Congress and in the Obama Administration) follow the secularist arguments condemning torture but defending abortion rights. The President, who professes an abstract "middle ground" on abortion, unequivocally condemns torture in all circumstances.

... For the Catholic Church, faith is the origin of the moral judgment, but faith is not separate from reason. It can and should be verified by a rightly understood reason in all human beings. The Catholic Bishops are still searching for effective ways to make this argument.

I take that line as a commission: let us help the bishops discover effective ways to make this argument in the public forum, with confidence and charity. I think we typically have more trouble with the former.

{update: I knew this would be to open another can of worms. So let me clarify:

What I specifically agree with in this article is this: Those who think torture is intrinsically wrong evacuate their justification of tolerating abortion when they seek to universally outlaw torture.

In other words, how can Obama (and secularists) "unequivocally condemn torture in all circumstances" and yet posit an "abstract 'middle ground' on abortion" which tolerates its practice (and even expands access to it)?

The only way I can see reconciling the two positions is to frankly acknowledge that Obama and secularists don't really think abortion is wrong. Because if they did, they would treat it like torture and universally outlaw it.

I'm surprised to have to make this point, but it's amazing how often one will still hear something like: "Obama agrees with us that abortion is a tragedy, but he just can't see a way of preventing a woman from choosing it."

That's what I was going for. I think the torture debate is important, but let's not miss how it provides a devastating contrast when it comes to our ongoing debate about the fundamental right to life of our citizens.}

Grieving for a baby "who will not be", the NYT tries to talk about miscarriage

The New York Times tries to talk about the grief of miscarriage, but finds itself struggling for words:

In the comments here last week, several of you asked about miscarriage: Why won’t people stop saying “you can try again soon”? What is the “right” amount of grief? Are there more miscarriages now or does it just seem that way? What to tell the children about the baby who will not be?

Is the grief really just caused by the baby "who will not be"?

I want to be clear: I don't in any way wish to be insensitive about the true grief of miscarriage. I wish to point out that much of this grief is exacerbated by our culture and the way it avoids acknowledging unborn life.

American United for Life to Leahy: No Radical Justice Appointments

Today, Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President of Americans United for Life, delivered this letter (PDF) to the Senate Judiciary Committee Members. Money quote:

"... elevating abortion to a fundamental right on the same plane as the freedom of speech would void common-sense abortion regulations that the vast majority of Americans support, like the prohibition on partial-birth abortion. Such a move would also require taxpayer funding of abortion, eliminate informed consent and parental notice and consent laws, state requirements that abortions be done only by physicians, and more. A judicial nominee who intends to pursue such a radical agenda should be summarily rejected by the Senate."

Hot Air has more.

Pew Center: Only 46% of Americans believe abortion should be legal

A new poll by the Pew Research Center released today:

The proportion saying that abortion should be legal in all or most cases has declined to 46% from 54% last August. The decline in support for legal abortion has come entirely in the share saying abortion should be legal in most cases (from 37% to 28%); 18% say abortion should be legal in all cases, which is virtually unchanged from last August (17%). Currently, 44% say abortion should be illegal in most (28%) or all cases (16%), up slightly since last August (41%).

What has caused the change? My guess: people who have been made aware of what partial birth abortion is cannot tolerate it. I'd be interesting to see how many people learned about partial birth abortion during the election cycle when pro-life groups began bringing up the point that Obama supports it. There still remains a small minority (18%) who are abortion absolutists, and a small minority (16%) who are completely pro-life. But now only 28% of people say abortion should be legal in "most cases" - down from 37%! What do you think has caused this change?

Do note this: the poll claims 46% of Americans support abortion in some or all cases, while 44% oppose it in some or all cases. This means that the claim "American is a pro-choice country" is simply false. America is a deeply-divided country about this issue. Within the margin of error, in fact. Belief in abortion is far from "common" sense. It is not commonly held. This means that Obama's position on abortion only identifies him with 18% of the American people.

Pew has more details on the poll here, once you scroll down the page.

{update: Life News tells us these are the lowest abortion support stats in 15 years.}

Text: Obama's response to tonight's question on Notre Dame, FOCA and abortion

Tonight during Obama's press conference Ed Henry of CNN asked an excellent question.

Here is the text of the question and Barack Obama's response:

CNN's Ed Henry: Thank you, Mr. President. In a couple of weeks, you're going to be giving the commencement at Notre Dame. And, as you know, this has caused a lot of controversy among Catholics who are opposed to your position on abortion.

As a candidate, you vowed that one of the very things you wanted to do was sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which, as you know, would eliminate federal, state and local restrictions on abortion. And at one point in the campaign when asked about abortion and life, you said that it was above — quote, above my pay grade.

Now that you've been president for 100 days, obviously, your pay grade is a little higher than when you were a senator.

Do you still hope that Congress quickly sends you the Freedom of Choice Act so you can sign it?

OBAMA: You know, the — my view on — on abortion, I think, has been very consistent. I think abortion is a moral issue and an ethical issue.

I think that those who are pro-choice make a mistake when they — if they suggest — and I don't want to create straw men here, but I think there are some who suggest that this is simply an issue about women's freedom and that there's no other considerations. I think, look, this is an issue that people have to wrestle with and families and individual women have to wrestle with.

The reason I'm pro-choice is because I don't think women take that — that position casually. I think that they struggle with these decisions each and every day. And I think they are in a better position to make these decisions ultimately than members of Congress or a president of the United States, in consultation with their families, with their doctors, with their clergy.

So — so that has been my consistent position. The other thing that I said consistently during the campaign is I would like to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies that result in women feeling compelled to get an abortion, or at least considering getting an abortion, particularly if we can reduce the number of teen pregnancies, which has started to spike up again.

And so I've got a task force within the Domestic Policy Council in the West Wing of the White House that is working with groups both in the pro-choice camp and in the pro-life camp, to see if we can arrive at some consensus on that.

Now, the Freedom of Choice Act is not highest legislative priority. I believe that women should have the right to choose. But I think that the most important thing we can do to tamp down some of the anger surrounding this issue is to focus on those areas that we can agree on. And that's — that's where I'm going to focus.

I will refrain from commenting at this point. Do note, however, that Obama makes no comment about the Notre Dame scandal. I'm not quite sure immediately what significance there may be to that omission.

And props to Ed Henry for playing hardball. I wouldn't be surprised if he's taking hits for it.

[photo credit: CNN]

update - video of this question (via the SuzyB blog):

Huh? Vatican newspaper: No radical changes in Obama's first 100 days

In counter-point to my previous post, John Thavis of Catholic News Service:

"The Vatican newspaper said President Barack Obama's first 100 days in office have not confirmed the Catholic Church's worst fears about radical policy changes in ethical areas.

"On ethical questions, too -- which from the time of the electoral campaign have been the subject of strong worries by the Catholic bishops -- Obama does not seem to have confirmed the radical innovations that he had discussed," it said. (CNS)

Just because Obama has not (yet) delivered on his most extreme promises (including promises to repeal all restrictions on abortion access in America), does not by any means rule out that his administration is far more pro-abortion/embryonic stem cell research than the previous one. And good heavens, we're only 100 days into his presidential term and he's had his hands full with the economy.

Contrast the above editorial with what Cardinal George, the President of the US bishops, said after meeting with Obama and discussion abortion with him:

"I think on the life issue he's on the wrong side of history," the cardinal said. "I think he has his political debts to pay, and so he's paying them."

"[Obama] said we weren't exporting abortion," the cardinal said. "I said, 'Yes we are.' He would say, 'I know I have to do certain things here. ... But be patient and you'll see the pattern will change.' I said, 'Mr. President, you've given us nothing but the wrong signals on this issue.' So, we'll see, but I'm not as hopeful now as I was when he was first elected."

Hoping things will change is one thing, but ignoring all the signs that they won't is delusional.

Meanwhile, frog in pot of boiling water reports: "Feeling pretty good so far!"

{NB: because I see some people already making this mistake in the comments thread - this is a Vatican newspaper, not the Vatican. I'm waiting to track down the exact author, context, etc.}

Obama's First 100 Days ... of promoting abortion

Get anywhere near a TV or news website today and you'll be hearing about Obama's 100 days.

It will be interesting to see how often his project of expanding reproductive rights (a euphamism, of course, for promoting abortion) - let alone funding for embryonic stem cell research - will be mentioned as an achievement.

Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser:

"President-elect Barack Obama spoke of finding 'common ground' on abortion policy, but abortion advocates groups clearly have an open door. It's only been 100 days, but President Obama has managed to check off ten of the fifteen demands of the abortion industry. This is the most aggressive, pro-abortion administration in decades. Yet pro-life activists are more energized than ever to defend women and unborn children at every opportunity. The Obama Administration should be prepared – commonsense abortion policy like the Hyde Amendment will not be repealed without a fight by pro-life Americans."

{update: she also provides a detailed list of what Obama's administration has done.}

More on Obama's already-significant pro-abortion legacy detailed at LifeNews.

Update: Tomasic takes another swing at Abp. Chaput, strikes out

In response to my post of last Friday, "John Tomasic tries to cast Abp. Chaput in a bad light," the author made a contribution to the comment thread:

You all misread. The original post-writer Tomasic (me) has nothing at all against anyone in the country freely speaking their mind, including Abp Chaput. I object not to speech but to showboating and the politics of Chaput and his pro-life pepsquad, who play into the hands of right-wing political power-seekers, who in their law-making care little for Catholic teaching -- that is, for alleviating the suffering of the sick and the poor and, as you say, especially the helpless. I encourage the Abp to continue to speak out and I encourage others to hold him to account when he does.

In fact, on that matter, I was wondering if Chaput would weigh in on the men held helpless in the U.S. prisons of the War on Terror, the men subjected to the insane abuses, including hundreds of waterboardings, outlined in the CIA torture memos released last week. Predictably, five days after release of the memos, there is nothing from Chaput and there is nothing on this Papist blog about the way the memos reveal the extent to which the culture of life held up by the Church had been violated intentionally and repeatedly by the Bush administration and its thug lawyers and operatives.

Where is Chaput calling for a letter-writing campaign for justice and protest in defense of the rights of the unconvicted prisoners of the CIA? It was the ACLU that sued for release of the memos and encouraged letter writing. Where was the outspoken Bishop? Where was the American papist?

Rather than chase after his red herring argument, I've attempted to refocus the debate:

Let's get to the heart of this disagreement right away. In 3 easy steps:

1) Abp. Chaput believes that abortion is the murder of an innocent, helpless human being. Science agrees - but we don't need to get into that now. For our purposes, Abp. Chaput genuinely believes abortion is murder.
2) There are millions of abortions each year. That means Abp. Chaput believes there are millions of human beings being murdered in the United States every year.
3) Because of 1 & 2, Abp. Chaput believes abortion is the No. 1 moral issue of our age. Because he does not have an infinite amount of time, as much as he sincerely cares about these other issues, he focuses on abortion in a special way when he speaks publicly.

Now do you understand Abp. Chaput's vocal condemning of abortion in this country? Even if you disagree with the science, even if you don't share his faith, can you at least see how Abp. Chaput is *not* "showboating" or "playing into the hands of right-wing political power-seekers" when he tries to prevent the further murder of millions of unborn human beings? He really believes this stuff.

If you can't see how Abp. Chaput's public speech is at least consistent with his internal beliefs, then there's nothing I can really talk to you about. You just don't get it, you don't get him, and you don't get what American Catholics are about in this debate.

As I said in my original post, you don't even try to grapple with what Abp. Chaput is saying. It's said that before one can critique an opponent's position, one must understand it. You haven't demonstrated even understanding what Abp. Chaput is saying. Well, he's been pretty clear about that, if you had bothered to listen.

Maybe my rejoinder lacked charity, but hopefully it contained some needed truth.

After all, it remains a common critique in the public square that whenever a bishop speaks out about the evil of abortion, it is said they are picking and choosing their issues. However, this criticism will always apply no matter what - there will always be some issue a bishop is unable to address, because he only has so many words and so much time. If, for instance, Abp. Chaput were to take up the issue of torture, the criticism could then be made that he has not spoken about the sex-slave trade.

Well, it's true Abp. Chaput has not weighed-in on every single moral issue confronting America today. But what he has spoken about forcefully, abortion, is very important - even the most important issue of our day and age. So let's debate that issue on its own merits.

Tomasic still hasn't tried to do that.

Obama abortion call staffed by ... abortion advocacy leaders

Incongruity, Brian Johnston asks?

Last Friday, three Obama staffers held a conference call ‘with both sides’ of the abortion debate; the supposed goal - reduce the number of abortions.

There is something just a little odd here. The first question one must ask is well, “Why?” “Why would one want to reduce the number of abortions? What is wrong with abortion that there should be fewer of them?”

... While there were both pro and anti-abortion groups on the conference call, the supposed ‘peacemakers’ from the President’s “team” were each former abortion advocacy leaders - one from NOW, one from EMILY’s list, and the third a pro-abortion political operative. These were Mr. Obama’s ‘peace’ representatives. (LifeSite)

update - on a roll: President Obama Puts More Abortion Advocates on White House Faith Council

Missed: Evansville bishop to boycott GOP leader's visit

Democrats aren't the only ones who get boycotted by American bishops:

A Roman Catholic bishop will boycott an anti-abortion group’s annual dinner next month because of abortion comments by keynote speaker and Republican National Chairman Michael Steele in a magazine interview.

Evansville Bishop Gerald Gettelfinger decided not to attend Vanderburgh County Right to Life’s annual dinner, which will also feature Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, on April 16 because of Steele’s comments published online by GQ two weeks ago, diocese spokesman Paul Leingang said Tuesday.

Gettelfinger, the spiritual leader of about 90,000 Catholics in southwestern Indiana, has attended the Right to Life dinner each year for at least a decade, Leingang said. (Indy Star)

So what do you think of that?

Video: Hadley Arkes debates Doug Kmiec

From Moral Accountability:

The Matthew J. Ryan Center at Villanova University has posted the video recordings of the Cicero Podium Debate between Professor Hadley Arkes (Amherst College) and Professor Douglas Kmiec (Pepperdine Law School). This event took place on February 13, 2009.

Part I:


Part II:

I hope to have a chance to watch some of it later this evening.

Today: White House conference call on reducing abortion

We've been waiting for the White House to fulfill its promise (featured also in the Democratic National Convention platform) of reducing abortions in America.

Tomorrow is the first concerted effort to do that:

I've learned that the White House will kick off its much-discussed plan to reduce abortions tomorrow morning with a conference call to religious leaders and abortion-rights advocates that will feature key White House aides. The call reflects the White House plan to bring faith-based groups, including conservative ones, together with pro-abortion rights organizations to reduce demand for abortion. Until now, those two camps have frequently been at loggerheads. - Dan Gilgoff

It's hard for pro-life groups not to be at loggerheads with individuals like Melody Barnes "who served on the board of directors of Emily's List, a group that has spent nearly $250 million promoting pro-abortion candidates" and also served on the board of directors of Planned Parenthood (LifeNews).

Make no mistake: Catholics want to reduce abortions in America. This should be easy common ground for us. At the same time, we understand that the way towards reducing abortion is not (outrageously) to remove restrictions on abortion access (as many of Obama's supporters have advocated), and also not to increase the distribution of contraception (it's immoral, offensive to Catholic values, and does not adequately address the underling cause of problem pregnancies).

So I'm holding out hope for this conference call, without holding my breath.

update:Dan Gilgoff reports on what happened:

This morning's White House conference call kicking off its abortion-reduction initiative focused largely on asking participants to submit information about abortion-reduction programs that have already worked at the local level. Led by President Obama's chief domestic policy adviser, Melody Barnes, the White House announced that it would sponsor a series of meetings in coming months in search of common ground on abortion reduction. The meetings would include both supporters and opponents of abortion rights.

"Barnes said that the White House was not going to try to change anybody's mind on abortion and that she knew people had long-held convictions on various sides of the debate," one participant on the call, an abortion-rights foe, tells me. "But she said her assignment from the president was to seek common ground to prevent unintended pregnancies, including teen pregnancy; to reduce the need for abortions; and to support families for whom economic concerns were an issue. They also talked about promoting adoption."

No word from the White House on how many people joined the 15-minute call. Participants were in listen-only mode.

Also, he says Obama's Faith Advisory Council will meet for first time next week.

Hope?

I need to find out who was in on the call and who is on the council.

U.S. News Editor happy about economy causing more abortions

Someone forgot to read the memo - even people who promote abortion aren't supposed to like it:

"The recession is driving American demand for contraception and for abortions. The media have been riven this past week with stories about the rising number of couples and single mothers doing the math and deciding this is no time to bring a child into the world," Erbe writes.

"The media have also been rife with stories portraying this trend as something of a tragedy," she continues. "Let me propose a counter view: it is not." (LifeNews)

She calls abortion a "good decision" instead.

Email your complaints about her new column to bonnieerbe@CompuServe.com

Outrageous: UK abortion clinics to advertise on TV for first time

You can't advertise cigarettes, but you can advertise mass murder:

Condom adverts could also be shown before the 9pm watershed. The Committee of Advertising Practice and the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice is launching a 12 week consultation to gauge reaction to the plans.

The watchdog claims it is responding to Government calls for action to combat rising teenage pregnancy.

It would be the first time that pro and anti abortion services will be allowed to advertise.

However, those against abortion will be required to make clear if they do not refer women for abortion so that delays do not result in medical complications.

The move has been criticised by the church and pro-life groups. (UK Telegraph)

And also criticized by Ed West who says:

These abortion adverts are supposed to combat our teenage pregnancy rate, currently six times neighbouring Holland's, but will only have the reverse effect. The Government has already spent a fortune combating unwanted pregnancy these past dozen years, making abortion and contraception ever easier and looking surprised when the pregnancy rate fails to fall or even goes up. They're like General Melchett in Blackadder Goes Forth, sending thousands of men to their deaths in the hope that this time the "big push" will work.

It won't. If It didn't before, why will it work now? Alcoholics Anonymous have a saying: "If you keep doing the same thing, you'll keep getting the same result".

Forget condoms and abortion adverts: money spent on normal academic classes that instil students with self-confidence and teach them to think for themselves would bring better results. But that would mean the health establishment getting over its addiction to sex education.

Of course I think West's solution fall short. But it's far better than the one proposed by the UK government.

"Addiction to sex education." I hope people pick up that damning phrase.

"U.S. abortion, vasectomy rates rise as economy falters"

Absolutely heartbreaking:

Doctors in the U.S. are reporting an increased demand for abortions or vasectomies during the recession.

A pregnant woman in Oakland, Calif., told her doctor she walked to the medical centre in flip-flops and tears to save bus fare after her boyfriend lost his job. She was seeking an abortion to prevent what would have been her fourth child.

"This was a desired pregnancy — she'd been getting prenatal care — but they re-evaluated expenses and decided not to continue," Dr. Pratima Gupta told the Associated Press.

"When I was doing the options counselling, she interrupted me halfway through, crying, and said, 'Dr. Gupta, I just walked here for an hour. I'm sure of my decision.'"

In Illinois, Planned Parenthood said it performed a record number of abortions in January, many of them motivated by economic worries, said CEO Steve Trombley, who declined to give exact numbers. (CBCNews)

Abortion is not the answer to economic hardship. Many organizations provides help to women facing crisis pregnancies. Feel free to post links to them in the comment box.

I want to be very careful how I phrase this next question. I am not trying to make any sort of political capital out of this. I just want to raise the issue that Obama and the democrats made a huge deal during the election that they wish to provide tangible aid to women facing crisis pregnancies. I agree this is a very good thing (I disagreed that it is the only thing we can do to eliminate the scourge of abortion in this country).

That said ... what's happened to this priority? Are we aware of ongoing efforts by the Obama administration to supply aid to these women? Surely in a time when every conceivable industry is getting a bailout, funds should stop flowing to mega-abortion mills like Planned Parenthood (referenced in the article above) and start flowing to pregnancy counseling centers (which provide ultrasounds, immediate care and advice, and adoption alternatives).

Pope John Paul II famously said that "a nation which kills its own children is a nation without hope." Obama, of all people, with his administration and supporters, should understand what the pope is saying. Yes you can.

And if you reading this want to do something about this right now, support the ArborVitae women's and pregnancy help center in Ann Arbor, MI (right by the University of Michigan campus). I know some of the people involved there and, like many pregnancy counseling centers across the U.S., it's always in need.

"Nine-Year-Old's Abortion Outrages Brazil's Catholic Church"

This is a tough one:

The case of the pregnant 9-year-old was shocking enough. But it was the response of the Catholic Church that infuriated many Brazilians. Archibishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho of the coastal city of Recife announced that the Vatican was excommunicating the family of a local girl who had been raped and impregnated with twins by her stepfather, because they had chosen to have the girl undergo an abortion. The Church excommunicated the doctors who performed the procedure as well. (TIME)

Cardinal Re responds to the backlash:

Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, head of the Roman Catholic Church’s Congregation for Bishops, told La Stampa, an Italian daily newspaper, that the case was sad, but that “the real problem is that the twins conceived were two innocent persons, who had the right to live and could not be eliminated.” (NYT)

Not surprisingly, both TIME and the NYT fail to report an important detail: did Archbishop Sobrinho formally excommunicate the parties who procured the abortion? You see, under Canon Law, anyone who procures the abortion is automatically excommunicated - no special intervention of the bishop is necessary.

So yes, this is a tough case - and it puts the Church in the worst possible light. But the fact of the matter remains that there were two innocents destroyed here. And added to the first grave wrong of the rape, is the second grave wrong of this double murder.

Expect the individuals who disagree with the Church's stance of defending innocent life to take as much advantage of this situation as possible, especially in Brazil. It's the closest they can ever get to a "winning argument." And they are masters of using the leverage provided by "hard cases."

Of course, nothing should be hard about defending the innocent.

update: LifeSiteNews gets all the important points on this story right.

"Miami abortion clinic owner threw newborn away, prosecutors say"

LifeNews:

"An abortion center staff has finally been charged in
a botched abortion case that has drawn national attention. The
incident involves the birth of a baby who was born alive on the
second day of a two-day abortion procedure, killed, and then
hidden from investigating authorities."

AP coverage here. Drudge has also picked up on the story.

A short movie named 22 weeks (website here) tells the story of a very similar(ly tragic) episode.

White House Officials Admit Abortion/Tiller Holding Up Kathleen Sebelius Pick

LifeNews:

White House officials have acknowledged that abortion and the controversy surrounding embattled late-term abortion practitioner George Tiller are holding up President Barack Obama's potential selection of Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to become the next Health Secretary.

... Now, White House officials tell CBN News that abortion and the Tiller-Sebelius connection are causing pause when considering Sebelius for the Cabinet post.

CBN News White House correspondent David Brody indicates that a senior Obama administration official confirmed that "concerns voiced by pro-life groups about potential HHS Secretary Nominee Kathleen Sebelius have come up in high level White House discussions but it has not disqualified her from the job."

The official also admitted that "Tiller’s name has come up in discussions and acknowledges that if she’s picked there will be people gunning for her, but that ultimately the Kansas Governor is getting a bum rap on the abortion issue."

"The discussion inside the White House centers on whether Sebelius's stellar record as public servant trumps the controversy that could arise over Tiller," Brody indicates.

Hmm, I just realized my tag for Kathleen Sebelius reveals a dyslexia I didn't know I had. I type too fast.

Underage Abortion? Sure! Underage Tattoo? Parental Consent!

AmP reader Don writes:

The [Maryland] House of Delegates approved a measure to require consent for minors who want a tatoo.

And yet our legislators continue to support a state law that does NOT require consent for an abortion!

I dunno, it makes sense to me: I mean, a tatoo can be dangerous....

/sarcasm.

Papist Quote of the Day

From Archbishop Charles Chaput:

"We can’t talk piously about programs to reduce the abortion body count without also working vigorously to change the laws that make the killing possible. If we’re Catholic, then we believe in the sanctity of developing human life. And if we don’t really believe in the humanity of the unborn child from the moment life begins, then we should stop lying to ourselves and others, and even to God, by claiming we’re something we’re not." (Reported by CNA) [Full text of the Archbishop here.]

North Dakota House Gives Fertilized Eggs Human Status

There are currently fifteen states pursuing personhood legislation, Judy Brown reports.

One of them, North Dakota, has passed a "Personhood of Children Act" 51-41 in the house. It will go to their senate in the next 2-3 weeks.

More from local press:

"[This news] means a fetus could not be legally aborted without the procedure being considered murder. Minot Republican Dan Ruby has sponsored other bills banning abortion in previous legislative sessions - all of which failed."

Ed Morrissey says "don’t count your chickens until the eggs hatch, pun intended."

I can't say I have too much hope this will survive, but stranger things have happened. I pray that it does.

[Picture: Flickr user Lynn]

Video: Pro-life Students Assaulted by Pro-Abortion Mob

AmP reader Matthew explains: This video is from Saint Mary's University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. There was a presentation on life issues at the university, and the situation showed just how ugly it can get (jump to 1:00 for the counter-demonstration):



From the video description:

Students at Saint Mary's University were bombarded with insults and crudely rhymed slogans when a screaming mob laid siege to the auditorium where a Pro-Life presentation was about to take place.

The small group of Abortion supporters blocked the projector, swore at the presenter, and drowned out attempts at communication for over an hour, until a St. Mary's Conflict Resolution Official inexplicably chose to order the students (still sitting quietly in their seats) to leave rather than have the unruly mob arrested by police.

A smaller number of students and media were able to make their way to a second location where the presentation and question period concluded peacefully.

Pray for the brave individuals who choose to proclaim the dignity of human life in the face of mockery.

update: More on this from the Island Breezes blog.

Update: Medical Board Revokes License of Abortion Practitioner in Botched Abortion

Remember that horrible story I discussed yesterday? An update from LifeNews:

Tampa, FL -- The Florida Board of Medicine has revoked thelicense of an abortion practitioner who allegedly acted negligently in a shocking botched abortion case. The July 2006 incident involves baby Shanice Denise Osbourne, who saw abortion facility staff hide her body from officials after a botchedabortion. {Full story here}

Drudge even covered this story.

As the AmP motto (on the top of the page) reads: "Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them." - Ephesians 5:11.

Expose the horror of abortion.

Obama's faith-based Innitiative to include "abortion reduction" priority

Initial coverage from WaPo:

President Obama is trying to blunt the edge of perhaps the sharpest, most divisive wedge issue in the country: abortion.

In a series of moves, Obama is attempting to nudge the debate away from the morality and legality of abortion and toward a goal he hopes both sides can endorse: decreasing the number of women who terminate their pregnancies by addressing the reasons they might choose the procedure.

The strategy is being met by deep skepticism from many prominent antiabortion activists, but it has been embraced by some others as well as by leading abortion rights activists, who hope it could fundamentally reshape one of the nation's most intransigent political stalemates

Today, the president announced the creation of a new White House Office on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, which will make abortion reduction one of its priorities.

The devil is completely in the details on this one. I'm extremely pessimistic. So often "abortion reduction" simply means an excuse to fund more distribution of contraception, with no real tackling of abortion itself.

If anything actually happens, you'll hear about it here. Until then, this is just hot air.

FL doctor investigated in badly botched abortion

People are calling this story shocking. I don't find it shocking because I've been desensitized over the years by reading about abortion centers doing similar things:

Eighteen and pregnant, Sycloria Williams went to an abortion clinic outside Miami and paid $1,200 for Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique to terminate her 23-week pregnancy.

Three days later, she sat in a reclining chair, medicated to dilate her cervix and otherwise get her ready for the procedure.

Only Renelique didn't arrive in time. According to Williams and the Florida Department of Health, she went into labor and delivered a live baby girl.

What Williams and the Health Department say happened next has shocked people on both sides of the abortion debate: One of the clinic's owners, who has no medical license, cut the infant's umbilical cord. Williams says the woman placed the baby in a plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.

Police recovered the decomposing remains in a cardboard box a week later after getting anonymous tips.

"I don't care what your politics are, what your morals are, this should not be happening in our community," said Tom Pennekamp. (Buffalo News)

Right: this should not be happening. But if the doctor had been there and had managed to kill the infant in the womb a couple hours earlier? ... Well that's okay, I guess.

Only Six Catholic Senators Vote "YEA" to Stop Tax Money from Funding Overseas Abortion

Embarassing:

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 37 to 60. The majority of Catholic senators rejected this pro-life amendment with only six of twenty-five Catholic senators supporting it.

The Mexico City Policy was first adopted by President Ronald Reagan in 1984, was ended by President Bill Clinton in 1993 and then reinstated by President George W. Bush in 2001. Obama's reversal of the Mexico City Policy was applauded by liberal abortion rights groups across the country. The name comes from the city where a U.S. delegation first announced the law at a UN International Conference on Population.

... Six of the eight Catholic Republican senators voted "YEA." These senators are Martinez (FL), Brownback (KS), Bunning (KY), Vitter (LA), and two newly elected Senators; Johanns (NE) and Risch (ID). {ONUG}

... and shame on the rest of them. They will be receiving letters from their bishops ... when?

"What the FOCA?"

Gets your attention, doesn't it?

It got my attention when I saw various people wearing these t-shirts at the March for Life this year. It became a bit of a "thing" for people to mutter the phrase throughout the day, as a way to voice disapproval.

Edgy, effective - excellent: http://www.whatthefoca.com/.

Worse than FOCA: Prevention First Act

This act, introduced three weeks ago, is more dangerous than FOCA because it is already in Congress.

{updated} Select things the Prevention First Act (PFA) will do:

• Make Title X (family planning) a permanent program and fund it at $700 million or more.
• Mandate that health insurance programs that cover prescriptions must cover abortifacient contraceptives.
• Create a government program to push abortifacient "Emergency Contraception."
• Take all federal money away from any hospital that refuses to administer the abortifacient Emergency Contraception to victims of rape.
• Create additional massive government funding for Planned Parenthood style sex education programs (abstinence-only programs are specifically excluded from funding).
  Permanently include family planning services as part of the Medicaid program.

"All of these programs will result in more babies being killed and more taxpayer money going to the largest abortion chain in the nation ? Planned Parenthood." - {Source.}

American Life League has a comprehensive overview of what this bill will bring about should it pass.

LifeNews also covered this story. They recommend contacting members of the U.S. Senate.

Ph/t: AmP Reader Fr. William.

Pelosi didn't limit herself to promoting contraception to help the economy

AmP reader Gunnar with an excellent observation:

[Seaker Nancy Pelosi] didn't limit herself to "birth control" but referred to "family planning services" which we all know is a code word which includes the "service" of abortion. I think that this should be highlighted. Although she mentioned contraception specifically with reference to the bill, she seems to be advocating all family planning services as a way to reduce costs. I think that this is a way bigger scandal that people are making it out to be, not only because of the gravely immoral support of contraception but because of the endorsement of all "family planning services" as a way to reduce government costs, especially in light of her goal of pursuing universal government provided health care.

I couldn't agree more. Her radical promotion of contraception and abortion is gravely scandalous.

Amazing: "Woman gives birth to octuplets in SoCal hospital"

An amazing story, to be sure, and with a surprise:

A woman gave birth Monday to eight babies, only the second time in history octuplets have survived more than a few hours, doctors said.

The mother gave birth to six boys and two girls weighing between 1 pound, 8 ounces, and 3 pounds, 4 ounces, doctors at Kaiser Permanente Bellflower Medical Center said. The hospital had scheduled a Caesarean section for seven babies, but doctors were surprised when an eighth came out at 10:48 a.m.

"My eyes were wide," Dr. Karen Maples said, explaining her reaction to the last birth. (AP)

My heart is saddened, however, by all the euphamisms for abortion used in the last paragraph:

It's easier to control the number of births through in vitro fertilization, which involves combining egg and sperm in a lab dish and transferring the embryo into the uterus. Fertility drugs induce or enhance ovulation and couples often opt for selective reduction, in which women carrying multiple fetuses reduce the number of viable fetuses to two.

Control the number, selective reduction, reduce....

kill.

Krispy Kreme and A.L.L. spark online "Donut Wars"

A couple days ago I blogged about Krispy Kreme's unfortunate decision to offer free "Freedom of Choice" Donuts for Barack Obama's inauguration next week.

In response to KK's announcement, American Life League President Judie Brown released a statement:

"The unfortunate reality of a post Roe v. Wade America is that "choice" is synonymous with abortion access and celebration of 'freedom of choice' is a tacit endorsement of abortion rights on demand."

After plenty of people voiced their non-appreciation of the charged phrasing to KK, the company released a statement which clarified: "On Election Day, November 4, 2008, Krispy Kreme ran a promotion that provided customers with one free star-shaped doughnut at stores nationwide. The Inauguration Day promotion is not about any social or political issue."

I take KK at their word. I think it was unfortunate how they decided to phrase their promotion, because the simple fact of the matter is that "freedom of choice" means something specific in this country's ongoing debate of ideas in the "culture wars."

Unwittingly, however (and here's where it gets interesting) Judie Brown's public comments have uncovered a cesspool of anti-life hate. It really takes your breath away. To my mind, this is a classic example of typically-unarmed (anti-life) combatants jumping at the opportunity to attack pro-life spokespersons.

And are they nasty. Take Jezebel (an online magazine of "Celebrity, Sex, Fashion for Women"):

"The American Life League has finally discovered the secret, immoral ingredient that makes Krispy Kreme doughnuts so very addictive: fetuses. ... Freedom isn't really free, people, it takes thousands and thousands of aborted, dried up and reconstituted fetuses to make a single box of Krispy Kremes, and the American Life League is determined to stop this abomination!"

I guess Jezebel thinks it's being funny. So much for all people of good will agreeing that abortion is always a painful decision, etc. And of course, this isn't even close to ALL's actual point (I'll get to that).

Or similarly, Wonkette DC Gossip:

"Observe how they use that terrible code word “choice,” which in addition to meaning “being able to decide between one thing or another,” means “mandatory forced abortions for every citizen over the age of five”"

Hmm - which side is really exaggerating?

Or again, the Miami New Times blog:

"File this under "Overreactionary Wing Nuts" and another attempt of conservatives to redefine words for their political means (You can try to rewrite the Constitution, but not the dictionary). Of course, the "overreactionary libtard" counter to this is that conservatives want to demonize all choice from America until we're living under a fundamentalist dictatorship. A fundamentalist dictatorship without doughnuts."

This come-back is especially odd because "freedom of choice" is a liberal-invented euphemism for "abortion on demand" to begin with! Judie Brown is merely pointing out that "freedom of choice" has taken on a specific connotation tied to abortion rights (and other false "rights") and that we should sedulously avoid incorporating it into our common parlance.

But why do I even bother making these finer points? I can't help but think these would be completely lost on the three authors I quote above (and believe me, a blog search shows dozens of anti-lifers gleefully following suit).

This all is just a small taste of what pro-life activists have to put up with, ideologically and rhetorically, on a regular basis. I'm told that Judie Brown has been sent letters threatening her life, and that she's even been accused of racism (huh?!).

We can thank these "donut wars" for giving us a devastatingly-revealing view into the mindset of these opponents of life, a sad glimpse into their hatred and incivility, and a better appreciation of their uncanny ability to miss the point, and then mock the people whose message they are missing.

I mean, come on, did they really think it was just about some stupid donuts?

Update: USCCB Rep Corrects Incorrect Novena Email on FOCA

LifeNews:

If you're a pro-life Catholic, chances are you've seen the email that has been widely circulated across the Internet seeking prayers to stop the radical FOCA bill. While the email is accurate concerning how the Freedom of Choice Act will make abortion on demand the national law, there is one big error.

I pointed out that one big error a couple days ago.

Abortion Politics Didn’t Doom the Republican Party

So says Ross Douthat in the New York Times:

"An iron law of recent American politics dictates that any Republican setback at the polls will be quickly pinned on the pro-life movement .... [but] why should abortion opponents, of all conservative factions, take the blame for the financial meltdown, or the bungled occupation of Iraq, or the handling of Hurricane Katrina?"

I agree with his analysis, and appreciate his awareness that Roe stands squarely in the way of all progress towards ever significantly and permanently reducing abortions (look at the last thought which I have underlined):

"no ... compromise is possible so long as Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey remain on the books. These decisions are monuments to pro-choice absolutism, and for pro-lifers to accept them means accepting that no serious legal restrictions on abortion will ever be possible — no matter what the polls say, and no matter how many hearts and minds pro-lifers change.

... Facing a hostile governing majority, pro-lifers can and should talk more about the possibility of compromise: They should explain, more often and more cogently, that if Americans want laws that better reflect their muddled sentiments on abortion, it is pro-choice maximalism, not the pro-life movement, that’s really standing in the way."

The best way forward? Douthat says:

"So long as the Supreme Court remains closely divided, and a post-Roe world remains in reach, the movement’s basic political task must remain the same. Not because pro-lifers are absolutists who reject compromise, but because any real compromise will always depend on overturning Roe. Giving up on this goal would mean giving up the movement’s very purpose, while gaining nothing in return."

Douthat is essentially making the same points that the US Bishops have made. Moreover, he is not trying to give political advice to the GOP, he is demonstrating that the best way to bring public policy more in accord with the views of the majority of American people on the issue of abortion is to abandon the abortion absolutism of the past thirty years and, you guess it, bring in some much-needed change.

In this case, that change is repealing Roe.

Radical pro-abort picked for Obama communications

Put your friends in high places:

Ellen Moran, executive director of EMILY’s List, was named White House communications director by President-elect Obama on Saturday. Moran, a well-known grassroots organizer, has also managed statewide Democratic campaigns and managed the Wal-Mart corporate accountability campaign for the AFL-CIO. EMILY's List, one of the most important Democratic constituency groups, says it is "dedicated to building a progressive America by electing Democratic pro-choice women to office." (Politico)

Even when phrased in saccharine political-speak, there's no real masking the fact that Emily's List pushes pro-abortion candidates, period:

EMILY's List - which stands for "Early Money Is Like Yeast" (It makes the dough rise) -was formed more than two decades ago to support pro-choice women candidates. Over the years they'd raised millions for them. They helped, among others, political tyros like Diane Feinstein, Jennifer Granholm and Clinton (during her Senate run) reach their desired end.

EMILY's List also states being "committed to a three-pronged strategy to elect pro-choice Democratic women: recruiting and funding viable women candidates; helping them build and run effective campaign organizations; and mobilizing women voters to help elect progressive candidates across the nation."

For a candidate to be considered for funding from EMILY’s List there are three requirements: The candidate must be a woman; she must be a Democrat; and she must support unrestricted access to taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand.

The List’s support for abortion-on-demand is so strong that it has cut funding from politicians who voted against extreme pro-abortion positions. Two examples of this are Senators Mary Landrieu from Louisiana and Blanche Lincoln from Arkansas who lost funding from EMILY’s List when they voted to ban the gruesome practice of partial-birth abortion. (CNA)

Once again - these are Obama's friends.

Breaking: Bishops to present concerns on abortion, other issues to politicians

CNS - which has lots of coverage, follows the knotted thread:

With a new administration and a Democratic-dominated Congress about to take office, the U.S. bishops will spell out their concerns about policies and laws that might make abortion more readily available.

After a total of nearly three hours of discussion in public and private sessions Nov. 11 during their annual fall meeting, the bishops gave their president, Chicago Cardinal Francis E. George, a set of concerns about abortion and other matters to raise in a public statement he will issue on their behalf. The statement was to be completed for final approval Nov. 12.

Martino tries to get some movement:

Bishop Joseph F. Martino of Scranton, Pa., said though he realized the statement would not address that topic, "we are going to have to speak as firmly as possible to Catholic politicians who are not merely reluctant to vote pro-life, but are stridently anti-life." He noted that in ages past, U.S. bishops took canonical measures against Catholic politicians who supported institutional racism.

"We have to have something like that," he said. "I cannot have the vice president-elect (Joseph Biden) coming to Scranton (his childhood home) saying he learned his values there, when his values are utterly against the teachings of the Catholic Church."

The Church already does have "something like that." The laws are on the books, they're just not being used.

Tobin (!):

Bishop Thomas J. Tobin of Providence, R.I., said toward the end of the discussion that if the statement were to include everything heard in that session, "you might as well just reprint 'Faithful Citizenship,'" the bishops' 2007 document on political responsibility.

He said instead the final version should be concise, taking a lesson from Obama's own successful campaign strategy, which focused narrowly on change and hope.

"That carried him to the presidency," Bishop Tobin said. The bishops need to find a similar succinct approach, he said, "less political, less politically correct and more prophetic. We need somehow to reclaim the prophetic voice on this issue."

Though I agree with Tobin about "less political, less politically correct, and more prophetic" .... did I just catch a hint that he is admitting Obama reaches people better these days than the bishops themselves? What does it say that Obama can come across as more "prophetic" than bishops who are consecrated into the prophetic priesthood of Christ Himself?

Talk about a wake-up call.

On letting Doug Kmiec have it

Many, many people are tiring of Doug Kmiec's incessant need to argue against people while never actually responding to the substance of their counter-arguments. Kmiec also displays an incredible presumption whenever he claims to be more concerned about the lives of America's unborn than our very own bishops. (I mean - really? - what do they have to gain? Not much. What do you have to gain? Well, apparently something you find very worth it.)

Archbishop Chaput charitably responds to Doug Kmiec's open letter to him, corrects Kmiec's claim that they are friends ("[we] have had little contact in the past"), notes that there are "serious falsehoods and misdirections in Prof. Kmiec's ''prolife'' advocacy for Sen. Obama" and concludes by saying "I look forward eagerly to Prof. Kmiec's vocal advocacy against these profoundly unjust policies" in the future Obama administration.

In other words - the ball is in Kmiec's court, so he should take some time off from the lecture circuit if that's what it takes to free up his schedule to purse the reduction in abortions he has promised under an Obama presidency. Fumare, however, sees something else in Kmiec's future:

What will be Kmiec's reward from Obama's New Hope America? My guess: He will head up a new "pro-life" special commission in the Obama administration that will be charged with the task of "reducing abortions, by reducing unwanted pregnancies."

It will be the equivalent of the Faith Based Initiatives program - a program that made it seem like the Bush Administration was pro-Christian, but was intended to do nothing except keep the Evangelicals in the Bush camp. This new "Pro-Life" program will serve to do the same thing for the Obama Pro-Lifers: keep them in the Obama camp for 8 years.

Ross Douthat tries to give Kmiec the best possible read and comes up with this:

I suppose I could find a thing or three to agree with in Kmiec's longer list of ideas for how the party he abandoned could win back his vote. But frankly, I don't see the point. I understand that the pro-life position on abortion does not command majority support in the United States and that people of good will can disagree on the subject. And I have no doubt that the Republican Party can profit from greater dialogue between its pro-life and pro-choice constituents—and do a better job, as well, of addressing itself to both pro-lifers and pro-choicers who aren't already inside its tent. But I can't begin to fathom why the GOP should consider taking any advice whatsoever from a "pro-lifer" who has spent the past year serving as an increasingly embarrassing shill for the opposition party's objectively pro-abortion nominee.

"Increasingly" is the only charitably way I can describe Kmiec's latest, in which he marvels at the election of Obama in an America that used to deny that African-Americans were human persons with rights. The response is, of course, that we elected someone who thinks unborn humans don't have rights. But once again, reality seems to have little effect on Mr. Kmiec.

update: Good heavens. In response to Douthat's entirely reasonable observations, Kmiec responded with an embarrasing attempt to dodge the accusations by accusing Douthat of ... I dunno, "uncharity"?!

In response, Tucker Carlson really did have it, and really let Kmiec "have it":

Hey, Doug. Toughen up. Seriously. I've read suicide notes that were less passive-aggressive than this. Let's review what actually happened: You argued that Obama is not a pro-choice extremist. Ross disagreed. Rather than respond with a counterpoint, you got hysterical, dismissing Ross as a hater, even fretting about the future of his soul. Come on. Get some perspective. And for God's sake, stop whining.

... I understand it must have hurt when Ross accused you of shilling for Obama. On the other hand, he's right. You did shill for Obama. That's not Ross' fault. Don't blame him.

But if you are going to blame him, do it directly, like a man, without all the encounter-group talk and Pope quotes. People often attack the religious right, sometimes with justification. But as you just reminded us, there is nothing in the world more annoying than the religious left.

What Tucker doesn't point out, and I will, is that Kmiec also is guilty of substantive factual errors in his contribution ("54 percent of the Catholics in America saw exactly what I see in Barack Obama" ... sorry, 54% of those who voted may have seen this") as well as completely unintelligible lines like "[Obama's] party commitments have not let his mind free of ill-considered measures like FOCA" (what?!) and then, typically, Kmiec accuses others of what he has himself done: "It is better to be part of that honest effort than the passive, smug Republican partisan complacency that thinks of the defense of human life as just another issue to be ranked and, worse, ranked lowly" (but that's what you yourself have in fact done, Kmiec - clearly!).

I'd say more, but I have to go catch a plane. It's about time for a Kmiec-free few days.

The issue that wasn't... Obama's YES on FOCA

Mark Joseph complains (and I agree):

The McCain campaign has been such an abject failure in so many ways that it’s difficult to focus in one just one. But let me try.This morning I received the following messages from two friends. The first, a minister in the Chicago area wrote:

“This FOCA [Freedom of Choice Act] statement has put me over the edge at the last possible moment…I’m voting for McCain as an anti-Obama vote…wish I’d known about this sooner…I would have told my congregation about this…in line waiting to vote now.”

The second, from a college professor in Florida, was similarly themed:

“Somehow, though I knew he was pro-choice, I had never heard of FOCA or his statement on FOCA. That settles it for me, I can’t in good conscience not vote against someone who said this. I wasn’t going to vote for McCain, perhaps writing in Jeb Bush, but even if it’s futile, I have to live with my vote and what it could, against the odds, contribute. That statement isn’t about governing from the center–it’s about dominating from the left.”

Both are referring to a speech featured on YouTube that Obama gave to Planned Parenthood in which he promised to make as his first act after being elected, passage of the Freedom of Choice Act which would invalidate all state laws against abortion.

It’s just another measure of the utter and complete incompetence of the McCain campaign that voters like these never heard about the issue until the day they were voting. If ever a campaign deserved to lose an election it was this one.

To get a sense for the categorical way in which most of the mainstream media simply would not talk about Obama's position on abortion and FOCA in particular, see this article published by CNN today titled "Ballot hot buttons include abortion, same-sex marriage" which, you guessed it .... doesn't mention Obama once.

Bishop Finn on becoming the "Church militant" again

You know when you see a column titled "Warriors with Our Eyes Fixed on Heaven" you're in for some good stuff:

I am sometimes amazed at the casual manner with which Christians, Catholics included, take up our life within what Pope John Paul II rightly called the "culture of death."

The Church, by comparison, reminds us that we are engaged - by reason of our Baptism and Confirmation - in a battle, "not with flesh and blood, but with the principalities and powers, with the rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in heaven." (Eph 6:12)

Jesus Christ has won the ultimate battle, but we, in the course of our human life must make our choice, determining on whose side we will live and die. Whose side will you choose?!

What is at stake in this battle is our immortal soul, our salvation. My responsibility as bishop is with the eternal destiny of those entrusted to my care. My total energies must be directed to the well being of those who otherwise may come under the spell of a radically flawed and fundamentally distorted moral sense, at odds with what our Mother the Church teaches.

There are objective and transcendent truths. There is such a thing as right and wrong. There is a legitimate hierarchy of moral evils, and the direct willful destruction of human life can never be justified; it can never be supported. Do you believe this firm teaching of the Church?

How does Bishop Finn take his coffee?

Extra bold.

Amy Welborn on why democrats are blue

Amy Welborn gives us a history lesson ending with the ironic observation: "Gee, I wonder why the pro-life activists starting doubting the Democratic party was open to their concerns?"

Find out how we got where we are, the first step towwards not repeating history.

Video: What's At Stake? Human Life.

Be advised, this is not an easy video to watch:

It's also very moving.

Ph/t: AmP reader Fr. Steven.

"Expect Obama to sign FOCA in the first 100 days"

I often talk about the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), and how revealing it is that Obama has promised to sign it into law as "the first thing" he'd do as President. Fr. Thomas Berg explains FOCA:

Sponsored by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Ca) in the Senate (S. 1173), and Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) in the House (HR 1964), FOCA is a piece of legislation designed “to prohibit, consistent with Roe v. Wade, the interference by the government with a woman's right to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.”

In fact, FOCA, if it became law, would go well beyond Roe, sweeping away all limits on abortion -- state and federal -- including restrictions on government funding of abortion and conscience protections for healthcare providers. We have no reason to believe Obama would hesitate to sign FOCA into law as soon as it were to passed by the 111th Congress -- a probable outcome in early 2009 if Democrats gain enough new seats in November.

... And I alert my readers that you can find an extremely useful FOCA fact sheet here and many other useful FOCA-related articles and materials here, courtesy of the USCCB Committee on Pro-Life activities.

Fr. Berg also conducted an informative interview with Susan Wills of the USCCB's pro-life committee.

From Thomas Reese, SJ .... nothing new.

Over at Busted Halo Fr. Thomas Reese, SJ succeeded in fooling me into excitement for about as long as it took me to read beyond the first line of his article "Something New in the Abortion Debate":

"After decades of debate over abortion, something new has occurred this year."

Unfortunately, what follows is a catalogue of the old. AmP readers have already seen me respond to each and every argument Reese proposes, because Reese simply repeats what has already been offered by the Catholic pro-Obama advocates.

A brief highlight reel:

"after many years of insisting that abortion be legal and safe, the Democrats are finally emphasizing that it should be rare"

Nope: they actually removed that language (and added a promise to fund all abortions sought).

"The traditional pro-life strategy has been to try to make abortion illegal."

Nope - this is a falseminimilization of the comprehensive pro-life movement (see: Amy Welborn).

"A small group of Catholic pro-lifers, exemplified by Douglas Kmiec and Nicholas Cafardi, has concluded that criminalization is a failed strategy.

Nope - the bishops disagree.

"[they say]the most successful strategy to actually reduce the number of abortions is to vote for Democratic candidates."

Nope - and *blech* - prove it. You can start by responding to this.

"there is no difference between the positions of McCain and Obama on stem cell research and gay marriage."

Nope - McCain is certainly different on the question of embryonic stem cell research.

"they are a small minority among bishops since there are over 180 other dioceses where Biden is welcomed to go to Communion."

Nope - outright denying Communion, maybe, not speaking out against Biden? Plenty.

At this point Reese actually switches over to quoting Catholic pro-Obama websites. I guess we can conclude that he identifies and supports their arguments. But at least he has the honesty to say:

"If the Democrats do not deliver, the pragmatic pro-lifers [what Reese calls himself] will be left out on a limb."

But, let it be noted, it's not just Reese & Co. who will be left out on a limb if the "democrats do not deliver" - it will be hundreds of thousands of children cut off from the tree of life.

That, too - sadly - is nothing new.

National Catholic Reporter editors endorse Obama, and I lose it

Well, in effect.

Here's how the editors of NCR begin:

"Another presidential election cycle is nearly ended, and once again the Catholic bishops in the United States have sadly distinguished themselves for the narrowness and, in too many cases, barely concealed partisanship, of their political views."

Notice, for the NCR editors, bishops who defend the teaching of the Church must be partisan if that teaching conflicts with the liberal viewpoint of the NCR editors. The fact that these same bishops are perfectly willing to accept pro-life democratic candidates completely eludes them.

Fundamentally, the NCR editors parrot the "get over Roe" talking point which has been made popular by pro-Obama catholics. Moreover, the NCR editors sign onto this position even after it was explicitlty condemned by the competant authorities in the US Bishops Conference.

The NCR editors even criticize the bishops for being narrow minded, for "turning the abortion issue into a partisan rallying cry" for "damaging the church and the pro-life cause" and for "erod[ing] the legitimate authority of an already beleaguered episcopal conference."

And all this crosses a line. How dare they.

How dare they claim that it is "partisan" affiliation which has prompted 60+ bishops (at last count) to speak out about the radical centrality of respecting human life in this election?

How dare the NCR editors claim that it is some sort of affinity for the GOP party (why? what do the bishops have to gain, exactly?) which prompts the bishops to council against supporting a candidate who would overturn every restriction on abortion in the books, who radically supports the right of a mother to have her child dead even in cases of a live birth, and who would have catholics and other Americans pay for it?!

And finally, how dare the NCR editors claim that they say all of this because of their Catholic faith?

Essentially, they are claiming to be more Catholic than (at least) 1-in-4 American bishops.

And they have intentionally put themselves under the condemnation already leveled against those who have similarly employed this nonsensical, disingenuous "the way to reduce abortions is to increase funding, support and access to them" argument.

How dare they.

(Oh, and having this photo - of young people walking in the annual March for Life, petitioning the Supreme Court to repeal Roe - serve as the accompaniment to their editorial? You know what I'm going to say.)

The evangelicals are scratching their heads, too

Dr. Tony Beam:

Why So Many Christians are Confused about the Election

One Web site that claims to be Christian declares Barack Obama to be the most pro-life candidate in the race. Another declares Obama is the only real Christian in the race. Yet another proclaims that life under an Obama presidency will mean the restoration of true justice in America. Yet another claims Obama would never fully support the Lesbian, Bisexual Gay, Transgender (LBGT) agenda. How can well-meaning, good intentioned people who claim to be speaking as representatives of Jesus Christ be so deceived? There is one indisputable fact in this election and that is Barack Obama is the most pro-choice, pro-homosexual rights candidate to ever receive a major political party’s endorsement for president. From his stand against the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which would have simply protected the life of a baby who managed to survive a botched abortion, to his 100 percent pro-choice Senate rating, Barack Obama has never met an abortion he didn’t like.

Cardinal Egan asks readers to "just look" at picture of unborn child

In his column yesterday for the New York Catholic, Cardinal Egan tried something different:

The picture on this page is an untouched photograph of a being that has been within its mother for 20 weeks. Please do me the favor of looking at it carefully.

Have you any doubt that it is a human being?

If you do not have any such doubt, have you any doubt that it is an innocent human being?

If you have no doubt about this either, have you any doubt that the authorities in a civilized society are duty-bound to protect this innocent human being if anyone were to wish to kill it?

If your answer to this last query is negative, that is, if you have no doubt that the authorities in a civilized society would be duty-bound to protect this innocent human being if someone were to wish to kill it, I would suggest—even insist—that there is not a lot more to be said about the issue of abortion in our society. It is wrong, and it cannot—must not—be tolerated.

Farther in:

It is high time to stop pretending that we do not know what this nation of ours is allowing—and approving—with the killing each year of more than 1,600,000 innocent human beings within their mothers. We know full well that to kill what is clearly seen to be an innocent human being or what cannot be proved to be other than an innocent human being is as wrong as wrong gets.

Do me a favor. Look at the photograph again. Look and decide with honesty and decency what the Lord expects of you and me as the horror of "legalized" abortion continues to erode the honor of our nation. Look, and do not absolve yourself if you refuse to act.

... but, did he mention any of this to Obama last weekend?

I mean, I agree with everything Cardinal Egan says, I'd just like to know what we're to make of the above.

Top myths about abortion dispelled on USCCB website

Spread this news. Richard M. Doerflinger has published a concice essay on the USCCB website asking the question "What Reduces Abortions?"

His answers are startling and contradict claims spread by pro-Obama catholics. Consider (underlining mine):

Sometimes election years produce more policy myths than good ideas. This year one myth is about abortion. It goes like this: The Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision is here to stay, and that's fine because laws against abortion don't reduce abortions much anyway. Rather, "support for women and families" will greatly reduce abortions, without changing the law or continuing a "divisive" abortion debate.

Various false claims are used to bolster this myth. It is said that over three-quarters of women having abortions cite expense as the most important factor in their decision. Actually the figure is less than one-fourth, 23%. It is said that abortion rates declined dramatically (30%) during the Clinton years, but the decline stopped under the ostensibly pro-life Bush administration. Actually the abortion rate has dropped 30% from 1981 to 2005; the decline started 12 years before Clinton took office, and has continued fairly steadily to the present day.

More myths (underlining again mine):

The steepest decline is among minors. Is it plausible that economic factors reduced abortions for teens but not their older sisters, or their mothers who support them?

The reality is this: In 1980 the Supreme Court upheld the Hyde amendment, and federally funded abortions went from 300,000 a year to nearly zero. With its decisions in Webster (1989) and Casey (1992), the Court began to uphold other abortion laws previously invalidated under Roe. States passed hundreds of modest but effective laws: bans on use of public funds and facilities; informed consent laws; parental involvement when minors seek abortion; etc. Dr. Michael New's rigorous research has shown that these laws significantly reduce abortions. In the 1990s, debate on partial-birth abortion - kept in the public eye, ironically, by President Clinton's repeated vetoes of a ban on this grisly late-term procedure - alerted many Americans to the violence of abortion and shifted public attitudes in a pro-life direction, just as growing concern over AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases was giving new force to the abstinence message for teens. Now the Court has upheld a partial-birth abortion ban, and signaled that other laws to save unborn children and their mothers from the horrors of abortion may be valid. If Roe is reversed outright, that will allow more laws that can further reduce abortions.

By contrast, a pending federal "Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA) would knock down current laws reducing abortions, and require public programs for pregnant women to fund abortion. No one supporting that bill can claim to favor reducing abortions.

Conclusion:

Many women are pressured toward abortion, and they need our help. The pressures are partly, but only partly, economic in nature. Women are influenced by husbands, boyfriends, parents and friends, and by a culture and legal system that tells them the child they carry has no rights and is of no consequence. Law cannot solve all problems, but it can tell us which solutions are unacceptable - and today Roe still teaches that killing the unborn child is an acceptable solution, even a "right." Without ever forgetting the need to support pregnant women and their families, that tragic and unjust error must be corrected if we are to build a society that respects all human life.

This essay is significant for its publication on the USCCB website, and its timing - days after the US Bishops' statement setting the record straight on Roe v. Wade and other common errors.

This may feel a little bit like throwing sandbags on a broken dike, but that's what we are called to do. So roll up your sleeves and get to work. Dikes don't repair themselves.

Need a hotel discount? Schedule an abortion.

Complimentary breakfast provided.

From the Christian Newswire, economic incentives for women facing problem pregnancies:

An abortion clinic that performs abortions up to the sixth month of pregnancy has worked out an arrangement with two area hotels to provide substantially discounted room rates for women seeking abortions.

Based on reports from local citizens participating in the 40 Days for Life prayer vigil outside the Cherry Hill Women’s Center, New Jersey Right to Life has confirmed that the Clarion Hotel in Cherry Hill offers a reduced rate of $59 for a room originally priced at $109 to those women who provide a receipt from the clinic that says they have to stay overnight. In addition, the Quality Inn in Maple Shade offers a discounted rate of $74.95 for a room originally priced at $99.99 and a free breakfast of eggs and pancakes for women who present a stamped pamphlet from the clinic.

Every sarcastic comment I could think to make about the importance of eating a balanced breakfast in such a situation struck me as being completely out of place. Also out of place? This group:

Good Counsel Homes, a Catholic agency that assists homeless pregnant women, recently cancelled its banquet at the Clarion upon learning of the hotel’s arrangement with the abortion clinic.

Marie Tasy, Executive Director of New Jersey Right to Life said, “This experience shows us that the Legislature needs to act immediately to place a parental notification constitutional amendment on the ballot without delay.”

Oh no, clearly legislative solutions won't help. Why should parents get involved, anyway? The girls already have found a place to stay, for a good rate, and they even get breakfast as part of the deal.

(that was sarcasm.)

Biden claim: "I'm a John XXIII guy, I'm not a Pope John Paul guy."

I don't understand how someone can seriously say this about themselves:

"I was raised as a Catholic, I'm a practicing Catholic, and I'm totally at home with the Catholicism that I was raised in and this whole culture of social responsibility, reaction to abuse of power, the whole notion that there is collective civic responsibility. It's the Catholic consciousness that I'm totally comfortable with."

... only to spew this nonsense:

"It is not choice. It's always a very, very, very difficult, difficult decision. I know that, my church has wrestled with this for 2,000 years.

We've always believed from the outset that abortion is wrong. But throughout the years, debated the degree to which it is wrong. There are always cases where it is never a first choice. It is always viewed as a dire decision. But throughout the church's history, we've argued between whether or not it is wrong in every circumstance and the degree of wrong. Catholics have this notion, it's almost a gradation.

We have mortal sins, venial sins, well, up until Pius IX, there were times when we said, 'Look, there are circumstances in which it's wrong but it is not damnation. Along came Pius IX in the 1860s and declared in fine doctrine, this was the first time that it occurred that it was absolute human life and being at the moment of conception. It's always been a debate."

And then conclude by saying:

"I take my religion very seriously."

(... just obviously not enough to study it.)

Oh well, I guess I'm just no Joe Biden.

Another jem:

"I'm a John XXIII guy, I'm not a Pope John Paul guy."

At least that puts him ahead of John Kerry, who claimed he was a "Pope Pius XXIII" kind of guy.

Ph/t: Whispers.

Discovered: Obama article on abortion rights in 1990

Politico found the unsigned law review article penned by Barack Obama in 1990. Excerpts:

The six-page summary, tucked into the third volume of the year's Harvard Law Review, considers the charged, if peripheral, question of whether fetuses should be able to file lawsuits against their mothers. Obama's answer, like most courts': No. He wrote approvingly of an Illinois Supreme Court ruling that the unborn cannot sue their mothers for negligence, and he suggested that allowing fetuses to sue would violate the mother's rights and could, perversely, cause her to take more risks with her pregnancy.

... And he concluded the article with a flourish: "Expanded access to prenatal education and heath care facilities will far more likely serve the very real state interest in preventing increasing numbers of children from being born in to lives of pain and despair."

But wait, I thought Obama advocates hope. I guess he thought that these little ones only had despair to look forward to in their future. Better to end their lives then see them live in pain, I guess. What sort of hope is this?!

Full coverage here.

"Save our Children!" says Bishop Robert Hermann

The Archdiocesan Administrator who is running St. Louis until a replacement can be found for its previous shepherd Abp. Raymond Burke ... has issued an extraordinary exhortation to the Catholics under his care:

"Save our children! More than anything else, this election is about saving our children or killing our children. This life issue is the overriding issue facing each of us in this coming election. All other issues, including the economy, have to take second place to the issue of life."

... Save our children! How can a so-called good Catholic vote for a candidate that supports laws that take the life of innocent children, when there is an alternative? If there were two candidates who supported abortion, but not equally, we would have the obligation to mitigate the evil by voting for the less-permissive candidate.

... Save our children! How can a so-called good Catholic vote for a candidate that supports laws that justify the killing of a child that survived a botched abortion? How can such a so-called good Catholic receive the Holy Eucharist?

... Save our children! I have no doubt that there may be some so-called good Catholics who are reading this column and who may be really angry about now. I ask the question "Why would such a person be angry?" If we do good deeds, then our conscience is at peace. If we do evil deeds, then our conscience bothers us. It is my hope that this column will lead some of our so-called good Catholics to study the Catholic Catechism.

... Save our children! Some of our so-called good Catholics may have hardened their hearts against the real understanding of induced abortions, that they can no longer see that this involves the destruction of our children. "If today you hear his voice, harden not your hearts!"

... Save our children! Supporting induced abortions is not the greatest sin in the world. A greater sin is the refusal to repent of such a serious crime or the denial that this involves the killing of innocent children.

... Save our children! I have used this terminology again and again penetrate the defenses of anyone who in the past may have put personal, economic or political interests above the issue of saving our children. The right to life is our most fundamental right, and to defend this right on behalf of the most vulnerable is a great privilege and is worth giving one’s life for. Policemen and firemen always risk their lives to save human life. Why should we not risk our own reputation to save our children?"

[Read his entire column.]

His spiritual exhortation? Pray. the. rosary.

Dutch abortion ship makes for Spanish harbor

Caption: "29-08-04, 17:15 hours: The Portugese Navy circles the Women on Waves ship and orders the captain to stop approaching Portugal. Photo: Nadya Peek for Women on Waves" (source)

Today one of these "abortion ships" will be visiting the coast of Spain:

A Spanish pro-life group said it plans to protest the arrival on Thursday of a Dutch boat that is offering to provide abortions that circumvent Spain's strict laws.

The boat is due to anchor off the Mediterranean port of Valencia, the Dutch non-profit organisation Women on Waves said on its web site.

From Friday, it will offer abortions on the ship in international waters under the Netherlands' more liberal abortion laws.

This "symbolic initiative" will allow "abortions outside Spanish law for the first time in Spain's recent history, but without violating it," said Spanish gynaecologist Josep Lluis Carbonell, one of the promoters.

But it has already sparked controversy.

Valencia's conservative mayor Rita Barbera termed the plan a "provocation that has sparked indignation."

The anti-abortion group Provida in Valencia said its members plan a protest aboard a smaller vessels when the boat arrives. (AFP)

The concept is pretty simple - take a storage container and put a mini-abortion clinic in it (source):

Then sail it around and provide abortions on international waters (source):
Note how members of the pro-abortion movement are willing to break and circumvent laws, while simultaneously criticizing pro-life people who try to save lives by working around government policies.

(And for anyone who has seen the end of the movie Children of Men, what an anti-type this is!)

The one issue the MSM is careful to avoid

Look at this transcript of CNN's coverage of a townhall meeting with John McCain:

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, first of all, thank you both for all you're doing for our country. I wanted to ask you about -- about the issue of abortion, and specifically about the debate a couple of nights ago. The moderator cleverly never brought this -- the question up.

And with the debate coming up again, I would ask if you're going to find a way to bring the subject up, even if it's not asked about, because I firmly believe it's an issue which you have the advantage.

PHILLIPS: John McCain campaigning in Waukesha, Wisconsin. You can still watch this live, if you want, at CNN.com/live. He's talking about your money and his pledge to bring it back.

Isn't that something? Someone brings up the topic of abortion - and the fact that it's not being talked about - and CNN immediatly cuts-away from McCain's response. More than that, the anchor claims that McCain's talking about "your money and his pledge to bring it back." Maybe earlier he was, but right now, he was talking about...

the one issue we're not supposed to talk about.

Ph/t: Philokalia Republic.

Hadley Arkes on the economy v. abortion

Hadley Arkes on why the question of abortion is important, even in times of economic downturn, as he writes today for the The Catholic Thing. Good afternoon reading.

Audio: Laura Ingraham Interviews Sarah Palin on abortion

... and other stuff:



Via Hot Air.

Related: Much-Needed Advice for John McCain

Does Obama support universal coverage for abortion?

John McCormack on the Weekly Standard Blog:

Dduring a campaign conference call about health care yesterday, I asked Obama-Biden surrogate Gov. Kathleen Sebelius if Obama's health care plan would mandate coverage for all legal abortions.

"I really don’t know the specifics of that," she replied. An Obama-Biden spokesman told me via email that he'd find an answer to my question. But subsequent emails and phone calls in the past 24 hours from me to Obama-Biden spokesmen have gone unanswered.

Apparently the Obama-Biden campaign doesn't think it needs to provide basic factual information about their candidate's health care plan. Will any one in the mainstream media hold Obama accountable?

Family Research Council notes:

If abortion coverage is an element of Obama's plan, a poll commissioned by FRC earlier this year shows that it would be to his detriment. A majority of voters (56%) said they would be "less likely" to vote for a presidential candidate proposing universal abortion coverage compared to 31% who would be "more likely" to support such a candidate.

So of course the Obama campaign wouldn't make the "yes" explicit if they could avoid it.

Picture: Pro-Life demonstrators in front of Supreme Court today

The Supreme Court goes back into session today.....

Caption: "A pregnant pro-life demonstrator and her daughter kneel before the Supreme Court in Washington October 6."

Credit: REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque (UNITED STATES)

CUA student posts open letter to Professor Doug Kmiec

I thought this was an excellent summary response. This was written by Therese Cory, a graduate instructor at the Catholic University of America. AmP readers will recall that I have taken issue with Kmiec's arguments, as well as the "Pro Life, Pro Obama" website.

Dear Prof. Kmiec,

I wish respectfully to protest against the claims on your new website, "Pro Life, Pro Obama," that pro-life Catholics can in clear conscience vote for Senator Obama.

As a philosopher myself, I respect the fact that you have clearly given long and serious consideration to the problem of pro-life voting. Nevertheless, it seems that one should consider whether promises to fund programs for pregnant mothers counterbalance the social and moral damage done by the strong pro-abortion positions that Senator Obama and his party support, including universally funding abortions through Medicare, banning state parental consent legislation, etc. (see FOCA) This kind of legislation sends the message that abortion is acceptable and makes it more rather than less easy to get an abortion. I heartily endorse offering support to pregnant mothers to alleviate the social problems which fuel abortion. But it seems that such support will be in vain, if a government also sends the contradictory message that abortion is a morally neutral event, by vastly increasing abortion availability. How can truly support the needs of a pregnant mother, without encouraging her as to the value of the life she bears, and while cementing a culture of increasingly free and easy access to abortion?

As a Catholic, moreover, I cannot help but find Senator Obama's pro-abortion voting record antagonistic to the goals set out by recently by numerous U.S. bishops on pro-life voting, and I see no indication that his accession to the presidential office would result in a change of direction. You mention that Senator Obama does not support late-term abortions. But what about his support for partial-birth abortion and criticism of the Supreme Court's upholding of the partial-birth ban? This point at least deserves mention on your website, in view of presenting a complete case. Moreover, his voting record on the case of infants born alive deserves closer investigation; his explanation that the bill in question would overturn Roe v. Wade is most questionable, in view of the provisions stated in the bill (see for instance, here).

In conclusion, Senator Obama's position clearly contravenes the Catholic position on the value of human life. While it may be unrealistic to expect a reversal of Roe v. Wade in the immediate future, Obama's policies would usher in a new era of unprecedented funding for and unrestricted access to abortion. It would consequently solidify the culture of disregard for the value of unborn life. No matter how many mother-friendly programs we support, how can we truly be "pro-mother" when we are constantly sending the contradictory message that her unborn child is of no value?

Respectfully,

Therese Cory

=====

Please consider sending your own letter to Professor Kmiec here: Douglas.Kmiec@pepperdine.edu

Related:

• Catholics Misled Who Back Barack Obama Thinking Abortions Will Go Down
• USAID Decision Points to How Barack Obama Would Fund US, Intl Abortions

NY state bishops say right to life outweighs other issues in voting

I blogged about this statement when it was released yesterday. I think it is extremely significant. CNA summarizes in a helpful way, and excerpts the "radioactive" passages:

The document [issued by the bishops of NY] “Our Cherished Right, Our Solemn Duty,” states that there are many important issues such as the right to life, issues of war and peace, the education of children and how we treat the poor and vulnerable. While all must be considered, “not every issue is of equal moral gravity.”

“The inalienable right to life of every innocent human person outweighs other concerns where Catholics may use prudential judgment, such as how best to meet the needs of the poor or to increase access to health care for all,” the New York bishops’ document says.

“The right to life is the right through which all others flow. To the extent candidates reject this fundamental right by supporting an objective evil, such as legal abortion, euthanasia or embryonic stem cell research, Catholics should consider them less acceptable for public office.”

Sure, to most readers of AmP, this might seem like common sense. But in the wider discourse of Catholics, it is distinctly uncommon sense (sadly). But this is what the bishops are telling us. What response do they (we) have?

Help South Dakota ban abortion

Jill Stanek has the details:

For the 2nd time pro-lifers have introduced an initiative to ban abortion in SD. The 2006 initiative lost 56-44%. Exit polls showed it would have won had it included exceptions.

The 2008 ban includes tightly scripted exceptions. In a poll conducted September 18, it was winning with likely voters 49-41%.

BUT national pro-abort groups ACLU, NARAL, and Planned Parenthood , recognizing abortion's peril, have banded together to spend at least $1.2 million in ads spreading misinformation. (See their press conference in ad below.)

Vote Yes for Life needs donations to hold on to Initiative 11's supporters.

Related: "On promoting abortion in South Dakota" (9/26)

Obama v. Babies

If you are looking for a simple, succinct, chilling overview of Obama and the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act controversy, see Hadley Arkes.

Meanwhile, Jill Stanek fact checks factcheck.org, which as I said in my last post on this topic, makes the best possible attempt at a counter-claim.

BornAliveTruth.org is also asking for support to spread its message.

As Hadley Arkes mentions above, the Obama camp is playing very aggressively on this issue (almost for broke), trying to make reverse political profit on it.

Video: Chaput discusses Catholics & Politics at length

Archbishop Chaput sat down for a five-part interview with Peter Robinson for NRO's "Uncommon knowledge." Watch it here.

Here are summaries of the individual segments and links if one interests you particularly:

• Part 5: Archbishop Chaput says Catholic Democrats have an obligation to change their party’s platform on abortion, just as Catholic Republicans are responsible for keeping their party pro-life. Moreover, he says the Catholic position on abortion need not be just a Catholic position, but an American position.
• Part 4: Archbishop Chaput has written that “The logic behind abortion makes all human rights politically contingent.” For example, Chaput explains that if our leaders can decide when life begins, they also can make determinations about when life should end. Overall, Chaput describes what is a coarsening of the value of life in the Western world.
• Part 3: Archbishop Chaput describes the relationship between Jesus and Caesar, or between Catholics and the state: First, Jesus acknowledged his responsibilities to Caesar. Second, Jesus demoted Caesar, making clear that “God is God and Caesar is not.” Third, Jesus remained silent about what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God, allowing for individual determinations on the duties of citizens.
• Part 2: Archbishop Chaput describes Vatican II as the “primary grace of God to the Catholic Church in the 20th century.” And yet, since Vatican II, the Catholic Church in America has suffered greatly. In particular, the numbers of Catholic seminarians, priests, and nuns have plummeted. Chaput explains why this is, and is not, a dilemma.
• Part 1: Archbishop Charles Chaput corrects House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has said the Catholic Church’s teachings on abortion aren’t clear. On the contrary, Chaput says the Church has long held that abortion is always and in all circumstances wrong. He also says Sen. Joe Biden’s position on abortion — that people should not impose their beliefs on the subject on others — is highly flawed.

Aside from taking on some current topics, it appears the Archbishop has closely followed the structure and primary points illustrated in his recent NYT-bestsellar, Render Unto Caesar.

The"Freedom of Choice" Act: A wolf waiting in the shadows

Barack Obama promised a group of prominant abortion advocates that his "very first" act as President would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act into law.

Such a law, it has been predicted, would result in many, many more abortions in America each year:

FOCA is usually reported as “codifying Roe v. Wade,” but it is much more. Since the Webster and Casey decisions in 1989 and 1992, the Supreme Court has allowed states to limit abortion somewhat by such things as requiring parental involvement and informed consent, prohibiting government funding of most abortion, and more recently outlawing most partial birth abortions.

Specifically, if FOCA is passed it will increase abortions by 125,000 more per year in the United States. Since 2004, Dr. Michael New has published studies with the Heritage Foundation showing that a large reduction in abortions can be attributed to these three kinds of laws. (LifeNews)

Such grim statistics really put the lie to the claim that the democrat platform intends to reduce the overall number of abortions in America each year. As much as their social plans may reduce the occurance of abortion incedentally, it is a known fact that their legal proposals will increase the occurance of abortion directly and dramatically.

The American bishops are aware of this fact as well, and Cardinal Regali, the chairman of the USCCB Committee on Pro-Life Activities has written to congress:

Cardinal Justin Rigali sent the letter to Congress on Friday and warned against enactment of the proposed bill (S. 1173, H.R. 1964).

“Despite its deceptive title,” he wrote, “FOCA would deprive the American people in all 50 states of the freedom they now have to enact modest restraints and regulations on the abortion industry."

He added: "FOCA would coerce all Americans into subsidizing and promoting abortion with their tax dollars. And FOCA would counteract any and all sincere efforts by government to reduce abortions in our country.”

Cardinal Rigali, chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, wrote that, under FOCA, “abortion on demand would be a national entitlement that government must condone and promote in all public programs affecting pregnant women.”

While some have said the bill would simply codify the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, he added, supporters of FOCA say it “would sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies” that are now in effect because they do not conflict with Roe.

These include bans on public funding of abortions as well as “modest and widely supported state laws” protecting women’s safety, informed consent and parental rights.

With his letter, Cardinal Rigali enclosed a legal analysis by the bishops’ Office of General Counsel documenting the extreme legal impact of FOCA. (LifeNews)

You can read the cardinal's letter here (PDF) and the legal analysis here (PDF). Zenit provides a summary.

More ignorance than I care to point out

How the consensus arose that people who hold pro-life views are ignorant, biggoted and nasty - I'll never know. Certainly posts like "The Zygote Vote: You're doing it wrong" seems to fit the bill for all three of these. But here's the thing - it's by a pro-choice feminist named Jessica.

She writes for a blog that promotes websites that scare women into thinking they'll all be thrown into jail if abortion were to be made illegal, for starts.

Jessica asks "Can I just say how totally sick I am of anti-choice orgs putting out weird [crap] that implies zygotes and fetuses can do things like vote and carry election signs?"

She's referring to this picture over on the left, which hardly - to any rational mind - would make one think the people who drew the picture honestly believed fetuses can actually hold signs and vote.

I mean, ever seen a cartoon of a penguin holding a "stop global warming" sign? It doesn't mean the cartoonist thinks penguins actually carry signs.

Jessica is more distressed that some people seem to think unborn infants can "sport war gear." Hello Jessica, that website/product is actually an anti-Christian website. You just made fun of ... your own kind, so to speak. Or at least people who join you in rideculing those who regard unborn human life as deserving protection.

She then claims the pro-life organization behind the t-shirt has its fingers in its ears (as if they are the ones ignoring realitY), and follows that up by just getting plain nasty:

"Those pesky things that carry fetuses around? They're called women, and unlike fertilized eggs, fetuses, or any other part of said women's bodies, they can actually vote. You may want to remember that next time you make a t-shirt."

The ironic thing is that most the people in the pro-life organization are probably women trying to safeguard unborn life. And does Jessica seriously think an unborn child is just a part of women's bodies? Pregnant women can have two blood types, two heart beats, different sleep patters, etc, etc.

Ignorant? Check. Bigoted? Check. Nasty? Double-check.

Not giving an inch to reporters who err about church teaching

When I read this NYT article last week ("Abortion Issue Again Dividing Catholic Votes"), I remember this paragraph being particularly lacking:

"After the 2004 election, progressive Catholics started to organize and appeared to win some victories. In 2006, the bishops’ conference all but banned outside voter guides from parishes. And last fall, the bishops revised their official statement on voting priorities to explicitly allow Catholics to vote for a candidate who supports abortion rights if they do so for other reasons. And it also allowed for differences of opinion about how to apply church principles. The statement appeared to leave room for Democrats to argue that social programs were an effective way to reduce abortion rates, an idea the party recently incorporated into its platform." (underlining mine)

That Catholics may vote for a candidate who supports abortion rights simply "for other reasons" is simply untrue. In fact, they may only do so under certain circumstances, for truly grave moral reasons. In fact, the clear move in recent voting guides has been towards placing a greater emphasis on the gravity with which one must decide to vote for a pro-abort politician, not the reverse (as the article claims).

Today the NYT published a letter to the editor penned by Bishops William Murphy and Nicholas DiMarzio:

Actually, the bishops said candidates who promote fundamental moral evils such as abortion are cooperating in a grave evil, and Catholics may never vote for them to advance those evils.

A Catholic voter’s decision to support a candidate despite that gravely immoral position “would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.”

This standard of “grave moral reasons” is a very high standard to meet. The bishops added that “a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.”

Keep it up. Keep. It. Up!

Ph/t: Whispers.

Joseph Bottum sums things up

Joseph Bottum, editor of First Things, has an excellent piece in the UK Weekly Standard that sums up well about twenty or so stories that AmP has been covering in recent months regarding catholics and American politics.

I urge you to read the whole article, but if don't have time, at least note his conclusion (underlining mine):

"And yet, there remains that question of abortion. Things have tightened over the last few years, the Catholic position is firmer in the public's mind--firmer in the Catholic mind, for that matter. McCain was a long way from the pro-lifers' first choice for a Republican nominee, but the Democrats this election cycle are determined to force the issue. They've pushed, and they've pushed, and they've pushed, until Catholics are falling off the cliff. Poor Doug Kmiec and his sad question, "Can a Catholic Support Him?" As a matter of good conscience, the answer looks increasingly like no, a Catholic can't support Obama. And as a matter of political fact--well, that's starting to look like no, as well, isn't it?"

Of course, it's better to earn this conclusion after following Bottum's extended analysis.

If you don't agree with Bottum's conclusion, please at least read the entirety of his piece before objecting.