Update: Dominican sister caught volunteering at abortion clinic censured by congregation

Last week I blogged about the outrageous episode of Dominican Sister Donna Quinn's volunteer work at an abortion clinic being exposed.

I urged AmP readers to take action and email her superior, Sr. Patricia Mulcahey, OP. No doubt in part because of your efforts, Sr. Mulcahey has now responded on behalf of her congregation:

From Pat Mulcahy, Prioress of the Sinsinaw Dominicans On Behalf of Council Members, Erica, Howard, Jo, Liz, Mary Ellen, Sue, Tere

Public Statement of the Sinsinawa Dominican Congregation

"Several months ago the leadership of the Sinsinawa Dominicans was informed that Sr. Donna Quinn, OP, acted as a volunteer escort at a Chicago area clinic that among other procedures, performs abortions.

After investigating the allegation, Congregation leaders have informed Sr. Donna that her actions are in violation of her profession as a Dominican religious. They regret that her actions have created controversy and resulted in public scandal. They are working with Sr. Donna to resolve the matter appropriately."

Congregation leaders offer the following statement on behalf of members of the Congregation:

"We as Sinsinawa Dominican women are called to proclaim the Gospel through the ministry of preaching and teaching to participate in the building of a holy and just society. As Dominican religious, we fully support the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the dignity and value of every human life from conception to natural death. We believe that abortion is an act of violence that destroys the life of the unborn. We do not engage in activity that witnesses to support of abortion."

This response is a start, but it is still lacking.

It is clear that the congregation and Sr. Mulcahey are under great pressure, otherwise they probably would never have taken any action against Sr. Donna. Consider Sr. Mulcahey's email response to LifeSiteNews when Sr. Donna's activities were first coming to light:

"[Sr. Mulcahey] in an email response to LSN that [Sr. Donna] sees her volunteer activity as "accompanying women who are verbally abused by protestors. Her stance is that if the protestors were not abusive, she would not be there.""

Evidently Sr. Mulcahey has since re-examined her insane defense of Sr. Donna's activities at an abortion clinic, but she still has to eliminate this sort of language from her new defense: "[Sr. Donna] acted as a volunteer escort at a Chicago area clinic that among other procedures, performs abortions."

... "among other procedures"?! This sort of verbal hedging about what goes on at abortion clinics is something I'm used to hearing from ... abortion clinic workers, not religious sisters!

Nonetheless, as I wrote, it's hard to imagine Sr. Donna ever being ordered to cease her scandalous activities unless someone paid attention, and you (and many others) had demanded that something be done about it. So well done, papists.

Now let us continue to pray for the conversion of these sisters' hearts.

Sick: Anti-aging skincare product uses aborted fetal tissue

From Jim Hoft at First Things, something you probably shouldn't read before lunch:

"This is just gruesome. A skincare company has started using aborted fetal tissue in its anti-aging skincare cream.Christian News Wire has the report.

Sure enough. Neocutis describes their Processed Skin Cell Proteins (PCP) used in their anti-aging creams on their website. From the Website:

"Through years of research, physicians discovered fetal skin has a unique ability to heal wounds without scarring. Inspired by this, medical researchers at the University Hospital of Lausanne, Switzerland created a biotechnology process to extract the rich proteins responsible for scarless wound healing from cultured fetal skin cells. A small biopsy of fetal skin was donated following a one-time medical termination and a dedicated cell bank was established for developing new skin treatments."

The website goes on to console the purchaser: "No additional fetal biopsies will ever be required."

I doubt the people using this anti-aging cream really needed the reassurance.

Related - CNA: "Pro-life group calls for boycott of cosmetics company using aborted fetal cells"

Quote of the Day: Self-appointed George Tiller replacement

Dr. LeRoy Carhart, friend of the late abortionist George Tiller, on why he wants to take over Tiller's late-term abortion practice:

"I have abortion on the front of this building, because I think abortion isn't a four-letter word. It's a part of life."

Further cognitive dissonance:

[Carhart] who once wanted to be a preacher, stopped going to church around 1989, for his own safety. He found a different calling.

Tomorrow, just before and after performing abortions, Carhart will pray at the bedside of his patients. (CNN)

I can't help but think of Isaiah 5:20-21 - "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil, who change darkness into light, and light into darkness ... Woe to those who are wise in their own sight, and prudent in their own esteem!"

At least, I hope it's self-deception at work:

Carhart doesn't mask his language. He's open and honest about what he does, sometimes uncomfortably so.

"We do kill fetuses," he says. "It dies because we give an injection into the fetus that causes the heart to just slowdown."

That's like saying, "Yes, I killed him, I held his head under water until his breathing just slowed down."

There's another name for that: murder.

Politics: Pelosi attacks Democrat Stupak to keep abortion funding

It's a sad day when our Catholic Speaker (Nancy Pelosi) continues to exert pressure on another Catholic representative (Bart Stupak) when the only "crime" he is guilty of is trying to make health care reform pro-life:

"Rep. Bart Stupak said Speaker Pelosi is not pleased with his effort to change abortion-related provisions in the healthcare bill being crafted by the House.

During an interview on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal" show, Stupak (D-Mich.) said he is undeterred in trying to ensure that taxpayer dollars do not pay for abortions. Stupak, who opposes abortion rights, acknowledged that some in his party are upset with his public campaign to change the bill.

"The Speaker is not happy with me," Stupak said.

However, the Michigan Democrat said he will not be backing down: "I'm comfortable with where I'm at. This is who I am. It's reflective of my district. If it costs me my seat, so be it."

A portion of the interview can be accessed here. The entire interview can be seen here." (The Hill)

NARAL Pro-Choice America calls Stupak's actions a "shameful abortion ban plot."

In their email fundraising, they claim Stupak and others are trying to "impose an abortion ban on private insurance plans in the reformed health system." They go on to claim: "Millions of women could lose coverage they already have."

Well ... it should come as no surprise to AmP readers that NARAL's claims are a lie. Pro-lifers are trying to only maintain the status quo when it comes to abortion funding, and yet pro-aborts are claiming we are trying to make pro-life inroads in our amendments. 

I wish we were, but given the landscape, the best we can do is try to hold the line. And even those amendments are being voted down at every turn. 

===

Also, on a somewhat related note, I have it on good authority that Nancy Pelosi continues to attend Mass and receive communion here in Washington DC. As recently as this past Sunday.

Pelosi: campaigning for anti-life legislation for one day, receiving Communion the next.

There really is no excuse.

Outrageous: Nun volunteers at abortion clinic - and what can be done about it

Not only has this dominican nun been volunteering at abortion clinics for "at least six years", but her religious superior is actually defending her choice even now that it is under public scrutiny!

"A Dominican nun has been seen frequenting an abortion facility in Illinois recently - but not, as one might expect, to pray for an end to abortion or to counsel women seeking abortions, but to volunteer as a clinic escort.

Local pro-life activists say that they recognized the escort at the ACU Health Center as Sr. Donna Quinn, a nun outspokenly in favor of legalized abortion, after seeing her photo in a Chicago Tribune article.

... Sr. Donna Quinn, OP, is renowned in the Chicago area as an advocate for legalized abortion and other liberal issues.

... Sr. Patricia Mulcahey, OP, Quinn's Prioress at the Sinsinawa Dominican community, said in an email response to LSN that the nun sees her volunteer activity as "accompanying women who are verbally abused by protestors. Her stance is that if the protestors were not abusive, she would not be there." (LSN)

My father, Canon Lawyer Ed Peters, lays out at least three provisions in Canon Law which could be grounds for Sr. Donna's dismissal from the religious life.

Action items:

• LifeSite news is asking for individuals to respectfully express concern to the Prioress of the Sinsinawa Dominicans - Sr. Patricia Mulcahey, OP at Spatmul@aol.com.
• I think it is also appropriate to contact the local bishop to make sure he is aware of this scandal. I believe the Sinsinawa Dominicans are in the Diocese of Madison, WI. Their communications director can be contacted at brent.king@straphael.org

House Democrats Have Almost Enough Votes for Pro-Abortion Health Care

A reminder of the political stakes we are facing:

House Democrats said today that they have almost enough votes to get a pro-abortion health care bill through the chamber. The votes they say they have collected include almost enough for the government option, which would expand abortion funding even further.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi asked her top lieutenants this week to conduct a vote count to determine where members of the party stand on HR 3200, which pro-life groups oppose.

Three House committee have approved different versions of the bill, all of which include massive abortion funding and mandates, that Pelosi and top Democrats will meld into one measure.

Congressional Progressive Caucus Chairman Raul Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat, said today that House Democrats have secured about 210 votes for a bill with the controversial public option.

That's just eight votes short of the 218 needed to approve the pro-abortion bill. (Lifenews)

To fill in the picture, it also appears that the Obama Administration is improperly (and illegaly) using the Health and Human Services website to promote these pro-abortion health care bills. Fantastic.

update - worse and worse:

• AP: Abortion divides House Dems in health care debate
• LN: House Democrats Likely Won't Allow Vote to Cut Abortion From Health Care Bill

Record pro-life rally in Spain gathers over a million demonstrators

A spasm of life in the Catholic country of Spain:

A massive crowd of pro-life Spanish citizens captured international headlines Saturday after marching on the country's capital to protest plans to loosen abortion restrictions in the country.

Estimates for the numbers of those in attendance varied, with mainstream media such as CNN and the New York Times reporting simply "thousands" or "tens of thousands." However, the Christian Post reports that Madrid's regional government estimated the numbers of attendees at around 1.2 million, and a spokesman for one of the pro-life organizers said 1.5 million people attended. The U.K.'s BBC and numerous other media outlets also put the crowd at over a million. According to Agence France Press, police put the number at 250,000.

... Since 2000, Spain's abortion rate has climbed a whopping 59% - compared to a 10% rise in Britain and France, and falling rates in Italy and Germany - earning Madrid the title of the "abortion Mecca" of Europe from local pro-life leaders. The country now sees the killing of over 100,000 children in the womb each year. As many as 1 out of 5 of its pregnancies end in abortion.

... Saturday's rally also received endorsement by leaders of the Catholic Church in Spain. The Catholic News Agency reports that Bishop Demetrio Fernandez of Tarazona voiced his support for the March last week in a pastoral letter, warning that Europe is 'terminally ill' due to abortion. (LifeSiteNews)

Mature audience: Woman describes performing abortion while pregnant herself

WARNING: this post contains a graphic description of an abortion that may not be appropriate for some individuals. Please read with care.

I think it's important in the debate about abortion to have an honest dialogue about all parties who are involved.

I think this blog, written by a female abortionist, goes far in revealing the sort of extreme cognative dissonance that is necessary for someone to perform abortions. 

And yet, even in this situation, it's impossible for her to avoid her own humanity - and the humanity of the young human person she is destroying:

When I was a little over 18 weeks pregnant with my now pre-school child, I did a second trimester abortion for a patient who was also a little over 18 weeks pregnant. As I reviewed her chart I realised that I was more interested than usual in seeing the fetal parts when I was done, since they would so closely resemble those of my own fetus. 

I went about doing the procedure as usual, removed the laminaria I had placed earlier and confirmed I had adequate dilation. I used electrical suction to remove the amniotic fluid, picked up my forceps and began to remove the fetus in parts, as I always did. I felt lucky that this one was already in the breech position – it would make grasping small parts (legs and arms) a little easier. 

With my first pass of the forceps, I grasped an extremity and began to pull it down. I could see a small foot hanging from the teeth of my forceps. With a quick tug, I separated the leg. Precisely at that moment, I felt a kick – a fluttery “thump, thump” in my own uterus. It was one of the first times I felt fetal movement. There was a leg and foot in my forceps, and a “thump, thump” in my abdomen. 

Instantly, tears were streaming from my eyes – without me – meaning my conscious brain - even being aware of what was going on. I felt as if my response had come entirely from my body, bypassing my usual cognitive processing completely. A message seemed to travel from my hand and my uterus to my tear ducts. It was an overwhelming feeling – a brutally visceral response – heartfelt and unmediated by my training or my feminist pro-choice politics. 

It was one of the more raw moments in my life. Doing second trimester abortions did not get easier after my pregnancy; in fact, dealing with little infant parts of my born baby only made dealing with dismembered fetal parts sadder.

... and yet, she continues to perform abortions to this day.

There are several more examples in the same post of similar, incomprehensible thoughts and experiences related by the abortionist-writer.

If anything we've ever read has convinced us we need to pray for an end to an abortion, for the conversion of those who perform them, and work with greater self-conviction in the knowledge that our cause is just and desperately-needed in this world ... this was it.

Update: Two more pro-life defeats in the Senate

Steven Ertelt does an exceptionally good job on keeping us up-to-date on the exceptionally bad things happening in Congress these days:

• Senate Panel Defeats Amendment to Protect Pro-Life Medical Workers on Abortion
• Senate Panel Rejects Amendment to Cut Abortion Funding From Baucus Health Care Bill

Remember - Catholics elected the people who are making these anti-life decisions.

Outrageous: "Planned Parenthood Gives George Tiller Top Award"

From the epically-bad-taste category, comes this story:

The International Federation of Planned Parenthood Foundation gave slain late-term abortion practitioner George Tiller its highest award over the weekend. The international abortion business honored Tiller posthumously in Washington months after he was shot and killed in his Kansas church.

Planned Parenthood gave Tiller its Medal of Honor for "outstanding individual contribution to sexual and reproductive health." (LifeNews)

Imagine for a moment the worldview the people who thought this would be a good idea must have.

Incredible.

Obama: On Douglas Kmiec's complete moral meltdown

Prof. Douglas Kmiec of Pepperdine University was the most visible Catholic apologist for Barack Obama in last year's presidential election. During that time, I frequently blogged about my profound disagreement with his pro-Obama advocacy, stemming from a false articulation and exposition of Catholic prudential principles.

After Obama was elected, Dr. Kmiec was awarded the ambassadorship to the Catholic nation of Malta.

Now, in his first interview with the Times of Malta, Dr. Kmiec displays what I can only describe as a complete intellectual meltdown. He describes his first encounter with Mr. Obama:

Even though there were areas of disagreement, Mr Obama pointed out the responsibility of government to provide a family wage, to care for the environment and to provide healthcare for the uninsured.

"When I thought about all these things, I thought 'this is my catechism come to life' because we are called to each of these things in the social teachings of the Church."

It is for that reason, Prof. Kmiec says, that he was convinced he had found a person of intelligence who had articulated a set of views and policies he could easily support.

Come again - the most pro-abortion, pro-same-sex marriage president in history, and Dr. Kmiec sees him as a "catechism come to life"? By that definition, what pro-abortion, pro-same-sex marriage politician is not a catechism come to life? Does Dr. Kmiec have no sense of objective assessment? Do words and actions mean anything to him? Or is someone "pro-life" simply through a subjective self-assessment with no correspondence to reality?

Dr. Kmiec's support of Obama has become more extreme as the evidence to support his views about the President have become more impossible to substantiate. If Dr. Kmiec truly thought this about Mr. Obama when he first met him, why did he withhold such high praise until now?

I would suggest it is because Dr. Kmiec is going for broke. After all, no one takes him seriously now who does not already agree with his unstated first principles (that abortion is a reality we just have to "live with", for instance) - so why not become explicit about how warped is his integration of Catholic moral teaching and prudential instruction?

I mean, what other conclusion can one come to when you read passages like this:

Prof. Kmiec admits that this approach to abortion is not the ideal solution, saying that poverty or not being married is no excuse to take the life of a child. However, he believes one should be realistic about the problem and if the abortion rate could be reduced - and some studies point out that tackling poverty could lead to fewer abortions - "this seems to me a good interim step".

"I prayed on this," he explains, pointing out that Pope John Paul II had said that Catholics must be clear on their stand on abortion but also that people in political life could sometimes do less than they would like to do as long as there were moves towards the protection of life.

"Mr Obama has taken some steps towards this, perhaps not as fast as some would like," he says.

This is delusional. Mr. Obama has "taken steps towards the protection of life ... not as fast as some would like" in Dr. Kmiec's view? In fact, Mr. Obama has taken steps in the opposite direction. And fast.

Consider: Mr. Obama has chosen to fund oversees abortions at US taxpayer expense. He has destroyed President Bush's faith advisory board and populated it with pro-abortion representatives. He has appointed not a single pro-life Catholic or political figure to any position of responsibility in his administration. He continues to lie about the existence of abortion provision in his multiple health care provisions (a fact verified by multiple mainstream news media organizations). He has not lifted a single finger when Democrats in Congress have thwarted repeated attempts by Republicans to exclude the expansion of abortion funding and coverage from these health care plans. He has not put a single conscience clause provision into writing. His Democrat-controlled Congress is poised to pass legislation that will drastically expand the federal funding which Planned Parenthood and other abortion mega-providers will receive annually. He has ended the federal ban on embryonic stem cell research. And these concrete examples are only those which come immediately to mind.

I was at the debate on life issues between Dr. Kmiec and Dr. Robert George at the National Press Club here in Washington DC earlier this summer. At one point, Dr. George asked Dr. Kmiec to name a single pro-life initiative that Dr. Kmiec knew Mr. Obama has proposed or supported. Dr. Kmiec could not. Several months down the road, there is still nothing one can point to. There is even more one can point to as evidence that Mr. Obama is not pro-life or pro-marriage. He has never made any secret of his pro-abortion stance. It is pitiful to defend someone who sees no point in defending himself on these and other issues.

This interview is also pitiful, as are the continued attempts by pro-Obama Catholics who try to argue that Mr. Obama - despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary - is a pro-life politician, or is a good example of a "catechism come to life." But Dr. Kmiec and his friends have learned that the best way to lie, is to repeat the lie.

And so, here we are, with more lies, or at least delusion.

Either way, I hope that sane individuals who have witnessed Kmiec's meltdown are taking note.

Pro-Environmentalist and Pro-Contraception forces finally join hands

For some time I've been waiting for this to happen. Here's why: the radical environmentalist movement is fundamentally an anti-humanist movement, because it blames human activity for environmental problems facing the world, and sees the good of the "earth" as trumping the good of human existence and flourishing.

So what's their solution to human-caused problems, especially when they are unavoidable? 

Simple: reduce the number of humans.

Once you understand that conclusion, headlines and articles like this UK Telegraph one make perfect (perverted) sense:

'Contraception cheapest way to combat climate change'

Contraception is almost five times cheaper as a means of preventing climate change than conventional green technologies, according to research by the London School of Economics.

Every £4 spent on family planning over the next four decades would reduce global CO2 emissions by more than a ton, whereas a minimum of £19 would have to be spent on low-carbon technologies to achieve the same result, the research says.

The report, Fewer Emitter, Lower Emissions, Less Cost, concludes that family planning should be seen as one of the primary methods of emissions reduction. The UN estimates that 40 per cent of all pregnancies worldwide are unintended.

... UN data suggests that meeting unmet need for family planning would reduce unintended births by 72 per cent, reducing projected world population in 2050 by half a billion to 8.64 [b]illion.

Did you catch that? 500,000,000 less people. And some individuals think this is a good thing! Even though it's well proven that there are plenty of resources to feed such a population.

This is the brave new world envisioned by these radical pro-environmentalist figures: a depopulated world in the future, and a lifestyle of illogical limitation for those already living.

This is an ideology we Christians, as a people of hope and trust in God, must defeat.

Hypocrite: Fr. Jenkins still showing no mercy to Notre Dame protesters

Ever notice how people who talk about "tolerance" and "understanding" when they feel persecuted show precious little of either when it's their turn in power?

That's exactly what Fr. Jenkins is doing now. 

After being roundly criticized by bishops and faithful alike for inviting Barack Obama to give the commencement address at Notre Dame earlier this year, Fr. Jenkins is now doing precisely nothing to help the plight of over 88 peaceful pro-life protesters who were arrested on Notre Dame's campus in the weeks leading up to Obama's arrival (I blogged about their situation back in June).

Thomas Brejcha, a Notre Dame alum and president of the Thomas More Pro-Life Law Center has penned an open letter to Fr. Jenkins:

I’m writing you, as president of Notre Dame, my alma mater, with an urgent plea that you drop the criminal trespass charges that have been pending against the many defendants – most of whom are faithful, fervent pro-life Catholics – who “dared” to venture onto Notre Dame’s campus last Spring, 2009, to bear peaceful, prayerful witness to the sanctity of all human life, from conception to natural death. 

... All were arrested, handcuffed, and hauled off to jail where they spent the night and sometimes longer in custody.

Surely that protracted detention and the humbling impact of a public arrest on trying to enter the campus of America’s premier Catholic university was enough of a penalty to offset whatever “injury” or “insult” these good people inflicted on Notre Dame’s property rights.

So, it was shocking to hear that the charges were not quickly dropped, and an even worse surprise to hear that these good Catholics had to return to South Bend to enter their pleas of “not guilty” and then again to demand jury trials.

When the St. Joseph County prosecutor backed off the latter demand, we were yet more deeply aggrieved on hearing, Fr. Jenkins, that you had responded to a request that the charges be dropped by claiming that “it is out of [your] hands.”

With respect, Father, the future of these cases – if they must go on – is squarely in your hands. Notre Dame is the complainant. Its security personnel directed and/or conducted the arrests, pointing out those who would be arrested (pro-lifers) and those who would not (those carrying pro-Obama signs and/or taunting the pro-lifers).

Participation of Notre Dame witnesses will be essential if these 88 cases – all of which are to be scheduled for jury trials – actually go forward. Some defenses that already have been raised by initial trial counsel – e.g., Catholics’ access to the Sacred Heart Basilica on campus – also would require Notre Dame witnesses’ involvement in the trials.

So much for tolerance, forgiveness and finding common ground.

Fr. Jenkins ought to be ashamed.

Judge says SD doctors must say abortion ends life

An important development (sorry to be a few days late on the notice - this from the Associated Press:)

A federal judge upheld part of a South Dakota law that requires women to be told abortion ends a human life, but struck down disclosures that the procedure increases the likelihood of suicide and that they have an existing relationship with the fetus.

U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier's decision Thursday ends a lawsuit that Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota filed in response to a 2005 informed consent law that required several disclosures to women seeking an abortion.

She sided with the state in ruling that doctors must make the biological disclosure "that the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being."

But Schreier said doctors can provide more information than the language in the statute, including that the term can be used in a biological sense and not ideological.

Schreier ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood by concluding that pregnant women do not need to be told abortion increases the likelihood of suicide or that they have an existing relationship with the fetus.

Both sides claimed victory.

Then again, Planned Parenthood has always been comfortable with the fact that abortion "will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being".

I'm not comfortable with that.

Planned Parenthood is also busy trying to sneak into schools under Obamacare.

Related:

• LifeNews: South Dakota Abortion Centers Must Tell Women Abortion Kills Children
• LifeSiteNews: Women in SD Must be Told Unborn Child is a Human Being: Federal Judge

Sick: Woman stabbed after refusing abortion

So evil:

A Southbridge teenager is being held on $500,000 bail for allegedly stabbing his pregnant girlfriend several times because she refused to get an abortion.

Police said 18-year-old Alex Santana attacked Leah Diver at about 2:30 a.m. Friday during an argument over the pregnancy.

The 28-year-old Diver is in critical condition at a Worcester hospital. Police say the fetus survived. (Boston Herald)

Sadly the reporter can't bring himself to say: "The baby is still living."

Because, if he said that, it would admit that abortion kills something living.

In fact, the legal "awkwardness" between Roe v. Wade and the reality that unborn children are living human beings is revealed to poignant effect by the story of a mom who "wants her twin fetuses recognized as children."

For a society that is (rightfully) concerned for women's issues, it is amazing that we tolerate a legal system which formally denies that a woman who has unintentionally lost a fetus has suffered the death of her child.

Politics: Lies, and the Obama who tells them, and the Faux Catholics who let him

I like to consider myself a patient guy.

But this sort of stuff is infuriating to me:

• Obama, in his own BlogTalkRadio discussion with the "American Faith Community", cited the claim of funding of abortion as one example of the false claims that are being circulated by critics of his health care reform initiative."
• Obama's campaign organization - which is still alive and kicking months after his election into office - is humming the same false tune.

Now, the majority of Americans understand that abortion coverage is in the health care reform bill. This despite mainstream media organizations trying to deny and downplay it, and despite Obama's massive spin campaign.

But what really gets me about all this is how various fake Catholic organizations are helping Obama and his surrogates lie. Jack Smith is hot on their trail:

"The administration's ploy throughout the campaign and his presidency has been to seek or invent amenable decoys for the actual voices in faith communities that oppose his radical anti-life agenda. Many of these decoys are pure hacks like the folks at Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance. This is a shameful exercise by an American administration to displace legitimate political opposition by substituting staged conversations with supporters faking as faith groups - and presenting an in-house love fest as concensus building."

Obama and his supporters have perfected the tactic of claiming the other side is doing what they do better. In this case, Obama and his supporters have been shouting from the rooftops that the otherside is making up stories about what is in the current health care proposals.

Well, the joke is on us, because on the issue of abortion in health care, it's Obama and his supporters who are making. stuff. up.

Here are six facts which prove abortion is in the current health care legislation.

Can anyone imagine abortion not being included in this plan, which is predominantly supported by the left and far left, who take abortion-on-demand as a human right and (often) argue that universal health care is a human right?! The fact that they are silent on this issue logically means we must be vocal.

I'm all for arguing matters of prudence, for debating differences of opinion, for contrasting competing political viewpoints, but seriously .... this is a simple matter of facts. And the fact is that abortion is in health care. And shame on Obama, his surrogates and especially some Catholics for denying it.

A very simple way to answer the abortion-in-health-care question

Even my post of this morning does not quite clear up the question about the degree to which abortion is covered/mandated/funded in the proposed government plan/proposed government regulation of private health care insurance.

Dan Gilgoff, who tries to look at both sides of this issue, can't find a definitive answer.

My opinion is that we're making this way too complicated.

What we have to realize is that proponents of abortion access will not be satisfied until abortion is completely mainstream and commonplace. They have long sought to define access to abortion as a feature of basic health care - no different than having your tonsils out.

If the new proposals for government-run health care and government regulation of private insurance did not leave the door open to universal abortion access and coverage, the pro-aborts wouldn't be doing their job. The only reason they are actively seeking to keep the health care bills unchanged is because they are happy with what they see. If they were unsatisfied, after all, they would use their tremendous resources to get the bills changed more to their liking.

Instead, because the new proposals will allow them to sneak in abortion access and funding in some permutation later, they are actively attacking those who are trying to sound the alarm now, notably the Family Research Council.

To make my point one last time, an abortion-neutral or abortion-restrictive proposal would be a step back for their agenda. And so as long as they are content with what is moving forward, we should be gravely concerned.

Text: My response to Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL

Nancy Keenan, the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, wrote a letter to the editor and published it in Politico yesterday (ph/t Salon) in response to a piece by Tony Perkins of Family Research Council (available here):

"Tony Perkins took 729 words to obscure a simple fact: What he and his allies are demanding is a new nationwide abortion ban in the private health insurance market (“Keep Abortion Funding Out of Health Care Reform,” July 28).

Today, private plans can choose whether to cover the service — and most do. If Perkins succeeds, women who purchase private insurance that now covers abortion services will lose that coverage.

The bills moving through Congress now do not reference abortion, so it’s obvious that Perkins is injecting this issue unnecessarily into the health reform debate in hopes that it will bring down the whole endeavor. That’s outrageous."

Here is my response, which I will try to have published on Politico:

Nancy Keenan took 106 words to cover-up a simple agenda. What she and her allies want is the greatest expansion of federally-funded abortions since Roe v. Wade. She is incorrect in claiming that Tony Perkins is "demanding ... a new nationwide abortion ban in the private health insurance market." Instead, he wants health care reform to respect existing laws which prevent federal funds from paying for abortions. The difference is that Perkins says his goal, while Keenan hides her own.

Keenan incorrectly claims that Perkins wants women to lose their private insurance coverage of abortion. Instead, Perkins is only talking about the government's proposed public plan, which is not private insurance. It is one thing for private individuals to decide what their money pays for (such as abortion coverage in private insurance), it is another for government to force taxpayers to pay for abortion, to the exclusion of existing laws which the majority of Americans support.

Perkins is not "injecting" the issue of federally-funded abortion into the bill, like Keenan claims. Otherwise, why have Democrats resisted every attempt to have abortion coverage excluded? If there is anything outrageous here, it is Keenan's efforts to obscure the facts.

I'll update this post if my response is published.

Prof. Kaveny needs a re-write on Pope and President

University of Notre Dame Law School:

M. Cathleen Kaveny, John P. Murphy Foundation Professor of Law and professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame, addressed the question “Why does the American Catholic leadership seem to be focused on abortion, while the Vatican appears willing to view that issue as merely one among many on which to judge a political leader?” in a New York Times blog.

Evidently, on a planet far, far away, Obama is still the man he claimed to be in his campaign ads. Sadly, the far, far away planet is the writing dens of notable, liberal Catholic academics like Prof. Kaveny. Well, I would challenge her that she needs to update her fact sheet and move beyond the campaign rhetoric of Mr. Obama and actually take a look at the facts. Reality, after all, has a habit of exploding poor arguments.

Reading through her comments, she makes a very convincing case - if we didn't have the experience of the last six months to jolt us out of these false hopes. Let's take a look at a few of her claims with red correction pen in hand:

From different vantage points, [the pope and president] are both grappling with the same challenge: how to protect and promote human dignity in an era of increased globalization, how to work together to solve the problems like the worldwide economic crisis, global warming, and food insecurity.

Let's see, so far Mr. Obama has repealed the Mexico City Policy (funding oversees abortions), removed restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, passed a failed cap-and-trade bill which has negligible international environmental impact at huge domestic cost, allowed an abortion mandate into his socialized health care policy, and - in the eyes of many - failed to support the people of Iran and Honduras in their struggle for a more just government.

Yes, the two men may be grappling with the same challenge, but how has Mr. Obama performed? Politics is absolutely about different groups seeking to right the same problem, but what matters is who comes up with the better solution, and who follows-through. Prof. Kaveny can assign the same legal problem to all of her students, but only those who reach the correct conclusions should receive high marks. Prof. Kaveny wants to give Mr. Obama a perfect score for just walking into the classroom. 

The Vatican, in my view, respects Mr. Obama as a man of moral seriousness, who in turn respects those who disagree with him on serious moral issues such as abortion.

Okay, can I ask an awkward question? Just what the heck does "moral seriousness" mean? No one, to my knowledge, is claiming that Mr. Obama is a morally "unserious", as if he's some sort of clown. We can all agree someone is morally "serious" and still conclude that they are philosophically, prudentially wrong. Prof. Kaveny is a legal scholar - would she give a student an "A" simply for being "morally serious" were he or she to make a legal claim in an academic paper for chattel slavery being just? Of course not! All the "moral seriousness" in the world isn't worth a hill of beans if you are seriously wrong in your moral conclusions.

Cardinal Cottier is impressed by the fact that Mr. Obama recognizes the tragic nature of the abortion choice, and the fact that he is committed to finding ways to reduce the need for — and therefore the numbers of — abortions. He highlights that Mr. Obama is committed to protecting the consciences of healthcare workers who morally opposed to abortion.

First of all, Prof. Kaveny is happy to selectively quote Vatican officials, finding the ones that she thinks supports her argument. But second of all,  Mr. Obama has never - to my knowledge - committed himself to reducing the number of abortions. That would mean he has to admit there is a problem with a woman expressing her "choice" to have an abortion. And he is too much enmeshed in the pro-abortion agenda to ever say that. And just try to make the point with an abortion advocate that reducing the need for abortions equals reducing the number. They will never admit this, for the same reasons Mr. Obama cannot and has not. Finally, search the new health care bill for a "robust conscience clause." It doesn't exist. So what world is Prof. Kaveny still living in? It doesn't look much like the real one you and I are inhabiting. 

Prof. Kaveny, in other words, makes two claims without providing any proof for them. And she also commits a logical fallacy when she presumes that reducing the need for abortions would result in reducing the number of them. It's almost as if she has never engaged a pro-abortion advocate in debate on this issue. Abstract conclusions make little difference when we are facing practical problems with real people. Especially these abstractions are contradicted by the concrete details.

Okay, three points seems enough. Of course, there are other areas where I profoundly disagree with Prof. Kaveny's essay. To conclude, she needs to update her talking points and respond somehow to the actual events which have transpired in the last six months. Until some liberal Catholic can do that, we're still playing word games. Just like Mr. Obama wants to see us do.

NY hospital tried to force nurse to help with late-term abortion

A sad preview of the future unless something is done:

A New York City hospital is the subject of a lawsuit after allegations that it attempted to force a nurse to participate in a late-term abortion. Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed a lawsuit yesterday against Mount Sinai Hospital on behalf of a Catholic nurse who says she told the hospital about her objections.

Since 2004, officials at Mount Sinai Hospital knew that Cathy Cenzon-DeCarlo had deeply-felt pro-life views and would not consent to assisting in an abortion.

That didn't stop hospital officials from threatening her with disciplinary measures if she did not honor a last-minute summons to assist in a scheduled late-term abortion.

Despite the fact that the patient was not in crisis at the time of the surgery, the hospital insisted on her participation in the procedure on the grounds that it was an “emergency."

Federal laws prohibit hospitals that receive federal funds from forcing employees to participate in abortion procedures under any circumstances but that apparently didn't stop Mount Sinai Hospital from asking Cenzon-DeCarlo to join in the abortion of the 22-week-old unborn child.

ADF Legal Counsel Matt Bowman talked with LifeNews.com about the case.

“Pro-life nurses shouldn't be forced to assist in abortions against their beliefs,” he said. “Requiring a devout, Catholic nurse to participate in a late-term abortion in order to remain employed is illegal, unethical, and violates her rights of conscience." (LifeNews) (ADF)

If Obama doesn't follow through on his promise, we can look forward to removing the description of "illegal" from this action which remains gravely "unethical" because it violates the conscience of the pro-life nurse.

Catholic Common Ground: Reject the DeLauro-Ryan bill

Working in DC politics I get to observe a lot of situations which frustrate me, but this concerted effort to deceive pro-lifers into supporting a bill which hurts the cause of life in America gets me angry.

What especially angers me is how the Catholic pro-life movement is treated by pro-abortion supporters of this bill. Just read what "Catholics for Choice" president Jon O'Brien wrote:

"Not everybody agrees with the bill. The nation's 400 Catholic bishops have not signed on. However, we should remember that their 400 votes count for little when taken beside the nation's 67.5 million Catholics--the majority of whom will support the bill's provisions."

Excuse me? Is this sort of argument supposed to appeal to me as a faithful Catholic?

The USCCB Prolife office has taken the extraordinary (and needed) step of forcefully repudiating the claims of DeLauro-Ryan bill supporters:

Let the Taxpayers Beware!

It should be called the Planned Parenthood Economic Stimulus Package of 2009.

Instead, co-sponsors Tim Ryan (D-OH) and Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) have given their “new” (though largely recycled) bill the promising title “Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act.” Sponsors describe the bill as a “common ground” approach to reducing unintended pregnancies and abortions, one that should appeal to opposing sides in the abortion debate.

Sure, the bill is dressed up with some funding for after-school programs, and some (very poorly crafted) efforts to provide support for pregnant students. But make no mistake. The bill is “about access to birth control,” according to Congressman Ryan (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” May 19, 2009). In the same interview, Ryan explained: “We have to have birth control and contraception offered to these poor women who don’t have access to contraception, period, dot. There’s no other way we’re going to be able to reduce [abortions].” About what you’d expect in a bill whose co-sponsors enjoy a 100% pro-choice rating from NARAL.

... let your member of Congress know that the Ryan/DeLauro bill cannot fulfill the promises in its title. The real abortion-reduction bill in Congress now is the Pregnant Women Support Act (S.1032, H.R.2035), which needs our support.

I wrote earlier today about a chance to defund Planned Parenthood subsidies in the new Health and Human Services fund allocations. Faithful Catholics should also reject the Ryan/DeLauro bill as a deceptive ploy to give more money to big business abortion.

update: for the record, Rep. Tim Ryan deserves especial blame here, as Jack Smith points out:

Rep. Tim Ryan is not prolife. In the current and last sessions of Congress Tim Ryan had the exact same voting score from National Right to Life as Rosa DeLauro - 0. While once prolife, Ryan's record is now as extreme on abortion as Rep. DeLauro and Senator Barbara Boxer - supporting even taxpayer funding of abortion in DC.

The lie that Tim Ryan is prolife is very convenient for the true backers of the "Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act". Planned Parenthood and NARAL can say the bill represents "common ground". But claiming the bill is "common ground" and that Ryan is prolife are both lies.

Obama on federal funding for abortion: "Let's not get distracted"

Yesterday Katie Couric asked Obama the question that Catholics and other Americans are very worried about:

Katie Couric: Do you favor a government option that would cover abortions?

President Obama: What I think is important, at this stage, is not trying to micromanage what benefits are covered. Because I think we're still trying to get a framework. And my main focus is making sure that people have the options of high quality care at the lowest possible price.

As you know, I'm pro choice. But I think we also have a tradition of, in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government funded health care. Rather than wade into that issue at this point, I think that it's appropriate for us to figure out how to just deliver on the cost savings, and not get distracted by the abortion debate at this station. (CBS)

I explain why I think Obama's response is deeply flawed over at this American Principles blog entry.

Briefly: how are we to take seriously Obama's claim that he wants to reduce the number of abortions in America when his attitude about the single-greatest expansion of abortion access in our nation's history is ... "let's not get distracted"?!

update: and now that I think about it for a few more seconds- if Obama doesn't want abortion to "distract" us, why not simply rule out covering them with taxpayer dollars? That strikes me as a very simple fix.

Politics: Infanticide-promoter Peter Singer argues for rationing health care

Peter Singer, a eugenicist who believes in infanticide, takes to the pages of the New York Times magazine to advocate rationing health care for you and me:

"Rationing health care means getting value for the billions we are spending by setting limits on which treatments should be paid for from the public purse. If we ration we won’t be writing blank checks to pharmaceutical companies for their patented drugs, nor paying for whatever procedures doctors choose to recommend. When public funds subsidize health care or provide it directly, it is crazy not to try to get value for money. The debate over health care reform in the United States should start from the premise that some form of health care rationing is both inescapable and desirable. Then we can ask, What is the best way to do it?"

Who would honestly want to be on the same side of a debate as Peter Singer?

This is a man who admitted that if it was up to him, he might have pulled the plug on his sick mother (luckily his sister had joint care of her and wouldn't allow it). There is also some disagreement that he actually helped pay for his mother's health care costs - which contradicts his utilitarian philosophy.

So either he is a hypocrite or a monster. And I'm disturbed that he likes Obama's socialized health care plan. With advocates like that, who needs critics?

Study: Unborn babies can form memories by 30 weeks

And, as NewsBusters reports, ABC's Good Morning America is careful to keep these scientific results separate from the fact that, in this country, it is legal to kill a 30-week-old human being that can, among many other human activities, form memories:

A new study found that unborn babies may start to develop memories as early as thirty weeks into a pregnancy, but ABC’s “Good Morning America” ignored the study’s potential impact on the abortion debate, especially concerning late term abortion.

Reporter Sharyn Alfonsi’s July 15 segment covered the pivotal study without even mentioning abortion. Anchor Chris Cuomo attempted to broach the issue during a follow-up interview but fell short.

Alfonsi touted the study, “Day by day, a fetus goes through remarkable changes. By 30 weeks, opening and closing their eyes. Making facial expressions. And now, a new study reveals, forming memories. Yep, barely three pounds, but already able to remember. For the study, researchers used a fetal monitor to make a buzzing sound against a mother's belly. The noise and vibrations startle the fetus and it typically reacts by moving. But with repeated applications of the buzzing the fetus learns its okay and does not have to react. And four weeks later, when the fetus is buzzed again, many don't react at all, because researchers say they now remember the sound.” [Read on...]

In 2005, for instance, over 15,000 abortions occurred past the 20-week mark in the pregnancy.

LifeBusters continues:

So if the study is correct, in many of those cases, the babies aborted were developed enough to have short- and perhaps long-term memory.“Good Morning America” preferred to focus its report on prenatal care. Alfonsi visited a prenatal yoga class and one pregnant woman said the class was helping her “be more conscious of my own emotional and physical state.”

The memory study, Alfonsi said, “… is proof that we need to be more careful about what experiences we expose babies to in the womb.” Like the experience of, say, murder?

Let's be clear, George Tiller killed unborn children at this late stage of development.

Open topic: New Science Czar Once Backed Forced Abortions?

This is just. plain. scary:

Another nominee of President Barack Obama is coming under fire for taking an extreme position in favor of abortion. This time, John Holdren, whom Obama appointed to become Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, is accused of backing forced abortions and population control.

Holdren will become Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

Informally, the position is known as the Science Czar.

In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, Obama's nominee wrote that women could be forced to have abortions whether they wanted them or not. (LifeNews)

And if you really want your toes to curl, visit this link which provides all the details.

update - in fairness: "Obama’s science czar does not support coercive population control, spokesman says"

Taxdollar-paid abortions are too much for Winters, as they should be

I usually disagree (strongly) with Michael Sean Winters over at America magazine.

Today however, he got an issue (mostly) correct. 

As background, yesterday I laid out very clearly how both the House and Senate versions of Obama's health care bill will allow federal taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions, and how Democrats are trying to hide this fact from the general public.

Three more important points to realize:

1. If left unchanged, this legislation would bring about the biggest expansion in abortion access since Roe v. Wade. The stats clearly show that whenever federal funds are made available for abortions, more abortions happen. It makes Obama's promise to reduce the number of abortions meaningless.
2. A majority of Americans oppose the idea of making all Americans (including those who oppose abortions) pay for procedure. This is an unpopular, left-wing agenda position that the Democrats are sticking to right down the line.
3. Democrats have thwarted several attempts by Republicans to include a clause saying abortions are to be excluded from the covered procedures. The Democrats, in other words, have had many chances to fix this and have categorically chosen to keep abortions under the umbrella of federal funding.

Well, all of the above is too much for Michael Sean Winters, who writes:

"... To be clear: I have never voted for a Republican in my life. My mother told me my right hand would wither and fall to the ground if I did. But, if the President or my representatives in Congress support federal funding for abortion in any way, shape or form, I will never vote for them again and I might risk my right hand in the next election by voting for their opponent.

So, call your Senators and Representatives. Call the White House. Many of us pro-life Democrats have given the President the benefit of the doubt on the abortion issue because of his repeated commitment to trying to lower the abortion rate, a commitment he reiterated to Pope Benedict XVI last week. All the good will he has earned among Catholic swing voters, and all the arguments on his behalf progressive Catholics have mounted, all could be swept away if abortion is part of a federal option in health care. Politics is the art of compromise, but on this point, there can be none."

I could use this as a selfish opportunity to point out that, on multiple occasions, I have exactly predicted that this would happen: that Obama and the Democrat leaders in congress are more chained to the liberal agenda (which necessarily includes unlimited access to abortion, at least according to the current model of Democrat preferment) than they are concerned about promoting an authentic culture of life. 

But I don't care about being right. I care about babies and my tax dollars being spent to kill them, and more of them dying because my tax dollars are available to make that killing less of a hassle.

So, I readily join Michael Sean Winters in drawing this line in the sand. May it be the first of many lines drawn closer and closer to the minimum standards the Gospel of Life calls us to boldly make.

Senate Health Care Plan *does* fund abortions with taxpayer dollars

Pro-abortion advocates in the House and Senate have been trying to hide the fact that, under their new health care plans, taxpayer dollars will be used to fund abortions. It's amazing to watch them try to squirm out of actually admitting it (as reported by FRC):

HATCH: "...Would this include abortion providers? I mean, it looks to me like you're expanding it to... for instance, Planned Parenthood. Would that put them into this system?"
MIKULSKI: "It would include women's health clinics that provide comprehensive services and under the definition of a woman's health clinic, it would include, uh, it would include, uh, Planned, uh, Parenthood clinics. It would, um, it does not expand in any way expand a service. In other words, it does not expand, um, uh, or mandate abortion service."
HATCH: "No, but it would provide for them."
MIKULSKI: "It would provide for any service deemed medically necessary or medically appropriate."
HATCH: "Well, I would have a rough time supporting it on that basis. I just wanted to get that clarified. Thank you."
Later...
HATCH: "Madam Chairman, would you be willing to put some language in [about] not including abortion services? Then I think you would have more support."
MIKULSKI: "...No, I would not, uh, be willing to do that at this time." 

FRC also reports the sad news that an attempt to scratch abortion coverage was defeated 11-12:

Sen. Bob Casey (D-Penn.) was the only Democrat to stand his ground and vote for life. If you'd like to help FRC in this battle to ban taxpayer-funded abortion, log on to our new site, www.clearconsciencehealthcare.org, dedicated to promoting the rights to life and conscience.

Now Planned Parenthood is desperate to get (more) federal money. And here's how they put it:

"We've been deeply concerned that women would be the first targets in health care reform and now it's happened. Yesterday, anti-choice Senator Orrin Hatch launched an attack on Planned Parenthood and the U.S. senators who were trying to help women."

Take a look at this Planned Parenthood claim:

"Instead of telling the truth, [Sen. Hatch] claimed that it mandates abortion coverage in an attempt to drum up opposition. This is an outright lie — and we need your help to fight back."

But if Planned Parenthood is telling the truth, and abortions won't be covered... then why did Sen. Mikulski oppose adding language to explicitly exclude abortions? Because Planned Parenthood is lying.

Jodi Jacobson at my favorite-radical-abortion-agenda-website-to-expose RH Reality Check mimes the Planned Parenthood talking points and claims that abortions won't be covered. Well she's right - abortions aren't covered directly. Abortion providers are covered. But that's not really a difference, is it?

Because the pro-life movement is under fairly constant attack these days for using "incendiary" language, let's extract a few lines from the super-popular liberal blog DailyKos:

[Senator] Hatch! I pay for YOUR health care, I've paid for your health care for years with my tax dollar.

Now, you'd better listen up and get it straight about health care for American women.

And you can take your anti-woman religiosity and stuff it up in your place where the sun never shines.

We American woman are getting mighty tired of the idiotic shenigans of Republican Senators, from David Vitter, the whoremaster of Louisiana, to Larry Craig of Idaho who tap dances in men's bathrooms, to John Ensign of Nevada and his corrupt crony Tom Coburn of Oklahoma who heads the secret sweety payoff to silence committee.

Ah, don't you love that liberal temperate language?

LifeNews recommends taking this action if you are concerned about your tax dollars paying for abortions:

See the members of the committee and send them an email or call them in response to the vote for the pro-abortion Mikulski amendment. Tell them you don't want abortion coverage in health care.

Phone calls are more effective than emails. And don't be scared about picking up the phone - the staff of these offices are used to hearing from the constituents back home. Add your voice.

update: video:

Photo: Criminal stupidity at an abortion clinic

Some individuals have an ideological commitment to abortion, which allows them to permit it and protect those who perform them ... even in circumstances where common sense would be raising red flags everywhere.

Perfect case in point, the crazy (and outrageous) things being perpetrated by an abortion clinic in Rockford, IL:

What people in the world can demonstrate such pathetic math skills (a minor point), such offensive anti-religious attitudes, condone rape and incest, cover-up for sexual predators, and still be permitted a license to engage in medical procedures covered by insurance agencies while enjoying protection under federal and local laws?

The answer: abortionists.

Outrageous: Absolutely vile’ advice column tells men how to pressure pregnant women to abort

Sadly ... tragically ... this is the evil voice I hear behind so much of the radical abortion-on-demand movement:

A men’s advice column advising men how to encourage their pregnant girlfriends to abort provides an unsettling glimpse into the realities of abortion. One pro-life leader characterized the column, which highlights some men’s personal desires to avoid the burdens of parenthood, as “a primer for coerced abortion.”

The advice column was authored by Isabella Snow, who is described as a Sex Education Correspondent. It was published on AskMen.com, a risqué site which claims seven million monthly visitors.

The column is bluntly utilitarian in style, focusing on pregnancy’s and abortion’s effects upon the relationship of a man and a woman. It ends each paragraph of advice with a summarizing tip labeled “prenatal prep.” The avoidance of children and fatherhood is a repeated theme.

Snow begins by noting that while male readers may hope a woman will “stick to the original plan and terminate the pregnancy,” some women may suddenly want to become mothers “despite previous agreements.” She advises the male reader to try to make his girlfriend consider his wants and desires by approaching her “correctly” and taking care with his “presentation.”

Snow advises discussing a possible abortion on a sofa at home to provide intimacy and “reduced eye contact,” purportedly to make it easier for the woman to speak “openly.”

“You’ll also want to take care with your word choice; pregnant women tend to feel like they’re carrying someone, as opposed to something, even if she is just a month or so pregnant,” Snow adds. “You can’t just talk about having an abortion the same way you’d talk about having a cavity filled.” (CNA)

CNA updated their story after publishing it, saying "When CNA attempted on Wednesday to access the article again on Askmen.com, we were redirected to the site's main page."

In other words, there is still enough common sense in some of the world to provoke a sense of shame in those who have long since discarded such emotions in pursuit of utility.

But every once in awhile, the mask is discarded long enough for us to see the selfishness of men which is encouraged, and the exploitation of women that results from a cultural that tries to sever sex from new life.

Huh? Justice Ginsburg thought Roe was to allow government eugenics

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made some shocking comments to the New York Times magazine on Tuesday:

Q: If you were a lawyer again, what would you want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don’t know why this hasn’t been said more often.

Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong. [bolding mine]

What did she just say? That Roe would legalize abortion, and then through Medicaid funding, those abortions would be readily available to "populations that we don't want to have too many of." In other words, primarily low-income persons, and particularly, inner-city african americans, who represent the majority of those who undergo the procedure.

That's despicable, Justice Ginsburg. 

Ed Morrissey has commentary.

Video/commentary: Really, the world needs more contraception?!

Over the past couple weeks I've been focusing on a ploy by pro-aborts to convince pro-lifers to agree on contraception as a "common ground" solution to the abortion rate in America.

Now I disagree strongly that America needs contraception, for many reasons. One of them is demographic. This video has almost 10 million views on YouTube, and while I disagree with the editorial "tone" of the video, the facts it is using are compelling.

Jump farther into it where it begins looking at numbers and predictions.

Now, after seeing that ... do we really think what the world needs is contraception (and abortion)?

I've discussed demographics before at length on AmP, especially back in early 2008:

For any questions about world religions and demographics, Philip Jenkins is the scholar to read. I don't always agree with his ecclesiology, but his knowledge of the worldwide landscape is unparalleled, and especially the situation in Africa. His 2006 article for First Things, "Believing in the Global South" is a good place to start.

For those who are looking for a book-length treatment, one might read "The New Faces of Christianity: Believing the Bible in the Global South", "The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity" or "God's Continent: Christianity, Islam, and Europe's Religious Crisis" (in which he claims that the "Islamification" of Europe is being over-dramatized, but Richard John Neuhaus disagrees).

That's a good place to start reading if you don't believe the West is contracepting itself out of existence.

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?"

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.

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.

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.

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.

Video: Hillary Clinton Advocates Exporting Abortion

From the SuzyB blog:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was questioned by the House Foreign Affairs Committee today. This video shows highlights of the pointed questions by pro-life Representatives Chris Smith and Jeff Fortenberry, as well as Clinton's responses.

Hillary: "... we are now an administration that will protect the rights of women, including their rights to reproductive healthcare."

No change here.

More from the Cathoholic on why this is significant here.

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

Hillary Clinton to receive Margaret Sanger Award from Planned Parenthood

Honestly, I can think of few things more offensive than a "Margaret Sanger Award".

Glad to see our Secretary of State is bending over backwards to receive it:

Doing a rare domestic political event, and continuing the Obama administration's forceful, if understated alliance with abortion-rights groups, Hillary Clinton will receive an award from Planned Parenthood Friday night in Houston, the group says.

"The 2009 Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) Margaret Sanger Award, the organization’s highest honor, will be presented to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has been a champion of women’s health and rights throughout her public service career," according to the release.

Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards is an old Clinton ally, and women's health was a central issue for her in the Senate. Her appearance, though, suggests she's raising her profile a bit beyond what had been, to date, a determined effort to keep her focus entirely on her new portfolio. (Politico)

Family Research Council forcefully (and succinctly) makes the case that it's outrageous for Hillary to accept such an award even if you disagree about abortion. Planned Parenthood engages is many illegal practices, and Margaret Sanger - its founder - was an evil eugenicist. And yet because of Planned Parenthood's financial ties and sympathetic ideology, the organization remains on the inside track of this administration.

Breaking: RNC head Steele says abortion is a "choice"

In an interview with GQ, Michael Steele, the new head of the Republican National Committee says abortion is a choice.

This is very dissapointing news, if it turns out to accurately portray his view on abortion:

How much of your pro-life stance, for you, is informed not just by your Catholic faith but by the fact that you were adopted?
Oh, a lot. Absolutely. I see the power of life in that—I mean, and the power of choice! The thing to keep in mind about it… Uh, you know, I think as a country we get off on these misguided conversations that throw around terms that really misrepresent truth.

Explain that.
The choice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life, or you can choose abortion. You know, my mother chose life. So, you know, I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other.

Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?
Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice.

You do?
Yeah. Absolutely.

Are you saying you don’t want to overturn Roe v. Wade?
I think Roe v. Wade—as a legal matter, Roe v. Wade was a wrongly decided matter.

Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?
The states should make that choice. That’s what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide.

Do pro-choicers have a place in the Republican Party?
Absolutely!

As a Catholic, Mr. Steele should know better.

More from CMR and Politico.

Photo: GQ.

update: Steele, under fire, walks back 'choice' remark (read to the bottom for Tony Perkins comment)

As promised - Obama overturns Bush policy on stem cells

Common ground my asterisk (*):

Reversing Bush policy, President Barack Obama on Monday cleared the way for a significant increase in federal dollars for embryonic stem cell research and promised no scientific data will be "distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda."

Obama signed the executive order on the divisive stem cell issue and a memo addressing what he called scientific integrity before an East Room audience packed with scientists. He laced his remarks with several jabs at the way science was handled by former President George W. Bush. (AP)

Ryan T. Anderson responds in the Weekly Standard: Obama's decision is bad ethics, bad science, and bad politics. Obama at least stopped short of approving cloning.

More from LifeNews:

The following are several news stories related to President Barack Obama's decision to force taxpayers to fund embryonic stemcell research. The research requires the destruction of human life and has never helped a single patient. On the other hand, alternatives are already in use -- including adult stem cells andinduced pluripotent stem cells -- that are helping patients nowwithout killing days-old unborn children....

• President Barack Obama Makes Taxpayers Fund Embryonic Stem CellResearch
• Pro-Life Groups Blast Obama for Funding Research Destroying HumanLife
• Congress May Fight Battle Over Embryo Research After Obama StemCell Order
• Former Head of NIH: Embryonic Stem Cell Research ProspectsDiminished Now
• Obama Funding Embryonic Stem Cell Research Seen as Ideological, Not Scientific

update: The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has released a statement by Cardinal Justin Rigali on President Obama's executive order on embryonic stem cell research.

An Obama Anti-Life Hat Trick

Just to bring your blood to a boil....

1. Obama Takes Next Step to Scrap Protections for Pro-Life Doctors on Abortion

(what we can do: Public Comment on Removing Conscience Protections Starts Today)

2. Obama Expected to Reverse Restrictions on Stem Cell Research Funding Monday

3. Obama's nomination of Kathleen Sebelius to lead Health and Human Services

I'll try to find something hopeful on the horizon to outweigh all this. It's not going to be easy.

(for the record: Joshua Mercer of CatholicVote.org called this a Anti-Life Hat Trick first.)

"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.

More on Sebelius

If you want the short take: "She's just bad news."

If you want the sordid details.... let's start with more words from Abp. Naumann:

“I think if Governor Sebelius was going to be appointed a cabinet post, from my point of view, this is the worst possible one that she could have been appointed to.”

That’s the assessment of Archbishop Joseph {fixed} Naumann of Kansas City in Kansas, who in May 2008 requested that Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius not present herself for reception of Communion because of the public scandal caused by her support for legal abortion. (NCRegister)

[Abp. Naumann also gave an interview to OSV yesterday.]

Kansans for Life has been tracking Sebelius' record for a long time and has reams of information.

As for Brownback's support (blogged about yesterday here) Daniel at GOP3 says Brownback shouldn't sweat it. I would say Brownback should sweat one thing: he caused pro-lifers a grief he could have spared them by more tactfully handling the situation. I hope a lesson is learned here about solidarity. We need that virtue these days.

Related:

• CNA: Obama’s pro-life backers risk usurping bishops by redefining Catholic life
• Dan Gilgoff: Kathleen Sebelius Explains Being a Pro-Choice Pro-Lifer

PP president invited to White House Forum on Health Reform

Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood, makes Obama's short list, not surprisingly.

I wonder what sort of reforms she is in favor of? Here's what she's doing to her own organization.
Related: Pro-Life Groups Left Off Obama's Health Care Summit List, Abortion Advocates OK (LifeNews)

Breaking: Abp. Naumann responds to Sebelius appointment/Brownback endorsement

John Norton at Our Sunday Visitor has an excellent, timely interview with Abp. Naumann on Kathleen Sebelius and Senator Brownback, etc. Some pull quotes follow.

On Sebelius' claims of a "pro-life" record:

Archbishop Naumann: I think that’s very, very dishonest and not at all accurate. It’s true that abortion dropped during her term as governor but I don’t think she really had anything to do with it, although she likes to take credit for it. And in fact, during that time she vetoed measures that could have helped prevent abortion.

On Obama's choice to pick Sebelius, and Sen Brownback's going along with it:

I personally find it offensive that he would choose a pro-legalized-abortion Catholic to head this office. I think, as I interpret Sen. [Sam ] Brownback’s and Sen. [Pat] Roberts’ support of sorts for the nomination — it’s simply saying we elected President Obama with the positions he took. We can’t expect that he’s going to appoint someone to these cabinet positions that do not share his views. And in a sense I can understand that. When there is a pro-life president, we resent if there is an effort to try to prevent the president from appointing people who share his vision. So, I can understand why they might acquiesce, I guess, is the best way to put it, to her appointment.

Finally, as a bonus, what he thinks of the organization Catholics United:

Archbishop Naumann: I don’t think they have much impact and I don’t pay much attention to them personally. And I think from what you just read, they’re either not very honest or they’re not very competent in the research that they do.

Actually, they're both: competent and dishonest. They know what they are doing.

Also, on a related note, Matt Bowman has an excellent article in the American Spectator today:

But the most intriguing component of Sebelius's nomination is her Catholicism. Not that Catholic abortion supporters are rare -- see Obama's failed nominee to HHS, Tom Daschle. But Sebelius is significant as an attempt by Obama to foment a civil war within Catholicism to neutralize its pro-life efforts.

Like a shrewd general, Obama is using Catholics themselves as his ground troops.
Two dozen prominent Obama supporters quickly launched a letter supporting Sebelius, and claiming that they are Catholic and pro-life. The letter's signers are the same liberal Obama Pro-Lifers from his presidential campaign, led by Professor Doug Kmiec and the Soros-funded group "Catholics United."

The first step to responding to these sorts of attacks is to realize that one is being attacked. Kmiec, Sebelius, et al. are making a concerted effort to destroy the connection between being Catholic and pro-life.

"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.

Breaking: Obama moving to overturn conscience regulations

LifeNews:

The White House quietly announced on Friday that President Barack Obama is starting the process of overturning protections President Bush put in place to make sure medical staff and centers are not forced to do abortions. The move is the latest that will add to Obama's growing pro-abortion record.

Existing federal laws already make it so doctors and hospitals are not required to perform abortions. Because those laws aren't always followed, the Bush administration added additional protections.

Now, the Obama administration is Starting the process to remove them.

LA Times: 'Conscience' rule on abortions may be overturned

update: NARAL is happy. That's never a good thing for the unborn children of America.

Ph/t: AmP reader Colleen.

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.

Get ready for a deluge of condoms & other contraceptives

All the pieces are lining up:

"The Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood’s research arm, released a pitch today for more taxpayer funding for ‘family planning services’ – contraception and abortion. Every dollar spent on ‘family planning programs’ saves the American people $4, the study says." - Read a response from the American Life League

LifeNews: "However, the report doesn't appear to square with the facts in places where the number of abortions have been compiled following extensive promotion of family planning."

Ross Douthat: "I admire the persistence with which Will Saletan argues for common ground in the abortion debate, and attempts to sell his fellow liberals on the notion that reducing the abortion rate belongs in the Democratic Party's agenda. But I remain unconvinced that his preferred method for such reductions - a dramatic new push, whether political or cultural, to expand the use of contraception in the United States - would produce anything like the results that he envisions."

"Congress increases "family planning" budget by $95.5 million to whopping $852 million" - Jill Stanek

"Democrats in Congress are not abandoning their overall goal. They plan to push soon for a major funding increase for Title X, the main federal family planning program, as part of broader legislation endorsed by President Barack Obama to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies. The Guttmacher report provides ammunition for those who will advocate the funding increase." - AP

"Boston College Students Vote to Demand Free Condoms, Other Birth Control" - Cardinal Newman Society

[From an article promoting condom use]: "And learn to live with the guilt. Hey, I’m Catholic — you can learn to live with guilt. Potentially life-threatening infections and diseases, on the other hand, not so much."

Video: The outrageous case of Pastor Hoye

This is getting me really worked up.

From LifeNews:

A pro-life African-American pastor has been sentenced to 30 days in jail for sharing a pr-life message outside local abortion centers. Walter Hoye was previously found guilty of violating what pro-life attorneys call an unconstitutional city law designed specifically to target him.

From AmP reader Bryan:

Walter Hoye, a Baptist minister in Berkeley, was sentenced to 30 days in jail today and received an $1130 fine for the following harassing behavior:



If you read a bit on the testimony presented at trial, you'll find the clinic escorts and director fabricated much of the testimony regarding Pastor Hoye's behavior. Apparently, the Oakland DA's office even collaborated with the abortion clinic on how best to entrap Pastor Hoye.

Related links:

• Issues4Life Foundation - The Legal "No Christ Zone" in Oakland, California (contains video)
• California Catholic Daily - “We ought to stand with him”
• Catholics for the Common Good - Walter Hoye and His Wife Lori Need Your Support

Did they? Didn't they?

This really irks me.

Yesterday I picked up on reports that Pelosi had managed to fit in her promised meeting with Archbishop Niederauer on Feb. 8th.

Last night I found someone citing a Feb. 13th email from the Archbishop's spokesman saying the meeting had not taken place. Reliable enough it would seem, right?

Wrong - because this report was itself corrected today ... Pelosi and Niederauer did actually have the meeting:

“It went well,” [Pelosi spokesman] Daly said. “They both thought it was productive and agreed they would meet in the future at some point.” Daly said they did not set a date.

Daly said that the meeting did not sway Pelosi's stance on life issues. “She is not changing her position on abortion,” he said. Daly said Pelosi still goes to Mass and Communion every Sunday at San Francisco's St. Vincent de Paul parish or elsewhere when she is traveling. Why are we hearing of this meeting only ten days later? “It was a private meeting. They didn’t feel the need to publicize it and we didn’t feel the need to publicize it," Daly said.

It was so private that the archbishop's own press spokesman, Maurice Healy, seemed unaware of it. He told OSV on Friday that no meeting had taken place, despite the archbishop making himself readily available.

Oooooohhhhhhh boy. Let's go through what's wrong with this picture:

1. Pelosi's office shouldn't be setting the tone. "They didn’t feel the need to publicize it and we didn’t feel the need to publicize it"?! That doesn't fly with me. Pelosi, after all, likes publicizing everything she does. Abp. Niederauer's invitation to meet with Pelosi was a public invitation, because of public comments she made, causing very public scandal. Was he hoping everyone would just forget? Well, I sure didn't. I know plenty of other Catholics are concerned as well.
2. Abp. Niederauer's spokesman shouldn't be thrown for a loop by this. Let's face it: the ongoing scandal caused by Pelosi should be near the top of the Archdiocese's concern lists. Or it should at least be on the list. To have the spokesman so unaware of things as to publish a false-negative answer when queried about their meeting ... is simply unprofessional.
3. Pelosi shouldn't be presenting herself for Communion after meeting with her Archbishop! I hate to be cynical, but if Pelosi is still presenting herself for Communion, if I were her Archbishop, I wouldn't want people to know that I had met with her privately. Here's why: I think it's completely reasonable to say that in their very first meeting the Archbishop was bound to plainly state to Pelosi that her voting record on abortion makes her ineligible to receive Communion, and that in submission to his rightful authority, she ought not to present herself for it, because doing so harms her at this point. That's the teaching of the Church, at least - a teaching the Archbishop is bound to present as her pastor. Pelosi can no longer dodge behind the excuse that she "doesn't know it's wrong".
4. This can easily appear like Pelosi and Niederauer are in cahoots. I'm sorry, but to quietly "get this meeting over with", with no amendment of ways on Pelosi's part, and seemingly no effort to embrace the opportunity on the Archbishop's part, this has all the earmarks of "oh my, the little people are up in arms - here, let's go have dinner and talk about something important so they'll get off our backs." Now, I'm not saying this is what happened ... but it's not hard to read it that way, given Pelosi's long-standing obstinacy on this issue, and Abp. Niederauer's long-standing reticence to challenge her.

It's not a perfect world. In a perfect world, after Pope Benedict was put in the hot seat by having to meet with Pelosi, the Holy Father would have gone back to his desk, and picked up the phone:

*ring-ring*

Abp. Niederauer: "Heeeeeeee-llo!"

Pope Benedict XVI: "George! I thought we talked about this! You said you were going to meet with Pelosi last week! What gives? Nothing's changed! She's just as clueless as ever!"

Abp. Niederauer: "Umm...."

Like I said, it's not a perfect world.

Update: Pelosi will meet Pope Benedict on Wednesday

Presumable after the Holy Father's Wednesday audience.

Meanwhile, she continues to keep her Archbishop waiting.

Vatican to receive briefing on Pelosi record prior to papal meeting

Pelosi is not denying that she rushed to pass this massive stimulus bill because she had to catch a plane for her europian tour - a tour that includes a meeting with Pope Benedict XVI.

No doubt she's looking for a quick photo-op with her Pontiff to convince her voters back home that everything is "okay" with her "identity Catholicism".

Some people, however, have a different plan in mind (underlining mine):

Fr. Tom Euteneuer, president of Human Life International (HLI), told LifeSiteNews.com that HLI will be briefing the Vatican "so they are aware of her dismal record on life issues.

"It is our hope that the Holy Father will not grant the floundering Speaker of the House what she surely wants and expects, a quick and valuable photo-op, but will rather give her a stern lecture on contraception and abortion and let her know that her eternal salvation is in danger," said Fr. Euteneuer.

"Further, this would be the perfect opportunity to formally excommunicate the Speaker, as she has done everything a public official possibly can to declare her lack of communion with the Holy Father and the Roman Catholic Church on every conceivable issue." (Kathleen Gilbert of LifeSiteNews)

To be clear, I don't think Pelosi is going to get excommunicated. It is, however, the perfect time for the pope to sit down with her and have that chat she so obviously needs to have about the teachings of the Church. You know, that chat she promised her Archbishop she would have him with him 162 days ago. So, no time for her Archbishop, but plenty of time to tour Europe?

Talk about a woman with dysfunctional priorities.

LifeNews: "Potential Obama Supreme Court Nominee Diane Wood Strongly Pro-Abortion

Bad news at home:

"With Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recovering from surgery for pancreatic cancer, speculation is ramped up about who President Barack Obama may choose as a potential replacement. One of the names on the short list political observers have pieced together is pro-abortion Judge Diane Wood." (LifeNews)

After Daschle's defeat, pro-abort Sebelius floats to the top

Out of the frying pan, into the fire.

After nominee for Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Daschle (a Catholic) was forced to withdraw his name because he failed to pay his taxes, Obama's second choice is even-more-radically-pro-abortion Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius (also Catholic).

Sebelius' home bishop - Archbishop Joseph Naumann - has already said Sebelius should not recieve Communion because of her support for abortion (as I reported last May).

More information from LifeNews and the Associated Press.

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.

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.

Obama: "There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being."

Sometimes irony is tragic, this from today's National Prayer Breakfast:

[Obama:] “But no matter what we choose to believe, let us remember that there is no religion whose central tenet is hate. There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know.”

Really? Do you know?

Picture: The face of pro-choice protestors

Anyone who has been on a pro-life march or participated in a public prayer witness knows instantly what I'm talking about. But for the rest of us who have not had the displeasure, consider:

And sadly, this is just a mild case. Details on this one from AmP reader Jerry:

"... he was counter-protesting in a most dispicable way at last year's Rally for Life March here in Austin. Of course, the press have used a different photo from the same event where he wasn't holding that sign. [The person pictured above] is on trial for building molotov cocktails for protests at the Republican National Convention ... this violent thug is a pro-choice activist and this kind of ugliness is what we are up against."

Let's pause a moment and say a prayer for the brave souls who seek to defend the unborn ... and for sorry souls like this young man who persecute them.

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?

$335 *Million* dollars for STD prevention?

Here's what you have to understand: the Democrat leadership views the economic stimulus package as an unprecedented opportunity to sneak huge amounts of money to their private supporters.

Earlier this week, we tracked House Speaker Pelosi's attempt to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars to Family Planning services (like Planned Parenthood). Well, thankfully, she failed (once it received a great deal of attention and became an embarrassment).

Today, Drudge reports:

The House Democrats' bill includes $335 million for sexually transmitted disease education and prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

In the past, the CDC has used STD education funding for programs that many Members of Congress find objectionable and arguably unrelated to a mission of economic stimulus [such as funding events called 'Booty Call' and 'Great Sex' put on by an organization that received $698,000 in government funds.]

"Whether this funding has merit is not the question; the point is it has no business in an economic plan supposedly focused on job creation," says a stimulated Hill source.

The radioactive paragraph:

"(4) not less than $335,000,000 shall be used as an additional amount to carry out domestic HIV/ AIDS, viral hepatitis, sexually-transmitted diseases, and tuberculosis prevention programs, as jointly determined by the Secretary and the Director."

Hopefully the same attention shown to this waste of money will result in an identical result: removal.

update: if you are looking for how to let your voice be heard, The Anchoress shows us how.

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.

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.

"Obama to Lift Ban on Overseas Abortion Funding"

As expected:

President Obama on Friday is expected to lift a ban on federal funding for international groups that promote or perform abortions, reversing a policy of his predecessor, George W. Bush.

Obama will sign the executive order one day after the 36th anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion in all 50 states.

The move, long expected in the Democratic president's first week in office, will be welcomed by liberals and criticized by abortion rights foes.

The so-called Mexico City policy requires any non-governmental organization to agree before receiving U.S. funds that they will "neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations." (FOXNews.com)

update: AP weighs in - not a single mention of the March for Life, of course.

Listed: President Barack Obama's Pro-Abortion Record

LifeNews.com Editor Steven Ertelt has been working overtime:

"The following is a complication of bill signings, speeches, appointments and other actions that President Barack Obama has engaged in that have promoted abortion before and during his presidency. While Obama has promised to reduce abortions and some of his supporters believe that will happen, this long list proves his only agenda is promoting more abortions." [See the list.]

No, I'm not trying to be pessimistic. I'm trying to remain hopeful despite the evidence.

And in contrast: "President Bush Will Leave Strong Pro-Life Legacy on Abortion, Bioethics"

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?

Krispy Kreme Celebrates Obama with Free “Freedom of Choice” Donuts

The doughnut giant released the following statement yesterday (underlining mine):

Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. (NYSE: KKD) is honoring American's sense of pride and freedom of choice on Inauguration Day, by offering a free doughnut of choice to every customer on this historic day, Jan. 20. By doing so, participating Krispy Kreme stores nationwide are making an oath to tasty goodies -- just another reminder of how oh-so-sweet "free" can be.

Commentary from ALL President Judie Brown.

Even though I walk right by a Krispy Kreme every day, I'll have readers know that AmP runs on dunkin'.

ALL: Top Ten Pro-Abortion Moments of 2008

American Life League has an informative and accessible top ten list:

2008 was a down year for the pro-abortion movement's talking heads. As you read the quotes below, despite the seriousness of the subject - after all, we are talking about matters of life and death - it's hard not to laugh at their ridiculous attempts to justify their position. [Read the top ten moments here.]

'Cancer-free' baby born in London, but how "cancer-free"?

Keep track of stories like these, and how they describe with other names what is actually eugenics:

The first child in Britain known to have been screened as an embryo to ensure she did not carry a cancer gene was born Friday, a spokesman for University College London told CNN.

Her embryo was screened in a lab days after conception to check for the BRCA-1 gene, linked to breast and ovarian cancer.

People with the gene are known to have a 50-80 percent chance of developing breast or ovarian cancer in their lifetimes.

British newspapers have dubbed the girl the "cancer-free" baby.

"The parents will have been spared the risk of inflicting this disease on their daughter. The lasting legacy is the eradication of the transmission of this form of cancer that has blighted these families for generations." (CNN)

But here's the reality check: no disease has been cured here. Instead, if the test revealed that the baby girl carried the gene, she would have been destroyeed (and the parents would have presumably tried to conceive again, then re-tested, and on it goes).

Thus, to say "the parents ... have been spared the risk of inflicting this disease on their daughter" is misleading. What the parents were actually spared was "the chance that a daughter with the potential to develop a disease would be allowed to survive until birth."

Two added wrinkles: the testing process can only take place if the baby is conceived in vitro ... and this is the first time a baby has been screened for a likely disease-causing gene as opposed to a guaranteed one.

One sobering line:

"When [the disease] hits your family over and over again, many couples are saying: 'Enough of this. Let's prune this out of our family tree forever.'"

"Prune this out of our family tree forever?"!

Prune disease out all you want, but for heaven's sake, we're talking about pruning people out here!

Cash offered to addicts, alcoholics who agree to sterilization

This is so offensive to the dignity of the human person!

Instead of attempting to cure the cause of people's ills, some are attempting to nullify the inconvenience these people cause to the rest of society:

Folks at downtown's Ronstadt Transit Center on Tuesday afternoon had a way to make a quick $300.

The only stipulation was that the people be drug addicts or alcoholics who agree to long-term birth control.

The group Project Prevention, started by Barbara Harris in 1997, has so far paid more than 2,800 men and women across the nation.

.... Acceptable long-term birth control includes tubal ligation, Depo Provera shots and IUDs for women, or a vasectomy for men. (Tuscon Citizen)

Here's how Project Prevention responds to criticism:

"Those who oppose what we're doing should be willing to step up and adopt a few of the babies," Harris said. "These women can't raise these children."

Don't bother mentioning why people might oppose this.

I wonder how these unfortunate addicted people are going to use this $300 ... oh, that's right.

Abortion industry to receive $1.5BILLION bailout

Talk about change we don't need.

With all the money being tossed around by the government these days, pro-abortion activists smell blood in the water. The Susan B. Anthony list gives us some of the grim details:

The Abortion Bailout Package:

* $1 BILLION dollars in taxpayer funding for International Abortion Groups
* $700 million in taxpayer funding for “Title X” Health Clinics (aka your local Planned Parenthood affiliate)
* $65 million for the UNFPA, an international aid organization connected to coercive abortion as part of China’s coercive one-child policy
* Repeal the Hyde Amendment – Vastly expanding federal taxpayer funding for abortions
* Include Abortion coverage in any taxpayer-subsidized national health care program

SBA provides an online form to let you write a letter to your Senator easily.

Deal Hudson provides more context:

Go to Change.gov, the Web site of President-elect Barack Obama, and you'll find a document titled "Advancing Reproductive Rights and Health in a New Administration." Signed by dozens of pro-abortion groups, including Catholics for Choice, this 55-page document provides an overview of the marching orders for the Obama administration in removing all present restrictions on abortions while dramatically increasing abortion funding.

... The attitude expressed in "Advancing Reproductive Rights and Health in a New Administration" is anything but moderate -- it is imperial, determined, and uncompromising. The fact that it is posted on the official Web site of the Obama-Biden transition is an unambiguous endorsement of its policy recommendations.

Permanent birth control through intentional self-mutilation

It's the latest and trendiest in the contracepting world - "Essure coils" (one pictured at left):

Getting your tubes tied is not the most appealing phrase, but it's way more user-friendly than sterilization. Maybe that's why the maker of Essure--a newer, cheaper, faster, scalpel-free alternative to tubal ligation--is marketing the procedure as "permanent birth control."

... The 1 1/2-in.-long (38 mm) coils--which are like pen springs but smaller and softer--contain fibers that irritate the tubes and prompt scar tissue to grow into and around the tiny loops. After three months, the Fallopian tubes are blocked, preventing eggs from reaching the uterus to be fertilized.

... Unlike some tubal-ligation methods, Essure cannot be reversed. (Time)

What an idea: insert a foreign object into your body, lacerating the Fallopian tubes until scarred tissue clogs the passage (graphic images: an Essure coil in operation). Gee, that doesn't sound like medicine to me.

To be fair, Time is well aware this procedure could raise questions in some people's minds:

Of course, there is another choice for couples who don't want to take any chances--right, gents?

Hmm, that's not actually one of the questions I had in mind.

SF Jesuit U. requires *abortion* coverage for students

update, 4:30pm: SF Jesuit U. *drops* abortion coverage for students

From an AmP reader:

It has recently come to light that the Jesuit University of San Francisco requires all students to buy health insurance that provides coverage for abortion. This means that a Catholic institution is directly funding the killing of children with tuition, and even worse, with our tithes and offerings.

I will link to the University's Web site which details the plan (Scroll down to page 15, and at the very top, under Maternity Expenses, you will see the following):

"Voluntary Termination of Pregnancy Covered Medical Expenses are payable as follows: Preferred Care: 90% of the Negotiated Charge. Non-Preferred Care: 70% of the Reasonable Charge."

Also see the press release from the Cardinal Newman Society, original reporting from the Catholic Key blog, as well as this article by LifeSiteNews, which gives us the email address of the USF President, Fr. Stephen Privett: "privett@usfca.edu".

Drop him a line and tell him (with charity) of your disapproval.

Angelicum invites Cherie Blair to speak in Rome

Troubling news from the Social Sciences Faculty at the Angelicum in Rome. It seems we have new stories like this all the time:

"Pro-life Catholics around the world are responding with outrage that the Pontifical University of St. Thomas in Rome (the “Angelicum”), one of the premier Catholic institutions of higher education, has invited Cherie Blair, the pro-abortion wife of former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, to speak at a conference on women’s rights on December 12th." (LifeSiteNews)

Cherie Blair is simply very bad news when it comes to sexual ethics, as the LifeSiteNews article details at length. She's also made the AmP pages on occassion.

Fr. Philip Powell has obtained a copy of the reply written by Sr. Helen Alford, OP, the dean of the Angelicum social sciences school, who claims that because the Pontifical Academy invited her, so can they.

Her response doesn't satisfy John Smeaton who writes: "it was not justified of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences to have invited Mrs Blair to speak in 2006, nor is it justified of the Angelicum today."

I have to say inviting Cherie Blair on the topic of women and human rights is a paradoxical choice because it is in this area where she most directly opposes Catholic doctrine and practice, energetically and continually.

Ph/t: Dawn.

update: Hilary White, LSN's Rome correspondent, posts an update.

Friday Pro-Life News

A warning from C-FAM's Austin Ruse:

We report today on the prospects at the UN for the re-emergence of Hillary Clinton on UN social policy. Clinton was the driving force for much abortion mischief at the UN during the tenure of her husband. Much more mischief is expected with her and other pro-abortion radicals now in the employ of the Obama administration.

C-FAM is also planning to present a petition to the UN against a (counter-)petition for abortion to become an internationally recognized right ... anyway, sign it please. It took me about 20 seconds to become signature #151,424.

Meanwhile, as CNN reruns year-old interviews on "the problem of pro-life doctors", Fox News runs a special report on Planned Parenthood's infamous Christmas stocking stuffers (which I blogged about here), and Bill O'Reilly interviews the brave girl who exposed Planned Parenthood Indiana (which I blogged about here).

Keep it up.

Time: Obama can't keep both pro-life & pro-abortion camps happy

Color me not surprised:

Amy Sullivan, National Correspondent for Time Magazine, says that during the election season pro-Obama religious liberals felt "thrown under a bus" by the Obama campaign.

Many had gone out on a limb to say Obama favored abortion reduction. But the campaign then went into a minor panic after Sarah Palin's selection, fearing she would help attract independent women to the Republicans. So Democrats began running ads emphasizing traditional support for abortion rights sans abortion reduction. This infuriated pro-life Obama supporters who had gone out on a limb.

Subsequently, Obama and Joe Biden talked more about abortion reduction. But in an interview we did for Trinity Wall Street, Sullivan -- the nation's foremost expert on the religious left -- argues, that Obama will have a difficult time retaining the trust of pro-life Obama voters, while still satisfying his pro-choice supporters. (Steve Waldmen)

I wonder if this makes me the "nation's foremost expert on the religious left."

Because I've been saying this since day one.

Video: Planned Parenthood breaking laws to get 13yr-olds abortions

Not to upset your lunch, but this sort of thing should upset us.

Live Action Films has posted an undercover video of a Planned Parenthood nurse in Indiana violating about every law she can think of ... just to make sure a 13 year old girl can get her abortion. And when the nurse is told the young girl's "boyfriend" is 31? "Oh, don't tell me his age, I don't want to hear it."

LifeNews has more background.

Remind me, again, why Planned Parenthood continues to be the go-to organization of choice for Obama administration appointments? Including, yesterday, our new Secretary of Homeland Security? Why, with each year, does Planned Parenthood receive more and more government money?

Planned Parenthood of Indiana made the AmP radar last week for offering Gift Certificates for Abortions.

What other organization in the United States could get away with all of this?!

update: in a related vein, Jill posts about the amazing success of the 40 Days for Life campaign.

update 2: Planned Parenthood Suspends Employee After Statutory Rape Coverup Video

Evil Stocking Stuffer: Gift Certificates for Abortions

I'm not making this up:

Gift certificates have become a popular holiday gift option, but a controversial new one, already has people talking. For the first time, Planned Parenthood in Indiana is offering gift certificates.

.... asked if the gift certificates could be used towards abortions. The answer is yes. But, Planned Parenthood said that's not the purpose of the gift certificates. (Local 8)

Video:



PP of Indiana has made it onto the AmP radar before, back in February, where it offered to prepare students for their spring break with a "free emergency contraception day." PP of Indiana certainly appears to be innovative and pro-active when it comes to promoting their wide range of harmful services.

Related: "Planned Parenthood Issues Christmas Gift Certificates: Give the Gift of Abortion" (LifeNews)

Keeping track: a list of Obama's anti-life appointments

As LifeSiteNews records, they include so far his:

1. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel
2. Commerce Secretary Bill Richardson (Catholic)
3. Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Daschle (my posts on him)
4. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano
5. Communications Director Ellen Moran (my post on her)

... and we can expect:

1. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
2. Secretary of the Interior: Raúl M. Grijalva

Discouraging, not unexpected.