Bishop Conley: health care reform "fatally flawed ... needs to be opposed and defeated"

Once you have contacted your representatives, read Bishop James Conley's lucid and comprehensive exposition of why Catholics must oppose to current form of health care reform.

Here is his bottom line:

With the exception of a few leaders, like Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak, Congress has ignored or rejected every attempt at resolving the serious concerns voiced by the bishops—or alternately, has pushed solutions like the Capps Amendment that do not solve the problems, and even create new ones. The White House has done nothing to intervene. “Common ground” thinking in Washington apparently has more reality as public relations than as public policy. And as a result, all of the main healthcare reform proposals in Congress, including the huge, 2,000-page merged House bill, are fatally flawed. Unless they are immediately and adequately amended, they need to be opposed and defeated.

For all of Congress’ public talk about “consensus building” and “consensus health care,” Washington has proved once again that hearing loss can be job-related. Most American Catholics, from people in the pews to pastors and bishops, want healthcare reform to work. But too many people in Washington don’t know how to listen, or don’t want to listen, or just don’t care.

Read the full text for his reasons here.

Update: What to say to *your* representative about healthcare

Today is the last opportunity to call your representatives on health care. Let's light up the phones!

Please email and call (202-224-3121 ) your representatives to demand that they vote NO on HR 3962.

update: I found a list of the 69 democrats who have expressed opposition to health care - these are the representatives Pelosi and Obama are trying to win over to their side - this list also includes their individual statements which means you can hold them to their promise!

(they are also receiving pressure from pro-abortion democrat groups - so they need to hear your side!)

See my previous post on this pressing issue here. God Bless you for your activism on this issue.

Report: Pelosi's office trashed by pro-life demonstrators

I was on Capital Hill yesterday afternoon for pro-life meetings about efforts to stop this pro-abortion health care reform being voted on this weekend.

As I was going into one of the House buildings, I saw Randall Terry on the street outside rounding up people to go to Nancy Pelosi's office "to tear up the health care bill."

I have no tolerance for Randall Terry's activities, and I wasn't about to get involved in whatever he was planning. I went to my meetings, and after came out, I wasn't surprised to hear people talking about the commotion he had caused at Nancy Pelosi's office, which included Fr. Norman Weslin - an elderly priest who was famously arrested on Notre Dame's campus earlier this year - again being arrested and dragged out into a waiting cop car.

I twittered the news (here and here) as it was related to me, and Jill Stanek has a full report, including video of what transpired. A bystander promised to get me pictures of what happened, but I don't see much point in posting them.

Such activities, in my estimation, serve no purpose. They certainly do not seem to convert any hearts, and only allow enemies of our cause to caricature us as violent, unlawful trouble makers, which is of course a disservice to our sincere efforts to advance a culture of life in this country.

Action: Stop PelosiCare before it gets voted on this Saturday

PelosiCare will be voted on this Saturday evening. Before that vote happens, we need to email and call (202-224-3121 ) our elected representatives to demand that they vote NO on HR 3962.

Whatever you've heard, 1) this legislation still funds abortions with our taxpayer dollars. 2) Its price tag is outrageous and will be crippling to our economy. 3) Nationalized health care systems always disadvantage the elderly and the very sick. 

I'm blogging at APP about the problems with this health care bill:

• Chapter and Verse: How PelosiCare pays for abortions
• Facts: few more reasons to oppose HR 3962
• Report: "Health Care Reform Assumes Millions Will Pay Fines"
• Video: Ordinary Americans Against Health Care "Reform"

Even if you've never contacted your representative before, please do so today. It's really important.

It's especially important to contact moderate Democrats, as almost all Republicans have promised to vote against it, and almost all liberal Democrats have promised to vote for it.

Pro-abortion organizations, which stand to profit massively if this legislation passes, are mobilizing their members to contact their representatives. Well our voice needs to be heard as well, and now.

You are welcome to say anything you want to your representative, but a very effective thing to tell them - if it is true - is something along the lines of: "If you vote for this health care bill, I will not vote for you again, and if there is an acceptable candidate running against you, I will vote for them, and ask my friends to do the same."

Politicians listen to promises like that. It's a promise I intend to keep.

Election Day! Support pro-life, pro-family, pro-marriage causes!

Today, please do your part in defending the family in each of the following key elections, as I outlined yesterday.

If you are able to vote in the Virginia, New Jersey, New York-23 elections or Maine referendum, please do so.

If you are out of state, please support the pro-family candidate or proposal with financial resources or by volunteering with appropriate signs at the polls!

I'll be hovering around twitter today posting updates on the elections and election returns.

And let's pray for our country and the brave candidates who fight for our freedoms and families.

National News: TX Planned Parenthood director resigns after witnessing ultrasound, story drawing national attention (+video & inside details)

This news, currently highlighted on the Drudge Report, is quickly making national headlines.

Through AmP reader Marcel at Aggie Catholics, we have an inside loop into the situation, because she is friends with Shawn - the Coalition for Life director - who is pictured at left with Abby Johnson - the former director of the neighboring Planned Parenthood - who is at the center of this amazing tale.

Here is the video:

And here is the story (I've bolded some parts):

Planned Parenthood has been a part of Abby Johnson's life for the past eight years; that is until last month, when Abby resigned. Johnson said she realized she wanted to leave, after watching an ultrasound of an abortion procedure.

"I just thought I can't do this anymore, and it was just like a flash that hit me and I thought that's it," said Jonhson.

She handed in her resignation October 6. Johnson worked as the Bryan Planned Parenthood Director for two years.

According to Johnson, the non-profit was struggling under the weight of a tough economy, and changing it's business model from one that pushed prevention, to one that focused on abortion.

"It seemed like maybe that's not what a lot of people were believing any more because that's not where the money was. The money wasn't in family planning, the money wasn't in prevention, the money was in abortion and so I had a problem with that," said Johnson.

Johnson said she was told to bring in more women who wanted abortions, something the Episcopalian church goer recently became convicted about.

"I feel so pure in heart (since leaving). I don't have this guilt, I don't have this burden on me anymore that's how I know this conversion was a spiritual conversion."

Johnson now supports the Coalition For Life, the pro-life group with a building down the street from Planned Parenthood. Coalition volunteers can regularly be seen praying on the sidewalk in front of Planned Parenthood. Johnson has been meeting with the coalition's executive director, Shawn Carney, and has prayed with volunteers outside Planned Parenthood.

On Friday both Johnson and the Coalition For Life were issued temporary restraining orders filed by Planned Parenthood.

Rochelle Tafolla, a Planned Parenthood spokesperson issued the following statement: "We regret being forced to turn to the courts to protect the safety and confidentiality of our clients and staff, however, in this instance it is absolutely necessary."

The temporary restraining order contends that Planned Parenthood would be irreparably harmed by the disclosure of certain information, but does not bar Johnson or Coalition For Life volunteers from the premises.

Marcel writes:

I just got an email from Shawn. They are swamped, because the story has gone national and they are doing interviews with the big news agencies right now. Pray for them, that the pro-life message gets out.

Amen. Let's help!

Action: Donate to Help Elect a Pro-Lifer in NY-23 (who has a good chance!)

I've written before about the situation in New York's 23rd congressional district which goes to the polls next Tuesday.

My friends have been hard at work getting the word out about the pro-life candidate, Doug Hoffman, with a photo and an article in today's New York Times.

The Catholic Family Association has endorsed Hoffman:

CFA Executive Director: "Doug Hoffman embodies what our group promotes: pro-family stances on every important issue--from taxes to healthcare to abortion--facing Americans. Given the radicalism of his opponents, the choice is clear in NY-23."

The latest polls show Hoffman pulling into the lead, but with only days to go, we ought to help the pro-life, pro-family organizations on the ground seal the deal.

This is a local race with national consequences, for the reasons I've explained before, so if you can do anything to help out the efforts in NY-23, especially by donating any amount through the Susan B. Anthony List, it would be a good thing.

Let's send a message to the politicians in Washington DC that pro-life, pro-family, and economically-responsible candidates are the way to win in future elections. Let's start now.

Update: Abp. Dolan backs Bp. Tobin, demands Rep. Kennedy apology

Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York - who evidently has a modest blog of his own on the Archdiocese of New York website! - yesterday wrote about the regrettable situation of Rep. Kennedy's stupid, anti-Catholic remarks:

Over this past weekend, several people mentioned to me Representative Patrick Kennedy’s blast at bishops for allegedly dividing the nation on the issue of healthcare; you can view the video here. His remarks were sad, uncalled-for, and inaccurate.

The Catholic community in the United States hardly needs to be lectured to about just healthcare. We’ve been energetically into it for centuries. And we bishops have been advocating for universal healthcare for a long, long time.

All we ask is that it be just that -- universal -- meaning that it includes the helpless baby in the womb, the immigrant, and grandma in a hospice, and that it protects a healthcare provider’s right to follow his/her own conscience.

This is what the President says he wants; this is what we bishops say we want.

Bishop Thomas Tobin, Representative Kennedy’s bishop, has a good point: Mr. Kennedy owes us an apology.

A small proviso - President Obama has never said he wants to protect the helpless baby in the womb.

I'll repeat my action items from yesterday's post on this same issue:

• Contact Rep. Kennedy (through his press secretary kerrie.bennett@mail.house.gov) and demand he apologize to Catholics for his ignorant and hateful comments
• Contact Bishop Tobin (through his communications director - kdavis@dioceseofprovidence.org) and thank him for standing up for Catholics, and for the truth.

Pictured: Pro-Life Pumpkin - Awesome Activism Idea!

Are you planning on carving pumpkins this weekend? Well how about carving this:


From the American Life League:

There are many opportunities to be a voice for the voiceless, and most of those opportunities require us to go to a public place. But, on the eve of All Saints Day, the public comes to us!

So, make a pro-life jack-o-lantern and send your photos to us. Be sure to include your name, age and address in the e-mail, and we'll post the best ones on our home page!
It doesn't have to be anything fancy. It could be as intricate as the design here or as simple as the word "Pro-Life." Whatever your skill level, be creative and tell the world about the personhood of preborn babies!

Send your pro-life jack-o-lantern pictures to prolifepumpkin@all.org.

If you would like to duplicate this one, simply download the .pdf stencil and print it out. Tape the stencil to your pumpkin and, with a pointed object, like a small screwdriver, poke shallow holes along the perimeter of the image. With a paring knife, carefully cut out the areas shaded in black.

Way way way cool.

Pictured: World's first portable ultrasound!

Not even kidding - talk about a revolution in sidewalk pro-life counseling technology:

The Star Trek Tricorder, a device that allows medics to check their patients in the field in the sci-fi TV show, took a step closer to becoming reality today thanks to a new device being shown off by General Electric in the US.

The device, which is a cross between a mobile phone and an iPod was shown at the Web 2.0 Summit in San Francisco on Tuesday.

Called Vscan, the clamshell designed gadget is aimed at doctors, and possibly would-be parents who could use it in their office or in the field to check the progress of unborn babies or other medical instances, rather than sending their patients to a specialist department for a scan.

Jeff Immelt, GE's CEO, said that the device, which will be available sometime next year, will be "very digitally capable", coming with a small screen and the ability to save the images. It won't, however, feature Wi-Fi connectivity which would give it the ability to send images to others. (Pocket link)

See a glimpse of it in action after the here.

I'm serious - we need to get this into the hands of pro-life sidewalk counselors.

Science is on our side.

Baltimore City Council targets pro-life pregnancy centers

Archdiocesan newspaper for Baltimore The Catholic Review:

Baltimore City Council President Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and 10 members of the council are sponsoring a bill that Catholic leaders believe harasses pro-life pregnancy support centers.

City Council Bill 09-0406, “Limited-Service Pregnancy Centers –Disclaimers,” would require pregnancy support centers to post a disclaimer noting that they do not provide abortion or contraceptive services. Centers that do not comply would be fined $500 per day.

In an Oct. 16 letter to Rawlings-Blake, Archbishop Edwin F. O’Brien said the bill targets non-profit organizations whose mission is to help women carry pregnancies to term. He said it is “well-known” that pregnancy support centers are exclusively focused on assisting women in their choice for childbirth, and do not provide abortions or contraception.

So much for supporting women with crisis pregnancies.

Event: Support local pro-life in Washington DC

I've talked before about how there is something everyone can do to support pro-life activities in their local community. Sometime that "something" is as easy as having a good time.

I'll be attending this year's "23rd Annual Indian Summer Ball" (despite the chilly, fall weather) this weekend, where the proceeds go directly to supporting the wonderful and critical pro-life work done by the Northwest Center. Here is the event description:

Our annual Indian Summer Ball is one of Washington D.C.’s premier pro-life events. This black-tie affair features live music and dancing, a gourmet buffet, and a silent auction.  Over the past two decades, the Ball has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to support the work of The Northwest Center while providing a memorable night for all our guests. Reserve your ticket or sponsorship today!

This event will be held October 17th, 2009 at the Organization of American States near the National Mall.

Click here for more information including directions and ticket sales.

2008 Photos - 2007 Photos

There's still time for you to buy your ticket. Or, if you live outside of Washington DC, support the center directly. Washington DC is not only our nation's capital, but a sad "abortion capital" of sorts (admittedly behind New York City in total numbers of abortions per year).

Whatever government programs have promised to accomplish here, the most effective way of supporting a cultural of life directly is to provide local and immediate support for women who want to make the choice for life. I hope you'll join these fruitful local efforts.

Respected poll shows more Americans rejecting "right" to abortion in 2009

Signs of hope - a continued trend towards the pro-life position in our country - public support for abortion has dropped 11% since the same time last year:

Polls conducted in 2009 have found fewer Americans expressing support for abortion than in previous years. In Pew Research Center polls in 2007 and 2008, supporters of legal abortion clearly outnumbered opponents; now Americans are evenly divided on the question, and there have been modest increases in the numbers who favor reducing abortions or making them harder to obtain. Less support for abortion is evident among most demographic and political groups.

The latest Pew Research Center survey also reveals that the abortion debate has receded in importance, especially among liberals. At the same time, opposition to abortion has grown more firm among conservatives, who have become less supportive of finding a middle ground on the issue and more certain of the correctness of their own views on abortion. (Pew Forum)

The Obama tie-in:

The timing of this shift in attitudes on abortion suggests it could be connected to Obama's election. The decline in support for legal abortion first appeared in polls in the spring of 2009. Overall, roughly three-in-ten (29%) think Obama will handle the abortion issue about right as president. One-in-five Americans (19%) worry that Obama will go too far in supporting abortion rights, while very few (4%) express the opposite concern that Obama will not go far enough to support abortion rights.

Opposition to abortion remains connected to how serious people take their faith:

"...most people who regularly attend religious services continue to come down in opposition to abortion, while the large majority of those who rarely or never attend religious services still support legal abortion."

By the way, "regularly attend" typically translates in these polls to "attends weekly." In other words, people who merely attend Mass or Christian services *once* a week are far more likely to be pro-life.

Some amazing points are also made:

The poll finds that four-in-ten Americans are unaware of Obama's position on the abortion issue. Conservative Republicans, however, are more likely than any other group to know Obama's position, with 75% correctly identifying him as "pro-choice" rather than "pro-life."

It's stunning to me that 40% of Americans don't even know about Obama's position on abortion, and that 25% of Republicans evidently don't know he is pro-abortion.

Clearly, those of us in the pro-life movement have a great opportunity here for continuing to educate our fellow Americans about the issue of abortion, and Obama's radical position on it.

Tip: Save babies every time you use a Credit Card!

This is really cool. Crossroads Pro-Life now has a credit card you can use which will donate 1% of every one of your purchases to their cause. The first time you swipe it, Crossroads Pro-Life gets $25!

It's the only pro-life credit card out there.

(And if you want to change the image on the front of the card to something you want instead - you can!)

So spread the word, and if you want a pro-life cause supported by your purchases - get this one.

MSM shocked that Catholics see connection between prayer, sex

Just because its off-beat news day:

Roman Catholic couples are being encouraged to pray together before they have sex.

A book published by a prominent Church group invites those setting out on married life to recite the specially-composed Prayer Before Making Love.

It is aimed at 'purifying their intentions' so that the act is not about selfishness or hedonism.

The prayer, which appears in the Prayer Book for Spouses, implores God 'to place within us love that truly gives, tenderness that truly unites, self-offering that tells the truth and does not deceive, forgiveness that truly receives, loving physical union that welcomes'.

It adds: 'Open our hearts to you, to each other and to the goodness of your will.

'Cover our poverty in the richness of your mercy and forgiveness. Clothe us in true dignity and take to yourself our shared aspirations, for your glory, for ever and ever.' - UK Daily Mail

Tsk-tsk, those Catholics and their unhealthy views about sex.

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

Must-see Video: Stop the Abortion Mandate

A heckuva good video, for a critical moral cause:



More at stoptheabortionmandate.com.

Good: Atlanta Church offers to adopt any baby

The right idea:

One Atlanta church has a bold challenge to anyone considering abortion: "Peachtree Presbyterian Church will care for any newborn baby you bring to this church."

So says Pastor Vic Pentz in a recent sermon. The church is partnering with the adoption agency Bethany Christian Services to make this happen and to start the education process for their congregation. Adoption is never simple and easy, but I love this bold action instead of the usual rhetoric around abortion.

We don't need more protests and picket signs. We need more churches stepping forward and making life an easy choice (whether it's adoption or helping a pregnant woman keep the baby). [Church Marketing Sucks]

Church support of pregnant women is more widespread than the above author may think. I was very proud of the large sign outside my first DC parish which promised to help and support any woman facing a crisis pregnancy.

The Church is always a good place to go in times of trouble.

Action: Project Ultrasound needs you to help save babies

AmP reader Stephen with an awesome project I'd like to see the AmP community support:

"Project Ultrasound is a pro-life charity whose mission is to help equip crisis pregnancy centers with this powerful piece of equipment.

Crisis pregnancy centers are non-profit organizations who provide material and spiritual support to women experiencing unexpected pregnancies. So powerful is the impact of this technology, that 70-90% of abortion-minded women who see an ultrasound at a cpc end up choosing life.

The problem is that less then only half of crisis centers are equipped with these machines due to their extremely high cost!

Project Ultrasound wants to change this, one city at a time. Right now they are raising money to help purchase an ultrasound machine for Heartbeat of Fremont, Ohio. They need your help.

Read more about Project Ultrasound and support their cause at http://www.projectultrasound.org/."

We can all help support a culture of life in our country. Let's do something now.

I'd also recommend joining their cause page on Facebook (and telling your friends).

Lessons to be learned from a woman who sailed the "abortion boat"

Last October I was first made aware of the Dutch "abortion boat", a project of "Women on Waves" that attempted to spread awareness of abortion (and abortifacient pills) in countries that still have laws against these things.

Now I come to find out from a Netherlands news source that the "abortion boat" is putting down anchor for the last time. Steve Ertelt at LifeNews has a summary of an interview conducted with a member of the organization that ran the boat, Rebecca Gomperts.

I found snippets of the interview interesting. It's a rare chance to see an abortion advocate dis-engaged from the fight and speaking frankly about their opinion on what is happening.

"The abortion boat is a myth," says Gomperts. "There are people who think we provide practical help all over the world. Of course it's a pretty sight: a ship entering a harbour full of women saying: abortion is a right. And then there will always be people wanting to stop the boat. The result is a symbolic fight that speaks to the imagination." 

Insight: abortion advocates over-sell their accomplishments. In my first reporting of the story, I can't remember Women on Waves ever trying to dis-abuse people about their actual activities not including abortions.

... But in [Gomperts'] personal life there has been a drastic change. The woman who ten years ago said she had made a conscious decision to remain childless, is now the single mother of a three-year-old boy and a four-year-old girl. 

Insight: Life catches up to you. You can make yourself think almost anything you want, but as you grow older, some human desires can't be totally forever. She's a mother, even if it has changed her views.

"The other day I was giving a lecture at a school in the Bijlmer [a heavily immigrant part of Amsterdam, Ed.] I was shocked by the anti-abortion sentiment among young immigrant girls there. And the youth activities of the Evangelical broadcasting corporation draw tens of thousands of visitors. These are signs that lots of things are changing in our society. Opposition to abortion is growing." 

Insight: Good news, indeed. Some things ought never be taken for granted: abortion on demand is one of them. The world wasn't always this way, and it can change back, if people's hearts change.

Have you become more understanding towards your opponents over the years?

"If you believe that every life has to be protected I can imagine that you would be very passionate about that. Uncompromising. But it bothers me that they have no respect for people who think differently. Anti-abortion activists feel that everybody should act the way they think they should."

Insight: Does Gompert then believe every life ought not be protected? At least she is consistent, in a horrible sort of way. I don't see how I am supposed to respect the view that all innocent life ought not be protected.

And this most interesting of all....

Is a rapprochement even imaginable?

"No, I think it is impossible for proponents and opponents of abortion to ever come together. We're talking about two entirely different philosophies here. There is no room for discussion. To me, the fact that they want to limit other people's ability to make their own decisions will always be unacceptable." 

Insight: Gompert is speaking honestly here. Her statement further confirms a lurking suspicion of my own that common ground initiatives proposed by ardent pro-aborts will come to nothing. There is simply no common ground between those who think innocent lives may be killed and those who think they may never be killed.

What must happen on the part of pro-aborts is a change of mind and heart. Helping this conversion take place is what we must commit ourselves to accomplishing, and I believe one important step in that process is to hold fast to our position in support of life. Only from that high ground can we begin to reach out.

In the crosshairs: Let's defeat the DeLauro-Ryan scam bill!

This bill (HR #3312) needs to be defeated, and with your help, I think we can.

Pro-abortion groups are throwing all of their weight behind it, and they are trying to pick up enough "pro-life" defectors to make the case to the rest of us that it represents "common ground" legislation....

.... It isn't. It simply throws $700 million dollars to pro-abortion organizations. And they already get plenty.

"But wait!" They'll say. "This isn't funding abortions." Sure it is, it's funding abortion providers. Their argument is like saying a piece of legislation doesn't fund drinking, it funds bars. You know, because plenty of people go to bars to access the valuable nutritional content of pub food, so we're just giving money to the bars so they can put on more happy hours.

I will provide information about HR #3312 and why it is important to defeat it. If you scroll to the bottom of the post you will find action items to make sure that it is defeated. 

Please link to this post if you are convinced. Let's get a lot of people involved on this one.

===

Summary/Analysis:

HR #3312 in summary reads: "To provide for programs that reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, help women bear healthy children, and support new parents." 

It is currently in committee, and is waiting to get to the floor of the House to be voted upon. Tim Ryan (D-OH) sponsored the bill, along with 12 other democrats, notably Rosa DeLauro (D-CT).

The main thrust of the bill is to increase Title X funding for Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups. It also mandates that Medicaid would universally cover both abortion and contraception. 

How much money are we talking about? As I said above, $700,000,000.00. That's right: seven hundred million dollars. If you had seven hundred million dollars dangling in front of you, and weren't scrupulous, wouldn't you think of a really clever argument to argue that you deserve it?

The bill includes enough other provisions to make the excuse that it isn't another veiled attempt to pump more money into these for-profit organizations. The bill provides heavy coverage for contraception, with the argument being that this will reduce abortions.

A country saturated in contraceptives, however, does not drive down the number of abortions. Efforts in the UK to increase contraception access have only resulted in the deepening of the abortion epidemic.

The bill's sponsor, Tim Ryan, who is Catholic, claims to be pro-life. He is not, or at least, he never votes pro-life. He recently voted to have taxpayers in DC fund abortions. As Jack Smith writes, "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." Jack Smith provides more background here.

Who likes this bill? Radical pro-abortion lobbies like NARAL. It's a ruthless cycle: abortion groups lobby for more money, so they can propose further legislation ... that gets them more money. Meanwhile the "powerful" pro-life movement continues to chug along on blogs, email lists, and concerned folks like you picking up the phone and sending emails to your representatives. I know, we have so much to gain, right?

Anyway, when a movement runs out of ideas and arguments, they can do two things: have a hard think about their position or attempt to co-opt/shut-up the opposition. The pro-abortion lobby has chose the second option. "Faith in public life" is a good example of marginalizing pro-lifers and claiming a consensus for their position when there is not one. Some Christian pastors have come out in support of the bill, but not one Catholic priest has voiced support for it. Because faithful Catholics understand that contraception and funding abortion providers is not going to drive down the number of abortions in this country, or promote a culture of life.

In fact, as I blogged about last week, the USCCB has taken the unusual step of specifically targeting this bill as unacceptable, calling it the "Planned Parenthood Economic Stimulus Package of 2009."

And if you want to know Pope Benedict's mind on the issue of governments promoting contraception, read what I wrote about that on July 8th. (hint: he's against it.)

If you are reading this far, you are probably interested in this sort of thing enough to be curious about the strategic opportunity here. 

In the wider picture, the DeLauro-Ryan bill is a preview of coming attractions: What DeLauro-Ryan floats as legislation, should it pass, is the type of "solution" the Obama administration will offer to the problem of abortion in White House-sponsored initiatives. 

In other words, Obama's long-awaited solution to the number of abortions is - not surprisingly - to further fill the coffers of the radical pro-abortion lobbyists and organizations which helped him and his associates win the White House and Congress. Sadly, it's still true in much of American politics that to find out what's happening, you have to follow the money. In this case it goes abortionists --> Obama --> abortionists (through Congress).

But if this bill is defeated, we may still have the chance of proposing counter-solutions acceptable to true pro-lifers, from people who sincerely want to see the number of abortions reduced by supporting women and helping them make the right choice, which is always to protect innocent life and give it the same chance we all deserve.

===

Action: 

The most effective thing you can do is call your congressional representative and tell them simply "Vote NO on the DeLauro-Ryan bill." If they want a reason: "It funds pro-abortion organizations which already receive too much federal funding." If they want an alternative bill to support on this issue, there is one (see below). The congressional switchboard is 202-224-3121 (don't hang up if it keeps ringing, it takes time for an operator to help you, but it will happen eventually). But you can also be completely done with the call in under a minute. The staffs are courteous and are there to take calls from people like you on issues like this.

You can also send a short email to your representative through this official form. Simply write the same thing and heck, give them the link to this post if they want to know why.

If you want help spread the word around the web, you can refer folks to this post, join a Facebook group I created (Stop DeLauro-Ryan) or Twitter about it (I propose the hashtag #stopryan).

As far as an alternative proposal, there is a good bill already in Congress, introduced by Lincoln Davis (D-TN) - HR #2035 which reads in summary: "To provide for programs that reduce abortions, help women bear healthy children, and support new parents." 

It is supported by Cardinal Rigali (head of USCCB pro-life) and numerous other Catholic and pro-life organizations, as Jack Smith explains. It is also bi-partisan: in the House it has 28 democrat and 12 republican co-sponsors! That's common ground, because pro-lifers can actually support it, on both sides of the aisle.

[photo credit: Third Way]

Tonight: Stop the Abortion Mandate (.com)

Tonight the largest pro-life webcast in history will take place at 9PM EDT to organize the resistance to taxpayer funded abortion: www.stoptheabortionmandate.com.

I'll be at a fundraiser event for a local crisis pregnancy center, but STAM has compiled an impressive list of presenters and it should be a very good and useful listen.

As I mentioned yesterday, if you are looking to do something about all this, consider taking a few moments to sign this petition circulated by the Susan B. Anthony List: "Tell the Senate Abortion is NOT Health Care."

update: take action here - http://tinyurl.com/stoptheabortionmandate

Urgent: Abortion in Obama's Government Health Care Plan

Here is some common ground on the abortion issue I'm willing to offer: I'm not going to pay for them.

The White House continues to dodge the issue.

The US Bishops have released a statement which says:

“No health care reform plan should compel us or others to pay for the destruction of human life, whether through government funding or mandatory coverage of abortion. Any such action would be morally wrong.”

Sr. Mary Ann Walsh is also blogging away: "Making sure the legislation is abortion-neutral takes one huge obstacle out of the way [of reforming health care]."

For the record, on prudential grounds, I think the health care "reform" bills being pushed through the House and Senate ought to be completely scrapped.

But I am sure Catholics would agree with me on this: we cannot allow our government to foot the bill (with our tax dollars) when anyone in this country wants to have an abortion.

On an important related issue, Jack Smith gives us an update on the Ryan-DeLauro bill:

The Ryan-DeLauro Bill looks to be presented as the President's much vaunted "common ground" approach to reducing abortion - appealing to both pro-life and pro-choice leaders. Problem is, it is sponsored by two pro-choice legislators. By his consistent moves in the last two legislative sessions, Rep. Ryan has given up any claim to being pro-life. As we mentioned above, he is actually working against pro-life Democrats.

This Ryan-DeLauro bill is meant to derail any truly common ground approach to aid women in crisis pregnancies and their families. In its previous incarnations the bill is top heavy with hundreds of millions for Planned Parenthood and lite on actual support for women. Its unveiling this week will reveal whether it gives more to Planned Parenthood and abortion providers than before.

That is my fear and should cause concern for all who have supported common ground efforts to reduce abortion. Now more than ever, it is critical for Democrats and Republicans to show support for the Pregnant Women Support Act written by Democrats for Life and strongly supported by the USCCB.

So, to recap: no taxpayer-funded abortion in government health care bills, and no large-scale sneaking of taxpayer-money to the major abortion providers in this country.

If forcing all Americans to pay for abortions they know are morally wrong counts as "common ground" in these people's minds, then they were never actually serious about reducing abortions in the first place.

action: if you are looking to do something about all this, consider taking a few moments to sign this petition circulated by the Susan B. Anthony List: "Tell the Senate Abortion is NOT Health Care."

Abortion "common ground" = Dissent from Church teaching

I've recently discussed both the various "common ground" ideas (here, here, here & here) being floated by pro-abortion advocates, as well as Obama's recent pick for Surgeon General, a Catholic who appears to support Obama's pro-abortion stance.

My disagreement with pro-abortion advocates on these "common ground" issues are not simply matters of perspective - there are fundamental and irreconcilable differences between our two positions, I believe.

Thus, when WaPo writes an article entitled "Surgeon General Pick's Stance on Abortion May Clash With Church's", it is meaningless for Common Ground to describe it as "Obama's Surgeon General Picks Believes in Common Ground on Abortion Issue."

What the Surgeon General actually believes, is what Obama thinks about the abortion issue, not what the Church teaches about it. And yes, there is a difference. Especially when you have to apply pressure on his administration to not include universal funding of abortion in their new health care proposal (more on that later).

Meanwhile, the Obama administration continues wanting to have it both ways, resulting in ridiculous statements such as this one from White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs claiming that President Barack Obama made the same pledge to Pope Benedict XVI about reducing the number of abortions that he made to Planned Parenthood as a presidential candidate in 2007 (when he promised to sign the Freedom of Choice Act as President).

Can we honestly believe the claim that Planned Parenthood and Pope Benedict will be satisfied with the same solution to the scourge of abortion?!

Video: Catholic Vote's 3rd pro-life video

They've done it again:

I've blogged about their work before here. Please spread the word! (And visit CatholicVote.org)

Important: Is the White House mocking pro-lifers?

AmP reader Chris emailed me:

You may remember sometime ago there was an empty envelope campaign where folks on the side of the unborn were encourage to send an empty envelope to the white house, with the message "this envelope represents a life lost to abortion" or something along that line. My wife sent an empty envelope. In our mailbox today, was an empty envelope with the return address "The White House, Washington, DC, 20500." There is no message inside nor on the back. It is hand-addressed to my wife

Here is a picture of the letter she received:

She blogs about the experience here (the comments are also interesting). 

I'd be interested to find out if others who sent empty envelopes to the White House received an empty one back. It's an odd coincidence, to say the least.

If some snarky intern did indeed think this would be a fun way to get back at pro-lifers, I think Chris and his wife are owed a second letter - an official apology.

PQOTD: "Following the prevailing winds and currents of the day is childish"

This is an extended Papist-Quote-of-the-Day, because every word is golden. It is a preview of the Pope's upcoming social encyclical given by Pope Benedict himself as he closed the Year of St. Paul this week (bolding mine):

"Paul wants the Christian faith have a 'responsible', an 'adult faith," said the Holy Father. "The word 'adult faith' has in recent decades become a popular slogan. It is often used to refer to the attitude of those who no longer adhere to the Church and her pastors, but choose for themselves what they want to believe and not believe - a kind of do-it-yourself faith."

Benedict XVI continued: "Speaking against the Magisterium of the Church is presented as courageous. In reality, however, it does not take courage for this, since you can always be sure of audience applause."

"Rather it takes courage to adhere to the faith of the Church, even if it contradicts the 'scheme' of the contemporary world," said the Pope. "It is this non-conformism of the faith that Paul calls an 'adult faith.'"

The Holy Father gave two examples of an 'adult faith'. First, "to commit to the inviolability of human life from the very beginning, thus radically opposing the principle of violence, in defense of the most defenseless humans." And second, "to recognize marriage between a man and a woman for life as a law of the Creator, restored again by Christ."

For Paul, said Benedict XVI, "following the prevailing winds and currents of the day is childish." (LSN)

Put that in your relativist pipe and smoke it (because we all know there is only one right end to smoke a pipe).

Ad asks Obama: ‘If fatherhood begins at conception, when does life begin?’

Smart move from Family Research Council (background from CNA):



And smart not because it scores "political points," but because it challenges Obama and the pro-abortion movement to face the contradictory nature of the two things they are trying to say. The only conclusion that they can arrive at - but they avoid it at all costs - is that they honestly believe you can end human life when it is inconvenient. That's an inhuman solution.

The video above already has over 100,000 views. It's a powerful message.

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

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

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

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

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

[Click here to see what she wrote.]

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

Statistics: Pro-Life States Have Lower Abortion Rates

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

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

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

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

Much more at FiveThirtyEight.com.

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

CNN Video: Mother says no to abortion in AC360 interview

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



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

"Not one minute of it."

Matthew Balan at NewsBusters has the full transcript + commentary.

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

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

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

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

Must-See Video: "Life - Imagine the Potential"

The first video by the folks at Catholic Vote.org has almost 2 million views on YouTube alone.

I think you'll agree that their second video is even better. I cant wait to see what they do next.



Spread this video far and wide, please. And hop over to Catholic Vote.org to learn more.

This video was shown publicly for the first time at today's National Catholic Prayer Breakfast.

It was also announced that talks are underway to air it during the American Idol finals (!).

American United for Life to Leahy: No Radical Justice Appointments

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

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

Hot Air has more.

Friday Required Reading: Lacy Dodd asks Fr. Jenkins a question

But before she asks the question, she tells a story - her story:

For many members of the Notre Dame Class of 2009, the uproar surrounding the university’s decision to honor Barack Obama with this year’s commencement address, and to bestow on him a doctorate of laws, has provoked strong feelings about what the ensuing conflict will mean for their graduation.

I know how they feel. Ten years ago, my heart was filled with similar conflicts as we came closer to the day of my own Notre Dame commencement and my commissioning as an officer in the United States Army.

You see, I was three months pregnant.

[Read on.]

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

A new poll by the Pew Research Center released today:

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

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

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

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

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

Bishop Conlon restores Friday abstinence from meat in Diocese of Steubenville

Okay, technically, Catholics in the US are only allowed to dispense from the year-round Friday abstinence from meat if they substitute a comparable penance for it ... but in practice, the vast majority of Catholics have forgotten to even do this.

Bishop R. Daniel Conlon, however, has dispensed with the substituting ... and has instead brought back the simple Friday abstinence from meat in his diocese. I especially respect that he ties this sacrificial abstinence to witnessing for the unborn and providing them with concrete assistance:

"I am inviting the Catholic people of the Diocese of Steubenville to resume the practice of abstaining from meat on all Fridays throughout the year, but with a twist. I am asking that this be not only a penitential practice but also an experience of prayer and service. This can happen by connecting abstinence with our witness to the sacredness of human life. (In another section he says: Abstinence can also be service if we eat simple meatless food and donate the financial savings to the poor or to pro-life efforts.)

... The resumption of year-round abstinence in the Diocese of Steubenville will begin after this coming Easter, one week after Good Friday (April 17). Although the practice will not be a requirement of law, and failing to keep it will not constitute a sin, I hope every one who is old enough to receive Holy Communion and well enough to come to church will take it seriously. Our parishes, schools and organizations should provide meatless food at their Friday activities.

... the present challenge to the people in our diocese is not really radical. It is a call to what many if not most of us have put aside. And it is a way for us, like the apostles, to give up a little food and help Jesus feed the world."

Bishop Conlon, of course, placed the above mandate within a very well-crafted pastoral letter, which he had read before or at the end of all the Masses in his diocese on the weekend of March 28/29. His catechetical office has also followed-through and provided education materials for school-age children.

What a wonderful idea - and it need not be limited to Catholics living in the diocese of Steubenville, either! Their fine witness, and the words of their bishop, can inspire us to do the same.

"White House confirms it got 2 million red envelopes" against abortion

I wonder how many AmP readers sent in a red envelope?

The White House mail office has confirmed it received a "deluge" of as many as 2.25 million red envelopes symbolizing the empty promise of lives snuffed out in abortion in a massive campaign that was larger than most White House mailing movements in the last 35 years. (WND)

Take the numbers with a grain of salt. Suffice it to say: lots have been sent.

Video: Dr. Oz tells Oprah/Michael J. Fox that ESCR is not the way

An amazing thing happened, a popular doctor told millions of Oprah viewers (with embryonic stem cell research-supporter Michael J. Fox in studio) that embryonic stem cells are NOT the answer to curing diseases such as Parkinsons. LifeReport with a brief into to the clip:



Moments like these help quickly change cultural assumptions.

May people's hearts and minds be converted before companies begin destroying embryos for research.

Today: White House conference call on reducing abortion

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

Tomorrow is the first concerted effort to do that:

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

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

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

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

update:Dan Gilgoff reports on what happened:

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

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

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

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

Hope?

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

Bishop Loverde personally delivers 200k pro-life postcards to Congress

This is something I love to see: a bishop going the extra mile, even if it means going outside the box.

Or in this case, a bishop going a few miles, across the Potomac!

Diocese of Arlington Director of Communications Joelle Santolla explains:

This Thursday Bishop Loverde delivered our anti-FOCA postcards by hand to the offices of Senators Webb and Warner.

He was told how much weight comes with a personal visit to a lawmaker, and knowing how detrimental FOCA and its other iterations would be, he wanted to have a chance to speak directly with our representatives to convey the seriousness of these issues ... taking with him nearly 200,000 post cards [pictured left].

He ended up talking about FOCA, the Conscience Clause and abortion (he met with Sen. James Webb and spoke with a policy representative from Warner’s office as well).

The Arlington Catholic Herald has a full article on the story. [photo credit: Dave Borowski]

Bishop Loverde has given us a fine example of using one's episcopal station to help the plight of the unborn.

update - a few more details from Joelle:

Sister Clare Hunter, who accompanied the Bishop, said that both offices were very welcoming and respectful of Bishop Loverde, and both extended the invitation to return for further discussion.

Bishop said, "These visits make absolutely clear our grave concerns about these issues and our firm and committed determination to protect life from conception to natural death. I welcome future opportunities to make our position clear and, in fact, will seek them out."

"Baby Boom with Patriarch Promise to Personally Baptize Babies #3+"

I like ending the news week on a high note. It doesn't get much better than this:

The head of the Georgian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Ilia II, came up with an astonishingly successful incentive to counteract the country's plummeting birth rate.

He promised to personally baptize any baby born to parents of more than two children.

The BBC reported that the results have been, in the words of the Georgian Orthodox Church, "a miracle," with the country's birth rate increasing by nearly 20% during 2008 - a rate four times faster than the previous year.

While Georgia was under the domination of the former Soviet Union, the Orthodox religion was all but suppressed in the country, but now the BBC reports that the Patriarch plays a very influential role in Georgian society, with many seeing him as the most authoritative figure in their lives. (LifeSite)

Imagine if American Bishops made that same promise to families in their diocese?

Jesuit Catholic U. drops abortion referral service

A piece of happy news from Valerie Schmalz at OSV:

"Following OSV's report in December that the Jesuit University of San Francisco's student health clinic was providing abortion and contraception referrals for students, USF has crafted a new protocol for the clinic that is consonant with the Church's stance on life issues. The USF student clinic staff will now refer students to First Resort, a crisis pregnancy organization; the Gabriel Project, a pregnancy support organization run by the university's St. Ignatius Parish; and Catholic Charities counseling facilities."

Just a reminder that abuses we bring attention to and take action on ... can be and do get resolved.

Video: Senator Inhofe on Stopping the Abortion Bailout

An important message:



An inside source explains:

The Stop the Abortion Bailout campaign is a grassroots initiative with the goal of sending 200,000 letters to the Senate in an attempt to get 41 Senators to filibuster any funding of abortion providers in the FY 2010 Budget. See the website for some specific funding requests by the abortion industry.

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) has emerged as a crucial ally in the fight against funding abortion providers. In a hostile atmosphere for pro-life Senators, it is a great testament to Senator Inhofe that he has chosen to take the lead on defending the unborn in the Senate.

More info from the Susan B. Anthony list here.

An amazing pro-life story

Funny how this headline/story just doesn't fit into that stereotype of pro-lifers as mean people who just want to see women put into jail:

"Man Driving to Abortion Clinic Runs Over Pro-Lifer, then Persuaded by Victim's Wife Not to Abort"

Praise God ... but pray for the poor man and his wife.

Catholics Against Sebelius website launched

And they have a short petition for you to sign.

The background explained in this Dan Gilgoff interview.

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.

Papist Quote of the Day

From Archbishop Charles Chaput:

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

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

North Dakota House Gives Fertilized Eggs Human Status

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

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

More from local press:

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

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

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

[Picture: Flickr user Lynn]

Red Envelope Project alerts Obama to abortion evils

NCRegister's Tim Drake:

A grassroots initiative to express moral outrage over President Obama’s administration’s promotion of abortion is garnering much Internet attention.

Just as American revolutionaries used tea to protest the action’s of the British government, those concerned with life are utilizing the power of red envelopes to protest abortion.

Supporters have been encouraged to send an empty red envelope to President Obama, symbolizing a single child who died because of abortion.

On the back of each envelope, is a handwritten message that reads: “This envelope represents one child who died in abortion. It is empty because that life was unable to offer anything to the world. Responsibility begins with conception.”

Tim Drake goes on to uncover the man behind the idea.

RedEnvelopeProject has sent almost 40,000 red envelopes to Obama so far.

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

Initial coverage from WaPo:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Majority of Americans disapprove of Obama decision to fund overseas abortions

Way down there at the bottom of the chart:

Here is the Gallup poll page and here is pro-life analysis from the Susan B. Anthony list.

This poll supports the point I and others have made: Obama's position on life issues - particularly abortion - is not in line with the majority of Americans, but rather represents an extreme position on the issue. He is even, I think it can be argued, farther from the center than people who would consider themselves "pro-life."

"2009 Pro-Life Instigator" Awarded to AmP

As I announced the day the award was made public. The actual award has a prominent place in my room.

It has a permanent place on the AmP sidebar. My humble thanks to everyone at American Life League.

Okay papists - go out and be instigators for the culture of life!

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.

Video: Amazing pro-life rap music video

Whatever your feelings about rap, this is an amazing song:

Buy the MP3 here. I think it would be good to support his work.

More about the artist Flipsyde and about this song in particular.

Breaking: "Pro-Life Super Bowl Ad Sacked"

After their valiant efforts to raise the funding, a disappointing rejection from NBC:

"NBC has refused to air CatholicVote.org’s new pro-life ad during its broadcast of this Sunday’s Super Bowl game.

According to a Jan. 28 press release from CatholicVote.org, “After several days of negotiations, an NBC representative in Chicago told CatholicVote.org today that NBC and the NFL are not interested in advertisements involving ‘political candidates or issues.’" (NCRegister.com]

Political candidates or issues? NBC is telling us there will be nothing aired during the Super Bowl that involves a political issue? No health care ads? Global warming ads? Unemployment ads?

You've got to be kidding me! What a double standard.

And you can bet they'll be other ads that feature or in some way make reference to Obama.

{update - You can watch the rejected pro-life ad here:}

Visit the Catholic Vote website here.

"What the FOCA?"

Gets your attention, doesn't it?

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

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

Picture: 30,000 attend West Coast Walk For Life

A beautiful sight:

Pro-life demonstrations coast-to-coast:

Thousands more turned out for the 2009 Walk for Life West Coast despite a chance of rain. No rain this year, but lots of enthusiasm and excitement as more than 30,000 walked from Justin Herman Plaza along the Embarcadero to Marina Green on Saturday, January 24. {More.}

God Bless them!

Did you know...?

From the General Instruction of the Roman Missal:

In all the dioceses of the United States of America, January 22 (or January 23, when January 22 falls on a Sunday) shall be observed as a particular day of penance for violations to the dignity of the human person committed through acts of abortion, and of prayer for the full restoration of the legal guarantee of the right to life. The Mass “For Peace and Justice” (no. 22 of the “Masses for Various Needs”) should be celebrated with violet vestments as an appropriate liturgical observance for this day.

It's true.

Video: Hope for Inauguration Day {link fixed}

Here's my pick:

More info from the press release and at CatholicVote. Commentary from LifeNews here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or similarly, Wonkette DC Gossip:

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

Hmm - which side is really exaggerating?

Or again, the Miami New Times blog:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update: USCCB Rep Corrects Incorrect Novena Email on FOCA

LifeNews:

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

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

Summit report and the future of pro-life in the U.S.

Deal Hudson spoke at the recent Michigan summit which I advertised and notes its wild success:

Five-hundred people were turned away from the "Pro-Life Summit to End Abortion" held by Dr. Monica M. Miller this past weekend in Ann Arbor, MI. Most of the 500 who did have tickets made it to Christ the King Church in spite of the ten inches of snow that started falling Saturday morning.

It's been quite a while since I've seen any group of Catholics as energized as those gathered by Miller's apostolate, Citizens for a Pro-Life Society. Anyone who had predicted the withdrawal of pro-life Catholics from political engagement after Barack Obama's victory would have been stunned by what they saw and heard at Christ the King. [Read on.]

500 attendees + 500 turned away = 1,000 active Catholics passionate about the pro-life cause.

And that's just the tip of the iceburg.

Remember, for those of you who missed the conference, CDs of the talks will be made available soon.

{Updated} Who started the FOCA novena?

A novena petition to prevent the passing of FOCA has been spreading like wildfire via email. A facebook group dedicated to the novena has almost 30,000 members. In one twist, an Irish representative has been receiving flak for forwarding the email to her constituents. I've received the forward multiple times myself.

{update: I should hasten to add - because I forgot this is not evident to everyone - that the novena email below contains a severe factual error - FOCA is not scheduled to be voted on or signed around January 21-22 or anytime in the foreseeable future. The bill doesn't have the needed votes.}

The basic text of the forward looks like this:

If you are opposed to abortion then there is bad news on the horizon. For those of you who do not know, the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) is set to be signed if congress passes it on January 21-22 of 2009. The FOCA is the next sick chapter in the book of abortion... [snip]

... Perhaps most importantly the government will now have control in the issue of abortion. This could result in a future amendment that would force women by law to have abortions in certain situations (rape, down syndrome babies, etc) and could even regulate how many children women are allowed to have.

Needless to say this information is disturbing, but sadly true. As Catholics, as Christians, as anyone who is against the needless killing of innocent children, we must stand as one. We must stop this horrific act before it becomes a law.

The Plan: To say a novena (9 days of prayer) along with fasting starting on January 11th (even if you're beginning this late, please join!). The prayer of choice will be the rosary with intentions to stop the FOCA. The hope is that this will branch and blossom as to become a global effort with maximum impact.

My question is - who started this? One report identifies a "Fr. Tom", another says it was "Lord Alton." No proof for either author is given.

Obviously, the petition is generating a considerable amount of traction and I would be interested to see how it caught on, and who first set the ball rolling. This sort of grassroots organization is admirable and will no doubt be useful in the future for similar initiatives.

Planned Parenthood feels the pinch, lays of 20% of staff

Baby-killing isn't exempt from the ebb and flow of economics:

The Madoff fundraising scandal has had some beneficial fallout for the pro-life movement. Combined with the current economic downturn, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America is feeling the pinch and has laid off 20 percent of its staff.

The nation's largest abortion business, which does 25 percent of all abortions in the United States annually, laid off about 30 people this week. (LifeNews)

I wonder if PP was succored-in by Madoff's unrealistically-high promise of investment profit.

Couldn't have happened to a nicer $1 billion corporate sponsor of abortion in America.

Don't forget the West Coast Walk for Life

For those unable to trek out to Washington DC on January 22nd for the March for Life, consider the fifth annual West Coast Walk for Life in San Francisco on January 24th.

The organizers have placed a pro-life banner on the SF Bay Bridge, which carries 250,000+ cars a day.

2009 Pro-Life Blog Awards have begun

Hosted by the American Life League.

Hop on over if you're a pro-life blogger!

Update: SF Jesuit U. *drops* abortion coverage for students

Ignatius Insight Scoop:

The Our Sunday Visitor blog reported on it yesterday, and now has posted a response from Gary McDonald, AVP, Communications and Public Affairs at the University, stating:

It was not the University's intention to offer this coverage. USF supports the Catholic Church's views on the sanctity of life, at all stages, and we will remove this provision from our student healthplan. We regret this mistake, and we take full responsibility for not adequately reviewing the contract. We are grateful to those who brought this issue to our attention.

LifeNews.com has a bit more on the story.

Catholic Key has been covering the story closely.

See also: University apologizes for student health plan abortion coverage, but questions remain (CNA) and University of San Francisco Drops Abortion Insurance Coverage from Student Plan (CNS).

Abortion Politics Didn’t Doom the Republican Party

So says Ross Douthat in the New York Times:

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

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

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

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

The best way forward? Douthat says:

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

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

In this case, that change is repealing Roe.

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.

Cardinal DiNardo leads procession from PP to death row

Not a coincidence:

Saying they want to promote the sanctity of life, several hundred people traveled to Huntsville Monday morning. The group was made up mostly of Catholics, including one very prominent one - Cardinal Daniel DiNardo.

They said their protest was to call attention to the value of life, whether unborn or condemned, which is why the group ended their procession at TDCJ's death row.

The prayers were as constant as the step. The procession moved forward at a steady clip as over 300 people walked quietly through the heart of Huntsville from the Planned Parenthood offices traveling north of the Walls Unit. It was a chance, many say, to protest against abortion and state executions of convicted criminals. (ABC 13)

And on a related note, Corpus Christi is refusing to give money to Planned Parenthood (at least for now). Would that other cities would follow its lead.

Ph/t: Dawn.

The Daschle Glass if Half Empty

Michael Sean Winters, writing for the America blog, has tried to claim that the appointment of Tom Daschle as Secretary of Health and Human Services is a "step in the right direction." As he puts it: "Call me an optimist ... The Daschle glass is half-full, not half-empty."

Well, call me a realist, but I think the Daschle Glass is half-empty, and I'll explain why.

From the outset, Winters misses the point:

The Church in America today is burdened by a group of conservative prelates and laity all of whom seem to be taking their marching orders from the Republican National Committee

I've said it dozens of times: when Catholic bishops speak out on behalf of the unborn they are doing so because abortion is a human rights issue, not a partisan talking-point. Catholic bishops would rejoice to see the pro-life cause energetically embraced by democrats and republicans alike. Winters continues:

The Catholic press and blogosphere are the only outlets that view the Daschle selection through the prism of where he stands on the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA).

Well no kidding, that's because the Catholic press and blogosphere actually believe abortion is wrong, and actually believe that Obama might very well try to fulfil one of the promises he made. Catholic press and blogs would be abandoning their commitment to a Catholic perspective on modern social issues if they mirrored the liberal orthodoxy of the age which says abortion is here to stay.

I don't have time to chase down all of Winters' claims about Daschle's supposed teppidness when it comes to abortion. I'll grant that Daschle is not the most extreme supporter of abortion rights ... but he still supports them. Daschle fundraises for NARAL, for pete's sake! Especially around election time. A 50% rating from NARAL doesn't mean he's 50% pro-life, it means Daschle is only half as radically, unequivocally, energetically pro-abortion as they demand.

Winters also takes a cheap shot, quoting Joe Scheidler of the Pro-Life Action League on crisis pregnancies, and then saying this in response:

Those are the words of a man who has never spoken with a poor woman facing a crisis pregnancy and who has evidently never read a papal encyclical on social justice. These voices can be counted upon to denounce the Daschle appointment.

Um... excuse me? How does Winters know that? Does a lack of personal experience mean Scheidler can't make prudential decisons? How dare Winters (or Daschle, for that matter) attempt to legislate for things they have not personally experienced?! Oh that's right, all politicians legislate about things they haven't personally experienced. Winter's comment isn't even an argument. And I'd like to see Winters point out to me that "papal encyclical on social justice" where it says abortion is the answer to any social problem. I'll be waiting.

Winters winds down his post with claiming to have originated, or at least pre-dated, the current democrat line which says "Roe v. Wade is here to stay, so the only way to reduce abortions is to make women not want them." Ironically, Winters resumes "Call me an optimist..."

I'm sorry, but what Winters just said sounds incredibly pessimistic. And it's a very sad day indeed when Catholics feel encouraged by the appointment of pro-abortion Catholic politicians to the highest healthcare office in the country, and somehow claim that the rest of us are impeding progress when we voice concern.

Text/Commentary: Cardinal George's letter to President-elect Obama

You can read the text here.

My pull quotes:

[On Roe v. Wade:] Legal protection for those members of the human family waiting to be born in this country was removed when the Supreme Court decided Roe vs. Wade in 1973. This was bad law. The danger the Bishops see at this moment is that a bad court decision will be enshrined in bad legislation that is more radical than the 1973 Supreme Court decision itself.

[On FOCA:] "It would be an evil law that would further divide our country, and the Church should be intent on opposing evil."

[On the election, etc.:] "The recent election was principally decided out of concern for the economy, for the loss of jobs and homes and financial security for families, here and around the world. If the election is misinterpreted ideologically as a referendum on abortion, the unity desired by President-elect Obama and all Americans at this moment of crisis will be impossible to achieve.

Abortion kills not only unborn children; it destroys constitutional order and the common good, which is assured only when the life of every human being is legally protected.

Aggressively pro-abortion policies, legislation and executive orders will permanently alienate tens of millions of Americans, and would be seen by many as an attack on the free exercise of their religion."

What's especially significant about this? Cardinal George is speaking not just personally, nor as the Archbishop of Chicago, but as the President of the gathered American bishops:

"On this issue, the legal protection of the unborn, the bishops are of one mind with Catholics and others of good will ... The bishops are single-minded because they are, first of all, single-hearted."

"This statement is written at the request and direction of all the Bishops...."

Okay, moment of truth time: when dozens of individual bishops were making these same points during the election, they were dismissed as a "minority" or "mavericks" by their liberal critics. Now will those same critics who disagreed with these brave bishops admit that their alternative position is NOW a minority one?

In other words, here is the contradiction. When bishops said something they didn't like they would dismiss them as "fringe" or "extreme", now that the combined bishops are, as a body, saying the same things as were said before by a few, will they continue to refer to the position taken by all the bishops in similar terms?

Tick, tock, tock.

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

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

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

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

Martino tries to get some movement:

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

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

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

Tobin (!):

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

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

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

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

Talk about a wake-up call.

Bishops approve official blessing of infants in the womb

As mentioned.

CNA has the straight scoop:

Children in the womb will now be able to receive a special blessing from their parish priests following an overwhelming vote by the U.S. bishops in favor of the new blessing.

"The Blessing of a Child in the Womb" has been in the works for two years, but Bishop Michael Saltarelli noted at a press conference on Tuesday afternoon that, “happily it’s come to fruition at this time when I think it’s important to reaffirm and focus our attention on the life of the unborn.” The bishop’s remarks were apparently in reference to the recent election results and Cardinal George’s remarks on not giving any ground to those who insist that Catholics set their beliefs aside in public dialogue.

Also in the works:

Bishop Michael Pfeifer suggested that the conference eventually designated a nationwide Day of Prayer for the unborn.

John Allen comments:

In part, these gestures suggest a "full-court press" from the bishops in terms of fostering a strong pro-life sensibility in the church.

These both strike me as laudatory, smart decisions. By what sort of margin did the resolution pass?

"The English-language version was approved 223-1 and the Spanish-language version 224-0." (source)

Who didn't approve it?!

On Fighting Foca

Almost a dozen people have recommended this link to me since November 5th:

http://www.fightfoca.com/

They've collected almost 70,000 signatures against FOCA. What is FOCA?

"The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) would eliminate every restriction on abortion nationwide. Barack Obama believes this legislation will "end the abortion wars." To him, "ending the abortion wars" means eradicating every state and federal law on abortion — laws that the majority of Americans support."

70k is a good start, but honestly, millions would be better.

The Catholic bishops are "completely united and resolute in our teaching and defense of the unborn child from the moment of conception" and have explicitly named FOCA as a preeminent threat to the unborn child in their Baltimore meeting this week. (More details here.)

I'll bracket, for the moment, the obvious observation that we are now in a situation of having to vocally oppose a piece of legislation that it has was long known President-elect Obama has promised to sign. Looking to the past and learning from the lessons it can teach us is important, but should not interfere with us moving, quickly, to do something about FOCA now.

On letting Doug Kmiec have it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It bears repeating: Bishops who speak, speak this way

At least in the overwhelming majority of cases. Bishops who are not adopting this strong rhetoric calling Catholics to vote an informed conscience on the issue, particularly, of abortion can be counted on one hand.

Another case in point to close-out the day: Bishop Robert Carlson of Saginaw whose statement (PDF) treats the presidential election as well as pro-ESCR Proposal 2 in Michigan (which I have discussed here).

Since I see no need to reduplicate work already done well, please see Fr. Z's analysis of the document.

Abp. of Omaha: "No proportionate reason outweights abortion"

As a perfect example of what I see as a clear and growing trend, I submit this letter on voting entitled "Deciding the values that are most important to us" (PDF) by Archbishop Elden Curtiss of Omaha.

The general framework of this letter, and other letters recently published by American bishops:

• Catholics have a moral responsibility to vote and participate in the democratic process
• Catholics have to vote according to a well-formed conscience - and that means well formed by Catholic principles, not ideological or partisan preconceived notions
• Catholics must vote to respect and preserve the dignity of every human life
• Among modern threats to that dignity, nothing matches the ongoing grave evil of abortion

What happens next is interesting, and novel, but again - it's happening more and more often....

After laying out the four steps above, the bishop will add a fifth step - his personal conclusion:

"I cannot conceive of a proportionate reason that could outweigh the deaths of nearly 50 million children killed by abortion."

"Those who do not understand or accept this basic human right [to life] are unworthy of our trust."

Of course, this is a great simplification. And Bishop Curtiss adds the needed qualifications:

"We are surely not one-issue people because we have to be concerned about the well-being of everyone in our society, and especially those who are hurting and in need. We have to be concerned about women with unplanned pregnancies who are without the resources to give birth or to care for their babies. We are rightfully concerned about candidates for public office who do not seem to care about babies after they are born and their mothers, and their future welfare. But the very first right we must protect, if all human rights are to be protected, is the right to life for the unborn."

Anyway, this is just no. 84 on a list of over 115.

On supporting one another in pursuit of the good and true

Doing the right thing often isn't easy.

Bishop Robert Vasa, in his most recent column, tells us one way that he is encouraged:

It might be a perception that my boldness regarding pro-abortion politicians is courageous but in truth I only follow the lead of those who exemplify a boldness far greater than my own. The bold speaking out on the part of Archbishop Raymond Burke regarding the contentious issue of Catholic pro-abortion politicians and Holy communion emboldens cowards like me to follow his example. The firm and measured response of Cardinal Egan and a variety of other Archbishops and Bishops to misleading statements of the Speaker of the House emboldens others, like myself, to shake off the shackles of fear and to stand with them.

Fr. Thomas Euteneuer, on Comending the Bishops:

Faithful Catholics in the US have been both stunned and gratified by the recent show of episcopal strength in dealing with the heretical nonsense of “Catholics” in public life who clearly misrepresent the Church’s teaching on vital issues.

... The trend is truly heartening. Let’s pray that it continues! Much more could be done, of course, but I am grateful that more bishops are standing up to strengthen and protect the faith of millions.

... [I would mention] the strong pro-life stances of Archbishops Burke (now in Rome) and Chaput (Denver) as well as Bishops Vasa (Baker, OR), Farrell and Vann (Dallas, TX), Martino (Scranton, PA) and Mallooly (Wilmington, DE) who are representatives of a group of other bishops who have made their voices heard forcefully on the Catholic voting issue.

... Thankfully, there are many more examples of episcopal courage that we could add to the reflections but suffice it to say that there seems to be a new wind blowing through the College of Bishops all around the world these days.

... We also need to thank them personally when they speak out in order to encourage them to do even more! Now that the example has been set, let us hope that other bishops and priests will have the audacity of our hope in Christ to go out and do the same!

What they said.

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

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

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

Have you any doubt that it is a human being?

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

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

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

Farther in:

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

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

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

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

Top myths about abortion dispelled on USCCB website

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

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

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

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

More myths (underlining again mine):

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

"Save our Children!" says Bishop Robert Hermann

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Read his entire column.]

His spiritual exhortation? Pray. the. rosary.

Video: Obama and Palin on abortion

First, Sarah Palin connecting the dots:

Via GodSpy.

Now see Obama at Planned Parenthood:

Note the contrast.

Vitae Caring Foundation event tonight

Through the kind invitation of individuals at Family Research Council, I'll be attending the Vitae Caring Foundation's 2008 "Benefit dinner to build a culture of life in the D.C. area" featuring:

Mark Melcher: A staunch defender of life, Mark L. Melcher is an award-winning writer and for many years was voted top political analyst on Wall Street by Institutional Investor magazine.

He is founder and president of The Political Forum, a research and consulting service that looks at cultural, political and social trends and how these affect both U.S. and global economies and securities markets for institutional investors.

He is a member of the Board of The National Humanities Institute and of O'Meara, Ferguson, Whelan, and Conway, an investment banking firm specializing in helping religious organizations manage their temporal affairs.

It sounds very pertinent, and I'm eager to hear his comments about the current state of affairs.

Please take some time to learn about VCF, and support their efforts if you are able.