February 15, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Holy See’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (SCDF), has censured a book questioning the Catholic Church’s teaching on sexual morality and ordered it removed from bookstores, according to reports in the Spanish media.
The book, “Sexuality and the homosexual condition in Christian Morality,” (Sexualidad y condición homosexual en la moral cristiana) by Spanish Redemptorist priest Marciano Vidal, is published in Spanish by the Society of Saint Paul, a religious order devoted to Catholic publishing and media outreach. The Spanish newspaper El Pais reports that no detailed explanation was given, but simply that the book contains expressions “contrary to the doctrine of the Church regarding sexuality.”
Previous works by Vidal on similar topics have already been condemned in a notification of the same Vatican office in 2001 by then Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, for claiming that the Catholic Church’s teachings condemning sodomy, masturbation, contraception, sterilization, artificial insemination, and in vitro fertilization were open to doubt, and making ambivalent statements about “therapeutic” abortion.
Although Vidal at the time agreed to revise his works to bring them into conformity with Church teaching, in cooperation with the bishops of Spain, he ultimately decided not to do so.
“It was asked of me that if I would like to do a new edition of the Morality of Attitudes, I would have to enter into a relationship with the Commission for the Doctrine of the Faith of the Spanish Bishops’ Conference,” Vidal later told the Spanish news agency IVICON. “Maintaining that dialog, I have decided not to do a new edition.”
Following the decision of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, the Argentinean newspaper Pagina 21 has published an image of the letter written in Italian by the superior general of the Society of St. Paul to the Society’s provincial superior for Argentina, Chile and Peru, ordering the cessation of sales and publicity for the book, as well as the removal from the Society’s catalog.
The same letter orders the removal from sale of another book by Methodist minister Pablo Ferrer and also published by the Society of St. Paul, “Couples and Sexuality in the Community of Corinth.”
While the Society of Saint Paul’s officials in Argentina have indicated that they will obey the order, El Pais reports that the leader of the Brazilian branch of the Redemptorist order, to which Fr. Vidal belongs, is refusing to pull his book.
The Portuguese-language blog Mass on Sundays (Missa aos Domingos) has published an email from Redemptorist priest Marcelo Araujo, who runs the order’s publishing house Santuario, claiming that he has received no notification from the Brazilian bishops’ conference nor the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith regarding the book. He defends the book openly, claiming that it was not condemned for doctrinal reasons but rather “simply responds to a consternation caused by comments of an Argentinean site which, without knowing the content, only for the fact that Fr. Vidal was questioned once by the CDF, now thinks that whatever book he writes is against the Catholic faith.”
OTTAWA, February 15, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The private member’s bill to scrap Section 13 of Canada’s ‘hate speech’ law is expected to get its second vote today, after being debated in Parliament yesterday.
Bill C-304, “An Act to Amend the Human Rights Act,” introduced by MP Brian Storseth, seeks to ensure greater protection of freedom of expression in Canada by deleting the controversial “hate speech” provision in the Human Rights Act that has been used to silence Christians and conservatives who express politically incorrect opinions.
Though the bill has received wide support from both sides of the government, a representative of the national Stand Up For Freedom Canada campaign, which is advocating for repeal of Section 13 and reform or elimination of Canada’s human rights commissions and tribunals, said MPs must still be encouraged to support the bill in order for it to pass.
If the bill passes today’s vote, it will face one more vote in the House of Commons and pass through the Senate before it becomes law.
“The fact that Bill C-304 is not a government bill is disappointing,” said Stand Up For Freedom Canada spokesman Neil Dykstra. “It really should have been a priority for any conservative government that values freedom. Because Mr. Storseth’s bill is a private member’s bill, it is not guaranteed to pass.”
Critics of Section 13 have long argued that the clause creates the precise equivalent to a ‘thought crime.’ The provision defines a discriminatory practice as “any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt” if the person or persons affected are “identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.”
In 2008, the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) hired constitutional law expert Professor Richard Moon to examine Section 13 of the act. In his report, Moon’s principle recommendation was that section 13 be repealed. However, the CHRC ignored the report and proposed their own solutions, which were criticized as “superficial.”
Bill C-304’s successful passage would also strike out Section 54 of the act, the penalty clause for those convicted of transgressing Section 13.
Last November, in response to a question by Mr. Storseth, who introduced Bill C-304 in September, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said, “Our government believes that Section 13 is not an appropriate or effective means for combatting hate propaganda. We believe the Criminal Code is the best vehicle to prosecute these crimes.”
“I say to the opposition, get on side with the media,” Nicholson added. “Maclean’s magazine, the National Post and even the Toronto Star say this section should go.”
Member of Parliament for Edmonton - St. Albert, Brent Rathgeber, stated in support of the repeal of Section 13, “Any legislation which limits the ability to speak freely without fear of Government reprisal is inappropriate in my view. Free speech, if it is to exist, cannot be subject to some bureaucracy. There is no such thing as government regulated free speech. Either there is free speech or there is not.”
André Schutten, a lawyer and member of Stand Up For Freedom Canada, pointed out that freedom of expression without government censure is at stake in the vote on Bill C-304.
“There is much at stake with the passage of this bill,” Schutten said. “If Bill C-304 is defeated, Parliament will in effect be encouraging censorship by its bureaucratic agencies. This will embolden the human rights tribunals and commissions to continue and increase their targeted persecution of politically incorrect opinions and ideas.”
“We urge all Canadians to contact their Member of Parliament to support freedom of expression in Canada, to support Bill C-304,” Stand Up For Freedom Canada advises.
The group has created a convenient web form to customize and send a letter to the Prime Minister, Justice Minister, and MPs.
Contact info for all members of parliament is available here.
TORONTO, Ontario, February 15, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Linda Gibbons was committed to a trial to be held on Thursday, April 26 on a charge of disobeying a court order during a brief appearance in a Toronto courtroom Tuesday morning. The trial, expected to last four hours, will be held beginning at 10 a.m. in room 504 of the College Park courthouse at Yonge and College Streets in downtown Toronto.
The charge was laid following her appearance outside the Morgentaler “Clinic” abortion site in Toronto last December 16. The site is protected by a civil court-imposed “bubble zone” that prohibits pro-life activity of any kind within its boundaries. The Crown withdrew an accompanying charge of obstructing a police officer because “there was no reasonable probability of conviction” on it. See video of the arrest here.
The coming trial will be precluded, however, should the Supreme Court of Canada bring down a decision that Gibbons and others cannot be charged criminally for violations of injunctions enacted by civil courts. That issue is currently being pondered by the court on account of an appeal by Gibbons’s legal counsel. Various injunctions under which Gibbons has been charged over the years have been enacted by civil courts; however, she has always been charged and convicted criminally. The court will decide whether this is a proper procedure.
Gibbons remains incarcerated at the Vanier Centre for Women in Milton pending her trial as she refuses to sign bail conditions that require her to stay away from abortion sites. During the Tuesday morning appearance, about a half-dozen supporters in the public gallery stood in salute as she entered and left the courtroom.
Meanwhile, Mary Wagner has been freed on bail pending her coming two-day trial February 28 and 29 on charges of mischief and two counts of failing to comply with a probation order regarding her arrest at the Bloor West Village “Women’s Clinic” abortion site last November 8. She has also altered her previous stance on representing herself and now will have lawyer Russell Browne acting on her behalf. The trial will take place in room 506 of the College Park courthouse, beginning at 10 a.m. both days.
It had been stated at an earlier hearing that assistant Crown attorney Lara Crawford will be prosecuting the case and will be seeking a four- to six-month jail term, in addition to probation orders. It was also said Crawford will be seeking “victim input” from people who were allegedly “harassed” by Wagner at the abortion site. Two arresting police officers and an abortion site employee will be called as witnesses.
See video of Wagner’s arrest here.
February 15, 2012 (LiveAction.org) - In a recent, now famous editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, interim editor-in-chief Rajendra Kale called abortion of female babies “discrimination against women in its most extreme form.” He called for the withholding of information regarding the sex of any unborn baby until 30 weeks gestation in order to stop the female feticide that he reports to be occurring mainly in certain ethnic groups.
While abortion advocates are in an uproar over a woman’s right to choose to abort a female baby because she wants a boy instead, others are calling for the education of these ethnic groups against sexist rationale. But what if this debate was instead about the unborn child with cystic fibrosis or Down syndrome?
I believe most of us would agree that sex selective abortions are an act of discrimination. And I believe most of us would agree that this discrimination must end. But if the same ultrasound technology which revels the sex of a baby also revels the existence of a disability and that baby is then aborted because of that disability, is that not discrimination against the disabled at its worst? Why isn’t society standing up for these babies? Why aren’t doctors fighting to stop this practice of eugenics? Why is discrimination against females viewed as abhorrent, while discrimination against the disabled is considered justifiable and compassionate?
For those with disabilities, and for myself and other parents of a child with a condition able to be diagnosed prenatally, the idea of disability selective abortions is just as disconcerting as that of sex selective abortions. Prenatal testing exists in order to detect fetal abnormalities. In fact, new technologies that allow for easier, earlier testing of Down syndrome have been boasted as the way to eliminate the condition. But the only way to eliminate Down syndrome is through abortion.
Doctors advise expectant parents of a child facing a diagnosis that it is more compassionate to abort the child than allow her to live. Many people agree that aborting a disabled baby is the right thing to do so that the child won’t have to grow up suffering in any way. In fact, some parents have brought a wrongful birth lawsuit against their doctor when the doctor failed to diagnosis a disability in their unborn child. But is it really about compassion or is it about convenience? Can we really decide for someone else whether or not her life is worth living? And are these parents being educated about their child’s condition like Canadian parents should be educated about the joys of raising a daughter instead of a son?
The fact is that aborting a baby based on a disability is the same as aborting a child based on sex or race. It’s discrimination and it sends the message that people with disabilities are less than human and don’t deserve a chance at life. Unfortunately, doctors can’t withhold information regarding a prenatal diagnosis without the risk of being sued. So until society is educated on the realities of living with a disability, this discrimination will continue.
Unless people come forward for disabled children like Kale did for female babies, a prenatal diagnosis won’t be used to inform and educate parents, but instead will continue to be the reason many unborn children never see the light of day.
VATICAN CITY, February 15, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Families are a witness to “faith, courage and optimism” when they welcome many children even amid today’s social environment, said Pope Benedict XVI on Wednesday.
“Without children there is no future,” the pope observed in remarks directed towards members of the Italian National Association of Large Families, who attended the general audience this morning.
Italy, which traditionally is known for its large, boisterous families, has joined other Western countries in sliding into a precipitous demographic decline, and now has one of the lowest birth rates in the world. Currently on average there are around 1.4 children born per woman, far below the 2.1 rate that demographers say is necessary to maintain a population.
The pontiff said that he hopes “adequate social and legislative measures will continue to be promoted to support and protect larger families, who are a source of wealth and hope for the entire country.”
Members of the crowd cheered enthusiastically, holding babies and children aloft in the air, to which the pontiff replied with a smile and a wave.
Benedict invoked the intercession of Sts. Cyril and Methodius, the patrons of Europe whose feast was celebrated the day before.
“May their witness also help you to be apostles of the Gospel, the leaven for authentic renewal in personal, family and social life”, he said, addressing the young and the sick.
OTTAWA, Ontario, February 15, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Who has the final say over our children’s education – parents or the state?
That’s what Canada’s Supreme Court will decide this week as they release a historic ruling that is sure to have far-reaching, and potentially frightening, consequences for parental freedom in this country.
On Friday at 9:45, the high court will render its judgment in the case of S.L. et al. v. Commission scolare des Chênes et al., which involves a Catholic family who took the Quebec government to court after it refused to grant their child an exemption from the province’s controversial ethics and religious culture course (ERC).
A ruling for the family could be a victory for families across the country who object to the growing dominance of militant secularism and sexual propaganda in the public school system. But a victory for the government could embolden provincial governments bent on imposing their own brand of “diversity” education.
The Supreme Court heard the case in May 2011 after the parents’ effort was rejected by the Quebec Superior Court in August 2009, and then again by the Quebec Court of Appeals in February 2010.
The course, which seeks to present the spectrum of world religions and lifestyle choices from a “neutral” stance, has been widely criticized in Quebec by the religious and a-religious alike. Moral conservatives and people of faith have criticized its relativistic approach to moral issues, teaching even at the earliest grades, for instance, that homosexuality is a normal choice for family life.
The family, who hail from Drummondville, argue that the ERC course’s mandatory nature violates their freedom of religion and their right to direct the education of their children.
Despite provincial legislation allowing for exemptions from school curriculum, the Ministry of Education has turned down all of the thousands of requests, and even moved to impose the course on private schools.
They faced a setback on that front in June 2010 when the Quebec Superior Court said their attempts to impose it on Loyola High School in Montreal assumed “a totalitarian character.”
Jean-Yves Côté, the family’s lawyer at the trial, told LifeSiteNews that he hopes the Supreme Court has understood that the case is about the right to exemption, not the legality of the course itself.
“It’s not a case about the constitutionality of the course itself, it’s a case about depriving the parents of any possibility of exemption,” he explained. “Because if the mechanism of exemption is recognized by the Supreme Court then it could be used for other courses that may contain some offensive material.”
On the other hand, he acknowledged that denying the exemption would set a frightening precedent.
“I think if such a thing happened, we would be right in stating that regarding education, the parent is not the boss anymore. The state is,” he said.
Côté pointed out that Quebec’s civil code explicitly states that “the source of the duty and the right of education is parental authority.” While he was taught in law school that the teacher’s authority “emanates from the parents,” he noted that there is a shift among some teachers and others to believe that their authority comes instead from the state.
Patrick Andries of the Coalition pour la Liberté en Éducation, who have supported the family’s legal battle, noted that the Supreme Court could opt to base its judgment on merely technical grounds, for example if they believe proper procedures were not followed in handling the exemption.
But if the ruling favours the parents on “philosophical grounds,” he said, “It will show that they can oppose a particular vision of religion and ethics being taught to their children by the state, even when the government claims it to be innocuous and necessary for the common good.”
A decision against the parents, he said, would “undermine their role as educators, while further strengthening the role of government who will have a free hand in deciding such major issues … as the proper way to view religion, religious diversity and what is the sole way to approach ethics and morality in public schools.”
Faye Sonier, legal counsel for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, which intervened in the case, said it’s essential for the Supreme Court to land on the side of parental rights as Canadian society faces increasing challenges to parental authority and religious freedom.
“All parents are asking for is the right to teach morality and religion from their perspective or decide who will do so,” she said. “Parents are asking that their children be exempted from classes where material inconsistent with their beliefs is taught. This is accommodating practice that is done across the country. And it’s not asking too much from the state. They have a constitutional right to religious freedom in Canada.”
Visit LifeSiteNews for full coverage of the ruling after it is rendered Friday morning.
SANTA ANA, California, February 15, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The young woman staggered out the back door of the abortion clinic. She barely managed to make her way to her car before she collapsed on the curb, sobbing uncontrollably.
The year was 1980. Kathleen, in her early 20’s, had recently separated from her husband and had just aborted another man’s baby. In her time of crisis, Kathleen had turned for help to the only organizations she knew, Planned Parenthood and Family Planning Associates. The first gave her a pregnancy test, the other aborted her baby. As Kathleen doubled up from pain on the curb side, rocking her tear-streaked face in her hands, she vowed to God that if he showed her just one woman who faced a choice like hers, she would do all she could to guide that woman down a different path.
Weeks went by as Kathleen experienced vivid flashbacks of grief-stricken women moaning on dirty mattresses in a recovery room. Even now she remembers the counseling she received at the clinic. “I was not allowed to see the ultrasound monitor, nor was I given the opportunity to hear the heartbeat of my child.” As she began stitching the pieces of her life back together, she came to the realization that her pre-abortion counseling did not include any discussion of choosing life for her unborn child.
With this realization, Kathleen decided that not only would she honor her curb-side vow to God, but she would dedicate her entire life to preventing other young women from making her mistake.
Now, 31 years later, Kathleen Eaton is one of America’s leading pro-life advocates who has worked tirelessly and successfully to create a chain of fully licensed pro-life medical clinics that offer holistic healthcare to a woman and her unborn child.
Kathleen told LifeSiteNews that she is “ironically thankful” that her experience with abortion was “so awful” because it set a course for the way her seven California-located Birth Choice Health (BCH) Clinics operate as they serve women and their unborn babies.
“First of all, every pregnant Mom sees her baby on the screen and hears the heartbeat,” she says. “We are blessed to have the best, most modern 3D/4 color ultrasound equipment in all our clinics (thanks to the generosity of the Knights of Columbus) and equally blessed to have been able to staff our clinics with M.D.s and nurse practitioners who are not only medically trained, but are Godly men and women who work hard at creating an environment where life gets put back in choice.”
Not only do BCH Clinics provide ultrasounds, but they also provide medical consultations, pregnancy tests, STD testing, HIV/AIDS testing, well-woman care, prenatal care, and adoption counseling; providing sexual health services that are consistent with what Kathleen and her team call the “inherent value of every human life.” Contraceptives and abortion services are not found anywhere in any of the medical clinics.
Having fully licensed medical personnel offering a range of medical tests gives the BCH Clinics the firepower they need to become the new go-to place for young people to receive help and become educated on options that truly honor a woman and the life she carries within her.
“Too often these young people would turn to the large abortion providers, like Planned Parenthood for these services because they made the biggest noise out there in the cyber market place,” said Kathleen. “That’s where we come in. Through our staff of nurses, nurse practitioners and doctors, we can offer a full service medical alternative for sexual health and pregnancy and we can even up the ante by offering it to them free of charge. As fully licensed medical community clinics at the State level, BCH Clinics can advertise our services on the same playing field as the large national abortion providing clinics.”
BCH Clinics decided to offer STD testing, although not without controversy. However, Kathleen pointed out that as a medical provider in what she called a “sexually active world”, the pro-life medical clinics have a “unique opportunity” to impact that world and change the hearts of young people who come to them for testing and treatment services.
“Through our medical testing and treatment we create trust, and if we can create trust in our client, they will return, tell their friends, and soon BCH Clinics becomes their ally in the war they battle each day living in a sexually permissive culture,” said Kathleen. “When, or if, they are facing an unwanted pregnancy they know they can trust us with that as well.”
The BHC Clinics and their new Mobile Unit on wheels strategically place themselves near abortion clinics so that they can offer an oasis of life in what is more often than not a desert of death. Kathleen sees that her lifelong mission of competing for the lives of women and their babies is being fulfilled. She and her pro-life team know that they are making a difference in the communities that they serve.
“I am happy to report that of those abortion-minded women who see their child in the womb and hear its little heartbeat, 77% of them go on to carry that child to term. Ultrasound is our most powerful tool in saving innocent life from abortion.”
The BCH Clinics are structured to serve what Kathleen calls “the complete needs of today’s young families.” They offer a class called Beginnings for a woman who is becoming a mother for the first time, that teaches her what it means to be a “complete mother” to her child. Mothers not only learn about the care and feeding of an infant, but about nurturing and protecting their child. Optional programs are offered as well that include the spiritual side of parenting and the importance of living a life with God as your partner.
There are also courses for young Dads, who originally may have pushed their partner to abort. There the fathers have an opportunity to acquire the skills necessary to become a caring father who looks after the needs of a mother and child as best as he can.
The BCH Clinics also offer programs for abortion recovery, adoption, and teen abstinence. They even provide maternity housing for homeless pregnant moms. Kathleen explained that with all of these programs and services, their approach is not simply to teach their clients new skills, but to “focus on all the players that will affect the new little life we helped bring into this world.”
At the end of the day, Kathleen and her pro-life team know that their work accomplishes more than to help a woman make the right choice; it creates a space for a new life to “grow and thrive” so that one day, a man or woman will be able to tell others about the great gift that life is.
In 2010, Kathleen was honored with the John J. O’Connor Pro-Life Award for her distinguished achievement in serving women and their babies. Since becoming fully licensed medical clinics, Kathleen and her pro-life team have logged over 70,000 client visits in their clinics. Since 2006, they have saved an estimated 3100 babies from abortion.
February 15, 2012 (Bound4Life.com) - One thing we learned from the Komen/Planned Parenthood fiasco is that it may be easier to say no to the mob than Planned Parenthood. We saw it again recently in Green Bay, Wisconsin. This one didn’t make much news, but created a local social network bully fest.
Planned Parenthood called Paul’s Pantry, part of the St. Vincent de Paul Society and the biggest food pantry in Wisconsin, and asked them to come and pick up donations, which may have been noble, but wasn’t something the Catholic organization felt comfortable doing — sending a truck over and perhaps giving the abortion provider a photo opportunity. The American Life League reports what the worker at the pantry said:
All I told the young lady from Planned Parenthood was that I couldn’t send a truck to pick up, and gave her a list of other food pantries that might want to pick up, I gave her no reason at all and she didn’t ask why. Soon after, I started receiving the hate e-mail and phone calls. I politely explained to callers that although we are non-denominational in regards to those we serve, we are a Catholic organization who shares a board of directors with our sister organization, St. Vincent de Paul. We adhere to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and to the Rule of St. Vincent de Paul. I also explained our Gift Acceptance Policy and how acceptance of the donation would compromise our core values and possibly damage the reputation of Paul’s Pantry.
As with Komen, choice wasn’t okay with Planned Parenthood, and within a short amount of time, verbal abuse rolled in. Jill Stanek reports that a worker at Paul’s Pantry explained:
“Within 20 minutes I was getting phone calls and emails calling us [names]. The calls that day came from the Milwaukee area, where Planned Parenthood is headquartered. We have caller ID.”
[He] said he did tell one of the callers they could simply drop off their donation, “which happens about 100 times a day – in that case we don’t know where the food comes from. But if an organization wants a receipt, Paul’s Pantry has a gift acceptance policy. “If the donation is going to hurt us, we don’t accept it.”
Craig said it never got to that point with Planned Parenthood, though. PP invented the rest of the story. “What was their purpose?” asked Paul. “If they really intended to feed the poor they should have just dropped the food off and left it at that. But was it for their own self-promotion?”
The abuse didn’t stop there, though. First, Planned Parenthood broadcast it to their Facebook page on February 2:
Then Daily Kos got in on the action and bashed the pantry, then listed the phone number and the employee names and told people to call in protest. I am linking this story here for attribution but I will warn you ahead of time, there’s some language you may not wish to see. From the Daily Kos:
Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin facebook page is reporting that Paul’s Pantry of Green Bay, WI refused to accept donated food from it’s office. Apparently, Paul’s Pantry’s current needy guests would refuse food from abortion providers for fear that the food may contain fetuses. The world has gone insane, but methinks I know why this topic is coming up now. It’s ‘squirrel’ politics time again.
I refer to squirrel politics as the distraction from the real problem. I believe that the Republicans, especially Rove and co, know they are on a loser this year. And they want to make Planned Parenthood the cause celeb this year, something to gin up their base with and avoid talking about eliminating medicare and social security. Still….....
That doesn’t mean we have to avoid the battle, just means we have to do it with a reasoned and strong response. Like, calling these [insert expletive] (Followed by contact information for Paul’s Pantry).
It’s stunning how Planned Parenthood is all about having a choice until that choice bothers them. When the choice is against them they (along with their allies) become verbal abusers, broadcast it through social networking and make life a misery for the person who refused them. They act like spoiled brats who don’t get their way. Worse yet, they behave hypocritically. Planned Parenthood and their advocates accuse every pro-lifer who comes against them of being politically motivated and condemns them for using politics to infringe upon the rights of women, just as it did in the Komen situation. Curiously, though, the same Facebook post included this follow up comment by Planned Parenthood:
Planned Parenthood is deeply involved in partisan political activity. According to opensecrets.org, Planned Parenthood’s political action committee (PAC) has distributed $93,403 in campaign contributions to federal candidates so far in the 2012 election cycle. The entire pot has gone to Democrats, with the exception of two checks for $137 each to Maine Republican Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. Rounding this category of spending to the nearest percent, the PAC has given 100% of its money to Democrats. It’s no fluke. In 2010 the PAC gave $264,986 to federal candidates and 99% of that total went to Democrats, according to opensecrets.org. In 2008, the figure was 98%. Though it might hardly have seemed possible in 2008, the PAC has become more partisan in recent years. Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood also lobbies heavily to influence federal legislation, in part because a large portion of its funding comes from government. The group spent close to $2 million in lobbying in 2011.
It’s a curious thing why it’s okay for Planned Parenthood to be as politically affiliated as it wants and turn its quest to kill as many babies as possible for profit into political alliances, but when pro-life organizations say no to them they go full-on thug with the media and calls and name calling. The point here isn’t whether Paul’s Pantry took or didn’t take the food; the point is it’s their own choice what they want to do. Planned Parenthood, contrary to its apparent self opinion, does not get to make decisions for the other organizations in the nation just because it doesn’t like what they do. Until we as a people unite and speak up as they do they will continue to walk all over anyone who disagrees with them.
At Planned Parenthood choice is only for those who agree with them.
Donations can be mailed to: Paul’s Pantry 1529 Leo Frigo Way Green Bay, WI 54302. For more information call 920-433-0343 or e-mail us at info@paulspantry.
Hi, I'm Dave, an unborn baby. And I approve this message.
February 15, 2012 (LiveAction.org) - Good nap! I had a dream I was on a jet ski. It pretty much ruled.
Ok, TV time. What is she gonna watch today? Please Mom put it on “Top Shot,” please Mom put it on “Top Shot,” please Mom put it on –
Aww, man, “The View?!” Seriously?! That is completely uncool. I am totally gonna make you crave something gross later… Peanut butter and gravy. Yeah. That sounds terrible.
Turn it, Mom, please! If you don’t I’m gonna start asking for a tattoo when I’m, like, twelve.
Ok, she’s not gonna change it. At least it’s not “Jersey Shore.” Let’s see what the View ladies are talking about today. Oooh, the Sonogram Law. This should be interesting!
Oh hey, the pretty blonde lady’s taking my side. That’s cool!
But then the older lady who talks funny says:
I think that in order to even think about having an abortion, to give up a child that is obviously unwanted, that’s why you’re doing it…with so much fear of what you’re doing and guilt…then to have to go and be forced to hear, to see the fetus, to hear the heartbeat, to put more guilt on you, I think is heartbreaking.
Wow. Really, lady? You know what I think is heartbreaking? The idea that a mother could go in and have her child put to death without ever knowing it was a child. She might be lucky enough to live the rest of her life never knowing I was more than a “clump of cells,” but what if she finds out a year later, or a month later, that at eight weeks her baby had a heart beat, had arms and legs? Never mind the baby. Isn’t it cruel to keep the truth from a mother?
Here goes the loud red-headed lady:
It smacks of forcing somebody to confront something that they have already decided they don’t want to deal with.
You know, I may be just a dumb blob of tissue but even I know that when someone has surgery they have to tell you right to your face that you might have a stroke or die under anesthesia. You might not want to deal with that either, but it’s a medical fact. The doctor has to notify you that stroke or death are a possible consequence of the procedure. Ending a life is a definite consequence of abortion. Shouldn’t women be made aware of that?
My mom had a mole removed, so she had to sign a paper acknowledging she knew they were removing a mole. It makes sense that she would have to acknowledge it if they were removing, well, me.
With an elective surgery — got to take my gallbladder out — they’re not going to show you the gallbladder! If you want to see stuff, you ask your doctor. The thing that bothers me is what Barbara said, women who make this decision, it is not easy…sometimes they have to have an abortion because they can’t afford it. This does not come with anyone saying, you know, if you keep the baby we’ll help you out financially.
Aw, man! I’m so disappointed! She’s against me, too!
Thing is: people aren’t lied to about what a gallbladder is. They are lied to about what their embryo or fetus is. If they weren’t, this law wouldn’t bother so many people. The whole point of the sonogram is to help women understand: I’m not a blob or a clump anymore than The View ladies are. I have eyelids and tastebuds and toes. I hiccup and yawn and smile. Last time, I checked, gallbladders don’t do that. People do.
And, by the way, the only reason this decision doesn’t come with someone saying “if you keep the baby we’ll help you out financially” is because they’re at an abortion clinic. If they were at a crisis pregnancy center, they’d get all kinds of help.
Oh hey look! Another black lady! Maybe she’ll have my back!
I’m speaking as a girl who had a lot of abortions and I swear to God if they had showed me a fetus I possibly wouldn’t have but I would have put my child in a lot of situations that wouldn’t have been good because I didn’t have the mental capacity to deal with having a child. It was real difficult…it’s such a hard thing.
Wow… that’s really sad. This poor lady has lost lots of babies. She admits the law might have worked — she might not have had abortions if she’d known what she was doing. Those kids may have had a hard life for a while, but look! Their mom is doing pretty well now, huh? She went from having abortions because she didn’t feel like she could be a mom to appearing on TV for millions of people every day. I guess you could say it’s a good thing she had a chance at life. Too bad those children didn’t. It’s a tragedy.
People keep talking about how hard sonograms are on women. How about how hard an abortion is on us? Ultrasounds might be really uncomfortable to a woman who wants to abort, but nowhere near as uncomfortable as an abortion to the mother or the child.
Not only does showing those ladies our pictures give them information, show them what they would not be told by the clinics who only want their money, but it sometimes make them change their minds. And if it doesn’t, at least they know the truth. Don’t they deserve that? Isn’t it condescending to decide for them that they can’t handle it?
I keep hearing that women who go ahead with the procedure feel “punished.” Well, at the risk of sounding callous, who cares? Shouldn’t they feel a little punished? They just ended a life. I’d rather them feel punished now, and maybe start healing and changing their lives and making better decisions that don’t kill babies and make them sad, than just continuing to hurt themselves and their children.
The most tragic part is that it doesn’t have to happen. There are so many people who want to adopt infants. In fact, there are an estimated 36 couples waiting to adopt for every infant placed for adoption in the U.S. They’ll take kids with Down syndrome, spina bifida, you name it. There is no such thing as an unwanted child.
I’m stoked that my mom wants me. ‘Cause if she didn’t, I’d be at her whim. Killers who face the death penalty get a lawyer. I get no one to advocate for me, and I’m pretty sure I never killed anyone. My mom could go have me killed for any reason, and they don’t want her to even have to look at me. In America, one out of four of us doesn’t make it out of here alive.
I am happy to be a survivor, and I hope you are, too. I hope this new law helps more of us live to have a birthday.
Now please, Mom, turn it to “Top Shot!”
Reprinted with permission from Live Action’s blog.
February 15, 2012 (LiveAction.org) - Popular action-drama Buffy the Vampire Slayer may have left the airwaves in 2003, but the adventure continues in a comic book series produced by original series creator Joss Whedon. This week, the comic caught the attention of USA Today for an upcoming story in which protagonist Buffy Summers finds herself single, jobless, and pregnant after a drunken party she barely remembers. Unwilling to simultaneously deal with both parenthood and monster fighting, she plans to have an abortion.
“Buffy was always about the arc of a life, and it wasn’t ever going to be one of those shows where they were perpetually in high school and never asked why,” Whedon says. “It was about change. So there’s never a time when Buffy’s life isn’t relevant.” […]
“It offends me that people who purport to be discussing a decision that is as crucial and painful as any a young woman has to make won’t even say something that they think is going to make some people angry.”
Right off the bat, the story’s premise seems highly suspect: after seven seasons’ worth of fighting evil and having the weight of the world on her shoulders, Buffy still lets her guard down so fully that she can get unknowingly impregnated by strangers? I understand the value of flawed characters who learn through mistakes, but come on. You’d think the life of a superhero would drill a certain sense of responsibility into someone. Even setting aside the morality, aren’t drunken blackouts a prime opportunity for bad guys to attack? If they really wanted to tell a story about unplanned pregnancy, how hard would it have been to, say, give Buffy a genuine romantic interest who bails at the prospect of fatherhood?
Despite Buffy’s definite sounding “I’m going to have an abortion” declaration, there are signs that the story could go either way. On the one hand, Whedon’s talk of abortion being a “painful” decision for young women may be true as far as it goes, but such rhetoric is often code for pro-choicers who really mean it’s too painful a decision for any of us judgmental anti-choice yahoos to intrude on. And while I never watched Buffy myself, I did watch Whedon’s short-lived sci-fi series Firefly, a couple episodes of which indicate Whedon has a rather lax view of sexual mores.
On the other hand, Buffy’s baby isn’t dead yet, and if Comics Alliance’s preview is any indication, our heroine might still change her mind—Buffy is shown having a conversation with Robin Wood (I think; thanks, Wikipedia!), the son of an unwed mother:
BUFFY: I guess it’s obvious what I should do.
ROBIN: I don’t think it is.
BUFFY: What do you mean? You grew up resenting what Nikki did to you. I can’t put a kid through that.
ROBIN: I know. But I’m here because Nikki decided to have me. I think you should consider having the baby.
Lastly, one of Comics Alliance’s commenters points out that the internal rules of the supernatural Buffy universe have preemptively answered the central question of the abortion debate, by establishing that souls and the afterlife do exist. While writers bent on a predetermined outcome can do whatever they want to get there, it’ll be interesting to see whether ideology trumps the foundations of their own story. Will a heroine dedicated to battling the undead end up affirming the value of life, or surrendering to the culture of death?
February 16, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Spanish physicians have won two important victories for the right to conscientious objection to performing abortions.
Yesterday, the Superior Tribunal of the Autonomous Community of Andalusia in Spain overruled a lower court that had denied conscientious objector protection to Dr. Manuel Resa, a primary care physician who has accused his superior of attempting to force him to participate in abortions.
The lower court refused to issue a preliminary injunction giving Resa conscientious protector status, claiming that his participation in the abortion would not have been direct. The Superior Tribunal disagreed, however, and issued the injunction, noting that if the verdict in the suit ultimately favors him, he will not be able to benefit from the decision if protection is not immediately granted.
The decision was hailed by the Association for the Defense of the Right to Objection of Conscience (ANDOC), which noted that the decision “is another step towards the recognition of this right.”
“Dr. Manuel Resa, member of ANDOC, is one of the almost 40 primary care physicians that the SAS (Andalusian Health Service) has deprived of his right to objection,” ANDOC stated in a press communiqué.
“This case is significant, because the court of first instance did not accept the request for the preliminary injunction against the negative decision of the (SAS) committee, because it believed that the objection could not prevail over the right to medical attention by those who request abortion.”
The Union of Physicians called the decision “very important.”
The decision follows a verdict of the Supreme Tribunal of Spain in late January, ruling against a couple who claimed that doctors had denied them their “right” to an abortion by failing to inform them about deformities in their unborn child. However, the court did not deny the “right” itself, but rather claimed the deformities in question were not serious enough to invoke it.
The cases stem from the implementation of Spain’s new abortion law, created by the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party in 2010. The law decriminalizes abortion-on-demand during the first 14 weeks of pregnancy and allows abortions even later in cases such as fetal deformity. Since the passage of the law, doctors have been engaged in a struggle to establish the right of conscientious objection.
February 16, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Mexico’s top bishop, Cardinal Norberto Rivera, is calling on Catholic voters to make their choices in favor of the right to life and the preservation of the natural family, in a new declaration issued by Rivera and the auxiliary bishops of the Archdiocese of Mexico City.
The declaration is being issued as the national elections approach, in which Mexicans will not only choose their local and state representatives, but also Mexico’s president for the next six years.
Noting the “responsibility of the lay faithful to participate in the construction of the democratic life of the country,” Rivera declares that “Catholics must be attentive to the commitment of the candidates and their parties to respect the first of all rights, which is the right to LIFE, from the moment of conception to natural death.”
Rivera also instructs Catholics to “take into account” other values, among which he includes “the promotion and strengthening of the family, keeping in mind that marriage constituted between a man and a woman are the foundation of human and Christian society, promoting the education of new generations in moral and civic values for their integration in the social development of our country.”
“The vote of the Christian faithful must assume a moral responsibility,” Rivera states. “That is to say, it must be consistent with the dictates of their conscience and of their faith, and cannot be separated from their political choices, because politics can contradict justice and truth.”
“Therefore, it is also the obligation of the Pastors of the People of God to advise the faithful regarding those political proposals that, for their religious, moral, and social implications, contradict the teachings of the Catholic Church (Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, No. 426), with the objective that their political choices be moral and just.”
The declaration also lists education, social justice, the struggle against corruption and organized crime, and environmental concerns as policies of interest to Catholics in making their voting decisions.
Rivera’s advisory follows in the wake of years of anti-life and anti-family policies implemented in Mexico City by the socialist government, including the legalization and subsidization of abortion on demand during the first trimester of pregnancy, homosexual “marriage,” and “express divorce.”
Although the majority of the residents of the country’s Federal District are nominally Catholic, there is widespread indifference and even rejection of the Church’s teaching on the right to life, sexual morality, and family values. Mass attendance on Sundays is low.
Note: Monday’s article on Washington’s same-sex “marriage” bill was edited to correct an earlier version that indicated the bill’s language against marriage “discrimination” by religious organizations was in the final bill. However, that language was dropped prior to final passage. We regret the error.
Editor-in-Chief John-Henry Westen returned Tuesday evening from Kerala, India where he spent the last two weeks with his gravely ill mother. At the same time, US journalist Kathleen Gilbert has been writing many important US stories while in Rome all this month to assist Rome correspondent Hilary White who has been recovering from cancer treatments and surgery. Kathleen’s report last Friday, with quotes from Congressman Chris Smith and others, generated the huge Drudge link traffic that day. This Thursday, John-Henry is scheduled to fly out again for a week in Rome. I will join him Monday for important meetings in the Eternal City. John-Henry returns the following Thursday and Kathleen and myself will stay on in Rome to cover two important conferences during the Feb. 24-26 weekend.
While all this is happening, we are finalizing and translating into English our 98-page written defense to the Fr. Gravel lawsuit. It has taken much longer than expected, but you will be greatly impressed with the document. Preparations for the exciting April 28, 15th anniversary gala in Washington are ongoing. The new send-to-a-friend utility for promoting the daily news is almost complete and the mobile website development has taken a different turn requiring more programming, but it will be impressive when completed. Planning for a quick server resources upgrade to allow us to better handle the recent surge in LifeSiteNews traffic is well underway thanks to the special donations received last week.
There is never a dull moment it seems. Please keep us in your thoughts and prayers. Thanks for all your support.