Peter Baklinski

‘Daddy, why do some mothers not love their babies?’

Peter Baklinski
Peter Baklinski
Image

June 22, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) –  “Daddy, why again did they put the lady in prison?” my four year old daughter asked with wide-eyed concern.

“Because some people do not like that she tells women that they should love their babies inside them,” I replied.  

“But Daddy, why do some mothers not love their babies?”  

“Well…,” I fumbled for words, “...some mothers don’t know how lovable their babies are and some choose not to love them. The lady was arrested because she wanted to tell mothers that their babies are very lovable and that they should love them, and not forget about them.” 

“But Daddy, why would they arrest someone who wanted to say that?” 

“Well, maybe it’s because some people are afraid of the truth and they don’t like people who remind them of it.” 

“Daddy, I hope they are nice to her in prison.” 

“Me too.” 

This was the conversation I had recently with my daughter Perina around the lunchtime table about the recent arrest of Linda Gibbons, the 65-year-old grandmother and Canadian pro-life heroine who refuses to abide by “bubble zone” ordinances as she peacefully reaches out to abortion bound women to offer them a different “choice.” 

Having recently helped cover this story for LifeSiteNews.com (LSN), my head was filled with all the minute details of the June 11 arrest. There was her 9 A.M. appearance at the Morgentaler abortion clinic in Toronto where she walked back and forth in front of the entrance with her famous sign that reads: Why Mom? When I have so much love to give. Then there was the police arrival and the reading of the ordinance that prohibited her from being there. Finally there was her arrest where she was handcuffed and escorted to a waiting police car where she was whisked away to prison.  

Sometimes I make the mistake of sharing with my wife Erin the stories that I am working on for the day. And of course the little ears of my four daughters and one son just tingle when Daddy tells stories. (They really love listening to any kind of story.)  Unfortunately many of the stories that I write for LSN are not something you’d want your little children to be exposed to. Such baggage is too heavy for them to carry right now.  

When Perina started asking me questions about the Linda Gibbons story, I realized that I couldn’t start talking to her about abortion, injunctions, and bubble zones. Most of it would be unintelligible and some of it might actually do her harm. There was something deeper happening at the heart of this story that needed to be conveyed in such a way that a child of four could understand it, and it needed to be said in such a way that would preserve her innocence.  

Reflecting on my daughter’s simple questions about an issue that many construe as a difficult and complex issue made me realize that there are often simple answers to many of the life and family issues that are spotlighted so often in the news these days.  

Take the issue of abortion: Behind every pregnancy really lies the question of love. Will this new life be loved or not? There are those who say that it’s the mother’s choice whether she will love her child or not and there are those who say that every child is lovable and should be loved. The first group support abortion; the second stands beside Linda Gibbons. Through my child’s eyes I saw the whole matter boil down into something very small, something entirely black and white with no shades of grey. It all boiled down to a question of love.  

But daddy, why do some mothers not love their babies? she had asked simply and sweetly, concern furrowing her forehead.  

It was inconceivable for my little Perina that a mother would not love her baby, just as it was inconceivable that someone would be thrown into prison because they were reminding mothers of their responsibility.  

And you know what? My little four-year-old’s world view is entirely correct. Somehow, somewhere along the line many people lose grasp of this beautiful perception that I believe everyone must have to some degree when he or she is a little child.  

I had mentioned that it was rather unfortunate that many stories covered by LSN are baggage too heavy for children to carry. While this is true, it is also true that these stories must be told and retold for the sake of securing a brighter future for all the children of the world. Evil must be brought to the light and exposed for what it is before it can be conquered. Evil met with silence only continues. Reporting these stories breaks the silence.  

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

What my friends often call “dark, gloomy, and depressing” stories must be written so that darkness can be brought to the light and be dispelled. I write such stories so that my children and their children’s children will one day find themselves in a world where every child — born or unborn — is seen as the lovable person that he or she is — and will be deeply loved.  

I write such stories so that people like Linda Gibbons can one day be enshrined in our children’s history books as the “Rosa Parks” of the pro-life movement who turned the legal system on abortion upside-down. I write such stories so that abortion clinics worldwide will one day be viewed as we now view the concentration camps of Hitler’s insane war machine — places of almost unspeakable horror, oppression, discrimination, and injustice.  

I write such stories for a brighter tomorrow where every human life is loved and cherished for the unique unrepeatable miracle that it truly is. I write such stories so that our culture — in the midst of its terrifying death throes — may one day arise from the ashes revitalized, restored, and renewed. 

Historian Christopher Dawson once called “culture” humanity’s attempt to extend the womb. Reflecting on this passage last month, Archbishop Timothy Cardinal Dolan of New York said that the human project is really about babies.  

Culture, he said, “is simply humanity’s best effort to protect the baby, the mother, and the father.” Its “purpose is to embrace, nurture, and protect the baby, the mom, the dad, and to see that this precious infant has the embrace of the community to grow in age and wisdom until ... that baby, as an adult can tenderly and faithfully love a spouse, have his or her own baby, and the sacred cycle begins again.” 

Reporting on Linda Gibbons’ numerous arrests, the horrors of Kermit Gosnell’s clinics, and the injustice of babies found in sewer pipes or in sewage tanks, is something that must be done as the first step in regaining protection for what Dolan rightly calls the “sacred cycle” of human life. Evil brought to the light through a news story is evil beginning to be conquered. Exposing evil by reporting on it is a first step to “protect the baby, the mother, and the father”. Exposing evil by reporting on it is truly one of the greatest works of culture, in Dawson’s sense, in these times.  

One day I hope to tell my daughter: “Perina, do you remember the lady they threw in prison for reminding mothers that they should love their babies? Well, she’s out now and she and her supporters never have to worry about going to prison again because all the mothers now realize that loving their babies is always the best thing to do.” 

“Well Daddy,” she might say, “that’s what I thought all along too.” 

“Me too,” I will say. 

Dear reader, we are in the midst of running our summer fundraising campaign so that we can continue to deliver to you the critical stories that are shaping the world’s future. Simply bringing these stories to the light thwarts the machinations of evil. 

We need 932 more people RIGHT NOW to join with us in this crucial mission. Please consider being one of them. CLICK HERE TO DONATE. Together, with God on our side, we will prevail and make the world a better place for children everywhere. 

FREE pro-life news.

Stay up-to-date on the issues you care about the most. Subscribe today. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

Two Congressmen confirm: National 20-week ban on abortion will come up for a vote shortly

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 17, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A bill to end abortion in the United States after 20 weeks will move forward, and it will have the strong support of two leading pro-life Congressmen, the two Republicans told LifeSiteNews.com at the eighth annual Susan B. Anthony List Campaign for Life Summit on Thursday.

Rep. Chris Smith, R-NJ, told LifeSiteNews and the National Catholic Register that ongoing House discussions on H.R. 36, the "Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act," will result in a pro-life bill moving forward.

"Very good language" is being put together, Smith told The Register. He told LifeSiteNews that he fully anticipated being able to support the final bill, because the House Republican caucus "wouldn't have something that would be unsupportable. Our leadership is genuinely pro-life."

In 2013, the "Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act" easily passed through the House of Representatives, only to be stalled by a Democratic-controlled Senate. This year, an identical bill was halted by Rep. Renee Ellmers, R-NC, and other Republicans -- surprising and angering pro-life leaders who thought its passage was assured. That bill, H.R. 36, is now being rewritten so it can be voted on by the full House, though its final wording remains uncertain.

Some fear that the House leadership will modify the bill to mollify Ellmers. She and others objected that the bill allows women to abort a child after 20 weeks in the case of rape – but only if they report that rape to the authorities.

Pro-life activists say removing the reporting requirement would take abortionists at their word that the women whose children they abort claimed to be raped. Congresswoman Ellmers has publicly stated the House leadership is considering such a proposal.

Jill Stanek, who was recently arrested on Capitol Hill as part of a protest to encourage Republicans to pass H.R. 36, said that would be "a loophole big enough for a Mack truck."

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Congressman Smith said the bill will come to the floor shortly. "The commitment to this bill is ironclad; we just have to work out some details," Smith said.

He also noted that, while a vote on the 20-week ban has been delayed for nearly three months, "we did get the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act passed, and that would have been in the queue now, so we just reversed" the order of the two bills.

Congressman Smith spoke to both outlets shortly after participating in a panel at the Summit.

Another speaker was Rep. Steve King, R-IA, who also supports the 20-week ban.

"I can't think of what” language that is actively under consideration could make him rethink his support for the bill, King said. He also told attendees that the nation was moving in a direction of supporting life.

The outspoken Congressman declined to answer further, noting "that's asking me to anticipate an unknown hypothetical."

The annual Campaign for Life Summit and its related gala drew other high-profile speakers, including presidential candidate Senator Rand Paul, potential presidential hopeful Senator Lindsay Graham, and Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus.  

Advertisement
Featured Image
"Someone who doesn’t flinch at the dismemberment of babies is not going to flinch at the dismemberment of some evangelical baker’s conscience."
Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon

Pro-lifers are winning. So now they’re coming for our cupcakes?

Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon
By Jonathon van Maren

As I travel across Canada (and at times the United States) speaking on abortion and various facets of the Culture of Death, one of the things I hear often is a hopelessness, a despair that the West is being flattened by the juggernaut of the Sexual Revolution. There is a feeling among many people that the restriction of religious liberty, the continued legality of abortion, and the redefinition of marriage are inevitable.

This is, of course, one of the most prominent and successful strategies of the Sexual Revolutionaries—create an aura of inevitability while concurrently demonizing all those who oppose their new and mangled “progress” as Neanderthals on the cusp of being left behind by History. That inevitability becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, because many people don’t realize that the various battles in the Sexual Revolution actually all correlate to one another—that what we are seeing now is the end game of an incredibly vast and well-planned cultural project.

It is because we miss many of these connections that we often cannot see, with clarity, how the culture wars are actually unfolding. I read with great interest a recent column by Rev. Douglas Wilson, eloquently titled “With stirrups raised to Molech.”

“We are now much occupied with the issues swirling around same sex mirage,” he writes, “but we need to take great care not to get distracted. Why have the homosexual activists gone all in on this issue? Why is their prosecutorial zeal so adamant? We went, in just a matter of months, from ‘let’s let individual states’ decide on this, to federal judges striking down state statutes, followed up hard by official harassment of florists, bakers, and photographers. Why the anger, and why the savage over-reach? And do they really think we couldn’t remember all the things they were assuring us of this time last year?”

Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook

It’s a compelling question, and one that I’ve heard many Christians puzzling over recently. Why do the advocates of the Sexual Revolution despise those who disagree with them so viciously? It is partly because their cultural project does not, as they claim, consist of “living and let live.” It is about compulsory acceptance of any and all sexual behaviors, with tax-payer funding for the rubbers and pills they need to ensure all such behaviors remain sterile, and extermination crews to suction, poison, and dismember any inconvenient fetuses that may come into being as the result of casual coitus.

The ancient mantra “the State has no business in the bedrooms of the nation” has long been abandoned—the emboldened Sexual Revolutionaries now demand that politicians show up at their exhibitionist parades of public indecency, force schools to impose their so-called “morally neutral” view of sexuality on children, and force into silence those who still hold to traditional values.

Rev. Wilson, however, thinks that this loud and vicious war on conscience may be about even more than that. The pro-life cause, he notes, has been very successful in the Unites States. The abortion rate is the lowest it has been since 1973. Hundreds of pro-life laws are passing on the state level. The abortion industry has been successfully stigmatized. True, the successes are, for pro-lifers, often too feeble and not nearly adequate enough in the face of such unrestrained bloodshed. Nevertheless, the momentum has turned against the Sexual Revolutionaries who have championed abortion for decades—their shock and anger at the strength of the pro-life movement evident in pro-abortion signs at rallies that read, “I can’t believe I still have to protest this s**t.”

It is because of the pro-life movement’s success, Wilson muses, that the Sexual Revolutionaries may be coming at us with such fury. “If a nation has slaughtered 50 million infants,” he writes, “they are not going to suddenly get a sense of decency over you and your cupcakes. Now this explains their lack of proportion, and their refusal to acknowledge the rights of florists. Someone who doesn’t flinch at the dismemberment of babies is not going to flinch at the dismemberment of some evangelical baker’s conscience. This reveals their distorted priorities, of course, but it also might be revealing a strategy. Is the homosexual lobby doing this because they are freaking out over their losses on the pro-life front? And are they doing so in a way intended to distract us away from an issue where we are slowly, gradually, inexorably, winning?”

It’s a fascinating perspective. It’s true—and has always been true historically—that when one group of human beings is classified as nonhuman by a society as nonhuman and subsequently butchered, the whole of society is degraded. No nation and no culture can collectively and systematically kill so many human beings without a correlating hardening of the conscience. But on the pro-life front, there has been decades of fierce resistance, hundreds of incremental victories, and a renewed energy among the upcoming generation of activists. For the Sexual Revolutionaries who thought the battle was over when Roe v. Wade was announced in 1973, this must be a bitter pill to swallow indeed.

Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Lisa Bourne

, ,

‘Prominent’ Catholics attacking Archbishop Cordileone are big donors to Pelosi and pro-abort Democrats

Lisa Bourne
By Lisa Bourne

Note: To sign a petition supporting Archbishop Cordileone, click here

SAN FRANCISCO, CA, April 17, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Big donors to the Democrat Party and pro-abortion Nancy Pelosi are among those publicly harassing San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone for protecting Catholic identity in the area’s Catholic high schools.

A big-ticket full-page ad ran April 16 in the San Francisco Chronicle attacking the archbishop and calling Pope Francis to oust him for his efforts to reinforce Catholic principles in the schools.

A number of prominent San Francisco-area residents identifying as Catholic are signatories of the ad, and several are wealthy donors to Democrat entities and pro-abortion politicians, Catholic Vote reports.

Federal Election Commission records indicate Charles Geschke, Adobe Systems chairman and previous head of the Board of Trustees at the University of San Francisco, gave more than $240,000 to Democrat groups, as well as $2,300 to Nancy Pelosi and $4,000 to John Kerry, both politicians who claim to be Catholic but support abortion and homosexual “marriage.”

Also on the list is political consultant and businessman Clint Reilly, who gave nearly $60,000 to Democrat organizations, along with $5,000 to Barack Obama, whose administration vehemently promotes abortion and homosexual “marriage” and has continually opposed religious liberty. Reilly gave $4,600 to Pelosi as well.

Another individual in the ad attacking the archbishop who also gave big campaign donations to California pro-abort Democrats was Lou Giraudo, a former city commissioner and business executive who contributed more than $24,000 to Nancy Pelosi, $6,000 to Dianne Feinstein and $4,300 to Barbara Boxer.

Nancy Pelosi herself challenged the archbishop for his stance on Catholic teaching last year when she tried to pressure him out of speaking at the March for Marriage in Washington D.C., claiming the event was “venom masquerading as virtue.”

The archbishop responded in a letter that he was obliged “as a bishop, to proclaim the truth—the whole truth—about the human person and God’s will for our flourishing ... especially the truth about marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife.”

The April 16 ad attacking Archbishop Cordileone was the latest in an ongoing assault since the archbishop took steps in February to strengthen Catholic identity in the schools and clarify for faculty and staff in handbooks and contract language the long-standing expectation that they uphold Church principles. 

It said Archbishop Cordileone has “fostered an atmosphere of division and intolerance” and called on Pope Francis to remove him.

“Holy Father, Please Provide Us With a Leader True to Our Values and Your Namesake,” the ad said. “Please Replace Archbishop Cordileone.”

The Confraternity of Catholic Clergy (CCC), a national association for priests and deacons, condemned Archbishop Cordileone’s harassers in a statement, saying the archbishop “teaches in conformity to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.”

“The character assassination and uncharitable venom being cast upon a bishop merely defending the doctrines of his religion is appalling and repugnant,” the CCC said. 

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

“It is totally inappropriate, improper and unjust for the media and others to vilify and brutally attack him when he is doing precisely what an ordained minister and pastor of souls is obligated to do,” the group stated, “namely, speak the truth in season and out of season.”

Those behind the attack ad said the proposed handbook language was mean-spirited, and that they were “committed Catholics inspired by Vatican II,” who “believe in the traditions of conscience, respect and inclusion upon which our Catholic faith was founded.”

The Archdiocese of San Francisco denounced the ad upon its release, saying it was a misrepresentation of Catholic teaching and the nature of the teacher contract, and a misrepresentation of the spirit of the Archbishop.

“The greatest misrepresentation of all is that the signers presume to speak for “the Catholic Community of San Francisco,” the archdiocese responded. “They do not.”

The CCC pointed out that just as physicians are expected to be faithful to the Hippocratic Oath, bishops, priests, and deacons are expected to be faithful to the Church, its teachings and its authority, “since their objective is the salvation of souls, not a popularity contest.” 

In openly declaring their support for Archbishop Cordileone, the group urged the media and others to show “prudence, civility, and fair-mindedness” toward those with whom they disagree.

“He took an oath to be faithful to the Gospel,” the Confraternity stated of Archbishop Cordileone, “and in the words of the disciples in the New Testament, ‘better to obey God than men.’”

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook