New U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican slams pro-life CRS critics in first week
ROME, October 29, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Only four days after formally beginning his post as the new US ambassador to the Vatican, Ken Hackett, the former head of Catholic Relief Services (CRS) took a swipe at pro-life Americans who criticized CRS for funding groups promoting abortion and contraception. Hackett was interviewed days after presenting his credentials to Pope Francis.
In interviews he called for diplomacy in dealings between the Obama Administration and the Catholic Church, yet his comments about Catholic pro-lifers were less than diplomatic.
When questioned about the rocky relations between the U.S. Bishops and the Obama Administration and how that might play out in his role at the Vatican, Hackett told the National Catholic Reporter that he felt no negative effects at all. “I believe there are far more issues where our government agrees with the Holy See as opposed to the relatively few areas of disagreement, and that's where I'll put my emphasis,” he said.
When reporter John Allen followed up asking if he was concerned about giving cover to an Administration considered by some as hostile, Hackett added, “I also believe that when there are disagreements, we have to dialogue rather than throwing bricks at one another.”
Allen also questioned Hackett about sharp criticisms CRS has received from American Life League and other organizations for their funding of pro-abortion groups. After praising CRS and claiming to have heard only praise and gratitude for CRS from Rome, Hackett threw a barb at critics of CRS.
“In general, I wouldn't put much stock in detractors who don't have mud under their toes because they haven't been working in the tough places,” he said.
American Life League’s Michael Hichborn responded to Hackett’s remark in an interview with LifeSiteNews. “Given that Ken Hackett raked in over $300,000 per year in the last two years he worked for an organization that ostensibly fights poverty, I have to wonder just how much mud he got under his toes," said Hichborn.
Hichborn also noted that campaign records indicate that Hackett was a donor to the Obama campaign in 2012, well after “Obama made clear that he is waging a war against babies and the Catholic Church.”
Dr. Monica Miller, founder and Director of Citizens for a Pro-life Society — an activist pro-life group that she founded in 1986, offered a pointed critique of the remarks by the new US Ambassador to the Vatican. Dr. Miller, a pioneer of the pro-life rescue movement and a veteran sidewalk counsellor told LifeSiteNews, Hackett’s ‘detractors’ remark was “ignorant and irresponsible.”
“Hackett should spend 10 minutes outside of an abortion clinic trying to talk women out of an abortion, or 10 minutes helping out in a crisis pregnancy center where human lives are on the line-- where life and death decisions are made every day, and where pro-lifers come face to face with the culture of death in it's most desperate, hideous instance,” she said. “He should go with pro-lifers who help the most needy and broken women in the most dangerous and depressed neighborhoods such as pro-lifers do every week in Detroit. And he should have the experience of retrieving the dead and dismembered bodies of the innocent aborted unborn from trash containers.”
“Such pro-lifers may not have ‘mud under their toes’--instead they have the blood of the innocent under their finger nails-- rescuing them from their trash dumpster cradles-- a tragedy I personally know, having come face to face with the victims of abortion,” added Miller.
Stephen Phelan, Communications Director for Human Life International, another of the main pro-life groups raising concerns about Catholic Relief Services, took issue with Hackett’s dismissal of real concerns with the Obama Administration.
“Mr. Hackett wants to focus on ‘areas of agreement’ between the Obama administration and the Vatican, and overlook the slaughter of millions of innocents countenanced every year by this administration as part of its ‘human development’ strategy. How is any substantive dialogue on human rights and development supposed to occur when the administration categorically rejects the Catholic Church’s understanding of human rights, which she holds are rooted in the nature every human person from conception until death?”
However, Hackett’s views on issues related to family planning may be a lot closer to the Obama Administration’s than to those of the Vatican. American Life League’s Michael Hichborn points out that Hackett’s review of Jeffrey Sach’s book The End of Poverty praises the controversial work as “a positive force for the cause of development and a must-read for anyone interested in the subject.” It is, he added, “a call to action for all of us who feel called to make a preferential option to the poorest of the poor."
“The Central theme of the book is that Babies Equal Poverty, and an essential way to bring populations out of poverty is to reduce their fertility rates,” explained Hichborn. “The only explanation I can conceive is that Hackett actually agreed with the central philosophy of the book, and given his donations to Obama and the disastrous CRS funding that took place under his leadership, I believe this to be the case.”
Read John Allen’s full interview with Ken Hackett.
‘Little miracles’: Mom gives birth to naturally-conceived quintuplets after refusing ‘selective reduction’
AUSTRALIA, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- A 26-year-old Australian mom has given birth to five healthy babies, all conceived naturally, after refusing the doctor’s advice that she must abort three of them in order to give the remaining two a better chance at life.
“After my initial ultrasound I was told I could consider the selection method to give 2 babies the best chance in life,” wrote mom Kim Tucci in a Facebook post last September.
“I watched a YouTube video on the procedure and I cried. I could never do that! Was I selfish for not giving two the chance of 100% survival? All I knew is that I already love them and that every heart beat I heard I connect with them more. For me life starts when a heart starts beating and all I know for sure is that I will do whatever it takes to bring them into this world healthy,” she wrote.
Last Thursday Kim and her husband Vaughn welcomed the five new members into their family — one boy and four girls —increasing the number of their children from 3 to 8. The babies were born at 30 weeks, 10 weeks early, due to insufficient space in Kim’s womb. They weighed on average about 2.5 pounds.
The quintuplets’ story began last March, after Kim and Vaughn had been trying for six months to conceive just one more child for their family. Due to health complications, Kim wondered if she would ever become a mother again.
After what she thought was an extra long cycle, she decided to take a pregnancy test.
“I was feeling tired and a little nauseated and thought I would take a pregnancy test just to get the ‘what if’ out of my head. To my shock and utter excitement it was positive,” she wrote on a Facebook post.
The parents got the shock of their lives when doctors confirmed in an ultrasound examination that there was not one baby, but five.
“After a long wait for the ultrasound we finally went in. The sonographer told me there were multiple gestational sacks, but she could only see a heart beat in two. I was so excited! Twins!”
“I was moved to another machine for a clearer view and had the head doctor come in and double check the findings. She started to count, one, two, three, four, five. Did i hear that correctly? Five? My legs start to shake uncontrollably and all i can do is laugh. The sonographer then told me the term for five is ‘quintuplets,’” Kim wrote.
Even though Kim began to feel stretched to the limit with all those human lives growing inside her, she chose to focus on her babies, and not herself, referring to them as “my five little miracles.”
“It's getting harder as each day passes to push through the pain, every part of my body aches and sleeping is becoming very painful. No amount of pillows are helping support my back and belly. Sometimes I get so upset that I just want to throw my hands up and give in.”
“Sometimes my pelvis becomes so stiff I can barely walk and my hips feel like they are grinding away constantly. I'm finding it hard to eat as I basically have no room left in my stomach, and the way it is positioned it's pushed all the way back with the babies leaning against it.”
“My skin on my belly is so stretched its painful and hot to touch. It literally feels like I have hives! No amount of cream helps relieve the discomfort. I have a lot of stretch marks now. Dealing with such a huge change in my body is hard.”
“Is it all worth it? Yes!!!! I will keep pushing through,” she wrote in one Facebook post days before the babies were born.
The newborns' names are Keith, Ali, Penelope, Tiffany, and Beatrix. They were born at King Edward Memorial Hospital in Subiaco, Western Australia. Mother and babies are reported to be doing well.
UN rights chief tells Catholic countries to legalize abortion over Zika virus: bishops and cardinal react
GENEVA, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- The United Nations, following the lead of international abortion activists, is now urging Latin American countries hit by the mosquito-borne Zika virus to lift restrictions on abortion for pregnant women who have contacted the virus and whose pre-born children may be at risk for birth defects, including having smaller than normal heads.
The UN human rights office said today that it is not enough for South American countries to urge women to postpone pregnancy without also offering them abortion as a final solution.
“How can they ask these women not to become pregnant, but not offer… the possibility to stop their pregnancies?” UN spokeswoman Cecile Pouilly told reporters.
UN human rights chief Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein said that governments should make available contraception and abortion services.
“Laws and policies that restrict (women’s) access to these services must be urgently reviewed in line with human rights obligations in order to ensure the right to health for all in practice,” he said.
But Brazil’s bishops strongly asserted yesterday that efforts should be made to eradicate the virus, not the people who may be infected by it.
The disease is “no justification whatsoever to promote abortion,” they said in a statement, adding that it is not morally acceptable to promote abortion “in the cases of microcephaly, as, unfortunately, some groups are proposing to the Supreme Federal Court, in a total lack of respect for the gift of life.”
Honduras Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga has also come out strongly against the notion of “therapeutic abortions” as a response to the problem. Unlike Brazil where abortion is legal in the case of rape or health of the mother, abortion remains entirely illegal in Honduras.
“We should never talk about ‘therapeutic’ abortion,” the cardinal said in a homily at a February 3 Mass in Suyap. “Therapeutic abortion doesn’t exist. Therapeutic means curing, and abortion cures nothing. It takes innocent lives,” he said.
While the World Health Organization (WHO) declared an international public health emergency February 1 on account of concerns over the virus, critics have pointed out, however, that not one death as resulted from the virus. Even on WHO’s own website the virus is described in mild terms.
“It causes mild fever and rash. Other symptoms include muscle pain, joint pain, headache, pain behind the eyes and conjunctivitis. Zika virus disease is usually mild, with symptoms lasting only a few days,” the website states. “To date, there have been no reported deaths associated with Zika virus,” it added.
Critics suspect that the crisis is being manipulated to advance an anti-human agenda on the pre-born.
“Is Zika, actually, a hideous virus that threatens to spread uncontrollably across the world creating an army of disabled children with tiny heads and low IQ’s? Or might this be a willful misinterpretation of the scarce data to manipulate public opinion and legislatures?” wrote pro-life critic Mei-Li Garcia earlier this week.
“It becomes very clear that the publicity surrounding this story has a very little to do with medicine and a lot to do with a convenient crisis that is being used by those pushing for the legalization of abortion around the world,” she wrote.
Hillary’s litmus test for Supreme Court picks: They must ‘preserve Roe v. Wade’
DERRY, NH, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) - Hillary Clinton has a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees - several, in fact. At a Democratic event on Wednesday, Clinton unveiled her criteria in selecting a judge for the nation's highest court.
“I do have a litmus test, I have a bunch of litmus tests," she said.
"We’ve got to make sure to preserve Roe v. Wade, not let it be nibbled away or repealed,” she said.
That echoes her recent call to arms speech before Planned Parenthood last month, when she stated that taxpayers must fund abortion-on-demand in order to uphold the "right" of choice.
“We have to preserve marriage equality,” Clinton said, referring to last summer's Obergefell v. Hodges case, a 5-4 ruling that redefined marriage nationwide. “We have to go further to end discrimination against the LGBT community."
Her views differentiate her from the Republican front runners. Ted Cruz has called the court's marriage ruling "fundamentally illegitimate," and Donald Trump told Fox News Sunday this week that he would "be very strong on putting certain judges on the bench that I think maybe could change things." Marco Rubio has said he won't "concede" the issue to the one-vote majority.
All Republican presidential hopefuls say they are pro-life and will defund Planned Parenthood.
Her husband, Bill Clinton, raised the makeup of the Supreme Court early last month in New Hampshire, saying it receives "almost no attention" as a campaign issue.
On Wednesday, Hillary said "the next president could get as many as three appointments. It’s one of the many reasons why we can’t turn the White House over to the Republicans again.”
Clinton said her judicial appointees must also reverse the Citizens United ruling on campaign finance and oppose a recent decision striking down a portion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. In 2013's Shelby County v. Holder, justices struck down Section 4(b) of the act, which said that certain states and jurisdictions had to obtain permission from the federal government before changing their voting laws.
At one time, most politicians frowned upon any "litmus test" for judicial nominees, emphasizing the independence of the third branch of government. "I don't believe in litmus tests," Jeb Bush told Chuck Todd last November.
But with the rise of an activist judiciary in the middle of the 20th century, constitutionalists have sought to rein in the power of the bench.