Douglas Johnson, NRLC Legislative Director

The Obama abortion agenda: the last four years

Douglas Johnson, NRLC Legislative Director
By Douglas Johnson

WASHINGTON, D.C. October 15, 2012 (NRLN) – Over the four years of Barack Obama’s presidency, substantial damage has been inflicted to longstanding pro-life policies. In addition, new programs have been created which, during the years ahead, will result in large-scale federal subsidies to health plans that pay for abortion, other federally driven expansions of abortion, and rationing of lifesaving medical care, unless remedial legislation is enacted.

In addition, Obama placed two strongly pro-abortion justices on the U.S. Supreme Court.

However, during the last four years, additional pro-abortion initiatives have been deterred, blocked, or repaired by pro-life forces.

If pro-life Mitt Romney is elected president on November 6, we can begin to repair the worst damage, and to resume the previous progress towards increased protections for unborn children and other vulnerable members of the human family. But if President Obama is re-elected, the damage will be compounded tenfold.

In short: The last four years have been bad, but it could have been much worse–and if Barack Obama is given another four years in office, it will be.

Obama has now been in office through the entire 111th Congress (2009-2010) and through most of 112th Congress (2011-2012)–although the 112th Congress will not formally end until the conclusion of a short “lame duck” session after the November 6 general election.

Any knowledgeable and objective observer would agree that Barack Obama holds more extreme pro-abortion policy positions than any previous occupant of the White House, and that his pro-abortion ideology has led him to embrace specific policy positions that are at odds with the views and ethical instincts of the great majority of Americans–for example, in his opposition to bans on partial-birth abortions and sex-selection abortions.

Yet, over the past four years, Obama’s ability to advance his abortion-expansive agenda has been somewhat constrained by strong resistance by pro-life forces–who since January 2011 have controlled the U.S. House of Representatives–and by his desire to win a second term. If he wins re-election on November 6, the second factor will no longer inhibit him. The extent to which the Congress will continue to constrain him will be determined in substantial part by the results of the congressional elections.

The 2009-2010 Congress:

Obama’s Health Care Legislation

When Obama was sworn as president in January, 2009, the new Congress was made up of about three-fifths Democrats in both houses. Pro-abortion Democrats (House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada) were in command in both chambers, and all of the most important committees were chaired by pro-abortion Democrats.

On his third day in office–the 36th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion on demand nationwide–Obama issued a formal statement reaffirming his commitment to defending that ruling, stating that “this decision not only protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: That government should not intrude on our most private family matters.”

The statement was hardly surprising, coming from the man who just two years earlier, as a U.S. senator, had cosponsored the “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA, S. 1173), a bill to invalidate virtually all state and federal limits on abortion, including the federal ban on partial-birth abortion.

Early in the 2009-2010 Congress, Obama declared health care restructuring legislation to be a top priority. While campaigning for president, Obama had vowed that his “health care reform” legislation would require universal coverage of abortion, and the initial Democrat-sponsored health care bills would have fulfilled that pledge with provisions that would have effectively mandated elective abortion coverage in nearly all health insurance plans, including a giant “public plan” to be run directly by the federal government.

NRLC and other pro-life groups mounted strong resistance. In November, 2009, an NRLC-backed amendment to the health care legislation was adopted on the House floor, with the support of nearly all Republicans and one-fourth of the Democrats. The amendment (the Stupak-Pitts Amendment) would have prohibited federal subsidies for abortion under any component of the 1990-page legislation.

The health care bill–temporarily fixed on abortion, although not on rationing–was then sent to the Senate. Obama attacked the House’s adoption of the pro-life amendment, and worked with Senate Democratic Leader Reid to defeat a similar pro-life amendment in the Senate. As a consequence, in December 2009 the Senate approved a different version of the health care bill that contained multiple provisions to allow federal subsidies for abortion and health plans that cover abortion.

NRLC and other pro-life groups kept fighting against that legislation, urging the House not to approve the Senate-passed legislation, and delayed House approval of the bill for months.

Finally, however, in March 2010, a small group of House Democrats who had previously withheld support from the health care bill because of the pro-abortion provisions switched sides, saying they were satisfied with an executive order crafted by the White House. The White House presented the executive order to the public as preventing any federal subsidies for abortion under the bill–a sham largely accepted as factual by gullible organs of the mainstream news media.

The order was denounced by NRLC as “a transparent political fig leaf,” which fixed none of the multiple abortion-expansive provisions of the legislation, and was described by the president of Planned Parenthood as a “symbolic gesture.” However, a sufficient number of House Democrats embraced the charade to narrowly pass the bill, and the massive health care bill was enacted into law, although without the support of single Republican in either the House or the Senate.

Thanks to the tenacious resistance by NRLC and other pro-life forces, Obama did not end up with every abortion-expansive provision that he had originally sought. The final law does not mandate that all private health plans cover abortions, and it allows individual state legislatures to enact laws (now referred to as “opt-out laws”) to keep abortion coverage out of health plans sold through the government-administered “exchanges” that the federal law requires.

However, the legislation creates a new program under which scores of millions of Americans will receive subsidies from the federal Treasury to purchase health plans, including health plans that cover all abortions–a sharp break from decades of federal policy. Even if a citizen lives in a state in which the legislature has enacted legislation to specifically prohibit abortion coverage from being sold on that state’s exchange, that citizen cannot prevent his federal taxes from subsidizing the abortion-covering health plans in other states that do not pass such laws.

The health care law also contains multiple other provisions that empower the federal executive branch to expand subsidies for and access to abortion.

For example, a controversy that erupted in July 2010 provided further evidence that the new health care law allows abortion funding. NRLC discovered that the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) had approved proposals to cover abortions that had been submitted by some states under one of the new federal programs created by the health care law, known as the “Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan” or “high-risk pool program.” Under the ensuing glare of national media attention, the Obama Administration abruptly acted to exclude abortion coverage from that single program–while insisting that this action would not be a precedent for other programs. NRLC, the ACLU, and the White House all agreed that there was nothing in the health care law to prevent abortion coverage under the high-risk program.

(NRLC documented some of the major abortion-expansive provisions of the Obamacare law, and how they departed from decades of federal policy on abortion, in testimony presented to a House subcommittee in February 2011, available here.)

Supreme Court Appointments

During 2009 and 2010, President Obama nominated and won Senate confirmation of two justices to the U.S. Supreme Court–Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Based on their records, both justices are expected to vote on the pro-abortion side.

Obama nominated Sotomayor in 2009 to replace retiring Justice David Souter. For a period of 12 years (1980–1992), prior to becoming a judge, Ms. Sotomayor served on the governing board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF), and for part of that time she was the chair of the PRLDEF Litigation Committee. During her tenure on the board, the PRLDEF was actively involved in litigation that attempted to persuade the Supreme Court to expand the judge-created “right to abortion,” often beyond what the Court was willing to embrace, including nullification of parental notification requirements and restrictions on taxpayer funding of abortion.

Despite opposition from NRLC and other pro-life groups, Sotomayor won confirmation by a vote of 68-31.

In 2010, Obama nominated Kagan, then serving as U.S. solicitor general, to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. In June, 2010, NRLC was the first group to call attention to documentation that Kagan, as a key member of the White House staff of President Bill Clinton, had played a central role in the successful effort to prevent enactment of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act during the Clinton Administration.

Despite opposition from NRLC and other pro-life groups, Kagan won confirmation by a vote of 63-37. Kagan was supported by 58 Democrats and by five Republicans. However, the 37 nay votes (36 of them cast by Republicans) was the largest number cast against a Democratic president’s Supreme Court nominee since the 19th century.

President Obama placed numerous other hard-core pro-abortion persons in powerful offices, including the lower federal courts. However, as Obama’s first term draws to a close, a substantial number of Obama’s judicial nominees remain unconfirmed, thanks to nearly unified opposition by Republican senators.

Executive Actions

Directly and through his political appointees, Obama also attacked pro-life policies through the use of Executive Branch powers.

Under Obama and his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, promotion of access to abortion has become a substantial component of U.S. foreign policy, and U.S. funds are flowing to many abortion-promoting entities overseas.

On his fourth day in office, Obama issued an executive order to rescind the pro-life “Mexico City Policy” which had been enforced by Republican presidents going back to Ronald Reagan. The effect of Obama’s order was to open the door to hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. funding to private organizations that perform and promote abortion overseas.

Secretary of State Clinton openly proclaimed, at a 2009 House committee hearing, that “we are now an administration that will protect the rights of women, including their rights to reproductive health care,” that “reproductive health includes access to abortion,” and that the Administration intends to advocate for this right “anywhere in the world.”

The Obama Administration urged the Senate to ratify a treaty, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), that has been employed as a pro-abortion weapon to pressure nations to weaken or repeal laws. But strong opposition from NRLC and other pro-life forces ensured that the treaty could not muster the two-thirds vote required for ratification, and it was never brought to the Senate floor.

In March 2009 Obama signed an order allowing the federal National Institutes of Health to fund the type of stem cell research that requires the destruction of human embryos.

These and other pro-abortion executive actions by the Administration were not challenged by Congress during 2009-2010, due to both houses being in control of pro-abortion Democrats. Indeed, in response to a White House proposal, the Democratic congressional leadership rammed through legislation that lifted a longstanding ban on government funding of abortion in the District of Columbia.

The 2011–2012 Congress:

Pro-Life House, Pro-Abortion Senate

The November 2010 election results brought a major change to the power dynamic in Washington–pro-life Republicans took control of the House of Representatives.

The election brought a net shift of 63 House seats to the Republicans, giving them a 242-193 seat majority when the 112th Congress convened in January, 2013. All but a handful of the newly elected Republicans were pro-life. Pro-life Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) was sworn in as Speaker of the House, ending Nancy Pelosi’s four-year reign as speaker. Longtime pro-life champion Eric Cantor (R-Va.) was selected as majority leader.

The election also resulted in modest changes in the Senate. The Democrats remained in control, and remained under the direction of pro-abortion Majority Leader Harry Reid, but the election reduced the Democrat majority from 59-41 to 53-47. While Reid retained the power to largely set the agenda for the Senate, the diminished Democrat majority strengthened the ability of pro-life Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) to block legislation and nominees objectionable to most Republicans–since it usually takes 60 votes to win adoption of a controversial bill, motion, or nomination in the Senate.

The first major bill brought to the House floor by the new Republican leadership was an NRLC-backed measure to completely repeal the Obama health care law (“Obamacare”). On January 19, 2011, the House passed the repeal bill (H.R. 2) by a vote of 245-189. Two weeks later, however, the Senate rejected a nearly identical measure on a straight party-line vote.

This essentially set the pattern for the entire 112th Congress. The House–with unified or nearly unified support from Republicans, joined by a small number of Democrats–passed measure after measure supported by NRLC. But all of them were either voted down outright in the Senate, or smothered without action by Reid.

These Senate-killed bills included:

– the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (H.R. 3), sponsored by Reps. Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Dan Lipinski (D-Il.), which would establish a permanent, government-wide ban on federal subsidies for abortion, with narrow exceptions. The bill would supersede a patchwork of different laws limiting federal subsidies for abortion, many of which must be renewed each year because they are incorporated into annual appropriations bills. The House passed the bill 251-175, despite a formal veto threat issued by the White House. The Senate never voted on the House-passed bill or on the companion bill (S. 906) introduced by Senator Roger Wicker (R-Ms.).

– the “Protect Life Act” (H.R. 358), introduced by pro-life Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), a bill to prohibit pro-abortion subsidies and mandates in every component of the massive Obamacare law. The House passed the bill in October, 2011, 251-172, notwithstanding a formal veto threat issued by the White House. The Senate never voted on the House-passed bill or on the companion bill (S. 877) introduced by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).

– Legislation to block further federal funding, during Fiscal Year 2011–2012, for Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider. In the spring of 2011 the House approved such cutoffs twice, but the Senate voted 58-42 in favor of continued funding of Planned Parenthood. The issue was one of the last matters to be resolved in direct negotiations on an omnibus appropriations bill between House Speaker Boehner and President Obama. Obama indicated that he would block enactment of the government-wide funding bill–forcing a government shutdown–rather than agree to the House position that funding to Planned Parenthood should be curtailed. However, Obama did bow reluctantly to the House position in favor of restoring the longstanding ban on government funding of abortion in the District of Columbia, which had been lifted at the instigation of the White House in 2009.

During 2012, the House also conducted test votes on two other important pro-life measures, strongly supported by NRLC–both of which mustered substantial majorities on the House floor. However, the Senate failed to act on the identical companion bills. They were:

– The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (H.R. 3541), which would prohibit the use of abortion to eliminate an unborn child because she is not of the sex desired by the parents. The House tally was 246-148 in favor of the bill. The White House issued a statement opposing the bill the day before a majority of the House voted for it, saying that the proposed ban would “intrude” on “private family matters.” The legislation was authored by Congressman Trent Franks (R-Az.). The Senate companion bill (S. 3290) was introduced by Senator David Vitter (R-La.).

– The District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 3803). This bill would prohibit abortion in the District of Columbia after 20 weeks fetal age, based on congressional findings that by that point – if not earlier – the child is capable of experiencing pain during an abortion. Currently, there is no law whatever limiting reasons for which abortion may be performed in the nation’s capital – abortion is legal, for any reason, until the moment of birth.

The House tally was 220-154 in favor of the bill. (See roll call vote, pages 18-20.)

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney referred to the bill as “controversial, divisive social legislation” and suggested that Congress should not be wasting its time on it.

The bill, based on an NRLC model that has already been enacted in eight states, was introduced by Congressman Franks in the House, and in the Senate by Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) as S. 2103.

Assaults on Conscience Rights

In 2011, the Obama Administration rescinded (nullified) a Bush Administration rule to help protect health care providers who are threatened with penalties for refusing to participate in providing abortions.

In 2012, the Obama Administration employed one provision of the Obamacare law to issue a new mandate (technically, a “final rule”) that most employer-sponsored health plans must pay for all FDA-approved methods of birth control, including both drugs and sterilization procedures. The mandate sparked strong protests from the Catholic Church and from many religiously affiliated colleges, employers, and other institutions.

Pro-life members of Congress responded, proposing new legislation to amend the Obamacare law so that it could not be used to force coverage of drugs and procedures contrary to conscience or religious belief. This legislation, strongly supported by NRLC, was offered by pro-life Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) as an amendment to unrelated bill, but it failed, 51-48, on March 1, 2012.

In the House, the same legislation was proposed by Congressman Jeff Fortenberry (R-Ne.) as H.R. 1179, and gained 224 cosponsors–a majority of the House. But in view of the Senate’s rejection of the identical legislation and the certitude of an Obama veto, the House bill never came to the floor for a vote.

The Obama mandate has been challenged by a host of lawsuits, which remain unresolved.

Not content only to block the pro-life initiatives advanced by the House, pro-abortion members of the Senate made multiple attempts to win Senate approval of bills to roll back various longstanding pro-life policies—but these were blocked by pro-life senators in cooperation with NRLC. (See, for example, the account of the successful pro-life effort to block a funding bill containing multiple pro-abortion provisions, in “Pro-life House and Pro-abortion Senate Divided,” Fall 2011 NRL News, page. 1.)

Reprinted with permission from National Right to Life News. The opinions expressed in this article are the personal opinions of the author only.

Truth. Delivered daily.

Get FREE pro-life, pro-family news delivered straight to your inbox. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Kirsten Andersen Kirsten Andersen Follow Kirsten

,

Federal judge strikes down Nebraska’s marriage law

Kirsten Andersen Kirsten Andersen Follow Kirsten
By Kirsten Anderson

LINCOLN, NE, March 4, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Homosexual activists celebrated another victory Monday as U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon once again ordered the state of Nebraska to stop enforcing its marriage protection amendment, which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Bataillon, who was appointed by former president Bill Clinton, struck down the amendment when it was first challenged by gay activists ten years ago, but his decision was overturned by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.  Now that gay activists have challenged the law again, the judge has issued a new ruling barring its enforcement, citing the recent string of federal court victories by supporters of same-sex “marriage.”

Bataillon said laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples unfairly discriminate based on “archaic” and “outdated” gender stereotypes.  

“[Nebraska’s Marriage] Amendment explicitly creates a classification based on gender because a person's eligibility to marry, or to have his or her marriage recognized, is based on the gender of the individuals seeking to marry,” Bataillon wrote.  “[It] is an unabashedly gender-specific infringement of the equal rights of its citizens.”

The judge rejected the state’s assertion that the citizens of Nebraska, who approved the marriage amendment in 2000 with 70 percent of the vote, should be the ones to make any changes to the societally accepted definition of marriage.

“The Amendment is not somehow insulated from review because it was enacted by a significant majority,” Bataillon wrote.  “Minorities trampled on by the democratic process have recourse to the courts; the recourse is called constitutional law.”

Bataillon also rejected the state’s argument that traditional male-female marriages deserve special protection because they are the natural, ideal environment in which children are conceived and raised.

“With the advent of modern science and modern adoption laws, same sex couples can and do responsibly raise children,” the judge wrote. “Unfortunately, this law inhibits their commendable efforts.”

Bataillon condemned the state’s prohibition of adoption by same-sex couples as “particularly harmful” and “constitutionally repugnant.”

“The State's supposed purpose in channeling children into stable relationships is not served by a same-sex marriage ban,” Bataillon wrote.  “It is both underinclusive in that it allows heterosexual people to have and rear children in unstable or abusive situations and at the same time prevents committed and stable same-sex couples from adopting and providing loving homes to children.”

“The policy has no rational connection to the State's purported purpose of strengthening families and, in fact, it thwarts that purpose by denying deserving children a stable home.”

In conclusion, the judge ordered state officials to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples and granting full marital benefits to same-sex couples who “married” outside the state, writing: “All relevant state officials are ordered to treat same-sex couples the same as different sex couples in the context of processing a marriage license or determining the rights, protections, obligations or benefits of marriage.”

Homosexual activists praised Bataillon’s ruling Monday, with the Nebraska ACLU calling it “a day for celebration.”

One of the homosexual plaintiffs in the case, Tracey Weitz, said she and her lesbian lover were taking the ACLU’s words to heart. “I think we'll have a bigger party than we did when we were married,” she told KETV.

But others were not as pleased with the decision, including state officials and some religious leaders.

“Marriage is between a man and a woman, and has as one of its principal purposes the procreation and rearing of children,” Roman Catholic Archbishop George Lucas and Bishops James Conley and William Dendinger said in a joint statement. "Marriage was established by God before the state and before the Church, and the vitality of both depends on the fruitful union of husband and wife."

“Because [Bataillon's] decision undermines the fundamental human right of every child to know, and as far as possible, be united with his or her mother and father, we pray for a just resolution in higher courts."

Bataillon made his order effective March 9, to give state officials a week to appeal.  Nebraska Governor Pete Ricketts, a Republican, and Attorney General Doug Peterson immediately sought to overturn the ruling, filing a request for an emergency injunction with the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“The definition of marriage is an issue for the people of Nebraska, and an activist judge should not substitute his personal political preferences for the will of the people,” Ricketts said.  He said he and Peterson intend to keep up the fight to “uphold Nebraska's Constitution and the will of the people of our great state.”

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Hilary White Hilary White Follow Hilary

,

San Diego’s new bishop champions ‘seamless garment’ theory: poverty on same moral level as abortion

Hilary White Hilary White Follow Hilary
By Hilary White

ROME, March 4, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Pope Francis’ latest episcopal appointment in the United States, to the Diocese of San Diego, is a bishop known as a champion of leftwing political causes under the rubric of the “seamless garment” theory, placing abortion and euthanasia on the same moral level as immigration and poverty.

The Vatican announced Tuesday that Bishop Robert McElroy, currently an auxiliary bishop in San Francisco, will replace Bishop Cirilo Flores, who died of cancer last year.

The liberal Jesuit magazine America, with whom McElroy has a long and friendly relationship, was effusive at the appointment, calling McElroy an “advocate for the poor” and the appointment by Pope Francis “highly significant.” America’s Gerard O’Connell called McElroy “one of the intellectual heavyweights in the American hierarchy” who has “wholeheartedly embraced the vision and pastoral approach of Pope Francis.” He replaces Bishop Cirilo Flores, who died of cancer last year.

In a 2013 interview with O’Connell for La Stampa’s Inside the Vatican magazine, McElroy called poverty the “preeminent” issue for the Catholic Church, and complained, “In recent years, the conference of bishops has labeled abortion and euthanasia as the preeminent issues in the political order, but not poverty. This has had the effect of downgrading the perceived importance of poverty as a central focus for the Church’s witness.”

He added that the US bishops’ focus on issues of “intrinsic evil” like abortion, has distracted them from the fight against “structural sin” that is normally cited by the Church’s far-left as the cause of poverty. “I think that both issues should be intertwined in the Church’s approach to advancing the common good in the political order because I believe that it is compassion which morally unites these two issues – compassion for the suffering of the poor and compassion for the unborn.”

“I still am a believer in the underlying logic of Cardinal Bernardin’s seamless garment approach that saw all life issues as part of a continuum linked by the Catholic notions of compassion and justice.”

He made explicit his belief that the life issues are on an equal par with prudential matters like just war theory and immigration reform in a column for America the same year. Pope Francis’ “teachings demand a transformation of the existing Catholic political conversation in our nation, a transformation reflecting three themes: prioritizing the issue of poverty, focusing not only on intrinsic evils but also on structural sin, and acting with prudence when applying Catholic moral principles to specific legal enactments,” he wrote.

To truly be a “church for the poor,” the Catholic Church “must elevate the issue of poverty to the very top of its political agenda, establishing poverty alongside abortion as the pre-eminent moral issues.”

McElroy has also joined the left-leaning majority of US Catholic bishops in refusing to deny Communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians. In a 2005 column for America, he called the proposal “partisan,” “Republican,” and “coercive.”

McElroy conceded that the existence of “pro-choice” Catholic politicians represents a “major failure in Church life,” but added that the suggestion that such people have excommunicated themselves “casts aside all the limitations and admonitions to pastoral solicitude that the church has traditionally demanded.” Repeating a favourite phrase of many US bishops, McElroy said that Americans “recoil from the use of the Eucharist as a political weapon.” 

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
David F. Prentis

, , , ,

Contraception gave us divorce and gay ‘marriage’ and will destroy us: here’s how

David F. Prentis
By

March 4, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Although there has always been contraception, its acceptance and practice by society as a whole is a relatively new phenomenon. In the first part of the 20th century barrier methods became through mass production increasingly used. However, with the advent of the hormonal contraceptive pill in the 1960s the contraceptive era, ushering in the sexual revolution, really took off.

The term “revolution” is by no means exaggerated, for the result was a fundamental change in the understanding of human sexuality in society. With the pill, people thought, nothing can happen, i.e. no child could be conceived. Inhibitions broke down, so that there was an increase in adultery, living together before marriage and living together with no thought of marriage. Amoral sex education with the message, “You can do anything you like so long as your partner agrees and you use contraception. If there is an accident, have an abortion,” promoted sexual promiscuity from puberty onwards. Sexual activity has been degraded into a form of entertainment.

The immediate consequences of promiscuity starting in adolescence are obvious: the rampant increase of sexually transmitted diseases, infertility and the incapability of forming long-term relationships through frequent changes of partners and repeated disappointments.

The assumption that “nothing can happen” is erroneous, because contraceptives are by no means 100% effective. Children are conceived, and such “errors” must be corrected – the child is aborted.[1] The result has been devastating: the number of babies killed by abortion every year is about the same as the total number of deaths in the whole of World War II.

Apart from the carnage, enormous havoc is created in the relationship of the parents, whether married or not, very often leading to its breakdown. It would also be naive to imagine that Catholic women never resort to abortion.

The situation of couples practising NFP however is quite different. They are aware every day of the state of their fertility, asking themselves whether the marriage act on that day would result in conception; they do not lose sight of the child who could be conceived. They do not forget the fundamental purpose of the act. An unplanned child is therefore usually accepted.

The widespread practice of abortion leads to euthanasia. If it is acceptable to kill one category of people, then it is logically acceptable to kill others, specifically the ill, the handicapped and the old, for human life is no longer sacred. A chilling example of this kind of development can be seen in the National Socialist regime in Germany.

The pill “culture” leads to the rejection of children, small families, and a demographic winter. In the long-term it will be impossible to pay pensions. For couples practising NFP however, the child is neither an error nor a threat. Their natural love of children is not destroyed. They have larger families. The 15 teaching couples in our organisation, for example, have 62 children so far, an average of 4.1 per family.

The separation of sexual activity from child-bearing leads to the acceptance of the production of children through assisted reproduction without recourse to the marital act in the case of infertility. Through IVF society is being led, inspired by Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, to the acceptance of controlled reproduction. Human beings are reduced to products. They are mass produced, selected, rejected, frozen or used in experiments. They are treated as material goods, in short, as slaves.

Slavery has been formally reintroduced into society. A doctor, whether mixing sperm and eggs in a Petri dish or injecting a sperm into an egg, is playing God. The arrogance of it! Surely this modern sin should be listed amongst those which cry to heaven.

When the practice of sterilised sexual intercourse is accepted, it leads logically to the acceptance of all practices leading to orgasm: oral, anal, homosexual acts, etc. The whole homosexual movement has become possible only through the general acceptance of contraceptive practice and the reduction of sexuality to a source of entertainment.

The practice of contraception within marriage contains within itself the mutual rejection of the spouses. It leads to the destruction of love. It belongs to the nature of love to give oneself, even to the point of sacrifice, seen eminently in the self-sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Even in our ordinary life a mother’s sacrifice of herself for her child is by no means exceptional. A mother will naturally go to great lengths to help her child, exceptionally even giving up her own life. The marriage act is meant to be an act of mutual love. The natural fruit of that love is the child. The spouses give and receive each other mutually completely. Even during the naturally infertile days of the cycle they give each other all they have at that time – their mutual love.

But if they use contraception they say to each other subconsciously, “I do give myself to you, but without my fertility, and I don’t want your fertility either.” Is that love? The act which in its nature expresses the total self-giving and receiving of the spouses contains an element of rejection, and therefore becomes a lie. When this act of rejection is systematically and continually repeated, love dies. The marriage is at least burdened. Many marriages break down.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Couples who use NFP do not practise this subconscious, systematic rejection. From personal experience and observation of our clients we see that such marriages are more stable. This is also shown in studies. Greater stability is evident even in those without religious practice. [2]

Contraception, which leads logically to other evils as described above, is destroying society. There are too few children and nations are dying out. It leads to abortion, as those who promote it concede. The combination of promoting promiscuity through Godless sex education, the long-term use of hormonal contraception with back-up abortions and the postponement of child-bearing leads to increased infertility.

The solution offered is not a true therapy of infertility, but assisted reproduction which bypasses the normal process of transmission of life through the marriage act. The long-term purpose of this policy could well be the desire to subject reproduction to state control, which would allow only those children to be born who pass quality control. At present this is illusory, but the tendency can be seen. It would appear that an elite group wishes to create a society of virtual slaves obedient to their desires. A new totalitarianism is being formed.

To this end it is necessary to destroy or at least weaken marriage and the family. For this purpose contraception, especially the convenient hormonal forms, is eminently suitable. And those who pour their millions into the homosexual movement and the gender ideology are not concerned with helping homosexuals and those with problems of sexual identity. Rather they are using these people to extend the concept of marriage and ultimately to widen its meaning so much as to make it meaningless.

 


[1] Baklinski, P, Two-thirds of women seeking abortions were using contraception: Britain’s largest abortion provider, http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/two-thirds-of-women-seeking-abortions-were-using-contraception-britains-lar

[2] Wilson, M.A.: The Practice of Natural Family Planning versu the Use of Artificial Birth Control: Family, Sexual and Moral Issues, Catholic Social Sceince Review, Volume VII, November 2002.

Rhomberg, W., Rhomberg, M, Weißenbach, H.: Natural Family Planning (NFP): The Symptothermal Method (Rötzer) as a Familiy Binding Tool. Results of a Survey among Members of INER, 2008, http://www.iner.org/files/02_anwenden/Download/NER%20Survey%202008%20Cathol%20Soc%20Sci%20Rev.pdf

 

Share this article

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook