psalm123

Fri, 25 Dec 2009 16:13:30 GMT

Irony on Eve of Christ's Birth
The U.S. Senate’s Christmas Gift to America:
Abortion for All, at Taxpayer-Expense

By Christian Newswire Thursday, December 24, 2009

WASHINGTON, Dec. 24 /Christian Newswire/—In response to this morning’s passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act introduced by Senator Harry Reid (D- Nev.), Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser offered the following statement:

“On Christmas Eve, the U.S. Senate gave Americans a gift no one wants: abortion for all, at taxpayer- expense. Even more tragic, they can thank self- described ‘pro-life’ senators like Ben Nelson, Bob Casey, Jr., and Harry Reid for paving the way for legislation that will open the floodgates for the greatest expansion of government-backed abortion since Roe v. Wade.

“Today’s vote was a career-affecting vote. The senators who voted to advance this legislation should consider themselves on notice. Votes have consequences, and the Susan B. Anthony List will use all the resources at our disposal to educate their constituents about today’s result. As this debate moves forward, pro-life House members would do well to consider the impact of their own votes. Abortion is never good for women, and it should never be a legitimate aspect of any ‘health care’ debate.

“If this bill is signed into law, for the first time, federally funded and managed health care plans will cover elective abortions. Pro-life Americans in states that choose to ‘opt-out’ of abortion coverage will still be forced to foot the bill for abortions in California and New York.

“This is not ‘compromise’ or ‘middle ground.’ The only ones who support the senate abortion language are a handful of senators so far-removed from the consciences of their own constituents that it’s laughable. Discussions of ‘different accounts’ and ‘separate checks’ are just a smokescreen.

“This bill is a betrayal of conscience for millions of Americans. And it is a betrayal of the principles proclaimed by Reid, Nelson, and Casey. Today’s vote is exactly the type of ‘leadership’ that repels the American electorate. Americans are hungry for authenticity. They are hungry for leaders whose actions follow their principles, for stalwart representatives who will never abandon their convictions for a sweet deal. Unfortunately, on Christmas Eve 2009, as a result of that lack of real leadership, Americans received the gift of abortion in the name of ‘health care reform.’

“The good news for the pro-life movement is that Bart Stupak is already a leader for Life in the House, and we know he won’t compromise his principles. The Susan B. Anthony List plans to reinforce Stupak’s leadership with our own efforts to target key members of the House of Representatives.

“Unlike the House version of health care reform, the Senate bill as amended by Senator Harry Reid (D- Nev.) does not prohibit abortion coverage for plans offered in federally subsidized health care exchanges. The state “opt-out” provision does nothing to prevent one state’s tax dollars from funding abortions in other states.”

The new public insurance exchange managed by the Office of Personnel and Management (OPM) will cover abortions. Each state through OPM can provide two multi-state plans and only one of them will exclude abortions. OPM’s current health care program, the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), does not include any plans that cover elective abortion. The bill also includes a reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, without language to prevent federal funding of abortions.

As part of its Votes Have Consequences project, the Susan B. Anthony List has funded television ads in Nevada (video) and Pennsylvania (video), radio ads in Nevada, Arkansas, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, and targeted advocacy telephone campaigns nationwide to mobilize pro-life Americans to contact Congress and urge their legislators to defend Life in health care reform.

For the last several months, the Susan B. Anthony List has mobilized tens of thousands of pro-life Americans nationwide to urge Congress to exclude abortion from healthcare reform. Susan B. Anthony List activists have sent over one million letters to Congress requesting an explicit exclusion of abortion from health care reform.

The Susan B. Anthony List is a nationwide network of Americans, over 280,000 residing in all 50 states, dedicated to mobilizing, advancing, and representing pro-life women in politics. Its connected Candidate Fund increases the percentage of pro-life women in the political process

Redemptive Suffering and the Christmas season.

Thu, 24 Dec 2009 01:47:44 GMT

I am writing this amidst a time in which many of us are feeling rushed and perhaps overwhelmed by the pressures the Christmas season can infuse into our lives. For Christians, the season of Advent leading up to Christmas should be a time of reflection and spiritual preparation for the glorious celebration of the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, the culture we live in today does its best to distract us with concerns of materialism and self gratification during the "holiday" season. Without a mature spiritual development and proper discernment of the true meaning of the Christmas season, it’s very easy to fall prey to some of the negative influences that our very secular society provides. When this happens, we allow ourselves to stray from the path which God has chosen for us. As we see throughout the Old Testament, God’s chosen people frequently fall short in their journey towards faithful communion with the divine creator. Time after time God extends His forgiving hand to his wayward people. The path toward reconciliation often involves hardship and suffering, but in the end often by unforseen methods, God always calls His people back to Himself. It’s our job as faithful servants to hear His call and to respond with love and obedience. Discerning God’s call among the noise of our lives can prove to be a difficult task. This task can be made difficult not only by the pressures of a materialist society but also by the presence of suffering. The true meaning of Christmas need not be lost on those who may be experiencing suffering during this Christmas season. As a hospice nurse, I am constantly reminded of the finite nature of our existence and the almost certain run in with suffering that defines our human nature. As Christians, we can make sense of and grow spiritually as we work through suffering. When we unite our suffering with the cross, we open ourselves up to the grace that God is eager to give. This is participating in the paschal mystery.

THE CHILD JESUS MAKES THE LOVE OF GOD MANIFEST

Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:02 GMT

"...the Holy Father explained that "the Church's liturgical year did not initially develop on the basis of Christ's birth but on that of faith in His resurrection. Hence, the most ancient feast of Christianity is not Christmas but Easter"

VATICAN CITY, 23 DEC 2009 (VIS) - In his general audience, celebrated this morning in the Paul VI Hall, the Pope focused his remarks on the subject of Christmas.

At the beginning of his catechesis the Holy Father explained that "the Church's liturgical year did not initially develop on the basis of Christ's birth but on that of faith in His resurrection. Hence, the most ancient feast of Christianity is not Christmas but Easter. The resurrection of Christ is what founded the Christian faith, underpinned the announcement of the Gospel and brought the Church into being".

"The first person to make the clear affirmation that Jesus was born on 25 December was Hippolytus of Rome in his commentary on the Book of Daniel, written around the year 204", said the Pope.

"In the Christian world, the feast of Christmas assumed a distinct form in the fourth century when it took the place of the Roman feast of the 'Sol invictus', the sun unconquered. This highlighted the fact that the birth of Christ is the victory of the true light over the darkness of evil and sin. Yet the particular and intense spiritual atmosphere that now surrounds Christmas developed during the Middle Ages, thanks to St. Francis of Assisi who was profoundly enamoured of Jesus the man, of the God-with-us".

"This particular devotion to the mystery of the Incarnation was the origin of the famous Christmas celebration in Greccio. ... St. Francis with his nativity scene highlighted the defenceless love, humility and goodness of God, Who in the Incarnation of the Word shows Himself to mankind in order to teach them a new way to live and love".

The Pope then went on to recall the fact that the first biographer of St. Francis, Thomas of Celano, recounted how, "on that Christmas night, Francis was granted the grace of a marvellous vision. He saw, lying immobile in the manger, a small child Who was reawakened from sleep by the proximity of Francis himself".

"Thanks to St. Francis, Christian people are able to understand that at Christmas God truly became the 'Emmanuel', the God-with-us, from Whom no barrier or distance separates us. In that Child, God became so close to each of us ... that we can establish an intimate rapport of profound affection with Him, just as we do with a newborn child.

"In that Child", the Holy Father added, "God-Love becomes manifest: God comes unarmed and powerless, because He does not intend to conquer, so to say, from the outside; rather, He intends to be accepted by man in freedom. God becomes a defenceless child to overcome man's pride, violence and thirst for possession. In Jesus, God assumed this poor and disarming condition in order to triumph over us with love and lead us to our true identity".

"His being a Child likewise indicates to us that we can meet God and enjoy His presence", the Pope concluded. "People who have not understood the mystery of Christmas have not understood the decisive element of Christian existence: that those who do not accept Jesus with the heart of a child cannot enter the Kingdom of heaven. This is what St. Francis wished to tell the Christian world of his time and of all times, even unto today".

Crossing The Rubicon

Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:11:44 GMT

Does it surprise me that on Christmas Eve, our government could be voting on health care reform which would impose tax payer funded abortions on American citizens? Of course not. With this administration, I could see it coming from a mile away.

All will pay?

Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:07:27 GMT

The Obama administration is inching closer to using my tax dollars to fund abortion. If you want to live in a state of moral blindness, that's your business. Actually, abortion is everyone's business but I digress. Don't use my money to pay for the killing of babies in the womb.

We'll see how this turns out. As was expected, the politicians (especially those entrenched in the culture of death mentality) are purposefully making the abortion issue a lot more complicated than it needs to be

http://www.jillstanek.com/

Thanks to Sebelius for explaining how public funding of abortions will work under the Senate healthcare plan, equally paid by all...

Let's go over that again. When reading the transcript bear in mind Sebelius was talking about the very same abortion compromise Ben Nelson claims to have negotiated...

Sebelius: And I would say that the Senate language, which was negotiated by Sens. Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray, who are very strong defenders of women's health services and choices for women, take a big step forward from where the House left it with the Stupak amendment, and I think do a good job making sure there are choices for women, making sure there are going to be some plan options, and making sure that while public funds aren't used, we are not isolating, discriminating against, or invading the privacy rights of women. There would be an accounting procedure, but everybody in the exchange would do the same thing, whether you're male or female, whether you're 75 or 25, you would all set aside a portion of your premium that would go into a fund, and it would not be earmarked for anything. It would be a separate account that everyone in the exchange would pay.
Aarons-Mele: Hmm, it's a bit confusing, but....

Sebelius: It is a bit confusing. But it's really an accounting measure that would apply across the board, and not just to women, and certainly not just to women who want to choose abortion coverage.

Aarons-Mele: Oh, that's good, that's good.

Actually, it is not confusing. Sebelius just did a good job of trying to make it sound confusing. Simply, every pro-life taxpayer will be forced to kick in a minimum of $12 annually to fund abortions along with pro-abort taxpayers under the Senate-passed healthcare plan.

Verum Serum explains in English:

The basic compromise however is an accounting gimmick, where the federal government will require that all participants in the new insurance exchanges - men and women of all age groups - contribute a separate "abortion premium" to cover the cost of elective abortion services.
In other words, the federal government will legally compel you to contribute funds exclusively designated to pay for abortion into the new government-run system. Regardless of whether you have any personal need or desire for abortion coverage, and regardless of whether you have any religious or moral objections to abortion.

Top Ten Reasons For Hope

Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:48:06 GMT

Here is a nice blog post from Catholic Vote . http://www.catholicvote.org/index.php?/site/homepage/

I have posted some of their excellent pro-life videos in the past. This list reminds me of the message in 1 Peter 3:15.

but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence

2009 Top Ten Reasons for Hope

Posted on 12/22/2009 at 01:12pm

Here is our Top 10 Reasons for Hope from 2009, the first of a new annual tradition. The list is not comprehensive, and there were some significant people and events that didn’t make the cut. But this year’s Top 10 inspired us. I hope it inspires you.

10. It's Cool to be Pro-Life
Across the popular culture spectrum, the younger generation is, on average, more pro-life than their parents. Whether its reality-TV star Kourtney Kardashian telling People magazine about her decision to keep her child or the multiple opinion polls that show more and more Americans self-identifying as pro-life. Even the show Law & Order included a powerful courtroom scene that compelled a character to question her ‘dogmatic’ support for Roe v. Wade. Hope for the unborn is en vogue.

9. You – the Members of CatholicVote
Over 400,000 members of CatholicVote working to build up the Church and our world made 2009 truly memorable. Back in January the Super Bowl didn’t like the message, but millions of people watched a commercial by CatholicVote.org that reminded America of the dignity of every human life, including an unborn Barack Obama. The inauguration of a strident pro-abortion president was very disappointing, but the proud members of CatholicVote.org responded with the first in a series of ads in our “Life: Imagine the Potential” campaign that also included an ad during the American Idol finale, and a summer ad commemorating the historic achievement of Apollo 11. All of this work and more was made possible by you. Through hard work and prayer, you and I are building a movement. A movement we can be proud of.

8. Death of Fr. Richard John Neuhaus
The death of a man is a sign of hope? Only in the sense that Fr. Richard John Neuhaus once explained: “We are born to die. Not that death is the purpose of our being born, but we are born toward death, and in each of our lives the work of dying is already underway. The work of dying well is, in largest part, the work of living well.” In that sense, Fr. Neuhaus died well, evidenced by the lives he touched, the intellects he captivated, and the winsome pen that delighted and moved thousands of hearts and minds during his rich life. Fr. Neuhaus is no longer with us, but his ideas, and spirited engagement with the world -- uniquely as a person of faith -- most certainly are.

7. Priests, Religious, and More Priests
From Ireland to New Zealand to many dioceses across the United States, Catholic seminaries are recording record numbers of new seminarians after years of decline. Wherever you look, large numbers of young men and women are bravely choosing to serve Christ and his Church in a world that so urgently needs the witness of courageous, self-sacrificing men and women of God. Perhaps not coincidentally, Pope Benedict XVI designated the second of half of 2009 and first half of 2010 the ‘Year of the Priest.’

6. Maine Delivers for Marriage
During the spring and summer of 2009 a few states in New England, including Maine, legalized so-called same-sex ‘marriage.’ In November, the voters struck back at the ballot box and overruled their Legislature by returning marriage to the traditional definition of one man and one woman. This means that marriage has won 31 out of 31 times when put before the people for a vote! Maine’s triumph effectively put the brakes on efforts to legalize same-sex ‘marriages’ in New York and New Jersey.

5. Religious Leaders Unite to Sign Manhattan Declaration
Invoking the legacy of the late Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement, Catholic, Evangelical and Orthodox leaders released a powerful 4,732 word document renewing their commitment to the defense of unborn human life, marriage as a sacred union of one man and one woman, and the rights of conscience and religious liberty no matter the cost. The leaders drew a line in the sand stating their willingness to defy any edict that violates these foundational principles. You too can join over 300,000 people who have already signed the Declaration here.

4. Bart Stupak and the Rise of Pro-life Democrats
The deeply disappointing capitulation by Senator Ben Nelson is still fresh on our minds. But it is worth noting as a sign of hope the strengthening voice of pro-life Democrats in the House. For years these pro-life Democrats would vote for life, but remained relatively quiet and rarely publicly challenged their party’s leadership. But with Democrats in control of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, pro-life Democrats couldn’t stay silent any longer. In the end it was the reckless power grab by the abortion lobby to hijack healthcare reform that spurred Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) into action. Stupak helped rally other pro-life Democrats to oppose any healthcare bill that included abortion funding, eventually forcing even Speaker Pelosi herself to buckle. As we write this, the final fate of the pro-abortion healthcare bill remains unknown. But the efforts by Stupak and other Democrats represent a sign of hope for a party that all too often is shamefully beholden to the powerful abortion lobby.

3. Smashing Success of the 40 Days for Life Campaigns
Community organizing at its finest. Volunteers who pray and witness outside abortion clinics across the country have always been the unsung heroes of pro-life activism. But the 40 Days for Life campaigns, begun in 2004, are exploding and have now included hundreds of thousands of participants in nearly 300 cities. Their efforts have shut down multiple clinics, saved countless lives, and have pro-abortion advocates grasping for a way to respond. There is none. Modeling prayer efforts on the biblically-based 40 days of prayer and fasting practiced by Our Lord himself is inspirational and paying dividends. Big time.

2. The Conversion of Abby Johnson
The 40 Days for Life campaigns began in Bryan/College Station, TX. In November, the Executive Director of the local Planned Parenthood in this same city was overwhelmed by the evil of abortion and walked out. After watching an abortion on an ultrasound, and seeing the warmth and joy of pro-life activists holding vigils outside the abortion mill, she walked down the street and joined the 40 Days for Life effort. This episode confirms that the conscience of every person is always burning, and nobody is a lost cause. In military terms, the pro-abortion forces suffered a major defector, as Ms. Johnson also revealed what we already know to be true – abortion is heavily pushed for the money and profits, not because it helps women. This story confirms the power of prayer in our fight for justice, and represents one of the most inspirational pro-life stories of 2009.

1. Bishops With Backbone
Someone check what the Catholic Bishops are eating for breakfast - it's more than Wheaties. Who could have predicted the vocal stand by almost 70 Catholic bishops, led by His Excellency John D’Arcy of South Bend, Indiana, in opposing the bestowal of honors by Notre Dame on our pro-abortion President. The courage displayed over the scandal at Notre Dame carried over into the fall when the USCCB became one of the biggest opponents of health care “reform” because of provisions that included public financing of abortion. Their outspoken opposition prompted more than a few public leaders to call on the Church to be silenced, stripped of its tax-exempt status, and worse. The year also saw more than a few bishops speaking out more forcefully on the fundamental issue of life and its treatment by Catholic politicians. The laity is cheering as more and more bishops are becoming brave to the bone

Questions

Wed, 23 Dec 2009 02:37:39 GMT

Do we really need "population control" to save the environment? All you exhalers of Carbon Dioxide, this means you!

Questions.

Wed, 23 Dec 2009 02:23:34 GMT

When a politician says that he/she has taken the issue of abortion to "prayer" and then goes and votes to support killing unborn babies, I have to ask, what god did they pray to? and what exactly does "prayer" mean to them?

Sorry ACLU, not this time.

Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:39:18 GMT

Score one for sane Americans. I thought this particular fight had been settled already.

The 40-foot cross at the Mount Soledad National Veterans Memorial in San Diego does not violate the Constitution, according to a recent ruling by U.S. District Judge Larry Burns. For 18 years, the American Civil Liberties Union has fought to have the cross removed. San Diego even voted to give the land to the federal government to protect the cross. “It’s a great victory for all freedom-loving Americans," said Charles LiMandri of the Thomas More Law Center, who was lead counsel on the case. “(The cross) is being used for the legitimate, secular purpose of honoring veterans. And the objective, reasonable observer would see it in that context.” LiMandri said he's ready to defend the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Accept or be sued.

Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:10:52 GMT

Yet another slippery slope.

Judge upholds ruling against photographers who declined work at homosexual ceremony

Albuquerque, N.M., Dec 18, 2009 / 04:12 am (CNA).- Attorneys for a small photography company charged with violating anti-discrimination laws for declining to photograph a same-sex “commitment ceremony” are planning to appeal a New Mexico judge’s decision to uphold the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission’s ruling against them.

The Albuquerque company, Elane Photography, is co-owned by Elaine Huguenin and her husband Jon. They are being represented by attorneys from the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF).

In 2006 a woman named Vanessa Willock asked them to photograph a “commitment ceremony” that she and another woman wanted to hold in Taos, N.M. State law does not recognize homosexual unions.

Elaine Hugenin declined because her and her husband’s Christian beliefs conflicted with the message communicated by the ceremony, the ADF said. Willock filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, accusing Elane Photography of discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The commission held a one-day trial and issued an order in April 2008 finding that the company engaged in discrimination prohibited under state law. The commission ordered the company to pay Willock $6,637.94 in attorneys’ fees.

“Christians in the marketplace should not be subject to predatory legal attacks for simply abiding by their beliefs,” said ADF Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence. “The Constitution prohibits the state from forcing unwilling artists to promote a message they disagree with and thereby violate their conscience. Should the government force a videographer who is an animal rights activist to create a video promoting hunting and taxidermy?

“American small business owners do not surrender their constitutional rights at the marketplace gate, nor can the government make people choose between their faith and their livelihood,” he continued.

Lorence charged that the commission’s decision showed a “striking disregard” for the company’s rights. He said the decision will be appealed to the New Mexico Court of Appeals.

The Known Universe

Sat, 19 Dec 2009 05:00:34 GMT

All one can say is wow.

The Known Universe takes viewers from the Himalayas through our atmosphere and the inky black of space to the afterglow of the Big Bang. Every star, planet, and quasar seen in the film is possible because of the world's most complete four-dimensional map of the universe, the Digital Universe Atlas that is maintained and updated by astrophysicists at the American Museum of Natural History. The new film, created by the Museum, is part of an exhibition, Visions of the Cosmos: From the Milky Ocean to an Evolving Universe, at the Rubin Museum of Art in Manhattan through May 2010.

Nothing to see here. Just "choice" in action.

Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:04:57 GMT

Here's a slippery slope for you. See just how far toward insanity we have allowed ourselves to get? I shouldn't be hearing any bit of outcry from the pro-abortion crowd. "My body, my choice" right? Inside the womb or out, it's all about "choice" right?

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otr.cfm?id=5182

A woman in Virginia suffocated her newborn last week. Because the mother and child were still connected by the umbilicus and placenta at the time the former dispatched the latter, the act is considered no different from clipping a toenail. You go, girl!

Momma is free as the breeze:

“In the state of Virginia as long as the umbilical cord is attached and the placenta is still in the mother, if the baby comes out alive the mother can do whatever she wants to with that baby to kill it,” said Investigator Tracy Emerson. “She could shoot the baby, stab the baby. As long as it’s still attached to her in some form by umbilical cord or something it’s no crime in the state of Virginia.”

The news story attributes the authorities’ inability to prosecute the murder to a “loophole in state law.” But it isn’t a loophole. It’s a carefully crafted legal fiction whose sole purpose is to establish the unborn child as something less than human in order to permit its mother to kill it. The logic is no different from that of the D&X (Partial Birth Abortion) procedure, whereby four-fifths of the baby is delivered outside the birth canal while the skull is confined inside the cervix in order to empty its contents. Surgically.

Note that if a woman wanted to give birth to a healthy child and her obstetrician did what the murderess did in the Virginia episode or what the abortionist does in a D&X, that obstetrician would be sued if he acted through incompetence or charged with murder if he acted in malice. What makes a human person a human person, according to our law, is whether its mother wishes it to be -- at least up to such time as it's alive and kicking apart from and independently of her.

Let me put it simply. No one present at a birth and gazing at the emergent flesh -- not the nurse, not the doctor, not the recorder, not the father -- knows whether he's looking at a baby or looking at surgical waste. No one knows whether it’s a new patient, citizen, child (which he has to tend to), or whether it's a mass of superfluous tissue (which he has to dispose of). Until the arbitrary law arbitrarily kicks in, it's acey deucy: mother’s choice decides all.

Our society tolerates the gross incoherence of these legal fictions because the fictions themselves are necessary lies, necessary to the public justification of abortion. You'll notice that even the journalists find the business difficult to report without knotting themselves in contradictions. Of this case they write, "Because the mother and baby were still connected by the umbilical cord and placenta, state law does not consider the baby to be a separate life." They're saying, in short, state law does not consider the baby to be a baby.

Put that way, something looks wrong.

Fake Catholic Groups

Wed, 16 Dec 2009 15:35:41 GMT

One more day of work in preparation for final exams. This blog post from Thomas Peters fits in nicely with the theme of my last entry.

..."Young Catholics for Choice” in fact disown their Catholic heritage, tragically distancing themselves from that communion with the Church to which they are called."

http://americanpapist.com/blog.html

Earlier today I briefly mentioned the extraordinary, deceptive measures undertaken by Catholics for Choice to convince young Catholics to use contraception (reported on here by the Marquette Tribune).

I am overjoyed to see that the incoming Archbishop of Milwaukee, Jerome E. Listecki, today set the record straight on the Church's teaching. Here is the text of the Archbishop-Designate's statement (bolding is my own):

"It has come to my attention that an organization calling itself “Young Catholics for Choice” has recently entered into collaboration with Family Planning HealthServices of Wausau. Through media advertising, “Young Catholics for Choice” is attempting to convey the message that Catholics can disregard Church teaching regarding contraception, abortion and human sexuality in general and remain Catholics in good standing.

Nothing could be further from the truth. While people can call themselves whatever they want, it is my duty as a bishop to state clearly and unequivocally that by professing and disseminating views in grave contradiction to Catholic teaching, members of organizations like “Young Catholics for Choice” in fact disown their Catholic heritage, tragically distancing themselves from that communion with the Church to which they are called. We pray that they may reconcile their position which is contrary to the Catholic Faith they claim to profess."

"Catholics for Choice" is not the only fake Catholic organization whose mission is to confuse and mislead Catholics, but they are certainly one of the worst (Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good are also fake Catholic organizations).

Catholics For Choice, as I also mentioned earlier today, is very active here in Washington DC trying to create support for the flawed health care bill which will be voted on ... even arguing for the inclusion of an expanded abortion mandate in the final legislation!

If the same Catholic group that is arguing for the current health care bill is also promoting an agenda that an Archbishop says is "in grave contradiction to Catholic teaching," we should be extremely pessimistic about their position on other important issues of today. Catholics for Choice is simply more blatant and less nuanced about their opposition to Church church teaching and social teaching than the other organizations I mention above

Jimmy Carter: Abuse of Women? Blame the Catholics and Southern Baptists

Wed, 16 Dec 2009 02:28:55 GMT

"Although in a July column in The Observer Carter admits to "not having training in religion or theology," in his address to the PWR Carter appeals to his authority as someone who has "taught Bible lessons for more than 65 years."

I run into this situation quite frequently. There are so many different versions of relativism entrenched in and dumbing down society. The result of which is that people often dump the use of reason in favor of personal feelings. When it comes to religion, Christianity in particular, truth is often replaced by opinion. It's a common occurrence these days to engage in discussion with people who think that it is an intellectually acceptable position to take in which personal opinion (often misinformed) carries the same weight of credibility as actual Church teaching. People with little to no knowledge of Theology,Church history, or teachings banter about personal opinions as if they were defining infallible doctrine. The idea that everyone can define their own version of Christianity as being true is a self refuting concept. I still struggle with the currently popular idea that somehow the truth of any particular religion is based more on the subjective experience than the content and truth claims of the religion. What's the point of that? There is little truth to be found in such an arrangement.

By John-Henry Westen

MELBOURNE, December 11, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In an address to a gathering sponsored by the World Parliament of Religions (PWR) last Friday, former US President Jimmy Carter has once again blamed traditional religion, particularly Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics, for "creating an environment where violations against women are justified."

It is a theme that Carter has successfully used to garner media attention for several years.

Although in a July column in The Observer Carter admits to "not having training in religion or theology," in his address to the PWR Carter appeals to his authority as someone who has "taught Bible lessons for more than 65 years."

In opposition to the vast majority of authentic scholars and historians, Carter asserted: "It's clear that during the early Christian era women served as deacons, priests, bishops, apostles, teachers and prophets." He added: "It wasn't until the 4th century or the 3rd at the earliest that dominant Christian leaders, all men, twisted and distorted Holy Scriptures to perpetuate their ascendant position within the religious hierarchy."

Contrary to the theorizing of Carter, Pope John Paul II taught, "The Lord Jesus chose men to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry." He added: "the Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible." (Catechism of the Catholic Church; 1577)

Carter singled out the Southern Baptist Convention and Roman Catholic Church, claiming that they "view that the Almighty considers women to be inferior to men." However, both Christian faiths hold to the Scriptural truth that God created men and women equal.

Carter suggests that only in permitting women to become priests and pastors could male religious leaders choose to interpret teachings to exalt rather than subjugate women. "They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter, subjugation," he said.

"Their continuing choice provides a foundation or justification for much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world," said Carter. Carter goes on to list horrific violations against women such as rape, genital mutilation, abortion of female embryos and spousal battery.

Responding to Carter's nearly identical points in July, John Paul Meenan, Professor of Theology at Our Lady Seat of Wisdom Academy in Barry's Bay, Ontario characterized Carter's points as "ridiculous," noting that there was no evidence of the ordination of women in the early Church.

Moreover, Meenan stressed that historically Christianity ought to be credited for promoting the dignity of women. "It is the Church that invariably improved the lot of women in the lands that were converted and Christianized," he said

Navigating the Mine-Field of the Black Woman's Womb

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 05:38:50 GMT

"Folks get fidgety and indignant because you may be attempting to trample on their “rights” and “choices” with this kind of talk. But when a soldier in Iraq has an 80% higher chance of making it home from war than a Black baby has of making it alive out of his mother’s womb, I have to speak on it."

"silly concept that who gets to live outside of or die in the womb is a matter of ‘choice’."

African-Americans and Abortion: Navigating the Mine-Field of the Black Woman's Womb

by Malaka Grant
December 13, 2009

LifeNews.com Note: This column from Malaka Grant was originally published on the Georgia Right to Life web site and is reprinted with permission.

When I was growing up in Ghana in the home of a Black radical (my mother) and a regular dude (my dad), I was taught by my mother and other radicals of her ilk that “civilization was carried on the womb of the black woman”, that her children were “kings and queens”, that her “feet were shod with truth and beauty."

You get the picture; and anyone who was born between 1968-81 and raised in a home of “Black consciousness” knows what I'm talking about. For a short stretch of time, it was a good and honorable thing to raise a Black family with two parents, some kids, maybe even a dog.

There was a time, and not too long ago, that if a Black man wanted to have sex with a Black woman, by God he was going to have to marry her. We had that much respect for ourselves, our bodies and the concept of family.

I turned the page of this Black book and suddenly being “Black” in the new century means a life style of promiscuity, immaturity and irresponsibility. If you turn on BET, it’s like our women have fought for exclusive rights to exhibit whoredom. Sex is pervasive in our community, and generally when people have gratuitous and unprotected sex, they make a baby.

It gets to be a slippery and dangerous slope when you begin to discuss abortion amongst feminists and black folks, but that’s exactly where I'm headed.

Folks get fidgety and indignant because you may be attempting to trample on their “rights” and “choices” with this kind of talk. But when a soldier in Iraq has an 80% higher chance of making it home from war than a Black baby has of making it alive out of his mother’s womb, I have to speak on it.

Before I get started, I'll tell you I've heard all the arguments before:

What do you say about children who are a product of rape and incest, Malaka? Should a woman be forced to keep the baby in those cases, just to fit into the scope of your narrow Christian ideals?

My answer is:

Ideally, there would be no rape or incest, but I'm going to go ahead and take a leap and say that the over 1400 Black babies being aborted every day are not all the result of ‘rape or incest.’

For anyone who thinks that I'm removed from the sensitivity of abortion because I'm married, go to church and can “afford” my three kids, let me assure you I am not. I have relatives and friends who have had several abortions…killed their babies like they were squishing an irritation, like an ant.

For some women, it’s the men in their lives that coerce/convince them into having the procedure, and for others it’s a very easy decision to make.

For my own part, the biological father of my firstborn (whom I did not marry), had sanctioned 5 abortions before her birth and one that I know of thereafter, wanted me to consider killing this baby as well.

My own father and current father-in-law wanted me to have an abortion because my first child was conceived and born out of wedlock. My dad called Nadjah at 10 weeks old in the womb “just a fetus” and “a collection of cells.” Mr. Grant Sr. casually suggested an abortion as a way to right all wrongs. Was it an easy decision for me as a single, scared 26 year old working a crummy job to keep the baby?

No, but I could never fathom the burden of destroying a human life. Have you ever seen or read Horton Hears a Who? The Whos ask Horton (who, though he cannot see them, is able to hear them quite well) to protect them from harm, which Horton happily agrees to do, proclaiming throughout the book that ‘‘even though you can't see or hear them at all, a person’s a person, no matter how small’’. The entire movie is centered around this maniacal kangaroo who is trying to get Horton to admit that Whoville doesn't exist because she can't hear or see the Whos. Eventually, she tries to (unsuccessfully) boil Whoville in a vat of boiling oil.

The point is, my baby was not and never was a “collection of cells”. At 10 weeks in utero she had fingers, feet, eye sockets and a heartbeat From the night of her conception to this morning when I dropped her off at pre-school, she was and is my ‘Nadjah-bear’.

Has anything I've said today going to change anyone’s views on abortion? Maybe…but probably not. Most folks feel about abortion the way they do about heavy metal or the opera: They either can tolerate it or they cannot…they or are for it or against it.

It is a rare occasion that someone from either faction is dissuaded from their core beliefs on abortion. But what has me ticked off as a Black woman is the fact that as a race, we've bought hook-line-and-sinker this

silly concept that who gets to live outside of or die in the womb is a matter of ‘choice’.

For the most part, we truly do not understand

the spiritual and social implications of destroying our children in the womb. There’s a whole cultural movement in that direction and li’l ol’ me is not big enough to fight against it. And let’s be honest. The decision to abort a baby has everything to do with lifestyle and convenience.

It is neither glamorous nor convenient to have a child, be it 1 or 5 in tow while you try to do groceries or get your hair done. It’s an economic decision, because if you are a good parent, the majority of your funds will inadvertently be redirected towards those kids. Is it easy to go to school, conduct business or work when you have an unwanted/unintended pregnancy?

No, but it’s not impossible.

If you don't want to face grown up consequences, stop playing grown up games and make the “choice” not to get in bed without a condom, a pill, or here’s a novel idea, NOT AT ALL unless you're prepared to face the fact that you might make a baby that day.

In 1970, Louisiana judge Leander Perez said “The best way to hate a nigger is to hate him before he is born.”

Our ancestral mothers had their babies ripped from their arms on auction blocks all around the south, had them tossed overboard ships during the middle passages, and watched, cried and screamed in agony while slave masters sold them off for profit. I daresay they would be disappointed in our women today and their “choices.” There’s a whole lot of nigger hating going on today, and it seems to be us niggers that’s doing the hating

"safe schools czar?"

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 03:32:13 GMT

The more stories I read about this guy, the creepier he seems. Is this a bit of that "change" that Obama promised during the election? This article is one of the cleaner versions of the ongoing exposure of Kevin Jennings.

Eye-Witness Teacher Says Safe Schools Czar Present at "Fistgate" Conference

By Peter J .Smith
BOSTON, December 14, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - New details on President Barack Obama's "Safe Schools Czar" Kevin Jennings have emerged, as an eye-witness has finally broken her silence and says that Jennings was present at Tufts University during the infamous "Fistgate" scandal, and says that he bears personal responsibility for the event.
Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit reports that a Massachusetts teacher - who remains anonymous out of concern for herself and her family - told him that she saw Jennings in 2000 at the 10 Year Anniversary Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN)/Boston conference at Tufts University.
At that time Jennings was the executive director of GLSEN, an organization which he founded. The event, cosponsored by the Massachusetts Department of Education, featured a youth workshop on sex, specifically targeting 14-21-year-olds. During that workshop GLSEN presenters taught youth how to perform a dangerous sexual practice known as "fisting" - a practice so obscene that it cannot be described here.
The Massachusetts teacher said that Jennings was the keynote speaker for GLSEN's conference, and was "touted as this wonderful person who helped children so that they wouldn't be harassed by parents, and accepted in society."
"It sounds really good, because there's not a single teacher I know that wants any child to be mistreated," the teacher told Hoft. She said she did not expect the conference would lead into the sexually graphic workshops, which promoted sex between adults and children.
The teacher also snapped a picture of Jennings showing him getting a lunch ticket at the event.
Hoft asked, "There's no way that Kevin Jennings could have been at this conference and not know that there was this explosive sexual speeches, talks, materials around the conference."
"This whole conference was his dream and his mindset. This was his vision from the very beginning," said the teacher.
Jennings has publically stated that he dreamed of "promoting homosexuality" in schools; he has also come under fire over revelations that GLSEN promoted a pornographic reading list to children grades 7 - 12, both during and after his tenure as executive director.
These books included explicit descriptions of pre-school children engaging in sexual acts; stories portraying child-adult sexual relationships in a positive light, homosexual sex in restrooms, affairs between students and teachers, and other content too extreme to be described here. (See Gateway Pundit coverage: WARNING: Content extremely graphic)
Jennings also is a professed admirer of Harry Hay, a radical homosexual rights activist, ardent promoter of pedophilia and the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).

When news of the seminars at the GLSEN conference broke in the early 2000s, Jennings denied he knew that GLSEN presenters were promoting these activities to youth. He stated: "We need to make our expectations and guidelines to outside facilitators much more clear, because we are surprised and troubled by some of the accounts we've heard." Jennings, however, also criticized the Massachusetts parents who taped the event that exposed the scandal.
However, next year's GLSEN conference at Tufts belied Jennings's public commitment to eliminating any repetition of the "Fistgate" scandal. Campus police maintained a strict ban on cameras and video-recorders at the 2001 GLSEN event, but the pro-family group "Mass Resistance" - which exposed the previous conference to the Boston media - was able to obtain Planned Parenthood "fisting kits" made available at the conference.
In defense of Jennings, the socially-liberal organization Media Matters commented that "neither Hoft nor the anonymous teacher provide any actual evidence that Jennings knew the specific explicit content that would be discussed at that workshop."
But page eight of the "Teach Out" conference schedule - available from Mass Resistence - describes the "youth-only" workshop called, "What They Didn't Tell You About Queer Sex and Sexuality in Health Class."
A description for this workshop states: "This workshop for youth addresses what is different for glbt [sic] youth when it comes to sex, dating, relationships, HIV, etc. Come and discuss the questions you couldn't or didn't ask in health class … What does it mean to identify as queer and still be sexually active with the opposite sex … We will address the information you want about queer sexuality and some of the politics that prevent us from getting our needs met."
"Remember, the buck stops with him. [Jennings] was the head of all of this," the teacher told Hoft.
Jennings' insistence that he bore no responsibility for scandal makes no sense, she said, for the reason that, "He brought in all of the people that would agree with him as any administrator would do. You bring in people who agree with you, who you can work with."

President Barack Obama appointed Jennings as deputy assistant to the Office of Safe Schools in the Department of Education on July 6. According to Education Secretary Arne Duncan, Jennings is "uniquely qualified for the job."

The Gateway Pundit interview with the Massachusetts Teacher is available here.

See related coverage by LifeSiteNews.com:

Obama Says Peace is Founded on Human Rights

Sun, 13 Dec 2009 05:46:31 GMT

-The President went on to describe the necessary conditions for the procurement of peace, emphasizing that peace will only occur when every individual is guaranteed basic human rights.

I agree with you Mr. President, so why do your actions contradict your words in such a prodigious way?

By Matt Anderson and Hilary White
Oslo, Norway; December 10, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - On Thursday, in Oslo, Norway, President Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize - an award that was steeped in controversy due to criticisms over Obama's lack of concrete achievement, his involvement in two wars, as well as his sweeping support for abortion.
While most Nobel winners spend three days in Oslo, President Obama was scheduled to spend just 24 hours in Norway, a move that appeared to be an effort to downplay the reception of the award in a nod to the controversy.
As part of that 24 hour tour, Obama delivered a 35 minute, 4,000 word acceptance speech, which focused on the topic of war and human rights.
"War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man," said Obama. "At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease, the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences."
"The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God," he said.
The President went on to describe the necessary conditions for the procurement of peace, emphasizing that peace will only occur when every individual is guaranteed basic human rights. Citing the example of WWII, Obama praised the drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights saying, "In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise."
Further, he emphasized that the dignity of each individual is essential to peace saying, "Only a just peace based upon the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting."
Reactions to Obama's speech from pro-life leaders have largely focused on the hypocrisy of a President who supports abortion receiving a prize for peace and pontificating on war and human rights.
Msgr. Ignacio Barreiro, head of the Rome office of Human Life International, told LifeSiteNews.com, "This award is based on a total ethical relativism."

Barreiro cited the press release issued by Thorbjorn Jagland, president of the Nobel Prize Committee of Norway, announcing the granting of the prize to Obama that said, "His diplomacy is based on the concept that those who lead the world should do it on the basis of the values and attitudes shared by the majority of the population of the world."
He said, "The relativism of this statement should be evident to us. We are not speaking here of objective values, nor of objective natural law, but merely of values 'shared by the majority'.
"In other words, the dictatorship of the majority, obtained by the manipulation of public opinion."
Barreiro added, "We should not be surprised by this decision of the Nobel committee. In 2007, they granted this award to the former vice president of the US, Al Gore, a person notorious for his promotion of abortion and of a drastic decrease in world population."
Judie Brown, president of American Life League, told LSN, "We pray everyday President Obama heeds his own advice, and ends his blood-soaked war on the residents in the womb."
"The greatest "exemption of mercy" in today's world is that the tiniest preborn children - their young age their only crime -- are condemned to death. There can be no peace in a society that denies the basic human rights to life and equality from millions of its members."
Commenting on Obama's assertion that a "just peace" rests on the rights and dignity of the human individual, Brown said, "We agree with President Obama that only a just peace based on inherent rights and dignity of every individual can be truly lasting."
"For this reason we call on President Obama to end the hypocrisy of "choice," the injustice of "abortion," and the inhumane denial of equality and personhood to millions of human beings every day - including those human beings in the womb."
Further, pro-life Action League President Joe Scheidler pointed out the irony of the President's remarks. Scheidler said that Obama "even supports the non-protection of a living human being after it's born from an abortion," a reference to the President's vote, while serving as a senator in the Illinois Senate, against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act
"Anything he says sounds good and it's meaningless," said Scheidler. "In fact, it's so sinister because people believe him.

The Dawkins Duck?

Sun, 13 Dec 2009 04:30:40 GMT

Here is professor Dawkins answering the question of why he won't debate well known and respected Christian apologist, Dr. William Lane Craig. Dawkins will debate Bishops, Cardinals or Popes but he won't debate a highly regarded Christian academic scholar? He will debate a Bishop but won't debate Dr. Craig who is a "creationist" What? I need to know what his definition of "creationist" is because I don't see much difference between what a Catholic Bishop for instance believes and what Dr. Craig believes. Maybe he would debate a member of the hierarchy because your average Bishop or Pope while being well versed in Theology and perhaps philosophy, aren't typically seasoned debaters. C'mon professor, you can give a better (more believable) answer than what you gave. Just do the debate and get it over with. Both sides want to see it happen. As a research professor of philosophy, lecturer, and author of over 30 books, I think Dr. Craig is a bit more than just a "professional debater."

"divine deli"

Sun, 13 Dec 2009 01:18:15 GMT

Here is a pretty good article that touches on the confused state of religious relativism and pluralism in this country.

-As a scholar of religion, I am supposed to simply observe all this without rendering any judgment, but I can't help feeling that something precious is being lost here, perhaps something as fundamental as a sense of the sacred. Harvard philosopher George Santayana once observed that "American life is a powerful solvent," capable of neutralizing new ideas into banal clichés.....

By STEPHEN PROTHERO

So much for the jealous God. A survey released earlier this year by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life found that the U.S. is a "nation of religious drifters." If, in the realm of love, Americans gravitate toward serial monogamy (moving from marriage to divorce to remarriage and so on), we likewise flit from one religious affiliation to another, pledging our fidelity, say, to Methodism in our youth, Catholicism in middle age and Episcopalianism in our dotage.
A new Pew study, released last week, shows that Americans are swingers as well as switchers, flirting with religious beliefs and practices other than their own without officially changing their religious affiliation. Catholic leaders have long denounced "Cafeteria Catholics" for going down the line and picking and choosing the Catholic beliefs and practices they choose to uphold. According to this new study, Americans as a group are now bellying up to what my Boston University colleague John Berthrong has referred to as the "divine deli."
Not counting travel, or special events such as weddings and funerals, more than one-third of Americans attend worship services at more than one place, and nearly a quarter attend services held by another religion. Much of this religious infidelity happens in the family, or within the extended family—Lutherans attending Baptist services or Baptists attending Catholic Mass. But among black Protestants 8% attend services at synagogues, and 5% of this same group go to mosques. Meanwhile, large numbers of American Christians affirm beliefs that their theologians have long denounced as heretical: 23% believe in astrology, 22% in reincarnation and 21% in yoga as a spiritual practice.

In many respects this religious promiscuity is nothing new. Many early Christians were also practicing Jews. And in China the "Three Teachings" of Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism have co-existed for centuries, with many believers turning to Confucianism for etiquette, Taoism for freedom and Buddhism for enlightenment. Yet the Western monotheisms have insisted that there is but one way to afterlife bliss. What has happened to this sort of confidence? Clearly it survives in Orthodox Jews, evangelical Christians and traditional Muslims. But for the rest of us, fear of a jealous God seems a distant memory.
The new Pew data provide further evidence for the death of denominationalism in American life and for the enduring power of the ideal of religious tolerance. Once upon a time, Baptists and Lutherans and Disciples of Christ fought bitterly over such matters as when to baptize Christians and just how Jesus was present at the Eucharist. But that stuff is so last century. Today even the distinctions between Jews and Buddhists, or between Hindus and Christians, are starting to blur, not least because most Americans have almost no idea what these traditions stand for.
The great religions have long pursued different goals through different means: Christians sought salvation through faith or works (or some combination thereof), while Buddhists sought nirvana through meditation or chanting. So a century ago jumping from a Catholic Mass to an evangelical revival to a Buddhist retreat would have felt like leaping across vast chasms. But contemporary Americans know almost nothing about their own religious traditions and even less about the traditions of others. Most Americans cannot name any of the Four Gospels, and an overwhelming majority admit to being wholly ignorant of Islam. So we shuffle from one to the other with little sense of what is being lost (or gained) in the process.
As a scholar of religion, I am supposed to simply observe all this without rendering any judgment, but I can't help feeling that something precious is being lost here, perhaps something as fundamental as a sense of the sacred. Harvard philosopher George Santayana once observed that "American life is a powerful solvent," capable of neutralizing new ideas into banal clichés. I worry that this solvent is now melting down the sharp edges of the world's religions, bending them toward purposes other than their own.
It is possible, of course, that as we jump from one place of worship to another we are learning along the way. But what we are really doing looks more akin to commerce than to education.The store managers in our spiritual marketplace seem a bit too eager to sell us whatever they imagine we want.
At their best, Judaism and Christianity and Hinduism and Buddhism call us to rethink the world and then challenge us to remake it—and to remake ourselves. But the truths of one religion often clash with those of others, or contradict each other outright. Even Protestantism has carried inside its various denominations strikingly different visions of the good life, both here and in the hereafter. Absent a chain of memory that ties us to these religions' ancient truths, these visions are lost, and we are left to our own devices, searching for God with as much confusion as we search, in love, for the next new thing.
—Mr. Prothero is a professor religion at Boston University.

Belgian Doc cleared of murder after killing non terminal patient.

Sat, 12 Dec 2009 14:26:02 GMT

I have a lot of studying to do for next weeks final exams so it's random article time. Here is one concerning a life issue....euthanasia. Disturbing things are happening in Belgium.

Those over 18 years of age must issue a written request and a third doctor's opinion must be sought if their illness is not terminal. A one-month waiting period is mandatory for patients suffering from depression.

By Thaddeus M. Baklinski
BRUSSELS, December 9, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Belgian judge has decide not to prosecute a doctor specializing in euthanasia after he was accused of murdering a woman who came to him seeking death, but who was not terminally ill.
Dr. Marc Cosyns of Ghent euthanized the 88-year-old woman on January 5, 2008 after her own doctor had opposed the request for euthanasia. It was reported that the woman had an incurable disease that was not terminal and suffered from several other ailments.
The woman's son filed a complaint with the public prosecutor after he learned of Dr. Cosyns part in his mother's death.
Upon hearing of the judge's refusal to hear the charge of murder against him, Dr. Cosyns reportedly said, "I am very pleased that the right of the patient has been secured."
"There is still misunderstanding, among patients and family members, about euthanasia in cases of a non-terminal condition, but it is possible," he added.
In 2002, Belgium passed a law allowing euthanasia on newborns and terminally ill patients suffering "constant and unbearable physical or psychological pain."
Those over 18 years of age must issue a written request and a third doctor's opinion must be sought if their illness is not terminal. A one-month waiting period is mandatory for patients suffering from depression.
However, numerous reports indicate that the actual practice of euthanasia in Belgium disregards the "safeguards" attached to the law.
Lionel Roosemont, who spoke at the Second International Symposium on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide held in May of this year and hosted by Canada's Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, noted that, "We have a huge problem with lawlessness," in Belgium, and that silent acceptance of euthanasia in his country has led to unspeakable routine abuse.
Roosemont claimed that the law is commonly transgressed "without there being any consequences."
Roosemont cited a 2006 report in the medical magazine Huisarts, written by Dr. Marc Cosyns - whom he called the "Kevorkian" of Belgium - stating that Cosyns had euthanized a woman suffering from dementia. Although the procedure was patently illegal - not only was the woman not terminally ill, but she was not fully lucid and had not given written consent - Cosyns was not punished.
While the loose application of euthanasia restrictions is widely known among Belgians, said Roosemont, the true depth of abuse is little understood. One such abuse he claimed occurs routinely is the administration of lethal drugs at one Belgian hospital to elderly, seriously ill patients - known as the "weekend cleanup" - as described to him by a nurse who worked there.
Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, who is currently spearheading the fight against the introduction of euthanasia legislation in Canada, pointed out that "the issue of euthanasia is not about terminal illness, it is not about individual autonomy, it is not about suffering. It is about ending life based on individual autonomy or ending lives that are not worth living."
"In other words. You can't have a little bit of euthanasia because if it is deemed to be a 'good action' then why wouldn't it be 'good' for everyone? Once a society has accepted the killing of one group of people for a set of circumstances, then what will stop that society from accepting the killing of all groups of people for similar circumstances?"

Profiles in callousness

Sat, 12 Dec 2009 02:57:30 GMT

Because I am too tired from my job and schoolwork (final exams coming up) to write anything, here is some American Papist! More twisted pro-abortion logic.

http://americanpapist.com/blog.html

Wednesday, December 09, 2009

Profiles in Callousness: Senators Feinstein, Boxer and Mikulski

On Monday, I blogged about two senators (one republican, one democrat) who reached across party lines in an attempt to remove abortion funding from the Senate health care bill (a move that the majority of Americans support, and a move which was defeated yesterday).
Today I have the regrettable task of talking about a triad of staunch pro-abortion democrats in the Senate: Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer and Barbara Mikulski.
What have they been contributing to the debate over abortion in healthcare? Absolute nonsense.
Senator Feinsten, when asked, said that it is "morally correct" to force taxpayers to fund abortions:

Senator Boxer, meanwhile, compared denying women abortion coverage to denying men Viagra. Seriously:

As abortion took center stage in the Senate's historic debate over health care reform, Sen. Barbara Boxer was right in the middle of the fight, comparing an effort to limit women's access to abortion to restricting men's access to Viagra.

Her combative stance on the issue was a familiar one for the third-term Democrat, whose support of abortion rights has been central to her political career.

"Why are women being singled out here? It's so unfair," Boxer said on the Senate floor Tuesday. "We don't tell men that if they want to ... buy insurance coverage through their pharmaceutical plan for Viagra that they can't do it."

Senator Mikulski, finally, says that it's "morally wrong" to vote against the pro-abortion health care:

It boggles the mind. But it also makes a point: these Senators won't be convinced. They can only be defeated, politically, and that's up to us. Senators who argue that their pro-abortion position is the moral cause - let alone such stupidity as to setup a moral equivalency between abortion coverage and Viagra coverage - just need to go.

And we can help make that happen.

These three Senators are all in the pocket of the pro-abortion lobby. It's their bread and butter. They actively fight for pro-abortion legislation. Sen. Mikulsi offered an amendment under which abortion could be treated as "preventative medicine." Senator Feinstein actively spoke against the abortion-neutral Nelson amendment. Senator Boxer, from private reports I've heard, was visibly beaming when the Nelson amendment failed.

If she's happy, babies are dying.

We can change this, too.

Labels: outrageous, politicians, pro-abort politicians

Obama and the Catholic Bishops 12-09

Thu, 10 Dec 2009 03:44:59 GMT

Michael Voris continues to call out Catholic Bishops. I wonder what kind of emails he gets on a daily basis? If even half of what he has reported in the past several months is true, I say go get em Michael!

http://www.realcatholictv.com
How the Catholic hierarchy is connected to the Democratic party of death

Some more of that "tolerance"

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 02:34:10 GMT

Here's another example of what can happen if you so much as speak out against "the gay agenda". What a whacked out Country we live in where there are bigoted university professors like P.Z. Myers who have websites that mock, ridicule, and insult Christians on a daily basis and its no big deal. On the other hand we have instances of people getting fired from their jobs for voicing their opinion on "gay marriage"/homosexuality and defending themselves or their faith from false accusations of ....here's the buzzword.. "hate". Don't people talk and use reason anymore?

Again, I'm not posting this to be negative. This blog is meant to give a Catholic perspective to stories that often get passed over or misreported by the mainstream media.

Maine Reporter Fired for Personal E-mail Rebutting Criticisms of Traditional Marriage Supporters

By Kathleen Gilbert
WINSLOW, Maine, December 7, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Maine reporter is combating his termination after he says he was fired from his job for issuing a personal email rebutting a homosexualist group's defamation of true marriage advocates.
58-year-old Larry Grard of Winslow, Maine, says that he was fired from his 19-year post at Maine Today Media's Morning Sentinel after local Human Rights Campaign leader Trevor Thomas complained about an email rebuttal Grard sent on his personal email account.
Grard says he was provoked to respond to a press release by Thomas which was issued following the November victory of Question 1 in Maine, a referendum overturning the state legislature's decision to legalize same-sex "marriage." Following the Maine vote, Thomas announced: "We will not allow the lies and hate - the foundation on which our opponents built their campaign - to break our spirits."
"It is infuriating to see that the same fear-mongering ads that were used to pass Prop. 8 a year ago have triumphed again at the expense of so many," said Thomas, who called the traditional marriage campaign "a divisive anti-LGBT campaign to scare voters."
"I'm a Catholic, and I don't hate anybody, and I took offense to [the press release]," Grard told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) Monday.
Fed up with the accusations of "hate" leveled at marriage advocates throughout the campaign, Grard says he wrote an email from his personal email account to Thomas that read: "Who are the hateful, venom-spewing ones? Hint: Not the yes on 1 crowd. You hateful people have been spreading nothing but vitriol since this campaign began. Good riddance!"
However, after Thomas complained to Grard's supervisors, the reporter was told on November 10 that the email was "unprofessional" and "unethical." Grard says he was given no opportunity to apologize or retract his statement before he was fired. "As far as I know, my personnel file was clean," said Grard.

The Winslow man says that the abrupt termination has made it difficult for himself and his wife Lisa, who struggles with diabetes, to make ends meet. He says their daughter, 23, is still pursuing a college education.
"Lisa also wrote a bimonthly cooking column for the paper. A week after they fired me, they sent her an impersonal email telling her that the column, which was really popular, was 'no longer a good fit.' They punished her, too," Grard said. Grard is a practicing Catholic and a member of the Knights of Columbus.
"They said when they let me go, they said that there's no wiggle room on this issue, which struck me as very strange," said Grard. "I mean, of course there's wiggle room, they didn't have to fire me. But they way they put it, they didn't have any choice."
"I think what they did to me for somebody who had worked for them hard for 19 years was just ruthless, and I would love the Christian community to know about this," he continued. "My wife and I have been struggling."
The Portland Newspaper Guild has filed a grievance with the American Arbitrative Association on Girard's behalf regarding the termination, and is seeking an expedited arbitration.
"We stand firmly behind Mr. Girard," Kathy Munroe, a Portland Newspaper Guild administrative officer, told LSN.
Maine Today editor Bill Thompson did not return LSN's calls as of press time.

To contact Maine Today Media:
Editor Bill Thompson: bthompson@mainetoday.com
Morning Sentinel main line: 207-873-3341

Scary. Abortion is "sacred work"

Sun, 06 Dec 2009 01:39:19 GMT

"We do sacred work that honors women and the circle of life and death. When you come here, bring only love."

This is the kind of twisted thinking that is not only scary to try and comprehend, but it is also deceptive and harmful to the women who while in a state of crisis buy into this lie. Oh, btw for an extra 100 bucks, you can have a same day abortion. Now that's love!

I hate to focus on the negative, but stories like this are rarely talked about in an intellectually honest way by the mainstream media. I long for the day when stories like this are no longer a part of daily life here in the USA or anywhere else.

By James Tillman

DETROIT, December 4, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Northland "Family Planning Centers" of Michigan are now advertising their services with a video calling abortion "sacred work."

Set to soft, upbeat piano music and themed with pink pastel shades, a recently uploaded video entitled "Every Day, Good Woman Choose Abortion," assures prospective customers that deciding "to have an abortion is a normal experience," and that the decision is a good decision. The video's spokeswoman continues: "Goodness is courage, honesty, wisdom, risking for what you believe is right for you, making choices that are good for yourself."

"Goodness is not perfection, it is not obedience, and it is not martyrdom."

The staff at Northland, the narrator continues, believe in the "essential goodness" of abortion. The narrator speaks of a sign hanging at the Northland abortion facility that reads: "We do sacred work that honors women and the circle of life and death. When you come here, bring only love."

The video showcases a quotation from the recently murdered late-term abortionist George Tiller, which states: "Abortion is not a cerebral or a reproductive issue. Abortion is a matter of the heart. For until one understands the heart of a woman, nothing else about abortion makes any sense at all."

Northland abortion mills have been previously connected with the "November Gang" group of abortionists. The "November Gang" is set apart from other anti-life organizations by their use of pre- and post-abortion "counseling" sessions that ape the language and techniques used in pro-life movements like Project Rachel. In practice, this means November Gang groups are more willing to admit that abortion kills a baby.
This leads to bizarre practices in some facilities such as baptizing and praying over a baby's bloody remains, or admitting that abortion kills but anticipating God's forgiveness before the fact. The Northland website, in its section on emotional healing, advises women to write a letter "to the spirit of the child inside of them."
It continues: "Some women write how they came to their decision, some ask for forgiveness. Some thank the spirit for the wisdom or thoughts they have had about life. Some write about the love they feel. Sometimes, having a way to say goodbye is an important part of healing."
The website also advises women "to create your own way to acknowledge your loss or changes. It may be as simple as releasing a symbolic object into the water, planting a tree or writing a poem. It would be a way for you to memorialize the day and move forward."
The videos are just the latest attempts by Northland to make abortion seem as attractive as possible. In 2000 the New York Times reported that Renee Chelian, founder of the Northland abortion center, needed something special to draw customers in the face of stiff competition; and so "she created almost a spa-like atmosphere at her offices, with low light in the rooms, aromatherapy, candles and relaxing music."
"As altruistic as women and feminists want to be, the reality is that we can only stay in business if we earn enough to keep our doors open," Chelian said in the article.
The narrator in the recently released video goes on to say: "If you have made the decision to have an abortion, and are having a hard time feeling good about yourself, and remembering that you are a good person, let us remind you and help you see the goodness in yourself and your choice.
"You are a good woman, doing the best you can in your situation."
The video concludes by assuring customers that "we work from our hearts, and our hearts are open to yours."
See related stories on LifeSiteNews.com

Quote of the day

Fri, 04 Dec 2009 21:36:21 GMT

Quote of the day: "In 2007 taxpayers gave PP $349.6 million; in 2007-2008 PP had record net assets of $1.014 billion. Also in 2007, Planned Parenthood reported performing 305,310 abortions, and referred less than 5,000 women to adoption services. Because they care about women."