Monthly Archives: March 2014

Here’s Why the Next Three Months are so Crucial in Your Fight for Justice

Ash Wednesday to Pentecost Sunday

Priests for Life $1,000,000

90-Day Campaign for LIFE

 

March 18, 2014

Dear Fellow Pro-Life Missionary and Priests for Life Co-Worker,

A lot is going to happen in the next 90 days.  In fact:

These next three months will prove decisive in our mission to end legalized abortion-on-demand in America.

 

And because they are I’m counting on you to be especially generous in your support for Priests for Life’s work from now until Pentecost Sunday.  More generous than you usually are, in fact.

That said:

 

Please take a moment to CLICK HERE and help make our 90-Day Campaign for LIFE a huge success.

 

Priests for Life desperately needs you to make a contribution for whatever amount you can because we have to raise ONE MILLION DOLLARS over the next 90 days in order to fully fund FOUR key projects:

1. Our lawsuit against ObamaCare’s abortion mandate.  Remember, we’re now fighting on two fronts and this is draining our Legal Fund:

 

a) Our Petition for WRIT OF CERTIORARI with the Supreme Court

b) And our appeal in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals

 
2. Campaign to Mobilize TEN MILLION Americans to VOTE PRO-LIFE in 2014 Specific work in critical need of funds include:

 

a) Researching, printing and distributing Voter Guides.

b) Distributing information for clergy on what they can/can’t say and do during an election.  It’s a LOT more than they think!

c) Printing and distributing “Voting with a Clear Conscience”, a guide that instructs Catholics on their moral duty in elections.

d) Conducting Priests for Life’s nationwide “National Survey of American Voters”.

e) Taping special TV programs for our “Defending Life” series that airs on EWTN and reaches some 230,000,000 homes!

 
3. Pass state laws protecting mothers and children.

4. Shut down more abortion mills.

Each one of these projects addresses a specific area in our fight to end the injustice of abortion and stop the killing of the youngest members of our human family.  These areas include:

 

• As the People of Life get more and more involved in the political process, we elect candidates – nationally, state-wide and locally – who know the difference between serving the public and killing the public.

• Once in office, these men and women work with pro-life life activists to pass laws that protect both mothers and children from ruthless abortionists like convicted murderer Dr. Kermit Gosnell.

• Over the past three years, Priests for Life has played a key role in getting 205 such laws passed in states all across the country.

• In addition to this, we’re working with pro-life warriors like Troy Newman and Mark Crutcher to shut down abortion mills.  Last year alone we helped close 87 clinics!  In the past twenty years we’ve helped shut down 73% of the nation’s surgical abortion mills!

• And abortionists, too!  We’ve helped rid our nation of over a thousand abortionists!  In 1996 there were 2,042 of them.  Today there are 766!

 

The result of all this work is a sharp decline in the number of babies killed in abortions.

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute (originally a research division of Planned Parenthood):

 

The rate of abortions here in the U.S. has FALLEN to its lowest point since 1973.

 

In actual numbers, roughly 200,000 fewer babies were killed in abortions in 2011 than in 2008.

Keep in mind, this decrease took place before those 205 state laws I just mentioned were enacted.  Which means, as these laws go into effect, fewer and fewer babies will be slaughtered in America’s abortion mills.

This is tremendous progress!

Of course, we’re far from finished.  As hopeful as the plummeting abortion numbers are, they are still way, way, way too high.  In fact, every hour abortionists all across the country brutally butcher 157 children.

 

As long as one child is killed in a legal abortion, our work remains unfinished.

Which is precisely why I’m counting on you to CLICK HERE and help fund Priests for Life’s MILLION DOLLAR 90-Day Campaign for LIFE.

 

The simple fact of the matter is that you’re support of Priests for Life has helped bring about a dramatic drop in the number of babies killed in abortions.  As well as a major shift in what our fellow Americans think about abortion.  The so-called “pro-choice” position grows weaker by the day.

And it will continue to do so as more and more Americans have the Gospel of Life preached to them as forcefully and as convincingly as Priests for Life has been preaching it for the past twenty years.

All of which should inspire you to continue your partnership with us and your fellow pro-life warriors as we continue to work for the day when abortion in America is not merely illegal, but also unthinkable.

To that end Priests for Life has launched our 90-Day Campaign for LIFE.  By the time the Campaign ends on Pentecost Sunday June 8 …

 

… most of the country’s state legislatures will have finished their work and gone home;

… our lawsuit against the HHS abortion mandate of ObamaCare will probably be decided;

… most primaries will have taken place and we’ll know the candidates running for elected office in November;

… more atrocities will have been exposed at abortion clinics around the country;

… as will the crimes against humanity that abortionists have committed.

 

What I can’t tell you is how much of an impact Priests for Life will have had in all those areas.

 

That’s because the amount of work we will be able do over these next three months depends entirely upon you and the Priests for Life family.

 

It’s true.

As I know I’ve told you before, in spite of the fact that many at the Vatican – including Pope Francis himself … who was a member of the Pontifical Council for the Family of which I was also an Official – as well as Bishops around the world and here in the U.S. wholeheartedly endorse our Priests for Life ministry, we receive no funds from any official Church entity … neither from Rome nor here in the United States.

Every penny we receive comes from individuals just like you: Hard-working, dedicated pro-life champions.  Which is why I told you that the success of our 90-Day Campaign for LIFE depends entirely on you and the Priests for Life family.

It will take a minimum of $1,000,000 to fund all the work I listed for you in this note.  And that doesn’t include other important programs … such as Priests for Life’s vital work in post-abortion ministry through Rachel’s Vineyard.  In fact, when I met Pope Francis he told me directly:

 

“Rachel’s Vineyard is great. It is an excellent work. Move forward with that!”

 

Like his predecessors Blessed John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict, the Holy Father knows that in addition to taking the life of an innocent child, abortion inflicts untold damage on women and men.  That’s why he is so insistent that our work in post-abortion healing “move forward.”

Again, though, that’s just one of the many programs Priests for Life must do OVER AND ABOVE the four priority projects that I outlined for you in this message.

 

So please do all you can to get behind this work and make these next three months productive ones as we persevere in our fight against the grave injustice of abortion.

Just CLICK HERE and follow the instructions.

 

It’s going to take a minimum of $1,000,000 to fund Priests for Life’s work from Ash Wednesday to Pentecost Sunday.  But as I told you at the beginning of my email, because of everything that will happen in the next three months, especially with regard to our lawsuit against the abortion mandate of ObamaCare:

 

These next 90 days will prove decisive in our mission to end legalized abortion-on-demand in America.

 

Priests for Life is fully prepared to carry on as the face and voice of America’s pro-life movement.  The programs are in place.  The strategies mapped out.  The mission trips scheduled.  Everything is set except one crucial part:  The funds.

And for that I am totally dependent on you and your fellow pro-life warriors.

As you prayerfully consider how God is calling you to help, don’t be afraid to be more generous than you think you can be.  Remember: God is never outdone in generosity.  He sees into your heart.  He knows the sacrifices you are making for His innocent children.  And He will bless you a hundred fold.  You have His word for that.

On behalf of the youngest members of our human family, thank you for your generosity.  I will be sure to remember you at every Mass I offer during this important 90-day period; as will the other priests of Priests for Life.  Thank you again and may God bless you.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

pavonenew.jpg

 

Father Frank Pavone
National Director, Priests for Life and Gospel of Life Ministries

P.S. As important as your financial support will be during our 90-Day Campaign for LIFE, your prayers will be just as important.  Please pray for me, the other priests, our Pastoral Associates and everyone here at Priests for Life.  Ask God to fill us with His love and wisdom.  If you will do that in addition to giving Priests for Life your financial support, then I am confident that God will bless our work with success.  Thank you again and may God bless you.

 

 

 

NOTE: If you prefer to send a check, please make it out to Priests for Life and send it to us at PO Box 141172, Staten Island, NY 10314.  If you have any questions, call us toll-free at 888-735-3448.

Letter to Rep. Bob Hagan Regarding Death Penalty and Abortion

Moments ago, Ohio Right to Life delivered a letter to State Representative Bob Hagan, regarding his latest legislative proposal that requires the governor to witness executions. In response to his proposal, we propose the he and other pro-choice politicians be required to witness each and every abortion in Ohio.

 

Once again, our hope is that we will inspire pro-choice Ohio to reflect on abortion in a different and unique light, by pointing out hypocrisy when appropriate and always looking for opportunities to educate.

 

As always, I welcome any feedback you wish to share with our team.

 

Best,

Katie McCann

Public Relations Manager

Ohio Right to Life Logo

To learn more about Ohio Right to Life please visit our website at www.ohiolife.org.

This Beautiful Message to a Mother Scared of Bearing Her Down Syndrome Child Will Melt Your Heart

This beautiful message to a mother scared of bearing her Down syndrome child will melt your heart

 

by Peter Baklinski

  • Mon Mar 17, 2014 11:04 EST

 

 

“I’m expecting a baby. I’ve discovered he has Down syndrome. I’m scared: what kind of life will my child have?” opens a heartwarming video addressed to a woman in real life expecting a baby with Down syndrome (DS).

The video answers the woman’s fears with a stirring message from 15 beautiful people with DS.

“Dear future mom, don’t be afraid, your child will be able to do many things.”

“He’ll be able to hug you,” one says.

“He’ll be able to speak and tell you he loves you,” another says.

The mother learns that her child with an extra copy of chromosome 21 will be able to learn to speak, write, go to school, fix a bicycle with his father, earn money at a job, rent an apartment, travel, and be just like anybody else.

Click “like” if you are PRO-LIFE!

The message of the video starkly contrasts the fact that about 90 percent of unborn children diagnosed with DS are destroyed by abortion.

“Dear future mom, your child can be happy,” one says.

It will be difficult and sometimes it might seem impossible, but isn’t it like that for all mothers, they tell the mother.

“And you can be happy too,” says another.

The video was spearheaded by the Italian National Coordination Associations of people with Down syndrome (CoorDown) and posted to YouTube four days ago. It already has more than half a million hits (538,032).

March 21 is World Down Syndrome Day.

SOURCE:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/blog/this-beautiful-message-to-a-mother-scared-of-bearing-her-down-syndrome-chil

Abortionist Who Was Accused of Twisting Heads off Living Babies Sued for Botched Abortion

Abortionist who was accused of twisting heads off living babies sued for botched abortion

 

by Ben Johnson

  • Mon Mar 17, 2014 10:41 EST

 

HOUSTON, TX, March 17, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A Houston abortionist who has been accused of twisting the heads off of living babies with his bare hands has been sued by a former patient who says he caused her lifelong damage during an abortion.

Douglas Karpen, who runs Aaron Woman’s Clinic in Houston, allegedly perforated the woman’s uterus during a late-term abortion. The lawsuit says the procedure left the woman with “permanent injuries.”

Pro-life observers have dubbed Karpen the “Texas Gosnell” following nightmarish testimony from three former employees who accused him of twisting the heads off newborn babies, suffocating babies by putting his finger down their windpipes, or placing living babies inside trash bags.

Deborah Edge, Krystal Rodriguez, and Gigi Aguliar told their story to the Texas-based Life Dynamics Inc. (LDI) last May.

“Most of the time the fetus [sic] would come all the way out before he either cut the spinal cord or introduced one of the instruments into the soft-spot of the fetus in order to kill the fetus,” said Deborah Edge, one of the employees in a videotaped interview. “Either that or twisting the head off the neck with his own bare hands.”

“Most of the time … the fetus would come completely out, and of course, the fetus would still be alive,” she said, adding that the doctor’s assistants could see the newborns breathing.

Their testimony prompted Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and 20 Texas legislators to demand an investigation. The Texas Department of State Health Services and the Harris County District Attorney’s Office investigated Karpen in May. But in December, a grand jury did not indict him.

“It’s not like this is anything new,” Life Dynamics President Mark Crutcher told LifeSiteNews.

“This is the same guy who killed a 15-year-old girl named Denise Montoya while doing a ‘safe and legal’ abortion on her” in 1985, Crutcher told LifeSiteNews.

Former patients who contacted Operation Rescue accused Karpen of slapping them, manipulating ultrasound results to charge women more money, and inserting laminaria into women’s cervixes without anesthesia if they do not pay an extra fee.

Karpen regularly allows women he knows are injured to leave without medical treatment, “never telling the woman, ‘Hey I ripped your cervix you need to get that looked at,’” Edge told Houston’s News 92 FM.

The abortion in the most recent lawsuit occurred at 22 weeks, according to local media.

“The fact is, only the washouts, losers, and moral degenerates of medicine end up working at abortion clinics,” Crutcher said. “Karpen is no different.”

Source:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/abortionist-accused-of-twisting-heads-off-living-babies-sued-for-botched-ab

Abortion Interrupted: One Woman’s Story of Abortion Reversal

Abortion interrupted: One woman’s story of abortion reversal

A primary source for this story chose to remain anonymous to maintain her privacy. The Denver Catholic Register changed her name to “Kim” to accommodate her request.

WomanKim, 32, was frantic when she left the Planned Parenthood clinic in Fort Collins Saturday afternoon. As soon as she took the first dose of the abortion pill, she knew she’d made a mistake. She pulled over in a nearby church parking lot.

“I started trying to throw up right away,” she said, struggling to speak as she recalled the traumatic day last September when she was grappling with how to proceed with her pregnancy. “I just kept forcing myself to throw up until I couldn’t taste the pill anymore.”

At the same time, she searched the Internet for “abortion reversal” on her smartphone. That search landed her at www.abortionpillreversal.com and their 24-7 hotline. Her call ultimately connected her with Dr. Edwin Anselmi, a physician with Our Lady of Hope Medical Clinic in Centennial.

Anselmi advised her to come directly to the clinic. About two hours had elapsed from the time she took the pill when she arrived at his office. There he examined her, did an ultrasound—including listening to the baby’s heartbeat—and immediately began a protocol to reverse the effects of the drug.

How it works
Kim had taken mifepristone, also known as the abortion pill. It has been available in the United States as an oral tablet since 2000 and is also referred to as RU-486 and the brand name Mifiprex. According to the Food and Drug Administration, it can be used to terminate a pregnancy up to 49 days after the first day of the last menstrual period.

Kim was about nine weeks along when she took it. The drug is administered under supervision in a medical facility, in her case at Planned Parenthood; and it induces abortion by counteracting the hormone progesterone needed to maintain a pregnancy. Without progesterone, placenta—a structure that develops in the uterus during pregnancy—fails, cutting off oxygen and nutrition to an embryo.

“When I went in they were still giving me the option of the pill or the machine,” she said. “They were really pushing the machine saying ‘We all agree we’d do the machine, it’s less emotional.’”

“The machine” is a suction device that empties the uterus, commonly called aspiration or vacuum aspiration. Planned Parenthood personnel recommended it as a way to “get it over-with,” “get it done fast,” she said.

However Kim chose the pill, rationalizing that it wasn’t really an abortion.

“It will just look like a miscarriage,” she told herself. “I knew in my heart it was wrong. … I was praying the whole time.”

Dr. Edwin Anselmi at his Centennial clinic, Our Lady of Hope.

Dr. Edwin Anselmi at his Centennial clinic, Our Lady of Hope.

Just in time
God answered her prayers by connecting her with Anselmi before she continued to the next step of the abortion pill process. Following mifepristone, a second drug, misoprostol, is taken 36 to 72 hours later. Misoprostol causes contractions to expel the fetus, a process that can range from a few hours to a few days.

To block the effects of mifepristone, Anselmi launched a protocol developed by Doctors George Delgado and Mary Davenport described in their case study “Progesterone Use to Reverse the Effects of Mifepristone” published in “The Annals of Pharmacotherapy” December 2012. It involves progesterone injec

tions for three consecutive days, followed by an injection every other day for two weeks, then continued progesterone twice a week until the end of the first trimester.

“He was amazing,” Kim said of Anselmi. “He was so kind and loving and gentle. He’s really an exceptional person.”

Anslemi, a parishioner of Our Lady of Mount Carmel Latin Rite Church in Littleton, has been practicing pro-life family medicine for 20 years since graduating from Columbia University in New York in 1994. He is currently the only doctor in the Denver-metro area providing the progesterone protocol to reverse the abortion pill, though he would like to see more join the network started by Delgado that currently stands at 140 doctors across the country.

“If you’re pro-life,” he said. “Here’s something you can do directly. I don’t know what the outcome would’ve been (with Kim) if we didn’t give her progesterone.”

What the future holds
Kim, now 32 weeks pregnant, is excited to welcome her son in early May, along with his father. The couple plans to marry next summer. When facing the reality of an unexpected pregnancy last August, she was between jobs, had no health insurance, and was considering moving from Denver. Today she is employed full-time, secure in her relationship and “at peace.”

“I’ve had a lot of anxiety,” she said. “But at the same time I know God is the one with the ultimate say here. So far, he’s done nothing but carry me and carry the baby. … It took me a while to get here, but now I’m really excited, I’m really happy.”

Anselmi has been contacted by two other women: in one case he successfully reversed the abortion pill two days after the patient ingested mifepristone; and the other woman called with questions but in the end, did not receive treatment.

Since the website was established in January 2013, 330 women have called the hotline seeking abortion reversal counseling, 100 of them received the progesterone protocol, and 60 of those pregnancies continued.

“We have 18 living babies and 42 pregnant moms right now,” according to Debbie Bradel, coordinator of the program.

“If there’s any way to help a woman that wants to keep her pregnancy, I want to do it,” said Anselmi, who provides the progesterone at no charge. “Babies are so precious.”

For more information, visit www.abortionpillreversal.com or call 877-558-0333.

LEARN MORE:

http://liveactionnews.org/abortion-interrupted-one-womans-story-of-abortion-reversal

Pope Francis, Classically Catholic on Abortion

Pope Francis, Classically Catholic on Abortion

 

 

It has been a big first year for Pope Francis; folks from all strokes are paying attention to him, especially on abortion. Some liberal Catholics think he is their man; some conservatives are worried, especially with the out-of-context media explosion regarding a few of his remarks in an America Magazine interview. But Pope Francis is the Pope, Catholic through and through. He understands the authority of the Magisterium. And much to the chagrin of some who hoped or feared otherwise, he hasn’t changed anything that can not change, and he never will. Francis’s statements regarding abortion present a clear picture of the importance and unchanging character of its qualification as a mortal sin, while in the process leaving plenty of space for lay and clerical activists to take up the charge against abortion.

 

Many people misunderstood the Pope’s statement in an America Magazine interview in August 2013:

 

“We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible….But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.”

 

Pope_Francis_among_the_people_at_St._Peter's_Square_-_12_May_2013The line that everyone who wanted to misunderstand misunderstood was “we cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage” etc. But the key word in that sentence is “only,” meaning that we have to talk about the Gospel and Christ and salvation too. No Catholic should find anything controversial about the call to preach the Gospel in addition to the Church’s moral teaching. Francis is correct that the moral teachings are based in the Gospel and in Revelation, which remain primary.

 

In the second part of the “controversial” statement, Pope Francis defends himself and makes plain that he isn’t adding anything new or taking away anything either. “The teaching of the church,” he says, “is clear.” The church has taught consistently for millennia that abortion is a grave moral evil. The Catechism itself reads:

 

“Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.” (CCC 2271).

 

Pope Francis knows this well, of course.

 

Second, he declares himself a “son of the church.” This again is unsurprising given that he is the pope. Yet it also demonstrates that he understands himself and his office exactly as he should, as an inheritor of the tradition and chair of Peter. Reading the full paragraph reveals a very self-aware Francis who seeks to ensure that the Church is oriented around Christ, first and foremost. Many writers have spoken of Francis marking a “shift in tone” as opposed to a shift in doctrine or teaching. In a way, these writers are right. Pope Francis simply says things in a way that catches people’s attention–and that can actually be very beneficial!

 

Significantly, abortion receives some paragraphs of specific commentary in Francis’s longest, most-serious writing yet, the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium. In expressing the concern the Church should have for the vulnerable, he brings up abortion and the sanctity of life as the foundation for human rights.

 

Among the vulnerable for whom the Church wishes to care with particular love and concern are unborn children, the most defenceless and innocent among us. Nowadays efforts are made to deny them their human dignity and to do with them whatever one pleases….

 

This defence of unborn life is closely linked to the defence of each and every other human right. It involves the conviction that a human being is always sacred and inviolable, in any situation and at every stage of development (EG 213).

 

Francis beautifully expresses sanctity and value of human life at its most vulnerable stage: in utero. There is no more classically Catholic stance than this.

 

He also does not leave a shadow of a doubt that the Church’s teaching on abortion can not change:

 

Precisely because this involves the internal consistency of our message about the value of the human person, the Church cannot be expected to change her position on this question. I want to be completely honest in this regard. This is not something subject to alleged reforms or “modernizations” (EG 214).

 

Understanding the human person as created in the image of God is a doctrine that serves as the basis for much of the Church’s moral teaching, including abortion. As such, the teaching on abortion cannot change any more than the opening chapter of Genesis can change, wherein human creation in the image of God is first proclaimed.

 

Pope Francis then takes a jab at “progressive” abortion supporters:

 

It is not “progressive” to try to resolve problems by eliminating a human life (EG 214).

 

For those who would don the mantle of moral superiority in the title “progressive,” Francis offers a sharp rebuke. Killing others, including babies, is not forward-thinking or truly helpful.

 

Despite this severity, he closes with his characteristic compassion and demonstrates just how deeply he understands the pain that leads people to into such grave evil:

 

It is also true that we have done little to adequately accompany women in very difficult situations, where abortion appears as a quick solution to their profound anguish, especially when the life developing within them is the result of rape or a situation of extreme poverty. Who can remain unmoved before such painful situations (EG 214)?

 

While condemning abortion in no uncertain terms, Francis is nevertheless intimately aware of and sympathetic to those in pain who seek the “solutions” that are touted by our culture. Abortion is one such “solution” that is illusory and performs an unacceptable evil. The true solution is found in Christ alone, and it is the task of the members of His Body to help be part of the solution in compassion and grace.

 

Now, it is true that Francis has not spoken extensively about abortion, though his few statements have been ample. As Pope, it is his prerogative to speak about what he feels the Church and the world most need to hear. That Francis has not dwelt on abortion is not a criticism of pro-life activists. In fact, Lay Catholics are supposed to profess the Gospel in their particular situations, including the truth about abortion. Francis simply reminds us that our witness should always be Christ-centered, including when we condemn abortion. It is part of the beauty of the Church that the pope need not micro-manage all of the Faithful, and that the laity has a vital and active role in proclaiming the teachings of Christ and His Church as well.

LEARN MORE:

http://www.truthandcharityforum.org/pope-francis-classically-catholic-on-abortion

The Church Cannot Conform Her ‘Pastoral Practice’ to the Dictates of the World

The Church cannot conform her ‘pastoral practice’ to the dictates of the world

 

by Fr. Shenan Boquet

  • Fri Mar 14, 2014 10:20 EST

 

Then the Lord God formed man out of the dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. (Genesis 2:7)

March 14, 2014 (HLI) – As a Catholic priest of nearly twenty-one years and president of an international pro-life organization, I am very concerned with the results of two recent surveys. By their nature, these types of surveys provide only a snapshot, and often hide an agenda, but I believe they both demand a closer look given the societal pressures on the Church and on the natural institution of the family.

Pew Research-Catholics Support Changes to Church TeachingsThe first survey is from the well-respected Pew Research Center, revealing that 77% of U.S. Catholics polled believe the Catholic Church should allow its members to use birth control, and that a majority believe the Church should allow its priests to marry (72%) and want to ordain women as priests (68%). The second was released by the German Bishops Conference, its data reflecting a response to a Vatican survey in preparation for the Synod on the Family in October. Though the survey revealed that German Catholics accepted and respected the Church’s teaching on stable marriages and family life, it also revealed an overwhelming rejection of the Church’s teaching on pre-marital relations, co-habitation, homosexuality and Communion for those who are remarried after divorce. According to the survey, Germans found the Church’s teaching on sexual morality “unrealistic and heartless.”  The bishops called the results “a sober inventory of what German Catholics appreciate about Church teaching on marriage and the family and what they find off-putting or unacceptable, either mostly or completely.”

If the results of these surveys accurately reflect the faithful of the Church — and let’s face it, they are not very surprising — then it is clear that the Church has failed to communicate the Faith and influence the culture. With skyrocketing rates of divorce and children born out of wedlock, with co-habitation becoming the norm rather than the exception, and with the ever-increasing acceptance among Catholics of same-sex unions, the Church is most certainly suffering a crisis in the rejection by the faithful of her teaching, leaving the faithful in the same brokenness and confusion as the rest of society.

Indeed, the smoke emanating from these surveys points to a raging fire being stoked by the rejection of God, the failure of catechesis concerning human sexuality and the sacrament of marriage, and concerning our nature as human persons made in God’s image called to be with Him for all eternity.

But also troubling is that we are now hearing calls even from within the Church to conform the “pastoral practice” of the Church to this confusion and desolation. As if it is the Church’s role to make those who are truly lost feel more comfortable in their sin and error, rather than offering them a voice of love in Truth, calling them back to God and His plan for their true happiness.

Creation_of_Adam_Michelangelo-2I want to ask those who are calling for the Church to reform her pastoral approach in the direction of accepting the unacceptable the following two questions: Is it not also true that most people have ignored or rejected the Church’s teaching on solidarity with the poor and the universal destination of goods? And if this is true (clearly it is), then should we not also set aside the Church’s social doctrine in favor of a more “pastoral” approach that avoids challenging the unjust structures that tolerate or exacerbate extreme, dehumanizing poverty?

Faithful Catholics who recognize the absurdity of these questions might be forgiven for wondering why the “pastoral” approach being proposed by some with regard to sexuality and marriage is even up for consideration, when the obvious consequences would be so grave.

At the heart of these debates over such serious and deeply intertwined social and moral issues is the false understanding of freedom. The secular understanding, as we know, is that freedom means being absolved from the natural consequences of one’s own actions. Regardless of what the surveys reveal, the Church must uphold true freedom — a person’s will that is formed in love and truth, and free to choose what is truly good — and proclaim it in every generation, in season and out of season, whether it is popular or unpopular.

The challenge before the Catholic Church in this current crisis, as always, is to speak with clarity to the transcendent nature of the human person. It is imperative for the Church to recognize where the faithful truly are on these issues, but in no way is it her job to simply make people feel better about their illusions, or to support ever greater State-sponsored programs to mitigate the logical social and economic consequences of these destructive errors.

Human nature, marriage and the family are not mere human constructs. We have been made by God, for God. Jesus reveals man to himself by taking him back to the very beginning — the origins of his creation — and reintroduces humanity to its Creator. The human person, more than a mere biological creature, is only truly free when faithful to his created nature.

Pope Francis in his Lenten Message says it so well: “If we think we don’t need God who reaches out to us through Christ, because we believe we can make do on our own, we are headed for a fall. God alone can truly save and free us.”

LEARN MORE:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-church-cannot-conform-her-pastoral-practice-to-the-dictates-of-the-worl

Outrageous: Ethicists Argue for Acceptance of “After-Birth Abortions”

 

Outrageous: ethicists argue for acceptance of “after-birth abortions”

According to two Australian ethicists, the baby in that photo should be killed if the parents so wish it, in what they call “after-birth abortion”. It’s not infanticide or murder to them. No, it’s just another form of abortion, because newborns aren’t really people yet. And while it sounds crazy and horrific, this unfortunately isn’t something I’m making up.

Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”

The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.” The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents’ best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.

The circumstances, the authors state, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an “acceptable” life. The authors cite Downs Syndrome as an example, stating that while the quality of life of individuals with Downs is often reported as happy, “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

This means a newborn whose family (or society) that could be socially, economically or psychologically burdened or damaged by the newborn should have the ability to seek out an after-birth abortion. They state that after-birth abortions are not preferable over early-term abortions of fetuses but should circumstances change with the family or the fetus in the womb, then they advocate that this option should be made available.

As if that wasn’t sickening enough, there’s also this little gem:

Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life.

Let that sink in for a few minutes.

So if a baby is born with Down Syndrome, or another disability, then according to these two, a parent should be able to just kill it. Or let’s say that the mother decides that being a parent is just too stressful for her. She should be able to kill her baby then, too. Baby costs too much money? Yep, just kill it. All of these things are perfectly acceptable, because newborns aren’t real people yet. And as for adoption in any of these circumstances? Well, that could cause the mother emotional distress, so the answer would be… kill the baby! The fact that they see adoption as something that would cause a mother emotional distress but not the murder of their own child just shows how sick these two people are.

The sad thing is, that this point of view is inevitable once you start allowing people to define just what a human being actually is. If we don’t value all life, then does it really make a difference when we kill a baby? At this point, what difference does it make if the baby is inside the mother’s womb or outside of it?

And while it sounds incredible that anything like this would ever be allowed outside of speculation in a bioethics journal, keep in mind the horrors of partial birth abortion. Keep in mind that our own president voted in favor of infanticide. And the arguments that these ethicists are making are the exact same arguments that pro-abortion advocates make for abortion every day.

Pro-aborts would surely scoff at this as fear-mongering, but I’d be curious to know what their answer is to why it is acceptable to kill a baby one day before they are born, and unacceptable to kill them the next day after they’ve been born. When we fail to stand for life, this is the inevitable conclusion. First it’s just the unborn babies that it’s OK to kill. Then it’s the newborns, and then the “undesirables”. If pro-choice is all about the choice of the mother, with no protection given to the child whatsoever, then why should it really make a difference when she kills her child?

LEARN MORE:

http://liveactionnews.org/outrageous-ethicists-argue-for-acceptance-of-after-birth-abortions/

Is Planned Parenthood Pushing its Sex-Ed and Abortion Agenda in Your Children’s School?

 

Is Planned Parenthood Pushing its Sex-Ed and Abortion Agenda in Your Children’s School?

by Rita Diller | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 3/13/14 3:43 PM

Opinion

We hear almost weekly from anxious parents who want to know whether Planned Parenthood is in their children’s school. Some have already started making phone calls and sending letters to the school district to find out when they contact us. Others are at a loss where to start.

Here is a resource to help you find quick answers about the prevalence, source, and format of sex education in your geographical area.

Q. Where in the US have sex ed programs been implemented? Where in my state have sex ed programs been implemented?

A. Sometimes we need look no further than the website of the enemies of life and morality to find a wealth of information. After all, these entities receive obscene amounts of government and/or foundation funding in order to advance their agenda and track their progress.

plannedparenthood19bThe Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S.—a pro-abortion organization intricately intertwined with Planned Parenthood—maintains a website that it says “represents the most complete portrait ever assembled of sexuality education and abstinence-only-until-marriage programs in the United States.”

It also tracks funding streams, grantees, and funded programs. It identifies “examples of model programs, policies, and best practices being implemented in public schools across the country that provide more comprehensive approaches to sex education in schools. The Fiscal Year 2010 edition undertakes the enormous task of creating a portrait of comprehensive sexuality education and abstinence-only-until-marriage programs happening across the country and provides an unparalleled amount of information and includes profiles for all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the other U.S. territories,” according to the SIECUS website.

Keeping in mind that SIECUS is 100 percent behind repugnant “comprehensive” sex classes and vehemently fights abstinence until marriage, one may follow this link and click on any state to find a great deal of information about funding received and programs being taught in various school districts across the state. Keep in mind, also, that this information is current only as of 2010. However, it was in 2010 that huge streams of renewable funding opened up for “comprehensive sex education” through the federal government.

Be aware that the programs that are referenced here as viable abstinence programs are not strictly abstinence. They teach about contraception and most go far beyond that. The contraception portions of many contain demonstrations that would scandalize grown-ups. If a program leans more toward abstinence and traditional marriage, SIECUS will complain that it uses fear-mongering, information and statistics promoting the benefits of marriage, heterosexuality, and other such things that SIECUS considers dreadful, bigoted, hateful, and harmful.

At the college level, Planned Parenthood maintains a presence on college campuses through its VOX (Voices for Choice) clubs and programs. To find whether VOX is on your campus, simply search the Internet for the name of your university paired with “VOX.”

A word about SIECUS: SIECUS was launched in 1964 by the Kinsey Institute to teach the Kinsey philosophy of sex education in American schools. Dr. Mary Calderone, a former medical director at Planned Parenthood, was the first director of SIECUS.

Dr. Alfred Kinsey authored the “Kinsey Reports” in 1948 and 1953. These reports were the basis for a sexual revolution that promoted and sanctioned promiscuity, pornography, and homosexuality. Kinsey’s research was disproportionally based on surveys of prison inmates, sex offenders, and prostitutes.

Quoting Concerned Women of America’s report, A Nation Deceived:
“To obtain data about the sexual behavior of children, Dr. Kinsey worked with trained pedophiles who sexually abused hundreds of children (as young as two months) to prove to the world that infants, toddlers, and juveniles could enjoy sex pre-puberty with the help of an adult. Their sexual torture was recorded as pleasure.” Read more about SIECUS here.

Q. How does Planned Parenthood and its network get into schools?

A. Anti-abstinence, “sex positive” entities with a broad national reach, like SIECUS, Planned Parenthood, Advocates for Youth, Answer, ETR Associates, and the Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy are instrumental in laying the groundwork to facilitate implementation of what the Planned Parenthood network refers to as “comprehensive sex education.”

Entities targeting regional areas to implement sex classes in schools recently revealed by STOPP include SHARE in Arizona, and WISE, now reaching into nine states.

SHARE: The Sexual Health and Responsibility Education initiative is the vehicle created by Planned Parenthood of Arizona to push its sex education programs into schools. According to the Planned Parenthood of Arizona (PPAZ) website, the Sexual Health and Responsibility Education initiative, or SHARE, is actively working to provide:

• Assistance with the selection of a comprehensive sexuality education curriculum that aligns with National Sexuality Education Standards-Core Content and Skills, K-12 [Read more about the National Sexuality Standards created by Planned Parenthood and cohorts here.]

• Resource support for teacher training

• Technical support-coaching and curriculum mapping

• Parent workshops

In fact, the job description for Planned Parenthood’s new community organizer/regional health coordinator in Yuma, Arizona, says that person, under the guidance of the PPAZ director of education “identifies target school districts and works with school leadership to move toward adoption of a comprehensive sexual health curriculum policy in these districts to advance the Sexual Health and Responsibility Education (SHARE) initiative.”

WISE: The Working to Institutionalize Sex Education initiative, with the goal of institutionalizing, or normalizing, the Planned Parenthood network’s repugnant, hedonistic “comprehensive” sex education, targets geographical areas with “favorable policy climates” for the normalization of sustainable school-based sex education. Current locations targeted by WISE include Washington; Oregon; California; Colorado; Iowa; Georgia; North Carolina; West Virginia; and Rochester, New York.

WISE works from the top down, beginning at the state education board level. By working at the state level, it is much easier to bypass parents in implementing laws that require or promote “comprehensive” sex classes in schools.

The Wednesday STOPP Report has covered the WISE initiative extensively. Read more about the far-reaching impact of WISE here.

Q. Who funds these blanket organizations pushing classroom sex education and legislation to require it?

A. SIECUS thanks “Anonymous Foundation, The Brico Fund, The Robert Sterling Clark Foundation, The Educational Foundation of America, and the WestWind Foundation” for funding its public policy and advocacy efforts, in its FY 2010 report.

According to the WISE initiative’s “method toolkit,” the initiative is “led by the Grove Foundation . . . [and] supported by a collaboration of funders including the Ford, William and Flora Hewlett, and David and Lucile Packard Foundations.”

SHARE is listed as an initiative of Planned Parenthood of Arizona. No funding source is identified.

Q. Who is teaching the PP curriculum? Teachers from districts or PP employees?

It varies from place to place. We know that Planned Parenthood of Arizona is training “facilitators to help teachers and other youth serving professionals develop the confidence they need to successfully deliver the curriculum to students.”

In Georgia, the lead WISE initiative partner GCAPP says,

The WISE Initiative services to school districts include: support in selecting sexual health curriculum, teacher training, parent workshops, and technical assistance as needed throughout the implementation process. Since 2009 GCAPP has trained 200 teachers in over 75 elementary, middle, and high schools to implement medically accurate, age appropriate curricula reaching over 17,000 students in the 2012-13 school year alone.

From the WISE toolkit website we learn:

In the first three years of the initiative, all of the WISE sites made significant progress toward their objectives. Collectively, over 100,000 students have been impacted due to WISE related activities; over 700 teachers have been trained; and 120 schools have implemented sex education where there was previously no sex education before or where it was significantly improved upon due to WISE.

Planned Parenthood keeps a low profile in the structure of WISE. However, looking down the ladder at the structure of the lead partners, Planned Parenthood comes clearly into focus. For instance, a WISE Iowa Project brochure lists Planned Parenthood as a partner. In Colorado, Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains is an alliance member of Colorado Youth Matter, the organization that is leading the WISE initiative there. Similar connections between Planned Parenthood and WISE lead partners exist in other states receiving WISE initiative funding.

In Oregon, a list of WISE board members includes three Planned Parenthood employees. In California, one must dig a bit deeper to find Planned Parenthood’s involvement. There we find that ETR heads up the California WISE initiative. ETR began as the educational arm of Planned Parenthood of Santa Cruz. Former ETR marketing director Steve Bignell, editor of the Family Life Education curriculum and Family Life Educator magazine, served as education director at Planned Parenthood of Santa Cruz.

An educational venture presented by Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest and endorsed by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), Planned Parenthood University offers “nationally recognized professional certification in reproductive health and sexuality education.” It awards a “Sexuality Education Certificate for educators, trainers, and outreach staff of Planned Parenthood affiliates and related organizations, providing sexuality and reproductive health presentations to groups in their communities and in schools and other educational settings.” The list goes on and on.

The bottom line is that Planned Parenthood participates, whether directly or indirectly, in many settings in teaching classroom sex classes, or in teaching others to teach sex classes in our schools. It is necessary to examine each location, and sometimes to dig very deeply into the structure of the program to determine Planned Parenthood’s involvement.

LifeNews.com Note: Rita Diller is the national director of American Life League’s Stop Planned Parenthood Project.

LEARN MORE:

http://www.lifenews.com/2014/03/13/is-planned-parenthood-pushing-its-sex-ed-and-abortion-agenda-in-your-childrens-school/

Sebelius Continues to Take the Dodge Regarding Abortion Coverage Lawlessness on ObamaCare Exchanges

 

Sebelius Continues to Take the Dodge Regarding Abortion Coverage Lawlessness on ObamaCare Exchanges

By Susan T. Muskett, J.D., Senior Legislative Counsel

Congressman Andy Harris

Congressman Andy Harris

Congressman Andy Harris (R-Md), a member of the House Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, today questioned HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius regarding two key aspects of abortion coverage on the ObamaCare Exchanges.

First, Congressman Harris questioned Secretary Sebelius regarding the difficulty that consumers are having in determining whether or not Exchange plans cover elective abortion. Even the CEO of Planned Parenthood Votes Northwest (PPVNW) recently wrote that “under the Affordable Care Act, it’s nearly impossible to find out which insurance plans cover abortion.” (An “Exchange” is a marketplace for the purchase of health insurance. ObamaCare requires an Exchange to be established in every state.)

This the third time that Secretary Sebelius has been questioned by a congressional committee on this very issue. Sebelius was questioned about it by the House Energy and Commerce Committee on October 30, and again on December 11, 2013 by the Health Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Today, Congressman Harris reminded Sebelius that she had told the Congress that all a consumer needed to do was to go to an ObamaCare plan’s “Summary of Benefits” to determine abortion coverage. (The ObamaCare law requires every Exchange plan that covers elective abortion to give notice to enrollees of that abortion coverage in the Summary of Benefits (PPACA Sec. 1303(b)(3)). Harris then held up the Summary of Benefits for every Exchange plan in the state of Maryland and he said that “none of them have an indication whether they cover abortion in the Summary of Benefits. It’s not transparent whatsover.” He asked Sebelius if she believed that abortion coverage should be transparent to the person visiting an Exchange website. In response, Sebelius said “I think it should be transparent, what all the benefits are” and “I understand, I think people should know what the benefits are.” To listen to her, an observer would think Secretary Sebelius was some kind of a bystander or onlooker to the Exchanges. But in later questioning by Harris, she conceded that HHS has supervisory authority over all of the Exchanges, including the state Exchanges. Yet, five months after this issue was first brought to Secretary Sebelius’ attention by a congressional committee, she apparently has still taken no action to resolve it.

Second, Harris questioned Sebelius about the ObamaCare statutory requirement that Exchange plans that cover elective abortion must collect a separate payment from enrollees for the abortion coverage (PPACA Sec. 1303(b)). As the staff of the Washington Post explained on page 180 of their book, “Landmark: The Inside Story of America’s New Health-Care Law and What It Means for Us All:”

“Insurers can include abortion coverage in plans offered in the exchanges. But everyone who buys a plan that includes abortion insurance – whether a woman or man, of any age – will have to make two separate premium payments: one covering the bulk of the policy and another far smaller one, as little as $1 per month, for abortion coverage. The thinking is that this will further help insurers keep private premiums and federal money separate.”

At today’s hearing, Harris pointed out to Sebelius that the Maryland Insurance Commissioner had said that Exchange plans don’t have to invoice separately for abortion coverage in plans that cover abortion. (Congressman Harris was referring to Bulletin 13-24 issued by the Maryland Insurance Commissioner to insurers over seven months ago on July 31, 2013). Sebelius tried to evade responsibility for what the Maryland Insurance Commissioner was doing, but under pointed questioning from Congressman Harris she conceded that she has supervisory authority over the Maryland exchange. (For more information on how the two separate payments statutory requirement is being ignored, see“Bait-and -Switch: The Obama Administration’s Flouting of Key Part of Nelson ‘Deal’ on ObamaCare” here.)

When will Secretary Sebelius quit taking the dodge regarding abortion coverage in the ObamaCare Exchanges when she comes before these congressional committees? The American people have waited for far too long for the answers that they deserve.