BY KIRSTEN ANDERSEN

KANSAS CITY, January 15, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – “Sometimes things are not as they seem.”  That was the title given to a recent opinion piece by Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City, who urged readers of The Catholic Key diocesan newspaper to “work hard and speak out clearly for the protection of human life at all its moments.” The bishop was writing in response to the story of Jahi McMath, a 13-year-old Oakland, California girl who was declared “legally dead” by hospital and government officials even as she remained on a respirator with her heart beating on its own.

Oakland Children’s Hospital and the Alameda County Coroner declared that McMath was “brain dead” on Dec. 12 after she suffered unexpected complications from a tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy which led to cardiac arrest.  Afterward, her family fought a nearly month-long legal battle with the hospital to keep her on life support, ultimately settling with the hospital to secure her release to a Catholic care facility where she is now receiving treatment.

“Pray for Jahi and for this family,” Bishop Finn urged the Catholic faithful.

“[S]ometimes things are not as they seem, and Dr. [Paul] Byrne, who went to Oakland a few days after Christmas, doesn’t believe Jahi is dead,” wrote Bishop Finn.  “What moved me most was something I had not yet read in any media accounts: He told me that Jahi was not totally unresponsive – but rather, when touched or talked to by family members, she moves her arms and/or legs. I must say that this is not what I imagined in the case of someone who is dead.”

McMath’s heartbreaking case, as well as the case of Marlise Munoz, a pregnant woman who is being kept on life support over her husbands wishes, have spurred national debate over how death is defined in the United States, and whether family members or doctors should be the ultimate arbiters of when it is time to “let go” of a neurologically devastated patient. Munoz is being kept on life support due to a Texas state law that prohibits hospitals from removing life support from a woman who is pregnant before her baby is viable for delivery.

While all 50 states have passed laws defining “brain death” as the legal endpoint of life, the criteria for declaring a patient brain dead vary from state to state.  What passes for brain death in California may not qualify as death in another state, a discrepancy that has led critics of the “brain death” movement to accuse doctors of playing God – declaring living patients “legally dead” so that their healthy organs can be harvested, or worse yet, in order to limit hospital liability in cases like Jahi’s, where a routine procedure goes horribly wrong.

In his opinion piece on the subject, Bishop Finn said that while the Catholic Church allows families to withhold “extraordinary means” of care, such as a ventilator, from dying loved ones, “Catholic moral teaching would also support the extraordinary efforts required to keep the child alive, if that was the chosen path,” and noted that “no one entrusted with her guardianship is opposed to continuing Jahi’s life.”

Citing the work of Dr. Byrne, a pediatrician and medical school professor who has done extensive research on brain death, especially as it relates to children, the bishop argued that Jahi’s family is well within their rights to give the girl as much time as they feel is needed to offer her a chance at recovery. 

“’Brain death’ is established by a measure of brain activity (or loss of it),” Bishop Finn wrote. “Dr. Byrne would point out that brain waves are a measure of such activity in three parts of the brain: the cerebrum, the cerebellum, and the brain stem. He would hold, and has written in many talks and articles, that measuring activity within the deeper recesses of the brain is not yet possible, and therefore may still exist in a subject. He also believes that children have a higher rate of recoverability from brain injuries. Their brains are more ‘pliable’ and can heal in ways that often surprise the experts.”

Added Finn, “The observation of reactions (movement of arms or legs) like those reported to be seen in Jahi, lends credence to the possibility that, though there are no measurable brain waves, brain activity may still exist and life may still be present. Thus seems to be the conviction of the family of Jahi McMath.”

“Pray for Jahi and for this family,” the bishop urged the Catholic faithful. “Pray also that authentic moral principles will be upheld in the midst of a scientific endeavor which is always complicated, but which requires many, many prudential decisions. We must work hard and speak out clearly for the protection of human life at all its moments.”

Read More:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/kansas-city-bishop-pens-passionate-defense-of-life-in-response-to-jahi-mcma

BY BEN JOHNSON

HOUSTON, TX, January 14, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A 20-year-old college student is seeking a restraining order against the NFL’s Arian Foster, because she says she wants him and his family to stop pressuring her to abort his baby.

Brittany Norwood, a senior at the University of Houston, alleges in court documents that last summer she became sexually involved with the Houston Texans’ running back, unaware he was married with children. 

Brittany Norwood says she wants to stop pressure to abort

She is now 17 weeks pregnant and expecting a baby boy in June. According to documents obtained by the entertainment website TMZ, Norwood had a DNA test that proves with 99.9 percent certainty that Arian is the father. That’s when she said harassment began.

Pages of text messages, which she says came from Arian, ask her to have an abortion so that Foster will not lose his wife and children. She said Arian’s brother, Abdul, told her, “You know, if you loved Arian at all you would have an abortion, because this child is going to ruin everything.”

Her court filings say that Foster and his sibling engaged in “a pattern of extreme and outrageous conduct” that is causing her “severe emotional distress.”

The lawsuit is seeking a restraining order, so the NFL star and his family will stop haranguing her to abort a baby she wants to keep.

“We want his conduct stopped, and we want the harassment to end,” her lawyer, Douglas York, toldKHOU television.

Under Texas law, she could abort up to 20 weeks, or obtain a late-term abortion in neighboring New Mexico.

The lawsuit also asks Foster to take a DNA test establishing paternity.

To date, he has declined comment to numerous media outlets seeking his side of the story. Mike Florio of ProFootballTalk wrote that Foster has “the right to dispute all allegations contained in the complaint, and to otherwise pursue all defenses aimed at securing a favorable outcome.”

The pregnancy scandal has generated more headlines for Foster than his football career. He had back surgery last fall after playing only eight less-than-memorable games.

Norwood’s allegations are consistent with what pro-life leaders say is a ubiquitous problem: coerced abortion. Post-abortive women have testified that they felt pressured – or in some cases were forced to abort – by parents, boyfriends, ex-boyfriends, husbands, abusers, even policemen.

A recent meta-analysis of 74 studies worldwide found that one of every four women who seeks an abortion was abused physically, mentally, emotionally, or sexually. The study’s authors include “coerced decision-making” as a factor contributing to the frequency of abortion and repeat abortion among abused women.

Read More: 

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/college-students-sues-nfl-star-so-his-family-will-stop-pressuring-her-to-ha

BY DUSTIN SIGGINS

WASHINGTON, D.C., January 14, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – House Republicans are once again moving to stop the federal funding of abortions, including in the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. 

Last Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice held a hearing about H.R. 7, the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.”

Introduced May 14, 2013 by Rep. Chris Smith, R-NJ, the bill would make numerous changes to federal law, including codifying the annually-approved Hyde Amendment.

Introduced May 14, 2013 by Rep. Chris Smith, R-NJ, the bill would make numerous changes to federal law, including codifying the annually-approved Hyde Amendment. The Hyde Amendment has prevented federal funding for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother, in the United States since 1976.

On Wednesday, the Judiciary Committee officially begins its “markup” (the amendment and debate process for moving a bill through Congress) of the pro-life bill. A House Judiciary aide told LifeSiteNews.com that this will start at 10:15 a.m. tomorrow and could last for most of the day.

During the process a variety of amendments will be proposed and voted on, before a final committee vote. With Republicans the dominant party in the House, the bill’s passage through the Committee is nearly a foregone conclusion, but it could be modified by amendments.

However, the bill is unlikely to pass through the Senate. President Obama has threatened a veto of the legislation in past years. 

At last week’s hearing, Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-VA, noted the importance of the Hyde Amendment to life in America. Citing the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate that as many as 675,000 abortions have been prevented every year due to the Hyde Amendment, Goodlatte said: “The policy we are discussing today has likely given America the gift of millions more children…millions more mothers, and millions more fathers, millions more lifetimes, and trillions more loving gestures and other human gifts in all their diverse forms.”

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has also formally backed H.R. 7.

In testimony to the committee last week, Richard M. Doerflinger, the Associate Director of the USCCB Secretariat of ProLife Activities, said that “H.R. 7 will write into permanent law a policy on which there has been strong popular and congressional agreement for over 35 years: The federal government should not use its funding power to support or promote abortion.”

Doerflinger cited multiple studies showing men and women alike, as well as supporters and opponents of abortion, are in favor of not requiring taxpayers to fund abortions. (Doerflinger’s testimony may be seen at full here)

One controversial section of HR7 would stop public funding for abortions in the District of Columbia.

Democrats, including District non-voting Member of Congress Eleanor Norton, are claiming H.R. 7 violates “The Home Rule Act of 1973,” in which Congress handed control of the District, with some exceptions, over to a local government. Norton argued in a recent press release that “the right to reproductive choice was not among those exceptions.”

Sponsors and supporters of the bill disagree. One GOP aide told LifeSiteNews.com that the Act “preserves Congress’s authority of the D.C. budget,” and all that all H.R. 7 does “is place limits on the use of all federal funds, including those Congress appropriates for D.C. So there’s no conflict between the Home Rule Act and H.R. 7.”

The aide also said that “there are no separate ‘local government funds’ in D.C, and all D.C. budgets must be authorized by Congress. D.C. is a purely federal entity, made distinctly so by the Constitution.”

Watch Video & Read More:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/republicans-move-forward-with-abortion-funding-ban-u.s.-bishops-throw-in-th

BY RITA DILLER

January 8, 2014 (STOPP) – As Planned Parenthood’s noxious sex education rockets across the country at unprecedented rates—propelled by millions of dollars in Obamacare PREP grants—those who bear great responsibility for the oversight of children’s education are being denied the opportunity to know what their children will be taught in these taxpayer-funded programs.

When parents in Hawaii became concerned about a sex education program being “tested” on children across the islands, they called on American Life League’s Stop Planned Parenthood project to helpfight the program and uncover the contents of the curriculum.

We always recommend involving state legislators who are concerned with protecting children from indecent materials, and parents in Hawaii did just that.

Hawaii is not the only state where elected officials are being denied access to such curriculum.

The result is described in a Honolulu newspaper headline proclaiming that a Hawaii legislator is “steamed” over the sex ed program. And for good reason.

After parents told state representative Bob McDermott about Pono Choices—the program that teaches middle school students about same sex relationships and oral and anal sex—McDermott attempted to get copies of the entire curriculum from the state department of education, but incredibly, his request was denied. He then approached the University of Hawaii, which received, in partnership with Planned Parenthood, almost a million dollars in a teen pregnancy prevention grant to develop and implement the program. The state legislator was once again turned down. He was instead invited to review the curriculum under supervision, which he declined.

Why was this elected representative of the people of Hawaii not given an opportunity to have possession of the curriculum and all materials that would be used in conjunction with it? Donalyn Dela Cruz, a DOE spokeswoman, told reporters that “the curriculum is sensitive in nature and can be misinterpreted.”

The Star-Advertiser quotes McDermott’s comments given to reporters at the state capitol. “It is outrageous that a state legislator . . . as an elected official and a father of public school children, cannot get this information,” McDermott said.

Representative McDermott was not the only legislator denied the materials. Senator Sam Slom received the same treatment and expressed his concern at a December 18 press conference. A video of Senator Slom’s remarks is available on the Hawaii Free Press website.

Senator Slom indicated during the press conference that he pursued the curriculum after receiving complaints and concerns from a broad range of parents, as well as teachers who, he points out, were very disturbed. Slom said his efforts at obtaining the curriculum were independent from Representative McDermott’s, but both hit the same roadblocks and came to the same conclusions. “A government that hides public information is antithetical to democracy,” Senator Slom said.

He pointed to the total lack of transparency regarding the curriculum. He tied the lack of transparency to ongoing requests for information to the state’s attorney general regarding the secret investigation of sexual assault, rape, and violence against children at the state school for deaf and blind that is alleged to have occurred over a five-year period. Repeated requests for information from that secret investigation have been denied as well. It is interesting to note that the curriculum Pono Choices was developed at the University of Hawaii Center on Disabilities Studies.

“This program,” Senator Slom said, “is a cookie cutter program that is referred to on the mainland as ‘Proud Choices.’ I don’t think it’s proud on the mainland, and I don’t think it’s pono here.” He said that denying him direct access to the curriculum impedes his ability to represent the people who elected him. He pledged to look at other avenues of obtaining the information.

When asked by a reporter whether he would be willing to sit down with DOE and UH representatives to go over the curriculum, Senator Slom reiterated that he would do so if he were first provided the curriculum—a request that was denied.

“We made a simple request,” he said. And he continued:

Show us the materials first. Then we can sit down and talk. But to treat us like children and treat us with disrespect . . . I think is going to have far-reaching consequences. Budget hearings are starting in a few moments. The University of Hawaii is going to be once again investigated by the senate Friday, and I can tell you when the DOE and UH come before Ways and Means seeking more money, I will have questions for them, as well.

A press release from Senator Slom announcing the press conference says, in part:

The DOE halted the controversial sex education program on November 29 to “investigate.” The program is aimed at 11, 12, and 13-year-old students teaching graphic information that includes teaching children to put condoms on wooden dildos and pro-homosexual behavior.

In the fastest “investigation” in Hawaii history, two weeks, the DOE announced the program will restart. The program will also be expanded to 30 more schools because the DOE “affirmed that the curriculum meets department standards, and also showed that Pono Choices is a culturally responsive curriculum that has resulted in positive outcomes for students,” said Leila Hayashida, assistant superintendent for the Office of Curriculum, Instruction, and Student Support.

Tell that to the parents.

[Representative Bob] McDermott and I separately requested copies of the Pono Choices curriculum. Both requests were denied. This is taxpayer money. We are taxpayer representatives. This program, and the DOE, is neither pono, nor provides parental choices.

STOPP research in early September established the connection between Pono Choices and Making Proud Choices. We found that Making Proud Choices, a curriculum about which much disconcerting information is available, was listed as a “key consultant” to Pono Choices. A recent exposé in theHawaii Free Press points to our research in showing the extent of the depravity of Pono Choices.

Hawaii is not the only state where elected officials are being denied access to such curriculum. In Statesville, North Carolina, the school district received a $4 million Tier 1 Teen Pregnancy Prevention grant from the federal government for after-school programs with Making Proud Choices and Be Proud Be Responsible. A school board member there is working to expose and stop the imminent implementation of Making Proud Choices for ninth graders throughout the district. On December 9, he requested a copy of the entire curriculum and materials that will be used to teach the children, and as of December 30 the requested materials had still not been received.

Read More: 

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/secret-state-reps-denied-request-to-see-planned-parenthoods-graphic-sex-ed

The organization Women Speak for Themselves (WSFT) was recently established to acknowledge the many women whose views on contraception and the HHS mandate are not represented by so-called women’s rights groups.

In an open letter to congress (specifically to President Obama and Secretary Sebelius), WSFT outlined the concerns shared by large numbers of American women about the nature of the HHS mandate and about the fact that progressive organizations have been erroneously claiming to speak for all women in their approval of the legislation.

The letter is straightforward and to-the-point. It acknowledges that the voices being represented are those in-line with Catholic teaching on matters of sexuality, but affirms that there are many non-Catholic women who stand with the Church as a representative of their own thoughts in this regard. These women feel slighted by the notion that potentially-abortifacient drugs with a high propensity to cause physical detriment to women’s bodies are being touted as a boon to women’s freedom. 

The group has accumulated well over 40,000 signatures. The organization provides fact sheets on religious freedom, the HHS mandate, and risk compensation, and maintains a blog to showcase the voices of women who do not feel benefited by the HHS mandate, and in many ways feel that it is a blow to true womanhood. Click here to learn more or to sign the letter.

Read More:

http://liveactionnews.org/organization-women-speak-for-themselves-proves-many-women-disagree-with-mandated-contraception/

BY KIRSTEN ANDERSEN

FORT WORTH, TX, January 14, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The husband of a pregnant Texas woman who is being kept on life support against his wishes filed suit today to have the life support removed – a move that would kill their unborn baby. Meanwhile, pro-abortion activists are petitioning the state of Texas on his behalf, while pro-life activists held vigil (video) Sunday outside John Peter Hospital, where both mother and baby are patients.

Marlise Munoz, who suffered cardiac arrest at her home on Nov. 26, remains on life support thanks to a Texas state law forbidding hospitals and doctors from removing pregnant women from life-sustaining care before their babies are viable for delivery. The law applies even if the patient has signed a do-not-resuscitate order as part of a living will.

Marlise Munoz

But her husband, Erick, is arguing that the law should not apply to his wife because doctors have told him she is “brain dead.” The hospital, however, has repeatedly refused to confirm that is the case, saying merely that she is “pregnant and in serious condition.”

“Marlise Munoz is dead, and she gave clear instructions to her husband and family — Marlise was not to remain on any type of artificial ‘life sustaining treatment’, ventilators or the like,” Erick’s attorneys, Heather King and Jessica Hall Janicek, wrote in the court filing. “There is no reason JPS should be allowed to continue treatment on Marlise Munoz’s dead body, and this Court should order JPS to immediately discontinue such.”

However, John Peter Smith Hospital spokeswoman Jill Labbe says state law is clear that Marlise’s baby’s life takes precedence over Erick’s wishes.

“JPS has a responsibility to be a good corporate citizen while providing compassionate, quality care for our patients,” Labbe told AFP.  “In all cases, JPS will follow the law as it applies to health care in the state of Texas. State law says life-sustaining treatment cannot be withheld or withdrawn from a pregnant patient.”

According to the law, Marlise must be kept on life support until her baby is developed enough to survive outside the womb.  At that point, the child can be delivered via cesarean section and Marlise’s husband, Erick, will be able to remove her from life support if that is what he wants.

Pro-life activist Sue Cyr and her family stand in support of attempts to save Marlise Munoz and her pre-born baby, who are currently on life support at a Ft. Worth, Texas hospital.

Abortion advocacy group NARAL Pro-Choice America has joined the fray, circulating a petition to the state attorney general on Erick’s behalf which reads in part: “The Munoz family deserves better than this — and it’s up to Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott to show them that the state of Texas respects their wishes and their privacy.”

The petition demands that the state of Texas “leave difficult, personal decisions in the hands of families and support the Munoz family’s decision to take Marlise off of life support.”

Meanwhile, pro-life activists held a vigil outside the hospital Sunday in support of the Munozes’ baby. 

“We must save this baby. It is a person, guaranteed protection under the constitution,” said Pastor Stephen Broden, who led a prayer vigil outside the hospital Sunday.  “There is an alternative for the family. There are families willing to take the baby and provide a safe place for it to grow in a loving environment.  If we err, we should err on the side of life.”

“We feel great compassion for the family of Marlise Munoz and her pre-born baby,” Troy Newman of Operation Rescue said in a statement prior to the prayer vigil.  “No one ever wants to be in their difficult and tragic situation. Marlise wanted this baby, and as long as there is a chance that he or she can be saved, we support John Peter Smith Hospital in their bid to follow the law and protect this baby’s life.”

Read More: 

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/as-husband-sues-to-end-life-support-of-pregnant-wife-pro-life-advocates-hol