It has been a source of ongoing sadness to read of the difficulties Lauren Richardson’s father has had over the course of the past several months.  For those of you who are not familiar with her case, Lauren (http://lifeforlauren.org/aboutlauren.html  overdosed on heroin on August 28, 2006.  

Due to the fact that she suffered oxygen deprivation to her brain as a result of the overdose, Lauren is now in a hospital and is unable to speak out for herself.  However at the time of the overdose Lauren was expecting a baby, and so her parents honored what they knew would have been her wish, and did all they could to keep her healthy and comfortable.  Today, though Lauren is not aware of it as far as we know, she is the mother of Ember Grace, who was born in February of 2007.

A great tragedy has occurred since the birth of her daughter, and while Lauren remains unable to speak of her concerns, she has a loving father who is doing all he can to protect her from the same fate suffered by Terri Schiavo.  However the sad thing is that Lauren’s mother, who has been named her legal guardian, is not of the same opinion and is working with attorneys to pressure the Courts to permit Lauren’s starvation.

Lauren’s father has kept hope alive, at times when it appears that there is no hope in human terms. Lauren’s father is a man of hope in Christ and is dedicated to spending every breath he has on defending Lauren, regardless of what it might cost him in physical exhaustion and worldly goods.  The most recent update to those concerned about Lauren tells us the following (http://lifeforlauren.org/updates.html)

We struggle at times as we seek to share with the public the details of what is happening with Lauren because of the disagreement we have with Lauren’s mother. We cannot understand her reasoning in refusing a path of hope, healing, and restoration for Lauren, and insisting on causing her death by withholding food and water from her. The issue in Lauren’s case is the eternal truth that all people, no matter what their medical condition, bear the image of God and deserve basic care and an opportunity to be restored to health.

Bobby Schindler, Terri Schiavo’s brother, has written about Lauren in an editorial earlier this year, “False Compassion” (http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080218/EDITORIAL/864194763)  and is working closely with Lauren’s father in order to provide expertise that he is uniquely qualified to give during a trying time like this.

There are many links on the Life for Lauren website which will assist you in tracking this case and learning who is in support of Lauren’s ongoing care and who is opposed, but more importantly than that right now, there is something you can do to express your concerns.

ACTION NEEDED NOW

The Governor of Delaware, Ruth Ann Minner, is being asked by pro-life Americans across this nation to intervene in this case in order to save Lauren from what many fear is an imminent court order that Lauren be starved and dehydrated to death.  I am asking you to be one of those who communicates your passionate belief that Lauren’s life is sacred and deserves to be protected from those who would order her death.  The Governor’s email address is: governor.minner@state.de.us

Further, it would mean a great deal to Lauren’s father, Randy, if you sent him a copy of your email to Governor Ruth Ann Minner.  Randy’s email address is Lifeforlauren@aol.com

During a recent visit to Anchorage, Alaska where Bobby Schindler was invited to speak, he told a reporter from The Catholic Anchor: (http://www.catholicanchor.org/local.html#Story3) , 

"Once we accept that killing is an acceptable answer to human suffering, we lose any type of parameters.  Euthanasia is a form of abandonment. It is not compassion."

Truer words were never spoken, and as I frequently tell people who argue that we pro-lifers are being heartless and cruel for fighting to defend the rights of a “hopeless case:” God is the author of every human being’s life, and He has never given permission to a single one of us to arbitrarily rob another human being of life for any reason including disability or illness.  

As Flannery O’Connor once wrote on the subject of false compassion (http://www.catholicherald.com/bonacci/07mb/mb071025.html) :

“In the absence of faith, we govern by tenderness. And tenderness leads to the gas chamber.”

Lauren Richardson is not terminal; she is severely disabled.  Lauren Richardson should not be murdered.

Over the years there have been many occasions when I have realized that by the simple use of what would seem to be an innocent word or two one can change the entire meaning of what is intended.  For example, if we use the words “pregnant woman” when referring to an “expectant mother” we dehumanize her preborn child and play into the abortionists’ plan to negate the value of the baby and ignore the motherhood of the expectant mom.  We all know how much abortion advocates hate words like "mother" and "baby," don't we?  But we still slip up now and then.

So when I first heard of the Wisconsin Bishops’ pastoral letter on ethical stem cell research, “Serving All and Sacrificing None,”(http://www.madisoncatholicherald.org/current/bishops_stem_cell_letter.pdf) which was reported by LifeSite News (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08050105.html),  I was elated.  That was last Thursday when the document first came to my attention.  I did not read it, however, and that was my first mistake.

However this morning I was privileged to read a critique of the letter by Professor Dianne Irving, who is a scientist and an expert on the deceptive scientific language that is frequently used to mask the reality of what is truly being planned for the youngest of our brothers and sisters, the zygote and early human embryo.  In her critique (http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_125wisconsinbishops.htmll) which I encourage you read verbatim, she teaches anyone with the desire to understand the reasons why the Wisconsin Bishops’ statement is full of erroroneous language.

For example, the Wisconsin Bishops write

“We know many struggle with official Catholic teaching that a small group of cells invisible to the naked eye deserves the same protection as the life of a baby in the womb …”

Professor Irving points out that by using the phrase “small group of cells,” the Bishops, whether intending to do it or not, relegate the early human being to the mis-definitions used by scientists who want the public to think of the young preborn child as nothing more than a “bunch of cells.”  It would have been so easy for the authors of the Wisconsin Bishops’ text to have written “We know many struggle with official Catholic teaching that a early human being who is invisible to the naked eye ….”

The statement also tells the reader 

“The Church applauds the recent breakthrough in reprogramming adult skin cells to act like embryonic stem cells.”

The reference to the extremely controversial IPS (induced pluripotent stem cell) research has been discussed in this blog before.  As you may recall one scientist, Dr. Theresa Deisher’s article, “Why Are We Celebrating the Reprogramming of Adult Cells?” (http://www.cogforlife.org/reprogramandethics.htm) explains in no uncertain terms,

“The ability to transform adult cells into embryonic stem cells could be moral, however, a close inspection of the two published papers revealed that cells from an electively aborted fetus were used in the work, and therefore it cannot be considered moral.”

One has to wonder why the Wisconsin Bishops did not take these matters into consideration when drafting the statement.  And I wonder why they did not invite critique from experts like Professor Irving and Dr. Deisher.  At this point, we suppose, it is perhaps too late but that depends on how seriously the Bishops want to review their writing on this subject.  I will be sending this message along with all of the supporting documents to each of the four Bishops who signed the document, asking them to weigh the analyses and examine their statement with the idea of possibly revising it so that the words mean what the Bishops intended them to mean.

 As I read it I realized that Professor Irving’s analysis of the statement is provocative.  However it should invite introspective thought and examination on the part of the Bishops who signed the statement, because as I have said, a single word can change the entire meaning of a sentence, and a pastoral letter that is not scientifically accurate in every way can contribute to the very confusion that has some sincere people supporting scientific efforts that are, at the very least, diabolical to the core.

I fly all over the place, and frequently use American Airlines.  And because my husband loves collecting those “miles” for the upgrades, we were quite shocked to read from a fellow airline traveler that the airline was going to support the activities of the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation.  In the official press release the airline announced (http://www.pnnonline.org/article.php?sid=8141&mode=thread&order=0):

“American Airlines has launched ‘Miles for the Cure,’ a special fundraising campaign that rewards donors by giving them five AAdvantage miles for every dollar they contribute to Susan G. Komen for the Cure.”

This project will run through the end of May, May 31 to be exact.  So it is fortunate that we learned of this early enough to let the airline know precisely how disturbing it is that they have chosen a foundation for their charitable efforts which is aligned with so many aspects of the culture of death.  Before I give you the contact information for American Airlines so that you can register your displeasure, let me set forth the problematic nature of the Komen record:

#1  In a single year the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation has contributed $711,485 to Planned Parenthood (http://www.all.org/stopp/wsr080409.htm)

#2  The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer response that a former Komen Latina Adviser, Eva Sanchez Silver, left Komen due to not only its support of Planned Parenthood but its refusal to acknowledge the link between abortion and breast cancer. (http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/news/051116/index.htm) 

#3  It has been proven that a woman who take contraception has a higher risk of have breast cancer than a woman who does not.  As the Polycarp Research Institute makes clear:

“As of 2003, 18 out of 21 retrospective studies show that women who take oral contraceptives prior to their first-term birth incur an increased risk in developing breast cancer.” (http://www.polycarp.org/overviewbreastcanceroralcontraceptives.htm) Today we can be sure that number is either the same or higher.  

Any charitable effort pursued by a corporation as large as American Airlines  should be based first and foremost on the undeniable fact that the charity being supported is totally honest about the efforts it is pursuing.

We know beyond a doubt that the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure is not involved in unbiased, savory research efforts.  It is not providing support to research that confirms the connections between abortion and breast cancer, not to mention the connections between contraception and breast cancer.  And perhaps most egregious, it has aligned itself with the world’s #1 promoter of the very things that contribute to breast cancer: contraception and abortion.

Therefore, American Airlines has made a grave error and it is up to you and me to point it out to them.

Here’s how:

AA Customer Relations invites customers to send comments or inquiries via mail, fax or email.

U.S. Mail
American Airlines Customer Relations
P.O. Box 619612 MD 2400
DFW Airport, TX 75261-9612

Overnight Mail
American Airlines Customer Relations
4255 Amon Carter Blvd. MD 2400
Fort Worth, TX 76155-2603

Fax
Fax: (817) 967-4162

or email American Airlines by going to their web site, http://www.aa.com/index_us.jhtmll, clicking on “contact us” and clicking on email.

Don’t let this opportunity to let American Airlines know what a dreadful error in judgment they have made by choosing to support a “charity” that is not even interested in stemming the real reasons why the cases of breast cancer are increasing in America.

HUMANAE VITAE PRIESTS

From the first moment I met Father Tom Euteneuer, president of Human Life International (http://www.hli.org/president_hli.html) I knew there was something incredibly special about him.  He is totally devoted to Catholic teaching.  A few years ago when he made a presentation to an American Life League national conference in New Orleans, Louisiana, he brought the house down.  His genuine holiness, humility  and dedication to spreading the good news, especially about Humanae Vitae, has won him admiration and appreciation around the world.

So I really should not have been too surprised when he announced the formation of a new organization called Humanae Vitae Priests (http://www.humanaevitaepriests.org/).  The announcement comes as we prepare to celebrate the 40^th anniversary of Pope Paul VI’s encyclical, Humanae Vitae.( http://www.hli.org/humane_vitae.html) 

Right there on the Humanae Vitae Priests home page another unbelievably inspiring priest is featured in a photo with Pope Paul VI – his name is Father Paul Marx, OSB.  He is the founder Human Life International and has retired, but he certainly has no worries about his legacy being carried forth.  As Father Paul Marx has said so often over the many years that he and I have been friends, “You cannot be truly pro-life unless you oppose contraception.”

I agree with that completely.  As I wrote several years ago in Celebrate Life,http://www.users.interport.net/a/l/allweb50m/celebrate_life/cl0005b.htm 

I remember the first time I met Father Paul Marx. He was working at the Human Life Center in Minnesota, and had sent me an article he had written entitled "Are You Really Pro-Life?" The article changed my life. 

Father Marx was the first person to point out to me, in black and white, the reasons why the contraceptive mentality and the practice of contraception always leads to aborting babies. Always! No exceptions. And he has traveled to more than 70 countries to prove it! 

And now, at long last, we are witnessing the fruits of Father Marx’ unyielding commitment to that truth in the unveiling of Humanae Vitae Priests.  And it could not have come a moment too soon as far as I am concerned.  We welcome this effort and are so grateful to Father Euteneuer for making it happen.

When you visit the web site you are going to find an incredible wealth of helpful material, and I have to say that one of my favorites is the article by Father Don Blickhan (http://www.humanaevitaepriests.org/hv_2008-04-24.html)

I like this piece for a number of reasons.  The most important among them is that it reveals how a Catholic priest can teach with boldness and at the same time charity.  Father Blickhan sets forth the very concepts that we at American Life League know are true.  In fact we have been asking priests to think about and speak about these very subjects for many years.  

In the article, Father Blickhan says

Over the years I had evolved in my preaching style. Perhaps it was because I was tired of hearing the same old sermons that I decided to place an emphasis on the basics, the fundamentals that we rarely talked about anymore. 

I began to talk about sin, grace, salvation, hell, Satan, angels. Some said it was the first time they had ever heard a sermon on hell or on angels. They loved it!

And as if that isn’t inspiring enough, he continues:

There is a hunger in the people. When a person tastes a fine recipe, he relishes it. When a dish is not palatable he pushes it away. "No thank you!" 

Over the past few years, I have noticed that when people hear the Truth, not only do they listen, but they begin to get excited about their Faith, and they want to learn more. Some have asked for book suggestions, one even began a master's program in theology.

What a blessing it is to read these words written by a Catholic priest.

The rest of his commentary will be uplifting to you in every way, so please take the time to read it and savor his words.  He is expressing what, in my view, should be the focus of every Catholic priest who takes the pulpit and has the opportunity to help others see truth and live it.  

It has been our experience at American Life League that the truth always has a way of enlightening as well as inspiring those who hear it.  And now we are going to hear from priests who are committed to this principle and willing to write about it, speak about it and will as a result bring souls to Christ by their zeal.

In case you have not noticed, I am wildly ecstatic over Humanae Vitae Priests.  I am sure you will be as well.  Their message, American Life League’s message and the Catholic Church’s teaching all agree:  the only way to end abortion is to expose the evil of contraception and encourage people never to practice it again.  

There is no doubt that contraception is the root cause of abortion; it engenders a mentality that denies the value of children and focuses instead on the instant gratification that comes from divorcing man from the beauty of God’s design for marriage.  And now we are going to hear it from more and more Humanae Vitae Priests!

Another headline appeared this past weekend suggesting that the abortion rate was dropping as was the birth rate (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/ideas/bal-id.abortion27apr27,0,5058107.story?track=rss)  The United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has recently released latest numbers (from 2004), and of course the media is reporting precisely what the federal government is saying.  

Once again we have consistency between the evil empire and its evil twin – now there’s a twist for you.

But a careful examination of the actual data from the government (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_15.pdf) reveals a few problems in the calculations, at least from the perspective of a pro-life leader who recognizes every act of abortion as an act of killing, whether the act occurs because of a chemical abortion, a medical abortion or a surgical abortion.  

The first fact is that the report addresses only those abortions defined as “induced” which means caused intentionally by the administration of a chemical abortion compound (RU-486) or a surgical act.

The second fact is that the report makes it clear that its abortion data is based on estimates, not hard numbers.  The Centers for Disease Control collects data from “most” states, not all of them.  The CDC subsequently adjusts its numbers to coincide with the Guttmacher Institute reports but does state that their numbers tend to be lower than those published by Guttmacher.   So which set of numbers is the most accurate?  Probably neither one.

The third fact is that the CDC points out that its own numbers may differ from previous estimates, so in other words, what we are getting from the CDC is a best guess estimated on data that could perhaps itself be questionable.  Who knows?  Such reports keep a lot of bureaucrats employed so who cares about attempting total accuracy and requiring total compliance from all 50 states!

When Dr. William O’Brien, a pro-life physician, read the recent news item in the Baltimore Sun he sent around the following email,

“In my opinion, the most dangerous myth is that the number of abortions is declining ….  Three things need to be done about this.  The first is to recognize that the declining numbers refer only to surgical abortions.  The fact that the total number of abortions (surgical + chemical) is rising can only be proven by adding the data about chemical abortions to the reported data about surgical abortions.  So the second thing that needs to be done is to get reliable sales data from the pharmaceutical producers of all abortifacients (not just RU486) and conduct research on the utilization of these products.   The third thing is to recover the advantage of the language.  The abortion industry is promulgating the term "medical abortion" to refer to killing the unborn with chemicals.  Of course, most of us tend to think of medicine as a good thing that cures illnesses.  I suggest that all 'Pro-Lifers' try to promote the more descriptive and accurate term, "chemical abortion" by all pro-life organizations.”

My only caveat upon reading the above is to point out that “medical” abortions are those that occur after implantation, at least according to the pro-aborts, who also tell us that pregnancy does not begin until implantation and therefore any child who is chemically killed prior to that time is not even recognized as being there.  This is the way they lie their way out of admitting that the birth control and the IUD actually cause abortion.

I do agree that we pro-lifers have to take back the language; we have to stop issuing press releases brimming with joy when false figures come out of government agencies and we have to literally demand that people think about the basic scientific fact that pregnancy begins when a human being begins: usually fertilization/conception .  

The numbers game being played by the media in concert with the government is simply a sham.  But then again, when the government is marketing abortion and the media is endorsing abortion, what else should we expect?

Some of us have been tracking the strange events surrounding Yale art student Aliza Shvarts, class of ’08, whose alleged “art project” calls into question a great deal about the young woman and, perhaps most importantly, officials at Yale.

In 1701, when Yale was first granted a charter, the document “was granted for a school ‘wherein Youth may be instructed in the Arts and Sciences [and] through the blessing of Almighty God may be fitted for Public employment both in Church and Civil State.’”  (http://www.yale.edu/about/history.html)   Note if you will that at its founding Yale was a school where young people could be assured of training in the genre of Christianity and its ethics.  It would appear that a great deal has changed since those days.

On April 17^th  of 2008, 307 years later, when reporter Martine Powers originally wrote about Shvarts’ project, she reported that Shvarts “will be displaying her senior art project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she artificially inseminated herself ‘as often as possible’ while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process.”  (http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/24513)

The report went on to explain that Shvarts wanted to provoke discussion with her project and that she believes that “art should be a medium for politics and ideologies, not just a commodity.”  Shvarts told the reporter that she would present videos that would document her miscarriages in “her bathroom tub” and similar videos were to be shown on the walls of the room where her project was located.  

In point of fact, as far as I’m concerned, this “art project” would have been a display of killings, each of which would take place methodically and with planning so as to execute the impact with the greatest effect possible.

Some students echoed concerns about the ethics of such a project, and a few even found the entire idea unsettling. The actual art show in which this celebration of death was to be shown opened last Friday, but not with the Shvarts’ project.

You see plenty of debate ensued in the days following the original article in Yale’s student newspaper.  And just a day before the show was to open, an official from Yale explained that after scientific testing, it was discovered that there were “no traces of human blood” in Shvartz’ art studio, “although there was no way to determine whether the project in its entirety had been examined.”  And I might add no way to prove that the project ever existed.

Further the dean of the Yale University School of Art, Robert Storr, released a statement about the alleged art project, saying that the very nature of the project “remains in doubt.”  Storr went on to remind everyone that nobody should overlook the work of the other students who were exhibiting art in the same show.  

In his statement, he opined:

“Among the many regrettable consequences of the furor that this hypothetical project has engendered is the way in which it has overshadowed attention to the fully realized works by that student’s contemporaries.  I would like therefore to draw attention to the fact that the exhibition of their senior projects has opened as scheduled in the galleries of the School of Art. At such time as the phantom work so excessively debated becomes known to us and its substance and genesis is clarified beyond any doubt it may join the work already on view.” http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/24651 

As of today, the project which I now believe was nothing but a fiction, created in the mind of a very troubled young lady, is nowhere to be seen.  For all intents and purposes it is safe to assume that either there never was such a project or that Shvarts started on it and became too ill due to the excessive abuse her own body would  have taken if she had indeed induced repeated miscarriages.  This would have forced her to abandon her idea.

While she certainly did gain the attention of the public for a few days while coyly making certain nobody could actually confirm or deny her claims, one has to wonder what is really going on in her mind.  And as one Yale Herald reporter wrote,

“The stalemate over Art major Aliza Shvarts’, DC ’08, senior project—an alleged attempt to inseminate herself and herbally terminate the ensuing pregnancies—finally ended this week. The drama pitted the University against one of its students in debate over the nature of performance art, and the minor detail of whether or not Shvarts was telling the truth.” (http://www.yaleherald.com/article.php?Article=6434)

Yet one is left wondering what would tempt any thinking person to fabricate such a scheme and carry on with it in the first place.  Perhaps it was merely and only an attention-getting device. Of that nobody can be sure … that is until she writes a book or collaborates with Hollywood on a movie version of her intellectual escapades with human destruction.

But one thing still nags at my consciousness, and that is simply this:

With all his statements, and beseeching of the public to make room for artistic expression while questioning whether or not Shvartz was actually creating what she claimed, the dean of the Yale University School of Art never once suggested that such projects crossed the line, should be prohibited or simply were not in good taste since the subject matter so closely resembled direct acts of murder by the mother of those allegedly miscarried babies.  Not a word of condemnation could be heard or read , at least not from the elite at Yale!

Wonder why not?  Perhaps you could ask him:

Robert Shorr, Dean

Yale University School of Art

P.O. Box 208339 

New Haven, CT 06520-8339

Today was the last day of classes so Shorr should have plenty of time to explain it all to you.

Ever since the birth of the first in vitro fertilization baby, Louise Brown in 1978, reproductive technology has taken a wide variety of turns.  For those who do not remember the world’s attention on Louise Brown, the two doctors who “created” her in the laboratory and the agreement they made with Louise’s parents that she would be aborted if she was in any way imperfect, a bit of history may be of interest.

Patrick Steptoe, a gynecologist and researcher, teamed with physiologist Robert Edwards in the development of the basic research that led to the discovery of in vitro fertilization (IVF).  It was only after many failed attempts that Louise was finally born.  It is interesting to note that Steptoe financed the research by doing abortions. (http://www.faqs.org/health/bios/45/Patrick-Steptoe.html)   It may sound odd to you that a doctor who wanted to help women have babies paid for the research by killing babies, but this is exactly what occurred.   

An interesting excerpt from the classic Pro Life Encyclopedia tells us the following about Dr. Steptoe’s philosophy which may account for his involvement in both aborting and generating children:

Dr. Patrick Steptoe, one of the originators of the [in vitro fertilization] technique, recently denied that he was destroying human lives because, in his opinion, only "a potential life has been started when an egg is fertilized. The mortal part of life has been joined with the immortal part: by that I mean the genetic material. We are all merely transient carriers of our genes, I'm afraid; it is our genes that are immortal, definitely." (http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/CF2.TXT)

In other words, the thought process behind the science does not take into account that a human being exists at the moment of creation but rather that a group of cells is an entity that potentially can become a human being.  So it is really not that surprising that one man could be accommodating to both aspects of pregnancy … ending it and attempting to begin it.

At any rate, since Steptoe and Edwards, much has happened in the world of IVF and the most recent news comes to us from the Medelle Corporation, which is currently testing a device known as Invocell, described as “low cost IVF.”

The news report explains http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/37715/invocell_is_low_cost_ivf_in_americas.html :

“The INVOcell™ intra-vaginal culture device, an approximately two-inch long barrel-shaped cylinder filled with culture medium, is currently being used in the clinical study to test the invention’s effectiveness as a replacement for IVF lab culturing. The woman’s eggs and the father’s sperm are first placed into the device. Then, the INVOcell™ is inserted into the patient’s uterus and secured using a retention system as opposed to leaving them in a Petri dish in the fertility clinic laboratory.”

The idea is that by side-stepping the laboratory the potential client could save a few thousand dollars so that the IVF cycle would cost $7,000 rather than the usual $10,000.  However the device is still in the early testing stages and so the possibility of having a lower-cost type of IVF device remains an idea without clinical results to attest to its effectiveness or safety.

However the larger question in these discussions about reproductive technology is whether or not they are ethical in the first place, and the Catholic Church resoundingly tells us no, they are not.  In case you are thinking, isn’t that a heartless way of looking at treatments that do help some infertile couples realize their dream of having a child?, let me help you see the wisdom in Church teaching.

The sad fact is that sterility is a source of immense suffering for a couple, but no couple has a right to a child.  And it is very clear that every child has a right to be conceived according to God’s design of procreation.

As Catholic teaching makes clear in the document, “Instruction on respect for human life,” (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html):

“…in conformity with the traditional doctrine relating to the goods of marriage and the dignity of the person, the Church remains opposed from the moral point of view to homologous 'in vitro' fertilization. Such fertilization is in itself illicit and in opposition to the dignity of procreation and of the conjugal union, even when everything is done to avoid the death of the human embryo. Although the manner in which human conception is achieved with IVF and ET cannot be approved, every child which comes into the world must in any case be accepted as a living gift of the divine Goodness and must be brought up with love.”

The Church recognizes each human embryo as a child deserving of love, not a life in a freezer or a life ended for the sake of stem cells.  But the Church also alerts us to the gruesome outcome of technologies that are designed to replace God with man’s interventions, whether it is to create or to destroy a human being.

Thus it is with great anguish that I look at the latest invention, the Invocell, which is designed to be placed within the womb of a woman so that her body heat will help the device incubate the resulting fertilized ova, and I shudder.  I continue to be horrified for the children, whose lives have become nothing more than consumer goods which are destined to be saved or trashed, depending on their quality, of course.  I wonder how much longer the Lord can have patience with a world that has so little regard for His design.

And I ask you … what are you doing to expose these grotesque practices hiding behind glowing descriptions of help for couples in need? 

A very sad story is unfolding in Huntington, Indiana.  30-year-old bank teller Katherin Shuffield, expecting to give birth to twins in a few months, was wounded during a bank robbery this past Tuesday, April 22.  Katherin subsequently lost both of her preborn children.  The gunshot did not kill the children but the complications that set in after Katherin was wounded caused the death of the two children.  

In response to this tragic loss the city of Huntington issued a statement (http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080425/clf088.html?.v=10) in which they said:

“No amount of time will replace the loss of their unborn children. We hope that Katherin's physical recovery comes quickly. To Katherin and her husband, Jason, you are in our thoughts and prayers. To their parents and family also experiencing their pain -- we share your sorrow and, too, keep you in our prayers.”

Further the city pledged full support to the Indianapolis Police and FBI in identifying and convicting the person who shot Katherin. However there is some confusion about what precisely the bank robber could be charged with when it comes to the crime of killing the twins.  One of Katherin’s neighbors told the newspaper that the robber “should be tried for two murders.”  (http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080426/LOCAL18/804260451) But law enforcement is not so sure.

David Wyser, the Marion County prosecutor’s chief trial deputy told the press during a news conference that “murder would not apply, because Shuffield was five months pregnant; under Indiana law, fetuses are considered viable at seven months, and only then would the twins have been considered murder victims.”

He did say, however, that if they are able to find the shooter, “potential charges would include feticide, a Class C felony.”  According to Indiana law (http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar50/ch2.html) a Class C felony would result in a 2 year sentence, if indeed the shooter is found and then tried and convicted.  Two years in prison for the murder of two preborn children.  If this sounds outrageous to you, then hear me out, please. 

First of all, Indiana law establishes an arbitrary delineation:  prior to seven months of age, the preborn child is not a human being and a crime resulting in that child’s death cannot be defined as murder.  Here is what that means in plain English: 

(a) The child who is six month, 25 days of age in the womb is not a human being,  but 

(b) the child who is seven months of age in the womb is a human being.  

This is the sort of law that not only creates confusion for average citizens but injustice in the courts.  Such laws smack of the very kind of hypocrisy that we see over and over again as pro-life experts  examine laws dealing with the identity of the child prior to birth.

This is the reason why personhood, which should be the goal of all pro-life legislative efforts, is so very important.  Feticide should be the equivalent of homicide, but as the deputy pointed out to the media in the case of the twins, it is not the same.  

In fact, in reading Indiana’s legal definitions, we find the following with regard to feticide (http://www.in.gov/ctb/pdf/appendix1.pdf) :

“A person who knowingly or intentionally terminates a human pregnancy with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus commits feticide, a Class C felony.  This section does not apply to an abortion performed in compliance with …”

In other words, if Katherin had sought an abortion, no charges would have been brought against the abortionist, but the shooter in the bank robbery may be charged with feticide.  Prosecutors will have to prove that the shooter “intentionally” brought about the death of the twins.  Tragically that is the legal situation at present in Indiana.  So it is quite possible that at the end of the trial, if indeed they find the shooter, he will be charged with nothing at all relating to the death of these two babies.

We mourn with the Shuffields during this dreadful time in their lives and we pray that Katherin fully recovers from the gunshot wound she received.  We pray that the spiritual and psychological wounds caused by the deaths of their twins will be healed through the love of Christ and the support of family and friends.

On another level, I pray that each of us is renewed in our resolve as principled pro-lifers to do all we can to focus attention on personhood, to define every innocent preborn child as an equal member of the human race and to expect that law will reflect justice that is equitable for all people, born and preborn. 

Remember: as long as the act of abortion is protected by law in any circumstance there is no genuine justice in America.

A couple of days ago one of the leadership team from Colorado for Equal Rights (http://www.coloradoforequalrights.com//)  sent me a link to the NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado home page  (http://www.prochoicecolorado.org/ballotwatch.shtml) , where I found something remarkable. 

You see the pro-abortion forces in Colorado are up in arms, literally, over the personhood effort in the state, and have made the statement:

“Changing Colorado’s constitution in such an extreme way could have far-reaching consequences beyond banning abortion, including making it illegal to use of the most effective forms of birth control, restricting in-vitro fertilization, and curbing embryonic stem cell research.”

Well, I have to ask, what is so extreme about being consistent in the pro-life struggle to protect the personhood of the human being from the time his life begins, regardless of the manner in which that life begins?  Would the pro-aborts like it better if pro-lifers contradicted their principles by arguing that they “take no position on contraception,” or “will not oppose in vitro fertilization” or “support exceptions in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother?”

Because if they would be less offended by such inconsistent, illogical, politically correct positions they need only focus attention on South Dakota or some other legislative effort where consistency is lacking altogether.  For as one recent news report stated (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/104845.php) 

“The Wall Street Journal on Monday examined the "philosophical split" among antiabortion groups over five state ballot initiatives, with some groups supporting only measures that seek to ban abortion, while others are supporting attempts to "chip away" at abortion rights through initiatives aimed at restricting access or limiting certain procedures.”

If you are familiar with this blog you already know where I stand on the “split” but perhaps you have not quite gotten your arms around the reasons why.  After all, you might be thinking, Judie Brown is simply one of those “all or nothing” pro-lifers who doesn’t get it.  Well, my friend, I do get it and that is why I abhor the argument that we can chip away at abortion rights in America in 2008.

Why?  Let’s start with 35 years ago when the Supreme Court handed down the Roe vs. Wade/Doe vs. Bolton Supreme Court decisions decriminalizing abortion during all nine months of pregnancy.  From that moment to this, the split in the pro-life movement has widened as many have inconsistently chosen to add on an exception here and an exception there until, as we all know, we have reached a point where we cannot even outlaw infanticide (partial birth abortion) unless we support a life of the mother exception in the legislation (http://www.all.org/article.php?id=11109) .

What does this mean to the future of pro-life political efforts to restore personhood to the preborn child?  

To put it succinctly, it means that we, at least some of us, are so good at undermining the personhood principle by “chipping away” at the fringes of abortion-murder that we have become extraordinarily efficient at denying that there is anything wrong with this “strategy”, we enjoy our finger pointing and we refuse to accept our inability to see the forest for the trees.  It is obvious that many of us simply do not want to do the difficult thing, the right thing, and be consistent in our arguments.

My view of this is that until we as a pro-life movement decide, from one end of the movement to the other, that we are dedicated to personhood and will oppose abortive birth control, in vitro fertilization and surgical abortion, we are going to spin our wheels. We are going to continue to cut down a small tree here and tinier one there, while thousands continue to die every single day.

Personhood means defending every single human being without excluding a single one; anything less, commonly known as chipping away, is equivalent to opposing ourselves by claiming we are being realistic!

Come on, give me a break!  NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado gets it!  Why can’t some pro-lifers?

Every time I, as a senior citizen, read a story about how to be healthy and happy in your sixties, there is invariably a reference to the importance of exercise, particularly walking.  You know how important that is, of course, and that the safest place to do your walking short of a lovely, tree-filled park is a sidewalk.

But perhaps you had not thought about the potential certain areas of the sidewalk have for giving ordinary folks like you and me the opportunity to save lives and souls.  Yes, in case you had not guessed, I am talking about the sidewalk that stretches from one end to the other of property that houses abortion facilities.  And the people on that particular area of sidewalk who do life-saving, inspired work every single day the abortionist is open for business are known by many as side-walk counselors.

These people are, in my humble opinion, the true heroes of the pro-life movement.  They literally put their lives on the line for the children, and they do make a difference.  Just today I read the following from the Houston Coalition for Life (http://www.houstoncoalition.com//) :

Baby saved at Planned Parenthood!

10 days ago a mother and her unborn child were saved from the horror of abortion through the grace of God.  She responded to the Sidewalk Counselor present that morning who loving offered her an alternative.  She had the cash for the abortion in her purse and was reluctantly willing to go through with the procedure.  If the Stand & Pray volunteers and Sidewalk Counselors had not been there that morning, most likely she would have had the abortion.

On a fairly consistent basis women are sent away from Planned Parenthood for a free pregnancy test and Christian counseling when pro-lifers are present there.

Your presence in prayer and Sidewalk Counseling really does make a difference!    

This is but one of those inspiring vignettes that we are fortunate to see every single day, and this one single report is enough to explain why it is that we remain firm in our conviction and in our message that preborn children are human beings, people whose lives are equally valuable to those of their mothers and fathers … persons in every sense.

Sidewalk counseling is frequently overlooked as a valid activity in which anyone, including an entire family with children can cooperate.  All you need to do the task is the willingness to sacrifice your time for life, the desire to be a representative Christ on the sidewalk near an abortion facility and the understanding that the words you speak may save a life just as certain as your prayerful presence there will touch the hearts of many.  We do not know this because people come up and explain that we have made a difference by our prayerful presence and our words of love; we know this because we understand that by example we are providing others with a chance to see, hear and know in their hearts the truth that abortion is an act of murder.

There is never a need to scream, to wave arms or to otherwise behave in a radically unchristian way.  There is always a need to rely on the Holy Spirit as you stand or walk, pray and talk.

I hope that my words will awaken in you a desire to know more about sidewalk counseling, the activity that helps us reach out to others who are weighted down with thoughts and desires that conflict with God’s call to love and cherish life.  There are some wonderful resources  on the Internet that can help you learn more about sidewalk counseling, how it’s done and where it happens.

Joe Scheidler’s Pro-Life Action League (http://prolifeaction.org/sidewalk/) has a packet entitled No Great Joy ad lots of neat information on their website as well.  I have heard that American Life League’s Baby Steps DVD (http://americanlifeleague.stores.yahoo.net/babystepsdvd.html)  is a powerful tool if you happen to have a hand held DVD player with you.  And Judith Fetrow has written a sidewalk counseling handbook which is online at http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10068.  If there is an abortion facility or a Planned Parenthood in your town, there is undoubtedly someone who can help you get started.  At Amerrican Life League’s Map Room (http://www.all.org/stopp/maps/)  you can find out right now if there is a Planned Parenthood in your town and which group is leading the sidewalk activities there.

Check it out and you will be on the way to saving babies, loving expectant mothers and witnessing to the truth that abortion is not an answer to a problem but a hellacious choice that is indeed an act of murder.

I encourage you to let your very being become an instrument in the hand of God!  Exercise for the soul is by far the most beneficial kind of workout, don’t you agree!