Blog-prolifeletters

LAUREN RICHARDSON -- YOU CAN HELP!

2008-05-07T19:40:00Z

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.

STEM CELLS, BISHOPS and SLOPPY LANGUAGE

2008-05-04T19:34:00Z

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.

American Airlines’ Misguided Charity

2008-05-03T19:29:00Z

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

2008-05-01T19:25:00Z

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!

THE NUMBERS GAME: PREBORN BABIES ARE LOSING

2008-04-30T19:20:00Z

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?

AT YALE WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?

2008-04-28T18:48:00Z

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.

MAN’S ARROGANT PROPOSALS OR GOD’S PERFECT PLAN?

2008-04-27T18:56:00Z

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?

TWINS DIE BUT THEIR MURDER MAY NOT BE A CRIME

2008-04-26T18:44:00Z

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 PHILOSOPHICAL SPLIT OR ABSENCE OF LOGIC … WHAT DO YOU THINK?

2008-04-25T18:38:00Z

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?

SIDEWALKS RENDER OPPORTUNITIES FAR GREATER THAN WALKING OFF POUNDS

2008-04-24T17:20:00Z

http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10068

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!

Margaret Sanger’s Dirty Little Secret

2008-04-24T00:21:00Z

I recently came across a letter from the president of the National Lawyer’s Association (http://www.nla.org/presidents_message_current.asp). Her name is Rebecca Messall and her message is one that is rarely heard but profoundly important.

She takes up the subject of eugenics, the history of the American Eugenics Society and the “personnel overlap with Margaret Sanger’s birth control organizations and legislation.” The reason I found this of particular interest is because not since our own expose and historical treatment of the American Eugenics Society have I seen such a forthright analysis of the real purpose behind Margaret Sanger’s activities – elimination of the black community.

You see when we published Katherine O’Keefe’s article on the history of the American Eugenics Society (http://www.all.org/abac/contents.txt) we repeated a few facts that are not well known among our citizenry but are certainly undeniable if one takes the chance to study history. For example, O’Keefe writes:

“Eugenics is a concept familiar to Americans as an overarching policy consideration of the Third Reich. ‘Eugenics’ subsumes such notions as racial purity, racial superiority, and the heritability of intelligence, virtue, or vice. Although Hitler is its most notorious proponent, eugenic thinking has been a prominent strand in Western intellectual history since the 1860's, when Darwin's disciple, Francis Galton, began to put about the idea that the governing classes of England ought to take it upon themselves to guide the development of the human genetic heritage. A good history of these early days of eugenic thinking can be found in The Legacy of Malthus by Allen Chase. A good short discussion of the early days of eugenics can be found in Aristotle to Zoos by Peter Medawar, a member of the English Eugenics Society. He quotes Galton, as follows:

"I do not see why any insolence of caste should prevent the gifted class, when they had the power, from treating their compatriots with all kindness, so long as they maintained celibacy. But if these continued to procreate children inferior in moral, intellectual and physical qualities, it is easy to believe the time may come when such persons would be considered as enemies to the State, and to have forfeited all claims to kindness." (Fraser's Magazine 7[1873] quoted in Aristotle to Zoos., Peter and Jean Medawar, 1983 p. 87)

Margaret Sanger ascribed to these theories early on in her work which had a chilling focus. As she wrote, "Those least fit to carry on the race are increasing most rapidly ... Funds that should be used to raise the standard of our civilization are diverted to maintenance of those who should never have been born."

In other words, the only way to end financial support for the needy is to eliminate the needy.

As time has gone by it has become more and more difficult to help people understand why these theories are not only still with us but are perhaps nearly palatable to far too many in government, academia and public policy positions. You see, as Messall points out,

“It is not lost on most of us that the government’s insistence on providing pervasive access to the pill in minority communities does in fact help spread AIDS and other infectious diseases by facilitating high-risk relationships.”

Messall is correct and she is echoing the same thoughts of many pro-life leaders within the black community who are rarely heard but who persist in spite of the cultural resistance their message encounters these days.

A long time ago African-American pro-life leader, Rev. Johnny Hunter, became so incensed by the utter lack of understanding among blacks regarding Planned Parenthood’s true goals that he started a program called the “Say-So” March (http://blackgenocide.org/sayso.html) The purpose of the activity was to draw attention to the devastating effects that the disproportionate number of abortions within the black community are having on the black family and in particular black fathers. For as you know though only 12 percent of Americans are black, expectant black mothers acquire 33% of all abortions in America.

This too is but another sign of the eugenic underpinnings of the Planned Parenthood agenda.

It would serve the people of our nation well to pay a little more attention to the work cited in Messall’s excellent letter, in which she concludes her plea to end public funding for birth prevention by reminding us of the high cost of ignoring the facts with regard to the practice of eugenics in our nation today:

“… Planned Parenthood and the American Eugenics Society have cost our country 50 million aborted-American lives, plus the lives of the aborteds' children (another 20 million? 30 million?), plus the lives of those who were never conceived because of being prevented. Considering the Biblical scale of this human loss -- which, I add here, has landed disproportionately on blacks and other minorities --- and considering that the Congress and the Courts have propped it up for all these years, the first step is surely to stop the flow of federal funding.”

If you would like to join with us in ending the practice of eugenics, then sign the petition Stop Planned Parenthood International is circulating. The petition calls for an end to the use of our tax-payer dollars to eliminate minorities including preborn children who are the most threatened minority in the history of mankind. (http://www.stopplannedparenthoodtaxfunding.com/)

IS YOUR CHILD HAPPY WITH HIS/HER GENDER?

2008-04-22T00:25:00Z

Sometimes headlines jump off the page and you wonder whether or not they are designed to suck you into a story that has nothing whatsoever to do with the headline! I have had that happen and perhaps you have as well. So I was quite curious when I found the new report, “Children’s hospital launches sex change for kids program.” (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62010)

I was positive that what I was about to read would be far less sensational than what the headline suggested. That was my first error in judgment. The story is enough to make one stop and think about what sort of steps one could take to shield little children from the hedonistic concepts that have clearly invaded every aspect of childhood development.

From the decision to make prescription birth control pills available at King Middle School in Maine (http://wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=106&sid=1389583) to the announcement from Boston’s Children’s Hospital, it is clear that any aspect of childhood that can be assaulted will be by the social planners who believe that a sexually saturated society is good for everyone. Why else would we be reading about such travesties as I have mentioned above?

Don’t want to believe it? Well, here are a few facts direct from Boston. As a matter of fact they come from comments made by author and columnist Pagan Kennedy, a woman who wrote a biography of Michael Dillon entitled “The First Man-made Man” which is subtitled “The Story of Two Sex Changes, One Love Affair, and a Twentieth-Century Medical Revolution.” (http://forum.wgbh.org/wgbh/forum.php?lecture_id=3395)

Kennedy, an apologist for this new surgical adventure for pre-pubescent children says “Little boys sob unless they’re allowed to wear dresses. The girls want to be called Luke, Ted or James.” She goes on to say that “Until recently, children with cross-gender feelings rarely received modern medical care – and certainly not hormone shots. After all, who would allow a child to redesign his or her body?”

My first thought was, who would? The answer is obviously that parent would. And they do.

Dr. Spack goes into a little more detail in the article I read, but I think you are getting the idea and I need not belabor the point. The question I have about this is woven into the questions American Life League’s Stop Planned Parenthood International has been asking for years now. What is it about sexuality that invites the secular world to experiment on every kind of personal invasion anyone could imagine? These are the very same people who spend an inordinate amount of time denying the truth about God’s gift of sexuality, the value of purity and the dignity of the human person?

If it’s not the use of the book, “It’s Perfectly Normal” (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39498) it’s passing out birth control to preteens or its inviting children to search out their “inner self” which m ay not result in finding the gender you thought you were!

As Mass Resistance (http://www.massresistance.org/), a citizens’ group in Massachusetts, opposed to this surgery has said of Dr. Spack’s clinic, “We don't think that demonic is too strong a word to describe this. It brings us thoughts of the Nazi doctors who thought they were doing good things. “

We’d have to agree. The evil one is working overtime against children of all ages, from the time their life begins onward. May the Lord grant each of us the strength to remain vigilant.

FIRE BILL MAHER

2008-04-20T23:00:00Z

When we launched our new website, www.firebillmaher.com, we had no idea that it would create so much interest! In fact we had gotten the web site up just hours before Mr. Maher was allegedly going to apologize for the tragic comments he made about Pope Benedict XVI and the Catholic Church.

I suppose that you heard about them, but in case you did not know what Mr. Maher said on April 11, here is a précis for you:

Bill Maher called the Catholic Church "a child-abusing religious cult."
Bill Maher lied when he said Pope Benedict "used to be a Nazi."
Bill Maher said the Catholic Church is "the Bear Stearns of organized pedophilia."
Bill Maher libelously alleged that before becoming Pope, Benedict "wrote a letter instructing every Catholic bishop to keep the sex abuse of minors secret until the statute of limitations ran out."
Bill Maher said that the Catholic Church's attitude is "We're here, we're queer, get used to it."

The videotape of his rant, which lasted 3 minutes, is on the website noted above.

So last Friday night everyone watched (well, not everyone because most of us had already cancelled our HBO subscriptions) hoping that a humble statement would be forthcoming. Well, forget it!

As we point out in our Saturday press release, (http://www.all.org/newsroom_releases.php?PHPSESSID=413fc81972de3b924b4e5d03041fad5e) Maher is recalcitrant. He did not apologize, but rather used the moment to pour more scathing commentary onto what is already a disastrous, not to mention unacceptable situation. We have no alternative other than to continue to recruit organizations to join with us in demanding that Maher be fired, and to do all we can to expose this hate speech for precisely what it is … anti-catholic bigotry of the worst kind.

I note that William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, said today that “We accept Maher’s apology for accusing the pope of being a Nazi. Too bad he didn’t stop there….It would be great if Maher gave up his Catholic-bashing obsession once and for all.” (http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1424)

We at American Life League invite Mr. Donohue to join with us. While we, for obvious reasons, did not accept a single word of Maher’s non-apology, we would welcome the Catholic League’s assistance in our campaign to see that Maher is taken off the air … period.

So please, if you know people who subscribe to HBO, urge them to cancel their subscription. They can take the money they save and donate it to a pro-life cause.

Ask them to visit www.firebillmaher.com and sing the petition.

Ask them to pray that Time-Warner gets the message and has the decency to remove Maher from the airwaves sooner rather than later.

TIME WARNER: BILL MAHER HAS TO GO!

2008-04-16T22:57:00Z

Remember the flap over Don Imus when he made a crude comment about the Rutgers University women’s basketball team? (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/12/national/main2675273.shtml) You would have thought he had insulted the highest dignitary in the world. Of course his remarks were totally out of line, and never should have been made. On that we all agree. But at the time I thought the flap was totally disproportionate to the actual event. It was hard not to miss the uproar; the discussion of his inappropriate comments went worldwide. It took Imus a long time to recover, and he’s still offensive, but he hasn’t got a thing on HBO’s Bill Maher.

Imus got worldwide exposure and a pink slip; Maher has gotten a free ride … at least so far.

I am so flabbergasted at the nearly silent media when it comes to one of their own hurling hateful comments at Pope Benedict XVI just days before his arrival on American soil. One of Maher’s remarks, the only one I would even quote, was this: “If you have a few hundred followers and you let some of them molest children, they call you a cult leader. If you have a billion, they call you pope.”

How dare he! But then again, the media has, for the most part, ignored Maher because perhaps they too regard the Holy Father with something akin to pure, unadulterated hatred.

The point has to be made, though, that some of those making comments in defense of the Holy Father might as well have been in a closet somewhere in Africa, because media attention simply does not exist. That is except for Bill O’Reilly’s brilliant assessment, (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351454,00.html ).

As O’Reilly pointed out, “can you imagine if Maher had castigated a Jewish or Muslim leader like that? Or if he had branded a minority group with that kind of description? The American media would slaughter him.”

Robert Knight of the Culture and Media Institute said “Anti-religious zealots in the media have a field day every time a Pope visits the United States. They showcase self-described Catholic dissidents who would perform an Oprahfication on the church or they give time to vile, hateful celebrities like Bill Maher, who delight in offending millions.” (http://www.cultureandmedia.com/press/2008/PR04142008MaherLibelsPope.pdf)

Kristen Fyfe wrote in her excellent Townhall column entitled “Bill Maher Slanders Pope Benedict XVI,”

“Maher’s anti-Catholic, anti-religion rhetoric is part of his schtick as a comedian. It has also been given a very public platform, first by ABC and now by Time Warner and HBO. Offensive material like this is also the cornerstone upon which Maher will build the publicity machine for his upcoming “anti-religion documentary” Religulous, due to be released in theaters in July.

His agenda in all of this is clear: to tear down religious belief and believers. In so doing he attacks a clear majority of Americans and a foundation of American society. When confronted by the Catholic League on why it continues to give Maher air time, HBO stated that Maher’s anti-Catholic remarks were a matter of “creative freedom.” One wonders if HBO would be so sanguine if Maher’s vitriol was regularly aimed at Muslims.”

For those who were not aware that Maher has made a series of attacks on the Catholic Church over the past several years, you will find Fyfe’s documentation of those verbal assaults more than interesting. Anti-Catholicism is nothing new for Maher.

As you can see, those who have found fault with Maher’s total disrespect and salacious attitude are not going to be heard to the extent that folks like you and I would like, which is why American Life League has decided to lead the fight to attain the firing of Mr. Maher!

We will be running full page ads; we will be distributing petitions asking Americans of all faiths to demand the dismissal of the religious bigot, Mr. Bill Maher, and we are asking everyone to unsubscribe to HBO and let Time Warner know the reason why. We will not have an impact on media giant Time Warner until it feels the heat in its wallet! So please, take the following actions:

*Cancel your subscription to HBO and tell them why

*Write or call Time Warner, demanding that Maher be fired:

Warner Inc.

One Time Warner Center

New York, NY 10019

Phone 212.484.8000

*Go to the Media Research Center action site and email Time Warner: http://www.mrcaction.org/511/email_form.asp?CID=506&RID=9601289

American Life League will not stop encouraging people to take action until the hierarchy at Time Warner is uncomfortable enough to cancel Maher’s reign of disrespect for Christ and His vicar on earth is over.

SAVIOR SIBLING or HUMAN CHATTEL … you decide

2008-04-15T22:54:00Z

A recent news item from Vancouver, British Columbia arrived in my “in box” from a fellow pro-lifer who has been battling the culture of death in Canada for many years. Somehow he knew that American Life League, and perhaps me in particular, should see this devastating story.

Mike and Pam Obadia (http://www.nationalpost.com/related_links/story.html?id=4402530 have an eight-year-old son who is suffering from acute lymphoblastic leukemia. It has been determined by Canadian doctors that a bone marrow transplant might improve his chances, but the sad fact is that no one in the family has a match.

This is what prompted the Obadias to investigate the possibility of going through an in vitro fertilization process for the express purpose of creating a human embryo whose cells would match their son’s. The idea is that the IVF specialists would create several embryos, put each of them through a preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) test, and transfer only the one that matches the little boy into the mother’s uterus. If this were to actually occur one can assume that the rest of the human embryonic children would be disposed of in some way since the parents are only interested in having the one baby who can become the “savior” for the eight-year-old son.

I am not suggesting that these parents have even thought this through and realize that each of the human embryos “created” in the process they seek to have done would in fact be one of their children. I doubt that such information has been provided to them and I seriously doubt that it ever would be. These parents are desperate to do what they can for their son, and those who make money by making promises over the dead bodies of embryonic children have no ethics to begin with or they would not offer such a “service.”

It is of great interest to me that the Canadian doctors will not do this because of the ethical and moral problems that such a process would create. But the Obadias have found a willing laboratory in Chicago, Illinois. For $30,000 U.S. the experts at the Reproductive Genetics Institute (http://reproductivegenetics.com/) will be happy to oblige the Obadias even though they know that because Mrs. Obadiah is 47 years old, the chances her eggs being cabable of being feretilzed are very small indeed. The Institute specializes in genetic testing, in vitro fertilization and related practices such as the PGD testing that would provide the Obadias with a possible “match.”

If Mrs. Obabia’s pregnancy came to fruition, she has told the media that she and her husband would welcome the baby as they have always wanted another child. God bless her for that. ,But the risks to her are enormous as well since she is already 47 years old. So there is nothing simple about this case, which as far as I can tell, is fraught with ethical landmines.

The thing that troubles me the most about this sad story is the view that these parents have toward a possible “savior” for their young son. I learned a long time ago that there is nothing ethical about preimplantation genetic diagnosis. In fact Professor Dianne Irving, in her article “Gnostic Soup": Pagan fertility gods, IVF, Hollywood, cloning/genetic engineering, bioethics, transhumanism, libertarians, drugs, eugenics, etc.(http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_108gnosticsoup.html) explains that “Liberal eugenics is the study and use of genetic engineering to improve human beings, specifically in regards to biological characteristics and capacities. ... Reprogenetics is a term referring to the merging of reproductive medicine and genetics technologies expected to happen in the near future as techniques like preimplantation genetic diagnosis become more available and more powerful. “

The future that Professor Irving describes in this chilling account is actually happening right now, and whether or not the Obadias realize it, they are in some way being victimized by the current attitudes of the genetic engineering cartel that children are mere chattel and that families have a right to order the perfect baby, get rid of those who are genetically perfect and use these embryonic children for a myriad of purposes that rob each of them if their human dignity.

Though my heart breaks for the family and their dilemma, my hope and prayer is that as they do more research into the macabre science that has enabled families like them to choose only those embryonic children that meet a certain specification, they will realize that this is not the ethical way to discover treatment for their son.

In the meantime, I invite you to join me in praying for a miracle for the Obadiah family. Let us pray that God in His mercy will protect the family from becoming yet another statistic that Frankenstein-like reproductive specialists like the Reproductive Genetics Institute will use to raise more money and charge more money for making the science available to help couples have special-order children whose siblings will wind up in the trash.

YUMA TAKES A STAND … AGAINST THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY

2008-04-14T22:51:00Z

It is with the deepest admiration that I come to you with a story that makes me wish there were more heroic people like Susan Crump and Javier Negrete in our world. Perhaps, once you read this story, you will either let me know that you are equally as zealous to expose evil, or you know somebody who is doing it right now. Either way, the preborn children win when we expose what many people are still totally unaware of.

Case in point: the American Cancer Society ACS) (www.cancer.org) . Many Americans have not been told or have not discovered that ACS favors human embryonic stem cell research, denies the connection between breast cancer and abortion and provides grants to Planned Parenthood (http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10161#35)

The good people of Yuma, Arizona’s pro-life community were taken aback when they wrote to the ACS and queried them, hoping that the information on our web site would be found to be in error. But such was not the case.

In fact the ACS representative sent an email to one diligent pro-lifer in which the statement was made:

In regards to the Planned Parenthood grant, in 2006 and 2007, the Midwest
Division of the American Cancer Society funded $8,000 in two Cancer Control
grants to Planned Parenthood of Iowa. The grants are exclusively for the
implementation of a smoking cessation program, and were only used to train
clinic staff to provide smoking cessation assistance to patients and
pregnant women. The program was a success, becoming the top source of health
provider calls to Iowa's Quitline, a free program to reduce smoking-the
number one cause of preventable death in the U.S.-in that state.

What is strange about this is that if the American Cancer Society were doing due diligence with its donors’ money, it would have realized that providing grants to controversial organizations like Planned Parenthood, regardless of the reason, is simply going to cause havoc in the community. For every dollar that ACS provides to Planned Parenthood frees up a dollar for the Planned Parenthood sexual saturation agenda. Thus without realizing it perhaps, ACS is supporting all of the bad things Planned Parenthood is foisting on our children.

Did I say “due diligence?” Well, here is another paragraph from that email:

The breadth and depth of American Cancer Society research and patient
programs are possible because of unparalleled community-based support that
includes many Americans of diverse faith and moral traditions. The American
Cancer Society respects personal beliefs and continues to serve as the
nation's most trusted cancer organization. Planned Parenthood and many other
organizations have broad constituent bases and solid networks that help us
reach key audiences with potentially lifesaving information.

So one is left thinking that either the author of the email, who is a trusted executive with the American Cancer Society, is either living in a cocoon or buys into the entire Planned Parenthood agenda. Such laudatory words would never come from someone who is the least bit offended by Planned Parenthood’s brand of “moral tradition.”

As you can imagine, the fur started to fly in Yuma. One wonderful leader emailed her entire membership to let them know that with a heavy heart she had withdrawn from the Relay. She explained why and assured them that by reading the email she had received from ACS they would understand her decisions.

Another, Javier Negrete, local head of the Knights of Columbus, pulled out all his troops for the very same reason. And as far as I can tell the excitement will not ebb anytime soon. These people have proven, by their commitment to principle and their dedication to fact-finding that when something doesn’t exactly smell right, it is best to get the facts and then act, act in defense of life and truth.

At American Life League our hats are off to Susan, Javier and all the wonderful pro-life people of Yuma! Just as Kit Carson put Yuma on the map during the days of the Wild West, so today the pro-life community of Yuma is blazing a trail that I hope and pray will become an example for the entire nation.

MAYBE ABORTION REALLY ISN’T MURDER AFTER ALL!

2008-04-09T22:45:00Z

There was a comment in the Argus Leader (a South Dakota newspaper) that deeply troubles me. In the article we are told (http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080406/NEWS/804060301/1001/news) “South Dakota is joined by other states trying to either rein in abortion with stringent requirements or to creatively outflank it.”

The article discusses various ways of wording language within a proposed law or ballot measure that will permit abortion in a limited number of cases. For example, in Missouri the idea is to limit abortion to instances where “the procedure is necessary to prevent imminent death or serious medical risks.”

My first reaction to such mumbo-jumbo is to ask: “How do you think an abortionist will interpret this?” My answer: “Easily. He will kill as many as he likes.”

And that is why proposals that are flawed because they permit what they claim to oppose cause me nightmares.

This sort of thing has been going on for more than 35 years now. Many pro-life leaders and organizations have been strong proponents of exceptions for a wide variety of reasons. In some cases it is deemed to be politically advantageous. In others it is described as the prudent thing to do. And in still others we are told that the public is not ready for a no-exceptions proposal or that the timing is not right for banning all abortion!

But such arguments are inane and the proposals that come out of such thinking are fraught with problems, not for pro-lifers but for preborn children. If we are going to state that we know that a preborn child is a human being, then it does not follow that we would, in the next breath, defend proposals that permit the killing of some of these children.

Professor Charles Rice argues that “every time a pro-lifer proposes a law that would tolerate the execution of some unborn children, his pro-life rhetoric is drowned out by the loud and clear message of his action, that he concedes that the law can validly tolerate the intentional killing of innocent human beings.” (http://www.uffl.org/vol%205/wolfe5.pdf)

Political science professor Christopher Wolf’s opinion on this is as follows: “The simple fact of the law is itself profoundly important. No matter how carefully the law is framed in words that respect the ideal of the sanctity of human life, compromise legislation still has as its bottom line the toleration of some abortions. And people being the way they are, some, perhaps many, will conclude from the fact that an act is not illegal that it is not immoral.” (http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5257)

A very dear friend of mine, Marie Dietz, who has gone to her eternal reward, once wrote a marvelous brochure for us entitled “When it Comes to Abortion Bans: Exceptions Break the Rule.” (http://www.all.org/article.php?id=1006) In that little tract, she wisely instructs:

These exceptions are being sold to the pro-life movement as "smart politics" which will save some babies, arguments which appeal both to the politicians among us and to those in the movement who feel the death of these babies in the very depths of our souls.

But William Buckley, writing about the abortion debate in National Review (11122189), injects a dose of reality: "The positions of such as Mario Cuomo, Patrick Moynihan, and Edward Kennedy remind us that the temptation to be guided by political considerations not only shapes our public declarations, but tends to calcify our consciences. " (Emphasis added.)

And in The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis tells us that if we throw away the yardstick we no longer have anything by which to measure. If the pro-life movement throws away its moral yardstick by admitting, however tacitly, a "right" to abortion, by what standard will we measure the right to life of anyone?

I submit that ours is not a political movement. It is a moral movement brought into the political arena through no fault of our own. But if we are not a political movement, then politics cannot save us-or the babies.

I think it’s high time we thought about this with a little more contemplation and a whole lot less attention to polls, politics and pragmatism.

OF BURNING BUILDINGS, HOSTAGES and PREBORN BABIES

2008-04-08T22:43:00Z

Every political season we get around to the same old arguments, don’t we! The one I heard today is typical. A dear man wrote that he was concerned about people who appear to be “all or nothing” in their position on abortion, and that if he were stuck in a burning building, he surely would want someone to rush in and save him even if others might perish.

Well, of course each of us would, if in the same situation, want someone to save our life if at all possible. But the question here is whether or not that analogy, and others like it, actually applies to setting aside preborn children who are conceived in rape or incest or who are described as a threat to their mother’s life. I say this because when a preborn child is set aside within the context of an exception, that child’s life can be taken – killed by an act of abortion.

Supporters of exceptions to abortion often draw analogies to support their opinion. Such comparisons usually pose a question involving a rescue scenario. For instance, one analogy asks:

If you were negotiating with terrorists for the release of hostages, wouldn't you accept an offer to free only the women and children and then keep working to free the men?

The obvious answer is, yes, of course, anyone would accept the offer to release the women and children. As noted above, as long as one does not deny another person's right to life, it is better to save some lives than none.

Does such an analogy validate exceptions? No. All that such comparisons do is provide support for an incremental approach to stopping abortion.

In the hostage scenario, for example, the acceptance of the release of the women and children is consistent with a step-by-step approach to ending the crisis.

If the negotiator communicating with the terrorists were to employ the tactics used in exception bills, though, he would say something like, "Yes, we accept the women and children and will keep working for the release of all the innocent prisoners, but in the meantime, you won't be prosecuted if you kill any of the men."

Exceptions don't just prohibit certain abortions, they explicitly state that other abortions shall be legally permitted. They cannot be likened to running into a burning building to save as many lives as possible-unless one enters the building with the intention of saving only certain classes of people.

COMPOSITE OF EVIL

2008-04-07T22:39:00Z

Do you remember the first time you heard about the newest in automobiles? They are called “hybrids” and the idea behind them is that they run on a combination of two or more sources of energy. Most common we find the combination of an electric engine and a gas-powered engine. The idea is that the composite of the two produces a more fuel-efficient vehicle.

But there is another type of hybrid in the news lately that is not about fuel efficiency, but rather about macabre science. Recently researchers at Newcastle University in Britain created what they call a human-animal hybrid embryo. (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080402084829.p3iebwvy&show_article=1) I have to point out, immediately, that the research has not been published nor has it been verified, but it is disqueting none the less.

It is reported that the embryos were created by injecting DNA taken from human skin cells into eggs derived from cow ovaries – a composite. It is further claimed that nearly all of the genetic material from the cow eggs had been stripped away.

What is perhaps most interesting to me about this announcement is that it would seem scientific researchers are moving away from discussing such “creations” as chimeras, and toward the more politically correct word, hybrid.

So, you are asking, what is a chimera? Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chimera) defines the word as an individual, organ, or part consisting of tissues of diverse genetic constitution – a composite. But Webster also defines Chimera, which is capitalized in this use, as “a fire-breathing she-monster in Greek mythology having a lion's head, a goat's body, and a serpent's tail.” A composite!

It would seem that perhaps this second definition, which is actually the primary definition of the word, is why science has moved away from one word – chimera – and begun using a more acceptable word – hybrid. Be that as it may, what is now being researched, toyed with and otherwise proposed is despicable. It is a grotesque use of what was once a noble endeavor – scientific research.

As Cardinal Keith O’Brien, Archbishop of Edinburgh and leader of Scotland’s Catholic population wrote in a recent article, (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/avantgo/new.php?n=12240) “I think it is time we deployed a great deal more rigor when listening to the hype-filled claims of those who experiment upon and destroy human life at its most defenseless.” The Cardinal went on to make a point which I hope does not escape a single one of those in leadership in the pro-life movement and in the ethics-based scientific community:

“France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Australia have all banned the grotesque procedures we [the British] seek to legalize. Could it be that the citizens and politicians of those countries care nothing for the chronically ill among them?

“Or could it be that we are wrong and these democracies see no reason to attack the sanctity and dignity of human life when many alternatives exist?”

Cardinal O’Brien has a background in science and can be said to speak with authority, but it seems to me that common sense should be guiding all of us to the same conclusion. That conclusion is that a human being mixed in with a bovine creature – a composite – can only result in ethical chaos of the worst kind.

Let us hope that those in decision making positions in Britain and in America are listening, reflecting and deciding in favor of respect for human dignity and against “hybrid” creations that are not of the automotive kind.

HAVE WE BECOME WHAT WE HATE?

2008-04-05T22:17:00Z

I have just been in Colorado speaking for the Colorado for Equal Rights campaign for personhood. The wonderfully committed people involved with this effort need to collect at least 76,000 signatures by the first week of May. But in order to be certain that enough legitimate signatures are OKed by the state, their goal is 110,000. Though they have a way to go, their enthusiasm is high, their attitude is positive and the funds are slowly rolling in. It was a privilege to be with them and to help them and those who attended the events see the value of a drive toward personhood.

Among the leadership in the pro-life movement, Father Tom Euteneuer of Human Life International and I have endorsed the campaign, and we have been proud to do so.

Now compare this with the effort in South Dakota, Vote Yes for Life. This effort is focused on placing a ballot initiative before the people of South Dakota this November. The proposed law contains language that will permit abortion in cases of life of the mother, health of the mother, rape and incest. You can read the language of this initiative at http://www.voteyesforlife.com/docs/Petition.pdf.

We are told by proponents of the measure that the requirements attached to these exceptions are so stringent that the abuse of the permission to abort will be practically non existent—of course that will be for a court to decide.

Those pro-life leaders who have endorsed this measure include John Willke, M.D. of Life Issues Institute, Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life, David Bereit of 40 Days for Life and many others whose names and partial statements are also on the web site. One of the endorsers, Father Frank Pavone, wrote a statement in which he said:

The citizens of South Dakota have an amazingly simple and direct way to take the next good step in that direction. Right now, no unborn children in America are protected from abortion. To have most of them protected is a goal we are both permitted and required to work for. I urge churches in particular to put the full weight of their influence behind the VoteYesForLife.com campaign.

Please note that Father Frank does make the point that not all preborn babies will be protected, but most of them will be—at least that is the argument.

On the other hand, the Colorado proposal, which would indeed save all preborn children from the moment of creation and contains not a single exception has not been endorsed by any of these people. So I find myself asking, "What is wrong with this picture?"

Do we want to support initiatives at the state level that will provide a direct challenge to the Supreme Court and lower courts on the question of personhood, or do we want to represent these babies by working very hard to protect "most" of them and leave so many behind?

Recall what Justice Harry Blackmun told us in Roe v. Wade:

If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.

Further, Blackmun pointed out the contradiction in the Texas law that provided the Supreme Court with the opportunity to create Roe v. Wade, thus striking down all state laws that dealt with abortion. "If the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law," he asked rhetorically, "and if the mother's condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment's command?"

In other words, if you mean to end abortion, you cannot provide an exception that enables an abortion to be performed.

Again looking at the South Dakota initiative, I am left asking you, "What’s wrong with this picture?"

Judie Brown