Whether it's pro-life philosophy, activism or legislation, whether it's about a current topic or a situation pro-lifers face in their own lives and work, this is the place where we'll talk about it! Please forward any comments to me, Judie Brown. Thank you!
A LIFE WORTH LIVING? IT DEPENDS! Posted: Monday February 8, 2010 at 2:34 pm EST by Judie Brown
It is always interesting to follow the trends in other countries, particularly when the subject is ending the life of a loved one due to severe disability or serious illness. There have been two such cases in the news in England over the past week.
The first is the case of Frances Inglis, who was convicted of killing her 22-year-old brain-damaged son with a massive dose of heroin injected into his thighs and arm. During her trial, Inglis claimed her act was one of compassion, sensing that her son’s condition was not going to improve. Neither the judge nor the jury was moved, however, and Inglis was sentenced to life in prison for murdering her son.
A second case that received attention this past week is that of Kay Gilderdale, who was recently cleared of charges that she killed her 31-year-old daughter, Lynn. Suffering for 17 years from chronic fatigue illness, Lynn Gilderdale had tried to take her own life in the past. This last time, however, when her attempt to commit suicide failed, her mother took matters into her own hands and helped her daughter kill herself.
In December of 2008, Kay Gilderdale admittedly gave her daughter a massive dose of sleeping pills and antidepressants and she also injected air into her daughter’s veins. During her trial, Gilderdale stated, “You are torn apart. You have one part of you wanting to respect your daughter's wishes and understanding everything they have been through.”
It took the jury two hours to find Gilderdale innocent of killing her daughter. The ruling resounded in the pro-life community with shock, not only in the United Kingdom, but in the United States as well. This is evidenced by the comments of several people who blogged on the British web site, the Guardian. One individual, “mariagorgeous,” claimed that there was nothing wrong with Gilderdale’s actions, and argued that there is no evidence to indicate that a “slippery slope” is evident when people like Gilderdale are not sentenced for a crime. In response, William Toffler, M.D., National Director of Physicians for Compassionate Care Education Foundation, wrote,
Mariagorgeous questions the concept of a "slippery slope" and charges that those opposing assisted suicide "don't offer a shred of evidence that this is the case". Apparently she is not aware of the Dutch experience where two separate government studies (1990 and 1995) document approximately 1000 patients each year who lives are ended "without request." [Hendin H, Rutenfrans C Zylicz Z. Physician Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in the Netherlands. JAMA. 1997; 277: 1720–1722]
In one such case, a patient with breast cancer who specifically did not want her life to be taken by euthanasia had her life ended by her physician who justified ending her life stating, "It could have taken another week before she died. I just needed this bed."
Furthermore, as a practicing physician in Oregon, I have witnessed increasing callousness toward those who have a limited prognosis. Such was the case with Barbara Wagner, a retired school bus driver who in 2008 had recurrence of her lung cancer. She wanted the medical treatment recommended by her medical oncologist--a drug, Tarceva, produced by Genentech. The Oregon Health Plan wouldn't cover the drug, deeming it too expensive for a person who statistically would have less than a 5% chance of living for five more years. In the same letter to Barbara denying her the treatment she wanted, the state offered her full coverage for assisted suicide!
There is no doubt that proponents of such acts do not perceive any harm in them, nor do they think that opposition to them is justified. It is quite clear that more and more citizens are in agreement, which is why those in favor of such acts are making progress not only when it comes to the severely disabled, but with those who are elderly or seriously ill.
One way to reduce spending is to move the incurably ill into palliative care. Hospice is beloved for offering pain relief, comfort, and spiritual and emotional support to the dying, mostly from cancer. But hospice spreads its wings more broadly under health reform. Medicare will offer its services free to patients not on their deathbed but in slow, irreversible decline due to failing hearts, lungs, brains, or immune systems. This can be dicey: It's hard to say, as hospice does now, that death is not accelerated when patients with end-stage lung disease get morphine or those with advanced Parkinson's receive sleep-inducing drugs for so-called terminal sedation. To some, this is a humane choice that also conserves resources. To others, it is slow euthanasia.
Clearly, what lies ahead is not your parents' Medicare but something new. A place where government will trump doctors, and it will be sold as safer, better, less wasteful care.
Note, please, that in the scenario Dr. Healy is suggesting, it would be a legitimate part of health care reform to take actions similar to those of Inglis and Gilderdale. The startling difference would be that such actions would not be crimes, but rather incorporated into the national framework of a “right to privacy.” Obviously, helping someone die sooner than later would be clinically practiced as part of a larger cost saving program as well. It’s rather interesting that Dr. Healy would mention such things as terminal sedation, since this is the very type of problem that has been publicly debated by many for years. It, as with any medical practice, can be abused or totally legitimized for the wrong reasons. Think about abortion.
Writer Mary Ann Kreitzer recently expounded on the subject based on the personal account of what a friend experienced when her father was killed by terminal sedation, calling it "abortion for the elderly."
While it is clear that we pro-life apologists cannot condemn sedation across the board, it is equally obvious that some degree of prudential judgment—that has nothing whatsoever to do with cost saving or utilitarianism—has to come into practice. As Eric Chevlen, M.D. and pain control expert, recently told Wesley J. Smith:
In close to 30 years of practicing oncology and palliative care, I have treated hundreds of patients with opioids to relieve pain, accepting some level of sedation as an unavoidable side effect rather than the goal of therapy. But I can recall only a handful of times in which I felt that the best way I could reduce the patient’s suffering was to intentionally diminish his level of consciousness.
In addition, British oncologist Karol Sikora, M.D., wrote,
In all my 37 years as a cancer doctor, I have never had a patient who asked for euthanasia. In my line of work, it is not an issue. People don't want to die. And, usually, we can make patients comfortable, thanks to modern drugs.
Registered nurse Nancy Valko has warned of the abuses that come about when actions once believed to be criminal in nature are slowly introduced into the practice of medicine as simple steps that can “help” the suffering patient and his family. In her article, “Is Palliative Sedation Becoming Another Form of Euthanasia?”, she defines the strategy of the euthanasia movement this way:
As assisted suicide bills have regularly failed in state legislatures in the years since Oregon passed its assisted suicide law, euthanasia supporters have had to change tactics, although not their ultimate goal of choosing death as a constitutional right. The outreach to medical groups like hospice and palliative care organizations is particularly disturbing.
Euthanasia supporters have been successful in getting some medical and nursing groups to change their official positions from opposition to assisted suicide/euthanasia to neutrality on the issue. And now, almost all of the mainstream media accepts death by withdrawal of treatment as humane and legal for the severely brain-injured. It was just a matter of time before that vulnerable group of people expanded to include people with lesser disabilities and now even the fully conscious but terminally or "hopelessly" ill person.
But as everyone really knows, it is virtually impossible to starve and dehydrate to death painlessly. The idea of terminal sedation to make such a death possible thus becomes essential to the process.
[State legislative proposals] are not only incremental steps to the goal of legalizing euthanasia. They are also a crucial part of the effort of "right-to-die" groups to reeducate the public, especially doctors and nurses. … When an induced coma with self-starvation and dehydration is seen as proper medical treatment for anyone, the whole rationale of ethical health care is turned on its head.
When medically vulnerable people are given the option of a legal, doctor-assisted premature death, can we be surprised when we discover that none of us is permanently safe from the same fate?
When is a life worth living? It depends …
In a society where the human dignity of each individual without exception is respected in the law and the culture, such a question would not even be asked.
TIM TEBOW: TOUCHDOWN FOR LIFE! Posted: Friday February 5, 2010 at 10:31 am EST by Judie Brown
Super Bowl Sunday is upon us, and all of us at American Life League are thrilled about it; not only because many of us love football, but because we are looking forward to two people who have shown the courage and fortitude that accompanies leadership grounded in God’s will. Of course, I am talking about Pam Tebow and her Heisman trophy-winning son, Tim.
The firestorm of controversy surrounding Focus on the Family’s Super Bowl ad featuring Tim and Pam has had an unexpected effect on the public, particularly among those committed to abortion. I suppose they never expected what has happened over the past week or so, but isn’t it about time?
To recap, on January 15, Focus on the Family announced the ad. Jim Daly, president of FOF said, "Tim and Pam share our respect for life and our passion for helping families thrive. They live what we see every day – that the desire for family closeness is written on the hearts of every generation. Focus on the Family is about nurturing that desire and strengthening families by empowering them with the tools they need to live lives rooted in morals and values."
Once the public got word of this, and the news began to spread, the pro-aborts came out of the woodwork, demanding all sorts of things, starting with a call for CBS to refuse the ad. As Los Angeles Times reporter Tim Rutten wrote, the ad “really comes down to a question of taste and civility. You don't talk politics at the Thanksgiving table, and you really ought to be able to watch a football game without being confronted with another person's views on abortion, or the treatment of veal calves.”
Describing the ad as “proselytizing,” Rutten decries it, but clearly misses the point. The Tebows are talking about affirming life, not politics. This is undoubtedly why CBS stood by their decision to run the ad. But the actual reason behind the pro-abortion hoopla is clear, isn’t it? Anytime a well-known public figure focuses on the dignity of the human person, the media goes into overdrive attempting to dismiss such affirmation as mere political rhetoric. Tragic, but on the other hand, it’s to be expected.
In this case, however, the press overplayed their hand. When the Washington Post chose to run a commentary by pro-abortion feminists Frances Kissling and Kate Michelman, they exposed the public to the truth. Perhaps not intending to do so, the newspaper gave a voice to history and revived incredible links between the Tebow family and the New York Giants. As Kissling and Michelman went to great lengths to explain what the culture of death advocates should learn from the Tebow ad placement, they inadvertently shed light not only on the successful strategy of Focus on the Family but the ad’s precursor, Champions for Life, an American Life League production unveiled in 1989 and featuring 1987 Super Bowl heroes, the New York Giants. Among those professing their pro-life convictions without apology is Phil Simms, who as it turns out will be one of the Super Bowl announcers this Sunday. Simms has already told the media that he agrees with Tebow. While this is not surprising to us, it probably is to those who do not know how Champions for Life came to be.
Post reporter David Waters tells the story best:
The year before Tebow was born, New York Giants owner Wellington Mara formed Athletes for Life, which led to production of a bold pro-life video featuring six members of the 1986[-87] Super Bowl champion Giants, including quarterback Phil Simms. Before he died in 2005, Mara became an outspoken board member of the anti-abortion American Life League. "I would like to urge the leaders of our business and professional communities to commit their time, their talents and their treasures to further the cause of the American Life League," Mara said in 1990.
Champions for Life was indeed a historic first in pro-life history, and it is with a joyful heart that all of us at American Life League welcome Tim Tebow and his mother to that elite group of witnesses to life who, even though in the public eye, never apologize for their pro-life convictions. This is as it should be, after all, in a democracy.
Oh yes, and then there is the feminist element to all of this, the reason why the Post opened an unexpected door to excellent coverage for Focus on the Family, American Life League and heroic sports figures. Responding to Kissling and Michelman, American Life League Communications Director Katie Walker put it all in proper perspective. Writing for the Washington Post, she opined,
The excitement surrounding CBS' decision to run a pro-life ad featuring star college quarterback Tim Tebow and his mother during Sunday's Super Bowl is the latest in a series of signs that the pro-life movement is in and the abortion rights movement is on its way out.
And now Tebow, the nation's most popular college football player, is joining the list of pro-life celebrity advocates. What's happening?
Pam Tebow might have the answer. On February 7, tens of millions of Americans will hear a 30-second version of the love story of a mother risking her own life against doctors' recommendations so that her son might live. Pam's story speaks to love, courage, selflessness and the dignity of the human person. It is every mother's story, to a greater or lesser degree, and for young women like me, it's what true femininity is about.
By contrast, the feminist, pro-abortion movement has spent the past 50 years selling a philosophy that is simply unappealing to today's young women. Abortion rights leaders such as Frances Kissling and Kate Michelman just don't get it.
Feminist leaders would have us "Make the 'choice' that's right for you," but that sort of me-first mentality merely produced a generation of self-absorbed, Xanax-popping corporate climbers.
"You not only can, but should do everything men can do and more," we were told growing up. But the result is a generation of exhausted Super Women struggling to do it all and losing themselves in the process.
As Kissling and Michelman stated in their recent commentary in The Washington Post, "abortion is as tough and courageous a decision as is the decision to continue a pregnancy." Women my age have seen too many women make that "courageous" abortion decision and suffer the emotional, physical and spiritual anguish.
So what do young women want? Human rights for all human beings for starters.
Today's young women are rejecting the selfishness of the feminist "me-first" paradigm and embracing the "other." We are embracing a rational, compassionate and selfless call for civil rights -- not just for me, not just for woman, but for every human being. Until all human beings -- including those in the womb -- are recognized as persons under law, any effort for true justice will be undermined. Young women want human personhood and they want it now.
The feminist philosophy young women have been force-fed by the media, by pop culture and by our education system for 50 years has failed in one critical way. It has not and could not dispel the searing images of the 20th century from our brains. It could not convince us that a me-first approach to life was somehow going to safeguard us from another Holocaust, from more racism, more lynchings, more genocide. It could not and will not be able to marry selfishness and love.
We've seen so much pain and suffering, and we yearn for justice. We've seen the pain, death and hatred bred by "make the choice that's right for you," and so we are drawn to the example of Pam Tebow, who 22 years ago in the Philippines chose selflessness, love and justice.
Great job Katie. Also was wonderful to see Champions of Life. Gives a great boost to new Decade For Life. Here is an article I wroteon how CBS scores touchdown for Tim Tebow???s pro life message
---Most supporters of abortion rights will provide a litany of reasons,
rationales and explanations for the termination of a life. Yet in the
midst of the Reagan era a decision was made by a mother and a father
that would go against the grain of accepted public practice...
http://tinyurl.com/yh3kkwc Kevin Fobbs | February 6, 2010
I, as we wait for a Supreme Court reversal of Roe v. Wade, we all could lend a hand to lift the poor, the homeless, the marginalized, the immigrant, the needy, if we could say 'No' to war, then we would be coming closer to a culture of life. frank McGinty | February 7, 2010
http://ourladyvt.org/index.php?page=child
The link above, to an article originally appearing in the January issue of the Knights of Columbus' magazine, Columbia is edifying. David Volk | February 7, 2010
Why is it that we Catholics always have to sit and wonder why we our USCCB can't/doesn't/won't produce such an ad? Jim Welsh | February 8, 2010
OPEN LETTER ON U.S.C.C.B. COOPERATION WITH AND SUPPORT FOR PRO-ABORTION AND RADICAL HOMOSEXUAL GROUPS Posted: Thursday February 4, 2010 at 2:34 pm EST by Judie Brown
(The following letter was written in response to an e-mail dated February 2, 2010, sent to all diocesan pro-life office and state Catholic conference directors by Tom Grenchik, executive director of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Pro-Life Secretariat. We are responding publicly because we do not have access to Mr. Grenchik’s e-mail list.)
Dear Tom:
Your February 2 letter to diocesan pro-life and Catholic conference directors incorrectly claims we are accusing the executive director of the USCCB’s Department of Justice, Peace and Human Development of supporting abortion and the radical homosexual agenda.
There is no doubt that John Carr (who, as head of this department, has oversight of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development) has spoken often about the need to defend the preborn; moreover, this is not the issue. As we have stated repeatedly, we are not calling into question John Carr’s pro-life convictions.
The issue is a serious lack of prudence displayed by the USCCB’s social justice arm in its dealings with organizations whose aims directly contradict Church teaching. We have provided carefully verified and detailed factual evidence to support this charge.
I tried to meet and speak with John Carr several months ago, when American Life League joined the Reform CCHD Now coalition, but he refused. Thus, his claim that we never contacted him is false.
I have reported on at least 50 CCHD grantees engaged in activities contrary to Church teaching—and which continue to receive CCHD funds. I disproved the CCHD’s claim that there is nothing wrong with the San Francisco Organizing Project by providing evidence that it helped to create and promote pro-abortion “health care” legislation, but the CCHD was silent. We reported on the 31 CCHD grantees partnered with the Center for Community Change, which embraces a radical pro-abortion, pro-homosexual agenda, but again, the CCHD was silent.
So, when we reported on John Carr’s chairmanship of the Board of Directors for the Center for Community Change, we suggested that the CCHD’s silence and apparent lack of response might be the result of his cozy relationship with this organization.
Our charge of serious imprudence was further validated by the following findings:
• We released our report on the morning of February 1. At that time, we had verified that the CCC was endorsed on the CCHD’s web site, but later that same day, the reference to the CCC had mysteriously disappeared.
• Tom Chabolla, who worked under Carr at the CCHD until 2008, served on the CCC board while working for the CCHD.
• Ralph McCloud, the CCHD’s current director, spoke at a CCC-sponsored event that praised the election of Barack Obama, the most pro-abortion president in U.S. history.
This is only a small piece of a much larger picture. The CCHD has a long history of funding and collaborating with organizations that promote abortion and the radical homosexual agenda, and this history continues to this day.
In fact, it recently came to our attention that John Carr will be presenting this weekend at the USCCB-sponsored 2010 Catholic Social Ministry Gathering. There are several problems with this conference, but we will mention just a few here.
Mind you, these are not mere incidental associations; these speakers were invited by the USCCB as authorities to address our Church’s supposed defenders of the poor, and workers for peace and
justice. Can anyone look at this speaker lineup and think that the USCCB is thinking clearly about Catholic social teaching? Why are those who represent openly anti-life and pro-homosexualist organizations treated as experts in the field of peace and justice by Catholics who should know better?
How many of our bishops know that these representatives of anti-Catholic organizations and philosophies are being treated—by the USCCB, no less—as experts on Catholic teaching?
Page 6 of the conference program book provides a schedule for the Catholic Labor Network gathering. John Carr is scheduled to join Paul Booth (a founder of the radical Students for a Democratic Society) in a panel discussion. Paul Booth’s wife is Heather Booth, who currently sits on the board of the Center for Community Change. Paul and Heather Booth founded the Midwest Academy (pp.2-3), a training institute for radical left-wing community organizers. Heather Booth is also a former consultant for the National Organization for Women and in 1965, organized a group called JANE, which helped young women obtain illegal abortions. Paul Booth joins his wife as a member of the host committee for the National Organization for Women's Intrepid Awards Gala. Currently, Paul Booth is executive assistant to the president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. The AFSCME endorsed the pro-abortion March for Freedom of Choice, held in Washington, D.C. in 2004.
Also presenting at the Catholic Labor Network gathering is Father Thomas Reese, SJ, who resigned as editor of America magazine, reportedly under pressure by the Vatican, for his refusal to stop publishing articles that questioned Church teachings on issues such as contraception, embryonic stem-cell research, same-sex marriage, homosexual priests, mandatory clerical celibacy and whether pro-abortion “Catholic” politicians should be given Holy Communion.
As Catholics, we are hurt, we are scandalized and we are horrified that the USCCB continues to cavort with the enemies of the body of Christ, even to the point of inviting them to speak as authorities on the Catholic view of social justice, which they most certainly are not. The primary purpose of the Catholic Church is the salvation of souls, not to “develop economic strength and political power” as professed in the CCHD’s mission statement.
We have simply presented the facts about CCHD funding for these radical organizations; yet other than defunding a very few organizations, the CCHD has thus far refused to take appropriate action and, so far, John Carr has refused to speak with us.
Again, our report is not about his pro-life credentials, but about his and others’ continued cooperation with those who openly oppose the Church and do all they can to undermine her moral authority.
We ask you, with all due respect, to stop misrepresenting our claims and ignoring the thrust of our reports by recasting them as a personal attack on John Carr. Both honesty and charity require you set the record straight with the directors of state Catholic conferences and diocesan pro-life offices.
Michael Hichborn
Lead researcher on the CCHD
American Life League
Thank you Judie and Michael and all of ALL, this is, well, I don't have the words, this is the most encouraging letter in defense of life I've ever seen in my life. It is a light on a hilltop, I'm so thankful for your commitment, from being burned by other pro-life groups after finding out I was contributing to perhaps well-intentioned but less than 100% pro-life, I was trying to look for something to show me that ALL was no different to brace myself. But this letter tells me you are all about truth, 100% personhood, and if abortions ended tomorrow you would be absolutely fine that you no longer had a job. That sounds weird, but that just means that I know this is about the babies, not about you. I realize you're all still human and not perfect, but from now on my pro-life donations are going to ALL. THANK YOU, you have my prayers you can be sure of that.
Mary Mary | February 4, 2010
rats! now I have to make another bumper sticker KEYES/HICHBORN
2012
Thank you for your courage, I had to read the letter again. Mary | February 4, 2010
You are doing wonderful work at ALL in uncovering the CCC scandal. At some point though I think that we should just come out and frankly challenge the pro life committments of these USCCB people. Its not as if they don't have the info available about these pro abortion organizations. Their "I didn't know they were doing that" defensive responses just don't cut it. Does anyone really believe Mr. Carr never heard any discussions of abortion or same sex marriage in the board room of CCC? It totally strains credibility. They just don't care. Hobnobing with the liberal glitterati is their most important priority. These people are more interested in the respect of men than standig up for what is right. They have for too long been given the benefit of the doubt. I think it is time to begin calling a spade a spade. Jim Welsh | February 4, 2010
I admire our approach. You report facts and do little editorializing, letting the embarrassing facts speak for themselves. Keep it up! George Richter | February 5, 2010
Thank you Judie for being a voice for the truth!
Marsha Strominger | February 5, 2010
I did a computer search of the program for the 2010 Social Ministry Gathering and could find no refreence to Fr. Thomas Reese, Diana Hayes or Paul Booth. I think you need to verify your claims before blatantly attacking the USCCB (and the Catholic Church) who have taken a clear stand against any health reform that includes (or expands) federal funding of abortion. Steve Blanchard | February 6, 2010
SENATOR SCOTT BROWN: THE POLITICAL PROBLEM WITH ABORTION Posted: Wednesday February 3, 2010 at 10:22 am EST by Judie Brown
The recent senate victory of Scott Brown in Massachusetts has revealed yet again the ugly underbelly of the pro-life movement and those among us who are guided to some degree by the notion that abortion is a “political issue.” Shortly after the Massachusetts special senate election, one woman wrote, “Scott Brown is the only chance we have to save our country from the evils of Obamacare.”
I was left wondering at that moment what role this woman thought Christ had in the equation of good versus evil within the U. S. government today, not to mention our entire world. Surely, He is the only one who can save our nation, not the pro-abortion Brown!
Yes, Brown is definitely pro-abortion. We knew it before the election. And many news reports have confirmed the commitment Brown has to abortion, including this Associated Press report:
Republican Senator-elect Scott Brown of Massachusetts says he opposes federal funding for abortions, but thinks women should have the right to choose whether to have one.
Brown told ABC's This Week that he disagrees with his party's position that the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion should be overturned. The incoming lawmaker says the abortion question is one that's best handled by a woman, her family and her doctor. He also says more effort needs to go into reducing the number of abortions in the U.S.
I realize that many within the larger pro-life community have purchased a ticket on the political train that left the station more than 30 years ago, headed down the track of incrementalism, pragmatism and moral relativism. They cringe when I suggest that this is a train headed directly toward a wreck, but frankly, I think we have to be honest about it.
First of all, where has this political practicality—if that is what you wish to call it—gotten the babies? Yes, the babies! I am not interested in where it has gotten certain political pro-life groups that spend their time on “the Hill” making friends with quasi-pro-abortion folks like Brown, but the babies. To be honest, I think we have invested our credibility in the wrong bank because politics is not where the victory resides. Here is why.
One fine gentleman wrote, “I've followed the sage counsel of our best prelates like the late Cardinal O'Connor to inform my conscience." Cardinal O'Connor's instruction to the faithful quoted in part:
20. Suppose all candidates support "abortion rights"?
In good conscience one could refrain from voting altogether. In some instances, this might be best, even though voting is normally a moral obligation. Or one could try to determine whether the position of one candidate is less supportive of abortion than that of another. Other things being equal, one might then morally vote for a less supportive position.
If all candidates support "abortion rights" equally, one might vote for the candidate who seems best in regard to other issues, hoping that one day he or she could be persuaded to become pro-life.
To my friend, I say it is fine to read Cardinal O’Connor’s opinion on this in any way one chooses, including interpreting it to mean that a vote for Brown is a better thing than a vote for his opponent. My friend is not alone in his choice of apologetics that bolster his personal reasoning, but Cardinal O’Connor’s nuanced response should not become an excuse for voting for evil. By this, I mean that when someone articulates his or her clear support for child murder in specific cases, or as Scott Brown has done across the board, then Cardinal O’Connor’s answer to the rhetorical question takes on a different meaning.
By using words like “could” and “might be best” and “might,” his eminence was telling us that there is no black and white answer to the question because each case is unique and each voter weighs his options differently. Cardinal O’Connor understood that individuals have to use their God-given intelligence to examine all facets of a situation before casting a vote.
For example, is there confidence beyond doubt that electing one instead of the other will result in a good outcome for the babies? Can we really know this when the decision we have to make is between two people who assign the act of murder to an mere item on a list of social issue positions that need to be addressed?
All the speculation and/or wishful thinking in the world is not going to chart the course of history. And as my friend wrote,
So the way I see it, the issue is not favoring the lesser of two evils between Coakley and Brown, but that Scott Brown's publicized views would lead voters to understand he would be less supportive of unrestricted abortion and as Cardinal O'Connor wrote, we hope he, the candidate, would be persuaded to become uncompromisingly pro-life. Two undesirable choices, one worse than the other. But I see no moral flaw in taking this position on Brown considering our good bishops' pastoral counsel. Call me naive, but I believe in the power of prayer and evangelization ("instruct the ignorant").
Naturally, I believe in the power of prayer and evangelization as well, but to the above comment—which is by no means naïve—I would respond that our role as pro-life Americans is not to be expert political strategists, or worse, to believe with all our hearts that a single senate race is going to turn the nation away from the barbarism and moral bankruptcy that protects murder of the innocent with unjust laws. Not to mention, of course, a perfect storm wherein 54 percent of Catholics voted for a man who is known as the most pro-abortion president in America’s history.
Being an evangelist requires that we preach the truth, in season and out, and that our actions set a standard for others who seek to imitate Christ, in the public square, in the voting booth and elsewhere. It is Christ alone Who is the truth, Who is the light that will lead our nation to a victory so the babies can live. This is why I am personally appalled at the declining scale of prerequisites that so many pro-lifers use as they measure for whom they should vote. It is almost as if justification for doing something has become more important than doing nothing, save praying, because the evil is so distasteful and the choices so depraved that one cannot bear the thought of voting at all.
My friend closed his e-mail with these words, “Perhaps Brown, with counseling and mentoring by strongly pro-life Republicans in Congress could be turned around. There is that possibility where in Coakley's case within the abortion party, the likelihood is remote, if not impossible, to imagine. Call me naive, but that's my view and I don't believe I've strayed from Catholic moral precepts.”
Far be it from me to suggest that anyone, regardless of who they voted for in any election, has “strayed from Catholic moral precepts.” That is not a judgment call that anyone but God Himself can make.
Not only that, but one of the reasons I love being Catholic is that the Catholic Church’s deposit of faith is grounded in her teachings which have, as their foundation, Biblical principles as defined by God Himself and treated in the light of right reason and a properly formed conscience. And as one wise priest once said to me, a properly formed conscience begins with knowing Christ and getting closer to Him every day, because we fall on our face every day! Only in that way can we absorb the truth that forms a conscience in the light of God’s laws.
The question of casting a vote for a pro-abort versus a lesser pro-abort is best addressed not by a moral theologian but by Ambassador Alan Keyes. Among other things, he is a student of rational thought and the history of this great nation. He wrote when addressing the 2008 McCain vs. Obama election:
The key flaw in all the arguments that call us in this election to embrace evil in order to fight or limit evil is that to do so we must surrender our single-minded reliance upon God. But once we let go of that reliance, what good is left to us? Once we take up the sword of evil to fend off or defend ourselves against it, what becomes of the faith whereby Christ fed the multitudes and which alone opens the way to life and hope and a future? These questions reveal the true import of this flawed moral reasoning. It seems to offer us a better hope for victory as the world understands the term, but only if we surrender the faith that alone leads to the victory that lies beyond the world's understanding. That faith is proved especially in those circumstances when we trust in God as the standard of truth though the whole light and reason of the world decries our trust as folly. Who is responsible for evil: those who persevere in faith despite the world's reproof, or those who say we must surrender perfect trust in God in order to limit evil? Don't the latter lure us into a place that is beyond redemption precisely because to reach it we must surrender our hold upon the key that opens the floodgates of God's saving grace? Rather on the day when evil seems to triumph over us, should we not hold fast and say, though it be with our last breath, as Jesus did, "Father into thy hands I commit my spirit" – and there leave will and choice, conscience and vote and all?
Dear Judie,
Your explanation using Cardinal O'Connor's instruction to the faithful regarding "why politics is not where the pro-life victory resides" is confusing. Basically anything I read from our Church leaders and pro-life leaders such as yourself is so wordy as to be irritating and painful to read. Roe vs Wade must be reversed and it will take a pro-life president to appoint pro-life judges. That is politics and since we can't change peoples hearts (we pray of course), we work with what we have, which is politics. We must put forth and stand behind an outspokenly pro-life candidate for 2012 and we need to do it now. KEYES 2012. Anyone have a better pro-life candidate? Fine, who is he or she? What are we waiting for, 2011? Also you said "far be it from me to suggest that anyone, regardless of who they voted for in any election, have 'strayed from Catholics moral precepts.' That is not a judgement call that anyone but God Himself can make". What? Of course if someone with full knowledge and consent voted for a candidate such as Obama that made it clear he intended to use all the power of the office to keep murder legal, of course that person has strayed from Catholic moral precepts! That's not a judgement, it's just stating the facts. I believe ALL is the most organized, truthful pro-life organization, and maybe that's why I expect so much from you, but at this moment I don't understand what you're asking us to do. It seems like all the wordy articles are only going to be read and understood by people who have already made up their minds and who only like to rehash and debate until the cows come home. Can we have a "step one" of our goal? Can we say let's get behind Alan Keyes now? Can we make it clear that if at least one candidate is not 100 percent pro-life then we will not vote at all?
Mary Mary | February 3, 2010
And my personal step one is to find or make an Alan Keyes for President bumper sticker for my car. Then in 2012 people will have to choose a side, the side of life, or the side of abortion. Mary | February 3, 2010
Judie,
As usual, I'm struck by your thoughtful articulation of a painful subject. Scott Brown's election was a difficult moral dilemma for so many of us committed pro-life Catholics.
Support for Scott Brown as the lesser of two evils can certainly be justified in this case since his election appears to be the only foreseeable way to stop the health care bill which, if passed would have gone a long way towards institutionalizing abortion, contraception and euthanasia.
However, we must strive harder than ever in the future to avoid being put in such a position again where we have to choose between Pro-Abortion Politician A and Pro-Abortion Politician B.
Julie | February 3, 2010
If two known terrorists were running for public office, would we vote for either of them? The answer should be No. But when it comes to the slaughter of human beings we can somehow justify a vote for someone a little less pro-death? As someone stated in a different blog, if the "ends justify the means" why do we never get the means justified when we compromise? Why is it life that is compromised and not death? Thank God for God. Recovering Feminist | February 3, 2010
This is such a difficult subject, I remember when I voted that all I wanted to do was vote AGAINST Obama because he promised more abortion. So I can think about for 10 years and I don't think I will know whether I did the right thing. To the best of my knowledge at the time I was voting AGAINST Obama. I would have welcomed a purely pro-life candidate so I could have voted FOR someone, but that wasn't available. Mary | February 4, 2010
Dear Mary
If you will study the history of the pro-life political movement, you will learn that from the perspective of the preborn child versus the politicians, the pro-life movement representing the child has taken one step after another backward, affirming over and over again the validity of Roe vs. Wade.
Why? Because somehow such people have lost sight of the fact that Christ is not absent anywhere, not even in politics, and it is His will that we should be following, not our own.
At the time that the pro-life movement stands up, united, in demanding NO EXCEPTIONS and NO COMPROMISE I believe we will begin to make real progress.
The evil of abortion is not a political problem, it is a moral crisis in this nation and we should act like it. That is my simple answer.
A vote for a man like Brown is a vote for the status quo which is the equivalent of continuing to walk backwards.
THE TRAGEDY OF MEASURING TRUTH BY POLITICAL STANDARDS Posted: Tuesday February 2, 2010 at 2:23 pm EST by Judie Brown
I recently heard a sermon on Luke 4:21-30 that troubled me a great deal. At the same time, the words of this particular Catholic priest enlightened me.
The priest spoke about Christ teaching in the synagogue in Nazareth, the city where He had grown up. St. Luke says that Christ told those gathered that “no prophet is accepted in his native place.” He then explained why the miracles that He had worked elsewhere could not be worked there. According to Luke’s account, the people became “filled with fury. They rose up, drove Him out of the town, and led Him to the brow of the hill on which their town had been built, to hurl Him down headlong. But He passed through the midst of them and went away.”
The people of Nazareth were listening intently to Christ’s words, but as one Gospel commentator explained, they were disrespectful, narrow-minded and filled with pride. Apparently, they did not even remember that when John baptized Christ, God the Father said aloud for all to hear, “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.”
The people of Nazareth wanted Christ to perform miracles for them because of who they were, not because they believed that He indeed was the Son of God. And knowing their thoughts, He did not do as they desired but rather reproached them, leaving them hostile and ready to murder Him.
Well, that is not what the priest explained in his homily. Much to my dismay and utter horror, he said that Christ had pushed “hot buttons” among His listeners and they in turn had acted inappropriately. He said what the people should have done was simply “agree to disagree” with Christ and walk away without comment or criticism. Their urge to “pick a fight,” he said, was wrong.
Oh, really!
In other words, Christ’s teaching was nothing more than a man’s point of view with which some were welcome to disagree. The proper response to the teachings Christ set forth should have been, according to this priest, heard as merely someone else’s opinion rather the teaching of Christ, the Son of God. He said this happens frequently among Catholics, and if each acts appropriately, then disagreements do not turn into hot-button issues.
The priest was convinced that when Jesus responded to their lack of faith by explaining why He could not perform miracles in Nazareth, the people should have simply blown Him off and gone back to business as usual, avoiding those dangerous hot buttons that get us in trouble. As unbelievable as this interpretation of Luke’s Gospel sounds, it also revealed one of the most substantial, critical and dire situations in the Church today: The deconstruction or watering down of doctrine for political purposes.
One of the best illustrations of this is a quote from the January 26, 2010, letter to members of the U.S. Senate from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The USCCB told the senators that conscience protection must be included in health care reform, that federal funds for elective abortions must be curtailed as they are in the Hyde Amendment and that the failure “to comply with this policy and precedent is not true health care reform and should be opposed until this fundamental problem is remedied. The bill’s provision against abortion funding should have the same substantive policy as the Hyde amendment and parallel provisions in current law, should cover every program in the legislation, and should be as permanent as the funding provided by the bill. The House-passed language meets these criteria.”
The fact that the House bill contains funding for some abortions is not addressed by the USCCB. What is clear is that the USCCB accepts current Hyde language that permits the payment of elective abortion in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother. Such a position is a direct contradiction to Catholic teaching, which defines abortion as an act of murder.
As Pope John Paul II instructed the faithful in Evangelium vitae, no. 96: “Where God is denied and people live as though he did not exist, or his commandments are not taken into account, the dignity of the human person and the inviolability of human life also end up being rejected or compromised.”
Clearly, to accept Hyde language because it is the status quo is an agreement to compromise.
The absence of a clear demand from the shepherds of the Catholic Church in America that any health care reform must first and foremost recognize the dignity, the personhood of every individual human being from his biological beginning to his natural death is, in my opinion, a tragic failure to carry forth a message that reflects the true compassion and love of Christ Himself.
The second example of watering down Catholic doctrine is the January 28, 2010, press release from the Catholic Health Association, in which Sister Carol Keehan, president and CEO, opines about President Barack Obama’s state of the union message and congressional efforts on health care reform:
The President was right to say to Congress: "Do not walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people."
We commend Congress for all its efforts over the past year on behalf of those who suffer under the current system, and urge lawmakers to bring those efforts to fruition as quickly as possible. And we urge Congress to continue its work toward the goal of health reform that protects life at all stages while expanding coverage to the greatest possible number of people in our country….
The Catholic health ministry remains committed to the goal of health reform as set out in our "Vision for U.S. Health Care," and confident that our nation is capable of reaching that goal. In a letter our association sent today to Congress, we urged the members of both chambers "to put the needs of our nation's people above political interests and partisan concerns, and continue to work for comprehensive health reform this year. As Congress considers the options for moving forward, we also reaffirm this urgent priority among our health ministry and pledge to work alongside those who will continue in good faith to achieve this goal."
The Catholic Health Association of the United States (CHA), founded in 1915, supports the Catholic health ministry’s commitment to improve the health status of communities and create quality and compassionate health care that works for everyone. The Catholic health ministry is the nation's largest group of not-for-profit health systems and facilities that, along with their sponsoring organizations, employ more than 750,000 women and men who deliver services combining advanced technology with the Catholic caring tradition. For more information, visit the CHA web site at www.chausa.org.
Astounding, is it not, that the spokesperson for the Catholic health care institutions of America, which once existed specifically to care for the needy, the poor and the disenfranchised as a charitable work of mercy, is now working with a pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia majority in Congress as though something good could come from these negotiations.
Again, where is the demand for equal protection for all human beings and guaranteed respect for their human rights regardless of their age, health or condition of dependency? Why is Congress being commended for violating the most fundamental teachings of the Catholic Church?
This sort of pandering is excruciating to witness; it is a tragedy.
But it happens when Biblical teaching, Catholic moral teaching and fundamental Catholic medical ethics are set aside for the sake of presumed political achievement. Those people in Nazareth more than 2,000 ago who were so agitated that they wanted to hurl Christ to His death, and later did crucify Him, appear to have allies everywhere. People willing to set aside or “agree to disagree” with absolute truth are misleading our fellow Americans and playing with fire.
This debate about health care reform is no different than Christ’s admonition to the people, for He cannot work miracles among those who do not put Him first and promise to follow Him and never count the cost. It is clear to me that each of us as Catholics, Christians and faithful followers of Christ have to remember the eloquent words of God from the book of Jeremiah (1:19): “They will fight against you, but not prevail over you, for I am with you to deliver you, says the Lord.”
That is the promise that comes from being faithful—not to political power, but to the only real power that matters.
Sr. Keehan worships the work done in Catholic hospitals, rather than the Truth, i.e., Jesus Christ. That work is worth protecting, compromising for, etc., rather than being willing to give it all up if following Christ requires it. David Volk | February 2, 2010
Dear Judie,
Thank you for this article. Why would Sister Keehan write this letter? This healthcare reform is a scam. We all need to get on the Capitol switchboard 202 224 3121 and just say NO to Obamacare/Reidcare/Pelosicare. It is hard to believe that after the message from Massachusetts they are still trying to pass the government take over of our health care with over 100 new bureaucracies and its many injustices.
http://www.healthreformscam.com has a very good petition to sign which will go to your Representatives and President Obama.
Thank you, Judie Brown, for being a breath of fresh air and shining the Truth in a world where it is being very hard to distinguish between what is right and what is wrong.
May Christ be our Light.
With hope, prayers and perseverance,
Patty
p.s. Please thank Michael Hitchborn for his article, yesterday, with the updates on the USCCB and the CCHD. I sent it to others. May God shine His grace on us all with His Truth and Love.
Patty Palmquist | February 2, 2010
Thank you Judie for pointing out what upsets me about the Bishops' response to the socialized "healthcare" plan that congress is trying to force upon us. It will ration health access to the aged, very ill ,handicapped, and the most vulnerable and it will kill "some" babies. but they don't care about that. Socialized Medicine is just basically flawed and they don't care and still thank them. That's terrible! Grace Harman | February 2, 2010
Try Googling CHAUSA and CCHD and click on Pub/Main and you'll see it's under construction. http://belowthewaist.org/2010/01/thinking-ethically-about-emergency-contraception/#1more-236 was part of a Newsletter article entitled: Sexual Violence: A Medical Center Responds. Dr. Lauren Streicher, made infamous by Danielle Bean in today's National Catholic Register, wrote the "science" to explain why this morning after pill is not an abortifacient.
Sister Carolyn is the president but Fr. Michael D. Place, STD is the CEO and directs the Pontifical Council for Health Pastoral Care. His e-mail ismplace@chausa.org
Google levonorgestrel or Plan B and either CHAUSA or Catholic Health Association and be prepared for a shock.
If Archbishop Carlson of St. Louis, MO would forbid Catholic Health Association's inclusion in the directory of Catholic institutions, they'd be denied tax exemt status by the IRS. They'd have to return their ill-gotten lolly to the Obama Administration.
This archdiocese has a very handy form online that your readers can use to express their outrage at the sort of "ethics" being promoted by Catholic Health Association.
The heat of the Pontifical Council of Health Pastoral Care is Msgr. Zygmunt Zimowski, Via della Conciliasione, 3-00120 Vatican City Barbara | February 3, 2010
SLEEPING WITH THE ENEMY: THE U.S.C.C.B.’S COOPERATION WITH PRO-ABORTION ORGANIZATIONS Posted: Monday February 1, 2010 at 6:25 pm EST by Judie Brown
By Michael Hichborn
The intelligence community has a saying: “Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, and three times is enemy action.” Since August 2009, American Life League has been working with a coalition of Catholic and pro-life organizations (Reform CCHD Now) to research groups receiving grants from the now-infamous Catholic Campaign for Human Development. During this time, the coalition has revealed that no less than 50 organizations (one fifth of all CCHD grantees from 2009) are in some capacity engaged in pro-abortion or pro-homosexual causes. What is even sadder is that the latest revelations manifest a pattern of cooperation stretching back for decades.
During Reform CCHD Now’s nationwide campaign in November, which called on Catholics to withhold donations to the CCHD, the CCHD did damage control by deflecting or dismissing the accusations made about its grantees. Oddly enough, however, the CCHD never responded to the charges concerning the 31 CCHD grantees found to be partners with the pro-abortion, pro-radical homosexual Center for Community Change. Among the initial findings regarding this organization are the following:
1. The CCC received $75,000 from the Arcus Foundation specifically for radical homosexual activism (p. 17). The funds were earmarked for the CCC’s Generation Change, “an initiative to recruit, support and train the next generation of community organizers and emerging social justice leaders through paid internships, fellowships and mentorships for activists from communities of color and from the GLBT community.”
2. In October, a training seminar cohosted by several radical homosexual advocacy groups was held at the CCC office in Washington, D.C.
3. An article on the background of the CCC’s Movement Vision project states that “abortion rights and reproductive freedom intersect with criminal justice. Our solutions must intersect as well.”
4. The CCC helped to coproduce a Community Values Communications Toolkit, aimed at promoting “community values” in opposition to “the dominant conservative narrative.”
It includes the following quotes:
• “This conservative strategy also fostered hostility toward those struggling for equal opportunity—people of color, women, immigrants, gays and lesbians, and poor people. Individualism, in this context, has meant ignoring and refusing to recognize that barriers to opportunity still exist. It then demonized those of us who would tear down those barriers.” (p. 7)
• “People may like the idea of old-fashioned small towns where everyone knows each others’ names, families are intact, and white picket fences prevail; but ‘the old days’ were also home to racism, segregation, limited opportunity for women, and hostility toward gays and lesbians” (p. 12).
It advises using a “Calendar of Community Values” (pp. 54–56) to “identify opportunities to get out your message about community values. Connecting your press release or op-ed to a holiday or notable/historic date in a unique way can help it get better coverage.” Among the dates designated as significant are these:
• May 20, 1996: “Romer v. Evans decided by the Supreme Court, ruling against an amendment to the Colorado Constitution that allowed discrimination against gays and lesbians”
• June: Gay Pride Month
• June 28,1969: “Stonewall Rebellion helps to spark the gay rights movement”
• October 11: “National Coming Out Day, commemorating 2nd March on Washington for LGBT Rights”
Need a one-stop shop for information on reproductive justice? Well, SisterSong has got the right tool for you. This series of articles documents the struggle for reproductive justice and bridges this struggle with other issues within the social justice movement such as immigration and queer rights. Additionally, the series touches upon the future of the women’s movement in relation to reproductive justice.
6. Bellarmine Veritas Ministry reveals even more shocking information on the CCC in its latest report, including the CCC’s support for abortion funding in “health care reform” legislation.
There can be no doubt that some key goals promoted by CCC are antithetical to the Catholic Church’s teachings, which is why it is strange that the CCHD has yet to address findings regarding its 31 grantees that are intimately connected with this organization. Allowing for the possibility that these partnerships with the CCC were mere happenstance while attempting to understand the CCHD’s silence, the coalition took a closer look at the CCC. With great shock, the coalition discovered that the CCHD currently endorses the CCC on its web site (see “Talk with Elected Officials and Other Policy Makers”), calling it worthy of support.
Could the CCHD's grants to CCC partner organizations and the CCHD’s endorsement of the CCC be coincidental? Discovering this shameless promotion of an organization whose aims cannot possibly be in line with Church teaching was jarring enough. But even more distressing was the discovery that the executive director of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Department of Justice, Peace and Human Development also served on and chaired the CCC's Board of Directors. John Carr, who oversees the entire CCHD, has held executive positions in both organizations simultaneously.
Carr, whose work with the CCC goes back at least as far as 1983 (search for “John Carr”), was hired by the USCCB in 1987 as the “secretary for social development and world peace.” The CCC’s annual reports reveal that Carr was on the CCC’s Board of Directors in 1999 (see pp. 35–36 of tax return), 2000 ( pp. 22–24), 2001 (pp. 17–18), 2002 (p. 24), 2003 (p. 10), 2004 (see p. 10), 2005 and 2006 (p. 2) , and served on its executive committee from 1999 to 2001. Given his cozy relationship with the CCC, it’s no wonder the CCHD never responded to our concern over CCHD grantees’ affiliation with this radical group.
But the findings don’t end there. In 2000, while Carr was serving both organizations, the CCHD funneled $150,000 to the CCC (see p. 17). In 2001, the CCHD featured Deepak Bhargava, then a CCC program director and now the CCC’s executive director, as a presenter at a four-day conference. After 2006, when Carr left the CCC’s Board of Directors, he was replaced by Tom Chabolla (p. 2), who worked for Carr as associate director of programs for the CCHD until 2008.
In December 2008, the CCC cosponsored a forum titled “Realizing the Promise,” rallying around the election of Barack Obama. Ralph McCloud, the CCHD’s current director, joined the celebration, proclaiming that “very soon we will see a new Jerusalem” (at 29:49 minutes).
The most mysterious aspect of our investigation, however, was discovering the omission of Carr’s CCC involvement in his biography on the USCCB web site, even though his involvement in several other organizations is mentioned. Several brochures, event announcements, forums and bios for other organizations he is involved with are almost identical to his USCCB bio, except that they mention his involvement with the CCC—and his USCCB bio does not. Figuring that perhaps his USCCB bio listed only current positions, coalition members searched the internet archives dating as far back as 2004 and found that his USCCB bio has never mentioned the CCC. The omission is odd, and in light of our latest findings, begs many questions.
Happenstance and coincidence are no longer possible explanations. As one of the coalitions' main researchers, what I have discovered is full-blown Catholic cooperation with a pro-abortion, pro-radical homosexual organizations at the highest levels of the CCHD.
We would like to know if the USCCB is aware of Carr’s affiliation with the CCC, and if so, how does the USCCB justify employing Carr at all, not to mention employing him at such a high level? If the USCCB did not know about this link between the two organizations and the CCC’s history of anti-life and radical homosexual activism, why not?
Jesus told His disciples, “No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.” As I have repeated since we began our investigation of the CCHD, the CCHD staff and its leaders are either incompetent or they are complicit. Whatever the case may be, there can be no doubt that the CCHD has completely failed its mission by sleeping with the enemy.
Well #32 is The Center for Cutural Organizing in Portland, Oregon which is listed on CCC's website as a partner (Listed incorrectly as in Colorado). Archbishop Vlazny personally approved the CCHD grant to CIO in 2009. I queried the Archdiocese about this grant in December and they refused to look into CIO's support for Abortion. The devil is in the Chanellery. Jim Welsh | February 1, 2010
Dear Judie, I don't understand why the USCCB is keeping so quiet regarding the EXTREMELY serious charges about the CCHD. I thought that since you were on a pro-life committee that works with the Vatican that you would be able to personally speak with the USCCB. Is that not true? Have you ever gotten to speak with the USCCB? The only thing I've ever personally heard about the USCCB is that complaints against the CCHD are exaggerated or misleading, so it's difficult for us average people in the pews to know whether Mr Hichborn is exaggerating or the USCCB is not being totally honest. Of course the temptation is to believe that there must be a misunderstanding, but this is so serious that even if it is a misunderstanding, shouldn't the USCCB clarify?
Mary Mary | February 2, 2010
Many thanks to you, Michael, for your outstanding work in exposing this scandal.
It's about time someone started asking questions about the USCCB and its long lovefest with the Democratic Party.
I find it fascinating that my own bishop, Bp. William Murphy of the Diocese of Rockville Centre on Long Island has been the Chairman of the USCCB Domestic Justice, Peace and Human Development since 2007. Check here to see his Curriculum Vitae:
http://www.drvc.org/bishop-murphy/most-reverend-william-francis-murphy-d.d.-s.t.d.html
John Carr is listed as the Executive Director of the Department of Justice, Peace and Human Development on the USCCB website.
What I'd like to know is if Bp. Murphy appointed John Carr to this position.
Another interesting thing to note is that both Bp. Murphy and John Carr will be at a Social ministry conference in Washington this month. Bp. Murphy will be the celebrant and homilist at the Opening Mass and John Carr will be delivering one of the main speeches.
Sounds like they're very good buddies. Julie | February 2, 2010
Mary
Believe me when I tell you that not only is there no exaggeration but the problem is getting worse by the day. You ask how the USCCB can stand by and do nothing! Well, that's a very good question and I believe it is because they have no problem at all with what is going on.
TERMINAL SEDATION: ABORTION FOR THE ELDERLY Posted: Friday January 29, 2010 at 4:43 pm EST by Judie Brown
By Mary Ann Kreitzer
I spoke to a friend this morning whose father was murdered by terminal sedation (a.k.a. “palliative” care). Her father suffered from Alzheimer’s and his mind was pretty well gone, but physically he was in great shape. He and his wife lived with one of my friend’s children, who took him for a long walk every day and knew how to manage all his grandfather’s moods. They were good buddies. My friend lived nearby and spent as much time as possible visiting her parents and enjoying her father’s company.
But the rest of the family (including my friend’s mother, who had power of attorney) decided to put him in a nursing home where he was difficult to control because he wanted to be released. My friend told me that every time she went to visit him he was trying to escape—pulling at every door and even the bookcase, looking for a way out. Three nursing homes and several months, later he pretty much gave up. When she went to see him, he would be sitting in a wheelchair slumped over and drooling. He got an infection and ended up in a hospital “palliative” ward, where he was denied food, water and antibiotics. Within several months, he went from an elderly man who was walking two miles a day with his grandson, to dead from dehydration and terminal sedation. It was Terri Schiavo and Hugh Finn without the publicity.
My friend considered trying to get guardianship at one point, but she was familiar with the earlier cases and knew it would be a lengthy legal battle and the result would be the same. He had also deteriorated so much she didn’t think he could recover. With a number of young children still at home, she didn’t think she could deal with the fight. So here was a faithful daughter (and her husband) willing to care for both her parents until they died, who had to watch while her faithless siblings and her mom murdered her father.
Welcome to the realities of the culture of death.
Terminal sedation is abortion for the elderly. You have dementia and get pneumonia? Like Rahm Emmanuel says, never let a crisis go to waste. See it as an opportunity for a quick exit. No antibiotics and terminal sedation. Abortion completed. Your loved one is healthy but brain damaged like Terri Schiavo and Hugh Finn? No problem. Starvation, dehydration and terminal sedation. Call it late-term abortion.
You think I’m exaggerating? The New York Times ran an article in December on the practice. It is common in hospice programs. Hurry the patients along for the peace of the family and to empty the bed. Saves everyone anxiety, money and hassle. Except, perhaps, the patient. But he is drugged, so whatever objections he may have had, you’ll never have to hear them.
Sometimes, as in my friend’s case, though, things aren’t that smooth. Far from bringing peace to families, it brings terminal strife and family breakdown. And in the case of my friend’s mom, will children who killed their father hesitate at doing the same thing to the their complicit mother? After all, she had no objections to killing Dad; so how can she object to her own quick exit? It’s for the children (and their inheritance?).
I wish I could say this is the only case I know of the deliberate murder of elderly parents, but it isn’t. It’s common practice in some hospices, with or without the complicity of the families. Situations like my friend’s are also becoming more and more common as the baby boomers, who often gave their children nothing in the way of faith, face the results of their hedonistic lives. “Hey, Mom put me in day care for most of my childhood and aborted my siblings; I’ll put her in a nursing home and pull the plug as soon as possible.” So much easier for everyone.
The worst part, however, is that while the body is being killed, the souls of the killers are dying as well. How does God Who said, “Honor your father and your mother,” look at the deliberate murder of parents? It is mortally sinful! And that’s the greatest suffering for my friend. She would like to see her family in heaven, but fears that this life on earth may be the only common ground they ever share.
Please pray for all those in danger of death today from terminal sedation and for those who will carry it out and enable it. It’s a soul killer for sure! You can call it quick and painless, but in the end, the palliative care ward, like the abortion mill, is literally hell on earth.
Mary Ann Kreitzer is president of the Catholic Media Coalition and Les Femmes (a lay Catholic media apostolate in the Diocese of Arlington, Virginia), as well as editor of Les Femmes’ quarterly newsletter, the Truth. This article, posted on Les Femmes’ blog site on January 19, 2010, is featured here with Les Femmes’ kind permission.
In Dec 1999, I had to drive to TX from FL to see my grandmother. She was in a nursing home and then landed in a hospital. No family members were visiting her. When I arrived at the hospital, they had denied my grandmother food and water (and med??) for THREE days. She was begging for water and suffering. They were trying to kill her off because no family members were present and she had a terminal illness. She got better after I arrived and was able to have a nice Christmas. I had to return home. I found it interesting that she died the month her money ran out. I don't think she died without a little help but I had no way of proving it. Elizabeth Cox | January 29, 2010
This made me so sad to read. That is why it is so important to give our children the gift of Faith and to teach them about the value of life...
Video Story: Marie Hahnenberg
Researcher for American Life League announces The Pill Kills '09: The Pill Kills Women, an international protest against the deadly effects of the birth control pill.
Pro-Life Story: My pro life story Posted By Stacy Shreve on Jun, 25 2007 I worked at an amusement park several years ago. While working there I met a girl , we'll call her "Jackie." She became a good friend and attended church functions with me (with ... Read
