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 NURSE WITH A MISSION Posted: Thursday August 7, 2008 at 9:57 am EST by Judie Brown
Lolita Hanks, R.N. is one of the most delightful people I have ever met. She is dedicated to the principles that affirm human beings as persons; these are the same principles that make supporters of the culture of death shudder. Lolita is, at her core, a living example of what it means to take your confidence in the dignity of the human person into the public square where good can and does overcome evil.
Recently Lolita launched a new outreach to help people choose how they want themselves and their loved ones to be treated when facing serious illness or death. Describing herself as a consumer healthcare consultant, she sets forth a few points she believes will be of great benefit to families. Once you have reviewed them, you are certainly welcome to contact her for further information or if you have questions. Her e-mail address is firstdonoharmllc@gmail.com
How to Prevent the Euthanasia of a Loved One in a Medical Setting
Pray, pray and pray. Pray for wisdom and guidance in making medical decisions for your loved one.
Contact your pastor for spiritual support and your church family so they can also be praying.
Be there for your loved one, no matter how hard their condition and/or suffering is for you to experience. Seriously ill and/or dying people are often the most neglected and lonely people. Also, you want to be a presence at the facility to prevent any foul play by staff who may believe they have good intentions, but whose misguided intentions could have deadly consequences.
Ingratiate yourself with the staff; make them your allies with your kindness. Ask information about them. This will give you insight into their worldview/belief system. Be helpful in providing care for your loved one and learn how to provide care.
Ask a lot of questions.
Use the hospital library, which will have a computer, and also ask a librarian questions in order to learn more about medical terms, conditions and/or medications that you do not know about.
Keep detailed documentation by using a spiral notebook for each day.
DO NOT leave your loved one unattended for any time period, especially at night.
Have a log of questions ready when the doctor makes rounds; be aware that they show up whenever they want to.
American Life League is grateful to Lolita for this forthright checklist that we should all become familiar with.
I also recommend the following helpful material. These documents will educate you and familiarize you with certain terms such ordinary versus extraordinary methods of treatment. Your willingness to learn about these matters now could save someone’s life or at the very least provide you with peace of mind.
As the nation appears to become increasingly more concerned about dollar bills than human lives, it is crucial that we focus attention on the inestimable value of a person regardless of age, health or specific condition. The “cost” of caring for a loved one should never be measured in dollars and cents. When we understand this within the context of our own family, the leadership provided by people like Lolita Hanks, R.N. becomes invaluable. Each of us can be eternally grateful to her for her courage.
RHETORICAL RUBBISH OR A WARNING TO PRO-LIFERS? Posted: Wednesday August 6, 2008 at 11:40 am EST by Judie Brown
There are so many commentaries for and against abortion these days that we can frequently be lulled into thinking they are all blather and thus can be ignored. But in the case of most writings in the journal Contraception, it would be a huge error to think this way.
A polemic could be a sermon, an expression of one’s opinion or a mere comment designed to provoke debate. However, in this case, the word is used to deconstruct the scientific facts behind pro-lifers' message that abortion hurts women. Indeed, this editorial is designed to make one think that the facts about how abortion negatively affects the mother are merely a cheap marketing ploy used by pro-lifers to persuade expectant mothers that it is not in their own best interests to pay an abortionist to kill their child.
It seems that these researchers are primarily concerned with pro-life laws commonly described as “informed consent.” These laws require abortion providers to impart certain information to the expectant mother prior to killing her child. Such laws and proposed laws fall into the “tell her the facts and then kill the baby” category. But that is not how the pro-abortion forces see them at all.
For example, the article tells the reader,
It is also important to look more closely at the laws themselves and ask why they are being promulgated. Forcing health professionals to tell women that they may be psychologically harmed by abortion does not represent informed consent. As noted earlier, there is no basis to assert that an abortion by itself will cause harm. Telling a woman that it may do so perverts the informed consent process; it imparts information that is scientifically inaccurate and forces health care providers to give women [sic] which they know is wrong and with which they do not agree.
Note the use of the words "does not represent informed consent.” The writers of the article refuse to acknowledge that a child is being murdered, as of course they must. This is why they can argue that “there is no basis to assert that an abortion by itself will cause harm.”
Moreover, while pro-aborts deny that abortion kills a child, they also suggest that there is no reason to express concern for the expectant mother because what you are going to tell her about her baby is “scientifically inaccurate.” This is preposterous, of course, but please don’t forget who is in charge of making policy in the United States today … It certainly is not honest pro-life Americans.
So what else does this article tell us about the type of mindset that can condone murder by saying that calling it murder is “scientifically inaccurate"?
Read this:
Women are likely to have complicated feelings about the aspects of their lives that led up to the abortion decision: sex, contraception, partnership status, economic conditions, motherhood potential, etc. In some cases, the unwanted pregnancy may be linked to abuse or violence. The alternative to abortion for women who will receive “informed consent” information is not never having become pregnant in the first place.
You will note that the baby is not in this equation at all. What precisely is “motherhood potential”? It is a denial that she is a mother from the instant her child’s life begins. Yet the writers would have the public believe that they are being objective and scientifically accurate rather than purveying death and destruction.
Near the end of this article we find one statement that, in my opinion, defines precisely what the problem is with such proposed laws and those who oppose them:
A woman should be able to trust that the information she receives from her health care provider is accurate, free of bias and provided in language that promotes health and well-being, not shame.
Wouldn’t anyone with a proper understanding of the English language agree with this statement? The answer is, of course!
But the problem is that, in the United States today, abortion is protected by law, and as some pro-lifers continue insisting that they are satisfied with merely “regulating” abortion and “reducing” abortion numbers, they play directly into the hands of those who, like this article's authors, want to discuss and demonize rather than address the fundamental question underlying all of their deliberately misleading use of the English language:
Who dies during an abortion?
If the answer is that an innocent person dies, then why do we want to regulate the killing, give information to the mother before the killing or otherwise permit the killing, as long as certain steps or statements or health regulations are in place and enforced first?
It is high time that pro-lifers really examined what the proponents of abortion are telling us. Get on with it … personhood now! Anything less simply extends what has already been 35 plus years of suffering, death and dehumanization.
How awful! I always wonder what thier excuse for this is?
Chantell Chantell | August 6, 2008
In this American "sue" mentality, it is interesting to note that the simplest surgical procedure comes with it a packet of warnings. Yet this same obligation causes an uproar among abortion proponents when applied to abortion.They scream about "religious bias" interfering with a women's right to choose. We can never trust the abortion industry to give a woman the simple truth without their own bias entering into the picture. vl | August 7, 2008
MIRACLE IN MISSOURI Posted: Tuesday August 5, 2008 at 10:43 am EST by Judie Brown
Every once in a while, an e-mail comes my way that, by its very content, testifies to the power and glory, and the love and mercy of God. What you are about to read is one of those messages. I hope that by the time you get to the end you will say a silent prayer of thanks to God for heroic families like this one.
Dear Mrs. Brown,
My wife and I have a great story to tell of God's providence over us during an extremely difficult birth, and early life of our little girl, Cecilia Rose Hendrix.
My wife and I have been married for 16 years and have six children, my wife was expecting our seventh child, due around Christmas day.
Cecilia Rose was born on August 29, 2007 at St. Francis Medical Centerin Cape Girardeau, MO. She was 23 weeks and three days gestation. My wife's water had broken 11 days before (21 weeks six days gestation) leaving little Cecilia Rose with barely enough amniotic fluid to breathe. When she was born, via emergency c-section due to fetal distress, she was not responsive. After being put on a ventilator, and placed in an incubator she was found to have an e.coli infectionthroughout her whole body.
She was treated with numerous blood transfusions, antibiotics, and well, just too many other things to mention here. Her eyes were still fused shut and her skin was so thin that we could see through it. We could not hold her, which was agonizing; we could only touch her leg with one finger.
Cecilia Rose had about a 15 percent chance of survival, not to mention a high probability of a disability, blindness, Cerebral Palsy, etc. Our wonderful God chose St. Raphael to help us through this ordeal. We were told by the doctors that if Cecilia Rose could hold on for 30 days her chances of survival would be 90 percent. My wife noticed that the 30th day was the Feast of the Archangels. On that 30th day my wife went in to see Cecilia Rose and noticed she had a new roommate. His name was Rafael. We immediately asked St. Raphael to pray for Cecilia Rose and for us to accept God's grace of strength to endure whatever God's will was for us.
Cecilia Rose spent 111 days in the NICU at St. Francis Medical Center. She not only survived, she is perfectly healthy, and well developed. She never required any surgeries, or ever had any type of cerebral hemorrhage, whichis a miracle according to the doctors and nurses. She is home with us now and being spoiled by her six older brothers and sisters, as well as anybody else who happens by.
There is so much more to the story than I have written here. My wife expressed her milk for Cecilia starting the day after she was born. Cecilia Rose had nothing but her mother's milk to help her grow. And our other children were wonderful, they endured so much to help their little sister. We home-school them and they never complained about helping themselves and their younger siblings in their work.
St. Raphael made himself known to us in many ways. He is our hero.
Rob and Leann
Rob and Leann, Cecelia Rose and her six siblings are a single unit of praise and humility all wrapped up in a desire to always and in every circumstance accept the will of God. Anyone who has experienced suffering knows how hard that can be. But when you read a heartwarming letter like this, it should be a source of renewal. We are called to be constant in our struggle to defend life, protect life and be Christ's witnesses to the world.
MAY I HUMBLY REQUEST HOPE? Posted: Monday August 4, 2008 at 10:21 am EST by Judie Brown
It has been a while since I visited the Colorado Personhood Initiative in this blog, but sometimes things happen that make you wonder precisely what is going on in the minds of some Catholic leaders.
On July 28, I received a remarkable media advisory from Keith Mason of Colorado for Equal Rights. The statement conveyed the fact that "over 70 physicians and pharmacists, including neonatologists, family physicians, ob/gyns, pediatricians, and other physicians" have publicly endorsed the personhood initiative.
I thought to myself, what an astounding achievement this is, not only for the group backing the initiative, but for the preborn babies whose lives will be, we pray, spared.
But being the curious person that I am, I had to wonder why that statement did not say that 70 Catholic bishops and prominent pro-life leaders had endorsed the initiative, making it clear that personhood was imperative if the abortion war is ever to come to an end. That's when I recalled the June 5 letter that the Catholic bishops of Colorado had issued. In that letter, they state,
Unfortunately, even if this year's personhood amendment is passed in Colorado, lower federal courts interpreting this amendment will be required to apply the permissive 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. It is also likely that the Supreme Court, given its current composition, will either decline to review such a case, effectively killing the state amendment, or worse, actively reaffirm the mistaken jurisprudence of Roe. While the Church respects those promoting this personhood amendment, the Catholic Bishops of Colorado decline to support its passage because it does not provide a realistic opportunity for ending or even reducing abortions in Colorado.
Constructive alternatives to reduce abortions and advance the ultimate objective of ending abortion, however, do exist at the state level.
There is nobody in the entire pro-life movement who has the ability to read the future nor are there people who can assure anyone what a particular court will do. After all, I was as shocked as anyone was when the so-called pro-life Supreme Court justices ruled, in Gonzales v.Carhart that, though they could only uphold the grisly procedure in cases where the mother's life was in danger, they were quick to assure abortionists there were other ways to kill the same children.
Who would have thought it?
So why would Catholic bishops be opposed to a purely principled personhood initiative? The proposed amendment to the Colorado Constitution does not allow a single child killing, does not recommend "reducing" murder, but rather addresses this fundamental question: Is the resident of the womb, the petri dish or elsewhere a person?
It has been the public position of American Life League for the past nearly 30 years that the only resolution to our nation's abortion problem is to affirm the principle of personhood. While we wonder what the Supreme Court may do with this question, we do not work under a black cloud, convinced that they will do the wrong thing.
We have hope – everyone should have hope!
I invite the Colorado bishops to be hopeful in Christ, to either endorse the effort or do nothing to deter it. I pray that every pro-life American will see the value in standing up for the single truth that will turn the tide: Every abortion results in the untimely and cruel death of a human being who is, after all, a brother or sister of ours in Christ.
And may I say that after nearly 36 years of doing everything but pressing for personhood, perhaps it is time to toss aside political opinions, legally nuanced statements and public posturing based on polling data and simply pull out all the stops for personhood.
If you want to learn more about the Colorado initiative, read the names of the professionals who support it or the endorsements of fearless pro-life leaders willing to stand up and be counted, or get to know what Colorado for Equal Rights needs, just visit the web site: www.coloradoforequalrights.com
Hopefully the bishops will come around. Of course no one can know the future and the personhood intitive won't stop all abortions, but it's a wonderful start!
Chantell Chantell | August 4, 2008
Judy, you are heroic. The idea that the Colorado legislation will not be supported "because it does not provide a realistic opportunity for ending or even reducing abortions in Colorado" is the equivalent of the Apostles - the first bishops of the Church - declining to evangelize because their efforts did not provide a realistic opportunity for propogating the Faith in the early days of the Church. I am appalled by the questionable judgement and apparent lack of fervor that is repreatedly displayed by some Church officials in the United States. I am hopeful in the undying and stalwart dedication to principle in people like yourself. God bless you, and God bless and have mercy on the United States of America.
Of all things fundamental to the health and well being of this nation, nothing is more fundamental than the public recognition, protection, and respect due to the inherent dignity of every human person. Principles, unlike values, are unchangeable.
God save the Nation. Andrew Ellis | August 5, 2008
Dear Judy,
Six weeks or so ago I added a note to a main message of yours in the ALL Pro-Life Today. It was about the Knights of Columbus. You had quoted Bishop Sheen about the laity correcting the problems in the Church. I said that the K of C is part of the problem because they have men such as Ted Kennedy on the rolls of their Councils. You have been very vocal about politics and pro-life in the past and the K of C is pro-life by definition so I thought you ought to be aware of this problem within the K of C. Ken Aydlott | August 5, 2008
Your statement is so true, Judie. It seems like the Bishops have one excuse after another for not endorsing the Personhood Amendments across the Nation. I cannot understand their thinking nor their lack of reasoning. Maybe they (Bishops) should read or re-read JP11's Faith and Reason. Seems like most of them have lost both.
Thank you for all you do for us and the pre-born. Donna Marek | August 5, 2008
Judie,
We need to bring this to the Holy See's attention ASAP and let them know that the Colorado bishops are not doing their job here. Pray for the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops and priests, pray much for them. Nick | August 5, 2008
Dear Ken:
I have been aware of the internal and external problems with the Knights of Columbus and pro-abortion members for a long time. I had hoped that the problem would ultimately be resolved, but apparently such is not the case.
FILTHY, FILTHY RUBBISH! Posted: Friday August 1, 2008 at 10:33 am EST by Judie Brown
Walking down the streets of Dublin can be a real joy. There are so many lovely young people on the streets, lots of children and shops for every single sort of interest. And naturally, there are street preachers and musicians, including a seven-piece chamber group the day we were there. But there was one scene that caught my eye: a young woman who was speaking and the street sign standing just around the corner from her.
She was a lovely blonde Irish lass of perhaps 20. Using a microphone, she was telling those who would listen about her conversion to Christ. She kept describing the incredible feeling that she had as she was standing there speaking to everyone about how much she loves God. She said she had a past and that she could have never imagined saying the things she now says about how Christ touched her life and turned her around. Refreshing is a nice word to describe this.
Then we turned the corner we saw a street sign with these words:
IF YOU BEHAVE LIKE A PIECE OF FILTH THAT'S HOW THE WORLD SEES YOU.
Wow, I thought. This is no accident. What perfect placement for the sign. Ah, but then I read what was underneath the picture, and it said,
Litter is disgusting. So are those responsible.
I looked at my husband and said, "You gotta be kidding me!" To which he replied, "No, Judie, the world is turned upside down."
Indeed. The sign is designed to remind those who view it that tossing a piece of paper on the ground makes you filthy and that once you have done that, everyone will see you that way. Definitely a cardinal sin! So, I looked and looked online for the sign to share with you, but I found the video of the Dublin television ad instead.
Now, don't write to me and say I should be opposed to littering. Of course I am, but that is not my point. The point is that this sign, like so much of what we see in our modern culture, is designed to suggest that the "old mores" are really out and the new way of thinking about things is far more sophisticated, genteel and compassionate.
If we live in Ireland, we can thank Dublin’s local authorities and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government for reminding us to keep the streets clean, but don't expect that same department to worry for a nanosecond about the spiritual or moral environment.
If that sign had represented what I so foolishly thought it did and had provided a testimony to the virtue of purity and the value of marriage, for example, every single anti-life, pro-gay-rights group in the land probably would have been outraged. Can't you just hear it?
Or, if that sign has gone on to suggest that the only safe way to protect oneself from HIV and other dreadful diseases is to save yourself for marriage rather than living a morally filthy lifestyle, it probably would never have seen the light of day. This is, after all, the real world and the era in which everything wrong is acceptable and everything right, according to God's laws, is simply rubbish!
I will pray for that young woman I saw on the Dublin street corner that day. I hope that she truly represents the majority in her country. But I have a feeling the sign does, and that saddens me beyond words.
How pathetic! Those who care about the envirement, should care more about the unborn!
Chantell Chantell | August 1, 2008
Wow, great article.... (as usual). Makes me think of those actresses who cry on TV about the seals or bears dying but then, advocate the WHOLESALE MURDER of babies in the womb. Judy, you are awesome!
hugs,
Sue Sue Widemark | August 1, 2008
It's really hard to believe that people don't see the real bloddy littering that they do. Christ said you have eyes and do not see. Here is parat of the posting I made on Christianity Today,
If I'm a woman who has the right to choose, can I kill my neighbor's baby instead of my own. No? What's the essential difference? Abortion is one person killing another person. And that fact is not only for Christians who are obedient to the word of God. An agnostic who understands logic and science can see the obvious truth that abortion is murder, the ultimate violence. Life in the womb is only one phase of life; we can now watch a fetus suck his or her thumb and blink in 4-D ultrasound. Our shame is that we didn't learn from slavery where we saw our fellow human persons as subhuman, so we abused and enslaved them, now we've gone further into barbarism by treating our preborn citizens as subhuman only instead of enslaving them we kill them, and treat their remains as refuse. And we do it out to ignorance and stupidity. Certainly not out of love of neighbor. It's shocking that any Christian could be pro-choice! Charles N. Marrelli | August 1, 2008
A "CINO" WITH NO REPRIMAND IN SIGHT Posted: Thursday July 31, 2008 at 1:35 pm EST by Judie Brown
First, let me clarify what "CINO" means. It is the acronym for "Catholic in name only," a phrase used to describe a public figure who supports an evil while claiming to be a Catholic in good standing. This is a form of political corruption that is particularly popular today. The sad thing is that it has become so popular due to the inability or unwillingness of many bishops to assert their authority and work to bring these aberrant souls back into the fold.
The most recent (and I believe, the most ridiculous) example of this comes from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In a recent question-and-answer session at a blogger conference, she exposed her hypocrisy with all the gall one would expect from this woman. On its web site, the Family Research Council posted this assessment of her remarks:
The Speaker called abstinence-only programs "dangerous" to America's youth and said that the only solution is to elect more pro-abortion politicians. She went on to criticize the proposed federal regulations on conscience protections as also being "dangerous" and said that if "you don't like abortion you should love contraception." Amazingly, she goes on to say she is speaking as both a mother of five and a "devout Catholic," despite the fact that her beliefs on abortion and contraception directly contradict the teachings of her Church. As a politician, Rep. Pelosi has every right to disagree with her Church's teachings on abortion and contraception, just as doctors, nurses and pharmacists should have every right to live by their respective church teachings and not be forced to perform abortions or distribute drugs that would violate their beliefs. America does not need more pro-abortion politicians. It needs leaders who respect freedom of conscience.
While this assessment does set forth the problem with Pelosi's statement itself, it doesn't adequately examine the deeper problem that so-called Catholics like Pelosi bring to the fore. Like every other person, Pelosi has a right to speak in any way she sees fit and make claims that may or may not ring true when one examines the teachings of the Church, but it is equally true that corrective statements can and should be made by Church authorities who realize that her words are creating confusion and scandal, not only among Catholics but also among the population at large.
Pelosi is a mother and grandmother, and it occurs to me that she is, at her core, a victim of the philosophy undergirding the 1960s sexual revolution. She has apparently fallen prey to the sort of dissent that began in the early 1960s, when some Catholic theologians and bishops, along with others, made it clear that the Catholic Church had to change her position on birth control and get with the times. Perhaps Pelosi honestly believes that if you oppose the killing of a preborn child, you should love chemicals and devices whose use creates attitudes that lead to abortion.
Moreover, as she spouts a world view that espouses sexuality without responsibility, it appears to me as total negligence that certain Catholic prelates and leaders are not publicly correcting the misconception that anybody can use their Catholic identity to undermine Catholic teaching without ever being held accountable. To my mind, this total silence is far worse than Pelosi’s comments.
Why? Because the truth is that Pelosi, like so many other CINOs, are literally getting away with reinventing Catholic teaching to suit their own agenda – a social agenda that creates havoc in the lives of others and rains down terror on preborn children.
We must never forget that contraception can kill preborn children, and even when it doesn’t, it breeds the attitudes that lead to abortion. Documentation on this subject abounds. All you have to do is read what is readily available on the Pill Kills web site to know why American Life League is never silent on this most fundamental reality. Or review the Spirit and Life columns of Human Life International's president, Father Tom Euteneuer, or the comments of physicians Paul Weckenbrock of the Couple to Couple League, or Chris Kahlenborn of One More Soul.
Some would say that I am a broken record on this subject and they might be right, but I suggest that if Catholic leaders in positions to teach the flock were doing their job as they should, people like me would be able to celebrate their courage and move on. Until that happens, I have no choice but to continue speaking out.
For example, when Cardinal Justin Rigali wrote a letter to members of Congress clarifying the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' support for the Bush administration's proposed regulation for protecting healthcare workers' freedom of conscience, he did not refer to the regulation's definition that establishes the fact that the birth control pill can cause an early abortion. He simply did not mention it.
Why? I do not know.
But that is my point. Someone has to insist on the full truth, correcting those who intentionally misrepresent that truth, and must correct them not with a desire to harass, but with charity and clarity. I cannot wait for the day when every Catholic bishop agrees. In the meantime, however, Pelosi and her ilk will have to bear with me because I am not going to be silent.
Hey Judie, have you ever heard what these politicions excuses are for supporting abortion?
Chantell Chantell | July 31, 2008
Judi,
YOu keep right on telling the truth till our priests and bishops do their job. Patricia TobinKennedy | July 31, 2008
Re Mrs. Pelosi: So where's the "freedom" in her "freedom of choice"? And why doesn't the "informed consent" of medicine apply to contraception/abortion? Something stinks! Carol Luscomb | July 31, 2008
Dear Chantell:
Arrogance does not require excuses; haughty airs command the media attention and result in confusion. And until the bishops say this and reprimand these people, we will continue to witness such scandal.
TUG OF WAR OR ANTI-CATHOLIC PROPAGANDA? Posted: Wednesday July 30, 2008 at 11:55 am EST by Judie Brown
We just came across this story in the July 26 Irish Times. Lo and behold, on page 4 of the first section, we read the following headline: "Tug of war over the right to choose." The report covers the highly-publicized case of the pregnant 14-year-old girl in Poland whose mother did everything possible to ensure that the young woman aborted her baby. As it turned out, it took a public official to break the law before the baby was finally killed on June 17, but that was not the essence of this report.
What was most disconcerting about this article was the word picture presented, not only of pro-life people but of Catholic priests as well. Pro-life activists were portrayed as "intimidating" while "Anna," "Agata's" mother was portrayed as under duress and doing everything she could to help her poor, young daughter relieve herself of her baby. According to Lifesitenews.com, both females' names were changed in news reports to protect their identity.
As the story unfolds, a Catholic priest who is on friendly terms with a nearby hospital's staff, finds out about Agata's situation and tries to persuade her that she really does not need to have the baby killed. He makes it clear – though it is quite hard to discern from the article's rhetoric – that he will do everything he can to help her and her mother.
There are some interesting twists and turns in this report that makes one wonder who the villain in this story, or perhaps a made-for-TV movie, really is.
At one point, Anna and Agata claim that the priest was attempting to pressure Agata into keeping her baby. At another point, Anna says they were doing all they could to be polite to the priest, and near the end of the report, we learn that Agata blamed the priest for all her woes and wishes he had simply minded his own business. Of course, we also learn that a court intervened and took Agata from her mother and placed her in juvenile care. That action is also blamed on pro-lifers, but I found that hard to believe.
However, the bottom line with this Irish Times report is clear to me: Insist on portraying Catholic pro-lifers as the enemy in a Catholic country, and you will get some attention. Twist the facts to make it sound as if every callous, cold-hearted person in the land is part of the pro-life movement, and you win sympathy for mothers who have a so-called right to abortion because of international human rights treaties.
And, of course, the report states, "The strength of the religious right in Poland means that, in the public debate on abortion, it is able to define the terms, for instance, warning that liberalizing abortion laws will create what they term 'a culture of death.'" Isn't everybody supposed to accept as fact the claim that abortion is a human right even though it results in the death of a human being?
The problem with such bigoted reporting, of course, is that far too many people read a story like this and believe every word without doing any research or looking elsewhere to discern fact from fiction.
As I mentioned, at the end of the drama, we learn that the health minister, Eva Kopacz, arranged for the child to be aborted in another city, and so far, the health ministry has refused to comment. But the fact is, the child is dead, and to this moment, we really don't understand the dynamics between this insistent mother and her 14-year-old daughter.
All we know for sure is that the secular media is exploiting this story to diminish the credibility of pro-life people, demonize the Catholic Church and her teachings, and further the agenda of that beastly "culture of death" that the media refuses to admit is alive and well in Poland, Ireland and, frankly, nearly everywhere else.
How awful! Let me know if you what the excuse is for this. I remember that poor girl didn't want to have an abortion!
Chantell Chantell | July 30, 2008
ADMINISTRATOR'S NOTE: THIS POST HAS BEEN EDITED.
I know what you mean about the facts being twisted. We went to see a battalion of Reservists off to Iraq on Monday AM. The guys were all eager to "serve" (In fact I read in the WSJ that on July 4th in Iraq, over 1200 re-enlisted! But as for this event, the liberal media had only one picture -on the front page no less - that showed a weepy mom clinging to her son as if to say, "that evil President, that evil war" .. No where is there thanks for our brave men and women who do, indeed, serve Someone and a cause greater than themselves. ... Thank you for all you do. Suzanne de Decker | July 30, 2008
Suzanne:
For those of us who admire our men and women in service and realize the immense sacrifices they make, there is an equal measure of sorrow because the media is so far removed from Christ and his truth. God help us!
Pro-Life Story: To Abort or not to abort Posted By Sara on Jun, 25 2007 I lost my virginity at 15. Thinking I was pregnant, I thought about choices. Do I keep it? Abort it? Or give it up for adoption?
Well I thought (so I wouldn't have to tell my ... Read
