By Theresa A. Deisher, Ph.D.

Just when the pharmaceutical industry thought the vaccine-autism controversy had been resolved, the National Vaccine Advisory Committee has recommended further study of vaccine safety. A perceived fear of the safety of the U.S. vaccination schedule has led increasing numbers of parents to opt out of full compliance. The numbers of children who are not fully vaccinated has now reached a point where “herd” immunity may be compromised, compelling the Centers for Disease Control to hold town-hall meetings and convene a Vaccine Safety Working Subgroup. Despite research ruling out mercury (Thimerosal) or the measles portion of one specific vaccine, autism continues to rise to a level of one in every 64 children in the UK.

The NVAC draft report recommends further study of the potential for vaccines to contribute to autism in children who have underlying mitochondrial disease, a worthwhile study given the clinical history of such children developing autism after vaccinations (see Poling case). What the NVAC has overlooked, however, in their recommendations, is that epidemic regressive autism is associated with the switch from using animal cells to produce vaccines to the use of aborted human fetal cells for vaccine production. Now when we vaccinate our children, some vaccines also deliver contaminating aborted human fetal DNA. The safety of this has never been tested.

Autism and autism spectrum disorder are polygenic diseases, meaning that multiple genes have been shown to be associated with these diseases. Studies have also clearly shown that there is an environmental component, a trigger, that is required. Vaccines are an obvious potential environmental trigger for autism because of the almost universal childhood exposure to vaccines in first world countries. The vaccine-autism connection was first hypothesized following the introduction of a new measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine to the U.S. in 1979, with complete U.S. market share by 1983, and to the UK in 1988. Autism rates began to rise in the U.S. after 1979 and rose dramatically after 1983, and likewise rose in the UK after 1988, leading physicians to suspect a link. Initially, the measles component of this vaccine, MMR II, was suspected to be the culprit. Subsequent studies have also focused on the presence of mercury in vaccines, which incidentally, the MMR II vaccine did not contain.

Those studies have largely ruled out the new measles portion of the MMR II or mercury as the environmental trigger for autism. However, the compelling temporal association between this new MMR vaccine and autism cannot be ignored or explained away. What has been ignored is the fact that this new MMR vaccine introduced the use of aborted fetal cells for vaccine production. At one point, as much as 94 percent of children in the U.S. and 98 percent of children in the UK were given this vaccine.

Today, more than 23 vaccines are contaminated by the use of aborted fetal cells. There is no law that requires that consumers be informed that some vaccines are made using aborted fetal cells and contain residual aborted fetal DNA. While newer vaccines produced using aborted fetal cells do inform consumers, in their package inserts, that the vaccines contain contaminating DNA from the cell used to produce the vaccine, they do not identify the cells as being derived from electively aborted human fetuses. (See the Varivax—chicken pox—package insert for the presence of MRC5 residual DNA.)

In other words, they tell you what is in the vaccine, but they don’t fully inform you where it came from. The earliest aborted fetal cell-produced vaccines such as Meruvax (rubella) and MMR II do not even inform consumers that the vaccines contain contaminating DNA from the cell used to produce them. Furthermore, it is unconscionable that the public-health risk of injecting our children with residual contaminating human aborted fetal DNA has been ignored.

How could the contaminating aborted fetal DNA create problems? It creates the potential for autoimmune responses and/or inappropriate insertion into our own genomes through a process called recombination. There are groups researching the potential link between this DNA and autoimmune diseases such as juvenile (type I) diabetes, multiple sclerosis and lupus. Our organization, Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute, is focused on studying the quantity, characteristics and genomic recombination of the aborted fetal DNA found in many of our vaccines.

Preliminary bioinformatics research conducted at SCPI indicates that “hot spots” for DNA recombination are found in nine autism-associated genes present on the X chromosome. These nine genes are involved in nerve-cell synapse formation, central nervous system development and mitochondrial function.

Could genomic insertion of the aborted fetal DNA, found in some of our childhood vaccines since 1979, be an environmental trigger for autism? Could the fact that genes critical for nerve synapse formation and nervous system development are found on the X chromosome provide some explanation of why autism is predominantly a disease found in boys? Could the “hot spots” identified in these autism-associated genes be sites for insertion of contaminating aborted fetal DNA?

These questions must be answered, and quickly. Recent literature suggests that autism spectrum disorder may now impact one out of every 100 children. The pharmaceutical industry is also currently moving to replace more animal-produced vaccines with aborted-fetal-cell production and also to produce biologic drugs using aborted fetal cells.

The practice of using aborted fetal cells for vaccine and drug production creates wrenching moral dilemmas for parents and consumers, ignores informed consent rights, and exposes our children and ourselves to contaminants lacking safety evaluations. We cannot ignore this issue in good conscience, and we cannot afford to wait.
 

Dr. Deisher is president of Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute (www.soundchoice.org), as well as a cofounder and the research and development director for Ave Maria Biotechnology Company (www.avmbiotech.com), which promote pro-life biotechnology. This article is an adaptation and update of Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute’s June 2009 newsletter and is published with its kind permission. For more information on Dr. Deisher, see "Providing real choice: A conversation with Dr. Theresa Deisher" in American Life League's Celebrate Life magazine (January-February 2009) .

Responses

My brother is 71 years old and is living with autism. He never had any of the vaccines against anything. Mom and Dad could not afford to take Richard to the doctor to get that done. This was the end of the Hoover Depression. They could not afford to take him to the doc for the vaccines. Rich was conceived during Ember Week (remember those) of June, 1937. This might play a part in Richard's getting autism.
Karen | July 31, 2009

---

Dear Karen

If I might point something out to you, it would be that the vaccinations that were available in the late thirties were not of the same calibre as those being manufactured today. The history of vaccines, which is posted on line, is quite interesting. http://www.keepkidshealthy.com/welcome/immunizations/immunization_timeline.html

I am not at all certain that anyone in those days actually recognized autism per se or that the vaccines that were available would have affected anyone in the same way that they do today.

Judie Brown


Judie Brown | August 1, 2009

---

By Ken Connor

There is no doubt that President Obama's most valuable political asset is his remarkable charisma—his ability to send the spirit of the nation soaring on the wings of hope and change. Among the hopeful visions and promises of change articulated by Mr. Obama in his inaugural speech this past January was a vow to "restore science to its rightful place and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality."

Six months into his term, a picture of the president's understanding of science and its "rightful place" is emerging, and it is anything but flattering. President Obama has repeatedly demonstrated a propensity to elevate "science" over ethical considerations in pursuit of utilitarian goals. He has shown himself to be all too willing to sacrifice principle, morality and the most vulnerable among us for the sacred "achievements" of social and scientific progress.

This penchant of the president to disregard the importance of protecting innocent human life should come as no surprise. As a state senator, Mr. Obama opposed legislation mandating emergency medical treatment for infants who survived an attempted abortion because he felt that a live baby would "add one more burden on a woman." Still, one would hope that President Obama, famed "reconciler of opposites," would find a way to strike a balance between his pro-abortion, pro-"science" constituency and his pro-life supporters.

On the issue of life however, Mr. Obama has thus far proven himself to be unwilling or unable to find that mythical "common ground" he so eloquently spoke of in his commencement address at Notre Dame. In his short time in office, the president has disbanded his council on bioethics (apparently they spent too much time talking about ethics), overturned limits on embryonic stem cell research instituted by President Bush, ended federal funding of abstinence-based education  in favor of funding for contraception-based education, lobbied for federal funding for abortion in Washington, D.C. and supported the addition of an abortion provision in the behemoth health-care bill currently winding its way through Congress.

Perhaps most revealing is the elimination of the President's Council on Bioethics, a distinguished group of experts who explored the ethical and public policy implications of emerging biomedical developments such as cloning and embryonic stem cell research. The Council provided an important forum for discussing such matters, thereby fostering the development of a reasoned consensus about how to proceed through uncharted territory. One would think that such a role would hold great attraction for President Obama in light of his stated commitment to discussion and debate; yet time and again, Mr. Obama has demonstrated that when it comes to protecting innocent human life, he is unwilling to allow ethical concerns to impede scientific "progress."

Mr. Obama appears to view any "advance" in science as an intrinsic good that is always beneficial to mankind. This is the same mentality that animated the eugenics movement of the early 20th century. In the 21st century, this mentality has given rise to a "disposable man" ethic that dictates that embryonic stem cell research should proceed unencumbered, regardless of its lack of success and regardless of the fact that each tiny embryo dissected in our quest for our improvement or immortality represents the willful destruction of nascent human life.

Obama's disposable man mentality may also be seen in his approach to pregnancy and abortion. His decision to de-fund abstinence education makes it clear that he sees no utility in a principled approach to preventing unplanned pregnancies. Obama apparently believes that the abstinence-only approach is stifling and outdated. Why encourage teens to defer sex until marriage? Their hormones are, after all, raging. We’ll just provide condoms on the front end, and if that doesn’t do the trick, abortion on the back end—all at taxpayer expense, of course. Problem solved; principle be damned.

Taking a cue from President Obama's approach to eliminating "problems" without addressing root causes, Planned Parenthood, the nation's number one abortion provider and recipient of millions in federal taxpayer dollars, has shown itself willing to break the law and bury reports of the abuse of underage girls requesting abortions. Under the organization’s utilitarian view of life, it doesn't matter how a girl got pregnant—even if it was through the commission of a crime. Planned Parenthood is in the business of solving the "problem" of unwanted pregnancy through abortion. Period.

But what about those who, based on principle, refuse to perform—or assist in the performance of—an abortion? If President Obama has his way, the days of conscientious objection will soon be over. Medical practitioners who refuse to train in these procedures or offer these services will be guilty of—you guessed it—an ethics violation!

President Obama has made it crystal clear where he stands on questions of medical ethics and human life. And rest assured, it is nowhere near middle ground.

In his inaugural address, the president invoked a noble vision for America: "The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.... Our founding fathers, faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expediency's sake."

As he advances his agenda, President Obama would do well to remember his own inspiring words and ask himself if his policies will preserve the American tradition of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or whether they will sacrifice these precious ideals on the altar of utility and scientific expedience.

Ken Connor is chairman of the Center for a Just Society (www.centerforajustsociety.org), an attorney and coauthor of Sinful Silence: When Christians Neglect Their Civic Duty. This article was originally published by the Center for a Just Society on July 10, 2009 and is reprinted here with its kind permission.

Responses

I am with you one hundred percent, Ken. Anyone who claims a woman has a right to choose abortion, claims refutal to The Constitution of the United States and the Bible,
Olivia B. West | July 20, 2009

---

Obama's immoral decisions come as no surprise given the fact that he adheres to the philosophy of Saul Alinsky. Any means possible are allowed in order to accomplish their ends. If you want to see what makes Obama tick...study Saul Alinsky....scary stuff!
Jacqui Fetsko | July 21, 2009

---

I had to look up Saul Alinsky, and Wikipedia offers a disturbing example of what Jacqui refers to, "that the most effective means are whatever will achieve the desired ends". His final work, published the year before he died, begins with the following tribute, "From all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins ??? or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom ??? Lucifer." Rebellion for rebellion's sake.
David Volk | July 22, 2009

---

The opposite of health is disease, which, if terminal, results in death. The opposite of care is neglect, or dereliction, which can also result in death.

Keep that in mind as I present the case for renaming Obama’s nationalized health-care plan to better reflect the principles—or lack thereof—that are being proposed. The new name would be the nationalized negligence-unto-death plan.

A look at history will reveal why I recommend this name change.

The British have also been dealing with rising health-care costs for many years. Thus, it is not at all surprising that, just recently, Parliament began debating whether British citizens should be allowed to assist others to travel abroad to commit suicide without risking prosecution.
 
Thankfully, some have argued that doctors in Britain want nothing to do with any sort of direct killing.  But the very fact that this discussion is occurring in a nation with nationalized health care—and rising health-care costs—should warn the politicians in Washington, D.C. that promising more than can be delivered can end up being deadly for some people.

Then there’s the news now coming from Canada, another country with a history of nationalized health-care: “With great caution, the Quebec College of Physicians is prepared to cross the line on the controversial debate over euthanasia and propose that it be included ‘as part of the appropriate care in certain particular circumstances.’”

Lest we overlook it, the abortion rate in Britain and Canada is very high, since there are few, if any, restrictions on it. In fact, in Britain, between 1968 and 2003, there have been almost six million abortions committed, or about 550 per day. In 2006, statistics were released indicating that about three million abortions had been committed in Canada between 1969 and 2003. We learn from Jim Hughes, national president of Canada’s Campaign Life Coalition, “The magnitude of this atrocity appears to be lost on the average person in Canada.”
 
Clearly, in both countries, where some form of nationalized health care is in place, the suggestion that killing people is part of the long-term “benefit” is not unknown. This brings me to the sad state of affairs in the United States. In this country, we currently abort/murder one preborn child every 26 seconds. This is, by far, the most grotesque death rate in the allegedly civilized world. Mind you, this figure is for surgical and medical abortions only; the exact number of chemical abortions is unknown.
 
So, we should not be too surprised to learn that, under Obama’s health-care proposals, there would be changes in the way so-called health care is delivered— some subtle and some all too obvious. We have been given a hint of this in President Obama’s recent words about seniors. According to the Los Angeles Times,

President Obama suggested at a town hall event Wednesday night that one way to shave medical costs is to stop expensive and ultimately futile procedures performed on people who are about to die and don’t stand to gain from the extra care… He added: “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.”

Interesting, don’t you think, that a former community organizer with no medical degree is discussing how people should die and what they should be willing to surrender for the good of the cause? My oh my!

We also note that the president has sent his Office of Public Engagement director, Christina Tchen, to speak at Planned Parenthood’s national convention. Tchen was also part of a “common ground” conference call made by the White House, supposedly to engage people from both sides of the abortion debate in a dialogue.

“According to participants in the call, speakers expressed specific interest in finding common ground on pregnancy prevention—especially for adolescents—reducing the need for abortion, increasing maternal and child health care and assisting those who want to adopt children.”

We can very safely assume, from Tchen’s activities, that the White House’s chief advisors on formulating “health-care reform” will include the Planned Parenthood folks, who, as we know, never met an abortion they didn’t try to disguise with euphemisms. Furthermore, Planned Parenthood’s brand of “pregnancy prevention” leads to promiscuity, venereal disease and more money for the abortion coffers.

Congressman Chris Smith, a leading pro-life champion in the U.S. Congress, has warned of this and, according to a recent report, exposed the Obama agenda once again: 

 One quote from Obama himself, prior to his election, described “reproductive care” including abortion as the “heart” of his idea of healthcare reform.

“Well, look, in my mind reproductive care is essential care, basic care so it is at the center, the heart of the plan that I propose,” Obama told a Planned Parenthood Action Fund Event in July 2007 during a Q&A session.

Obama also indicated that he expected all insurers to be forced to cover abortion, saying: “Insurers are going to have to abide by the same rules in terms of providing comprehensive care, including reproductive care ... that’s going to be absolutely vital.”…

”If the proposed plan moves forward without an explicit exclusion that ensures that abortion is excluded from any government mandated or government subsidized benefits, health care reform will be a death sentence for thousands of unborn children,” wrote Smith.

Obama’s health-care proposal has been described as “the silent FOCA” (Freedom of Choice Act), since, according to Smith, “Obamacare opens the spigot of public funding and does more to facilitate abortion than any action since Roe.”  I would add that it’s a “duty-to-die” proposal as well.

When we talk about bringing human beings into the world and caring for them, there should never be any thought of cutting costs over the bodies of people who are preborn, frail, deemed economically burdensome, etc. Such a notion is called utilitarianism.

Pondering the Obama plan, I have wondered aloud if it might include proposals to allow people to be sterilized in order to save money that would otherwise be spent on raising children and providing for their health care? Is it possible that the government could embrace a “child-free” policy? 

Let’s face it, when you have someone like Professor John Holdren now wielding power as the Obama administration’s new science czar, who can tell what kind of schemes might emerge to accomplish unspoken goals? All the while, Obama might be giving us smiling assurances that we all need to be not only healthy, but also environmentally friendly—by having fewer children, if any at all. Would anyone be the wiser?

If this sounds far-fetched, then I recommend that you do a little research of your own. Experience should be the best teacher for the White House team, and Canadian David Gratzer, M.D. has already led the way. In Canada today,

[o]nly half of ER patients are treated in a timely manner by national and international standards, according to a government study. The physician shortage is so severe that some towns hold lotteries, with the winners gaining access to the local doc…

Ironically, as the U.S. is on the verge of rushing toward government health care, Canada is reforming its system in the opposite direction…

Americans need to ask a basic question: Why are they rushing into a system of government-dominated health care when the very countries that have experienced it for so long are backing away?

What is the rush? Who will read the legislation, word for word? Who will investigate the impact? Will anyone pay attention to the details?

There is no need to repeat the failures of nations that have already experienced nationalized health care and have realized their errors, unless, of course, what appears to be bad medicine to some whets the appetites of those who don’t really object to a little nationalized negligence unto death.

Responses

How very disturbing that we as a nation have decided to dip this far! Soon, if you've been diagnosed with cancer, alzheimers, AIDS or any uncrueable disease, they will put you down, just like they do animals!
elisabeth | July 21, 2009

---

It has been our observation over the course of the past 11 months or so that Barack Obama is a master of the stage—even when his teleprompter crashes to the floor. He is a man of many talents, one of which is the concerted, nearly effortless goal of attacking the Catholic Church and her teaching. Oh no, he has not done this by overt comments or threats or acts of intimidation; he has done it and is continuing to do it by shining a spotlight on Catholics who are anything but representative of the fundamental teachings of the Church. Not only that, but as you will soon see, he accomplishes this as the Catholic bishops go silently about their daily activities as if to give assent by non-comment.

It all started with Professor Douglas Kmiec, who in February 2008 wrote in a Slate.com commentary,  “Beyond life issues, an audaciously hope-filled Democrat like Obama is a Catholic natural.” In May of last year, Kmiec endorsed Obama  and subsequently worked in the Obama campaign. Kmiec made the argument that Catholics could, in good conscience, vote for Obama even though he was committed to abortion on demand. Obama never admitted this in so many words. It must have been that “audacity of manipulation” that he has mastered so well. 

Regardless, facts have a way of sneaking into the picture when you actually look for them, and there was never a doubt that Obama not only favored abortion, but was dedicated to it at any point during pregnancy and apparently during the birth process as well.

Kmiec never let that trouble him in the least. And according to my files, there was one only Catholic priest who actually had the audacity of faith to deny the body and blood of Christ to Kmiec. One priest. 
 
Not a single Catholic bishop took the step necessary to make it perfectly clear to Kmiec that his soul was in jeopardy and he was creating enormous scandal, so therefore he would be denied the sacrament until he repented of his obvious support for abortion.

Such inaction clearly inspired others, such as Professor Nicholas Cafardi, to get on the Obama hope-wagon and ride it without apology. He had to resign his post at Franciscan University, which was admirable, but again, no Catholic bishop stood up to point out the tragic error and the horrible price this man might have to pay one day when he stands face-to-face with God. It continued that way right through the elections, and as we all know, over 50 percent of Catholics voted for President Obama. I am positive his audacity of disdain for true Catholicism was highly sated by that fact alone.

Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, a man with a lengthy record of commitment to abortion and an alleged Catholic, was selected by the then-Democratic Party presidential nominee to be his running mate. Bishop Ricard spoke out and suggested that Senator Biden should examine his conscience while Bishop Martino, of Scranton, Pennsylvania, put his foot down and made it clear that Biden would not receive Holy Communion in his diocese.However, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops remained silent.

Once Obama took office, things continued along the same path, as he and his advisors picked one pro-abortion Catholic at a time to fill key posts in his administration. Just a few examples should suffice.

The Obama nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services, who now holds that position, is a pro-abortion Catholic by the name of Kathleen Sebelius. 

During the period that followed her nomination and subsequent confirmation, there were a couple of bishops who actually spoke out and said in no uncertain terms that she did not represent Catholic teaching and that she should refrain from receiving Christ in the Holy Eucharist. You may recall Archbishop Joseph Naumann‘s public statement:

I reissue my request of the Faithful of the Archdiocese to pray for Governor Sebelius. I hope that my request of the Governor, not to present herself for Holy Communion, will provoke her to reconsider the serious spiritual and moral consequences of her past and present actions. At the same time, I pray this pastoral action on my part will help alert other Catholics to the moral gravity of participating in and/or cooperating with the performance of abortions.

Sadly he did not take the next logical step and announce that if she did attempt to receive the body of Christ, he would not only deny her the sacrament, but instruct his priests, deacons and extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist to do likewise.

Obama’s choice for Secretary of the Interior was Kenneth Salazar, former Democrat senator from Colorado, Catholic and abortion supporter. Salazar was confirmed as the USCCB looked on.

Obama’s choice for Secretary of Agriculture was Tom Vilsack, former governor of Iowa, Catholic and pro-abortion. Vilsack was confirmed as the USCCB looked on.

The list goes on and on, but I think you get my point. Fast forward to this past week, when we are listening to the confirmation hearings for a certain Latino woman and judge by the name of Sonia Sotomayor. Though the National Catholic Register reports that she is effectively a “lapsed Catholic,” Judge Sotomayor has made it clear that she believes that Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton became “settled precedent” with the Casey decision of 1992. She is therefore a Catholic-in-name-only who favors abortion, or at the very least, is not going to stand her ground as a person educated in Catholic principles, willing to defend the justice of protecting innocent preborn life. 

Finally, we have learned that Obama’s selection for Surgeon General, Regina Benjamin, is a Catholic who supports abortion rights. According to an employee in Benjamin’s clinic in Louisiana, abortions are not done at the clinic, but patients are referred elsewhere. She has also advocated in the past that doctors be trained in how to perform “pregnancy terminations.” And finally, she has no problem with contraception. As a matter of fact, the author of the Salon.com article wherein we find rave reviews for Benjamin’s various positions is none other than Francis Kissling, founder of Catholics for a Free Choice.

She writes of Benjamin,

She is an active Catholic and, if her office nurse is to be believed, she is one of the more than 90 percent of Catholics who have no problem with birth control. (I have rarely met a devout Catholic working with poor people who is not an advocate of safe and effective contraception -- from nuns in Chile to priests in the Philippines. They get that having children you cannot afford degrades the soul perhaps even more than the body.) This, then, is a near-perfect public face for a president embarking on a controversial last-ditch effort to fix our health care system and serve the poor.

It is no accident that Obama has made it his business to put the spotlight on as many dissenting Catholics as he can find. The only criteria appears to be that they can prove that they were at least once known as Catholic, that they favor abortion and that, as a third criterion, they are somewhat fit to serve in the capacity for which they have been chosen.

As Obama’s skillfully orchestrated use of dissident Catholics continues, the USCCB looks on, perhaps unaware of the game that is being played and the stakes that grow higher with the passing of each day. For that I am truly sorry, saddened and concerned. 

Over the years, there have been so many times people have asked me why the U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference does not speak out with a unified voice and wield the power that God has given them to set forth the truths of Catholic teaching. Each time, I am moved to near tears, for I cannot explain it. Moreover, it is a question that I should never have been asked in the first place.

The audacious, manipulative resident of the White House knows exactly what he is doing; he is cunning, clever and confident. And he is winning the struggle for the souls of people whose shepherds have thrown them to the wolves.

Responses

Judie,
I garauntee you, that years from now, people are going to accuse the Church of remaining silent. They'll ask, where was God when the abortions were happening? They'll ask, where was the Church when Obama was pushing his pro-abortion agenda? Answer: it's simple we allowed it to happen. We did nothing.
Nick | July 16, 2009

---

Each bishop has authority and responsibility in his own diocese. It is not the role of one bishop to meddle in the activity of another diocese. Period.
That is Ecclesiology 101. You my dear extream right wing fanatic nut job, want more authority than the Pope. Don't forget, the national bishop conferences are only a recent development in the church.
Jimmy | July 17, 2009

---

eerie to say the last, Judie!! I was thinking last night about how I forgot to mention exactly this point in my last email...that O. is systematically and openly attempting to divide the CC in AMerica by one after another opposing non orthodox Catholics to his administration. ANd then I saw your piece today--it's not accidental...it's deliberate and cynical what he's doing. I get so disgusted with the Bishops...when are they going to issue the excommunications?? WHen are they going to stand up to this man....??
peter wilson | July 17, 2009

---

Dear Jimmy

Theology 101, which is actually a real entity, teaches us to stand up and defend Christ and never count the cost.

Judie Brown
Judie Brown | July 18, 2009

---

Judie,
Thanks for speaking up.
Many years ago at the Nuemberg trials, when asked by the presiding judges, "How could such an atrocity happen to well educated and religious society? The response was "WE REMAINED SILENT, even though we knew it was wrong.
Our country has changed with our SILENCE!!!!!!! Just like Germany.
Ken Ryan | July 19, 2009

---

Peggy Loonan, a columnist in Colorado, recently wrote an opinion piece about “anti-abortion hardliners” such as yours truly. She claims that many of us are eager to talk out loud and clearly about criminalizing hormonal birth control. She is, of course, accurate about that. But she has either intentionally avoided discussing the process that would be followed once legal recognition of human personhood is restored to all human beings from their beginning, or she is too wild-eyed about birth control to see past the fluff.

The fact is that, first and foremost, Colorado’s human personhood proposal acknowledges that a human being is deserving of recognition as a person from the beginning of their biological development. This means that a single-cell human being would receive the same legal protection and respect for his or her human rights as anyone else.

Once human personhood is clearly recognized in the state constitution, the state legislature would have to address the criminal penalties to be imposed for violating it. Legal experts have informed us that, firstly, abortion would need to be defined as a crime. After that, the specific forms of abortion, such as chemical abortion, would have to be clearly defined and addressed. So far, this discussion has not taken place, since a human personhood amendment has not yet been added to a state constitution. Thus the fundamental question, personhood for one and all, is the only thing we can discuss intelligently at this point, unless there are other agendas at work—which is precisely what I believe is occurring with Loonan and her ilk.

Rather than admit that the birth control pill has three modes of action, one of which is interference with the human embryo’s ability to implant himself in his mother’s womb, thus rendering him unable to survive, Loonan focuses on so-called reproductive rights while ignoring scientific facts. That is the way culture-of death advocates operate. Loonan could have researched this from clinical and legal perspectives. But never let a fact get in the way of an ideologue hammering away at a theory!

To my mind, what underlies Loonan’s overzealousness is not a desire to present scientific facts, but rather to paint a portrait of miserable pro-lifers who want to rob women of their “right” to use the drug of choice for recreational sex: the birth control pill.

So let’s respond to her negativity with a bit of honesty. While I'm not sure she can stand it, readers of this commentary should be willing to at least consider the possibility that human beings—at any stage of their development—deserve and should be able to expect integrity from commentators promoting certain so-called rights. In this case, the so-called rights in question are often described as “reproductive rights.”

Many years ago, Margaret Sanger, according to some of her more supportive biographers, was a champion of “reproductive rights.” Sanger paved the way for the current discussions about the value of the human person and the nature of human procreation by decrying all that is sacred about the human body. Very early in her career, she had an experience that was pivotal in the formation of her philosophy: 

When one of her patients died of a self-induced abortion in 1913, Sanger left her nursing career. "It was like an illumination….There was only one thing to be done: call out, start the alarm, set the heather on fire! Awaken the womanhood of America to free the motherhood of the world!" Sanger wrote. "I resolved that women should have knowledge of contraception. They have every right to know about their own bodies."

Of course, at that time, Sanger did not actually study how the female body works nor the tragic physical consequences of ingesting birth control pills, because they had not yet been developed. But her advocacy paved the way for what Loonan now claims as a fundamental "right" for women.
Loonan opines, “The birth-control pill is a proven method to prevent an unintended pregnancy and is an American icon of women’s reproductive health and pregnancy prevention and more importantly, it is where the majority of the American public beliefs [sic] the common ground in the abortion war begins.”

Erroneous information, to be sure, but like Margaret Sanger before her, Loonan’s overriding concern is that women of all ages be free to avoid having an ill-timed baby. And that’s the rub! You see, people who celebrate birth control, abortion and the like typically have never reflected on why God did not create human beings in such a way that,at birth, a package of birth control pills would emerge along with the umbilical cord.

God is a Father Who trusts each person He has created to exercise their free will, and either follow Him or follow Beelzebub and accept the consequences. Fundamentally, most who prattle on about the “need” for birth control are people whose trust in God would fit on the head of a pin, if indeed they even acknowledge Him as their Creator.

Or perhaps they do embrace a tortuous form of religious conviction. After all, Loonan did tell her readers that the birth control pill is an American icon. The word icon comes from the Greek word eikon, which means religious image. Icon can also be defined as “an object of uncritical devotion.” So it really isn’t a stretch to imagine that, like many of her genre, Loonan has a religious fervor for all things leading to promiscuity and permissive sexual adventures. After all, Episcopal minister Katherine Hancock Ragsdale has told the world that “abortion is a blessing.”

Whatever her belief system, I would invite Loonan to loosen up and take the time to actually learn the facts before going on a bashing binge against pro-life Americans. We are not, as she suggests, extremists who are desperate to do whatever it takes to make political headway. We are pro-life human beings who love life, love people, and want to ensure that each and every person’s human rights are protected.

We still love you, Ms. Loonan, and we promise to pray for you. That’s what pro-life living is all about.

Responses

Judi,
my daughter age 22 has just had her second ruptured ovarian cyst. She has had one pregnancy (Frankie is 3). The first thing the Dr. recommended to alleviate a recurrence was "The Pill" or "The Patch." She said that was the only way to avoid future cysts. Is there another way you can help us find? I'll appreciate your reply.
Sunny Turner | July 15, 2009

---

Judie, you've done it again! You cut right through the muck and bring everything into focus. Thank you for not allowing your detractors to distract or sidetrack you!
Jody Ward | July 16, 2009

---

Sunny

I sent your question to our medical advisor, Anthony Dardano, M.D. and here is his response:

To answer this properly, I need to know the history and severity of the ovarian cysts. I say this because, every menstruating woman, every cycle forms an ovarian cyst physiologically.

When the maturing egg develops it does so in a small cystic ctructure and at ovulation, this "cyst" bursts and releases the egg. The small amount of fluid that is released is the cause of the midcycle abdominal pain which depending on its severity can be confused with many other problems (appendicitis being the most common).

As in any other physiological process, things can go astray and this is not any exception. Ovarian cysts can form which can actually grow to be quite large. Some are purely cystic and totally benign while others can range from simply benign to malignant transformation which is in reality, a very small percentage.
Cysts under 4 centimeters in size are generally observed and usually regress just as they came. Of course ultrasound is an invaluable tool in the proper diagnosis and treatment of ovarian cysts.

Theoretically then, taking the pill or patch (actually the pill in transdermal form) can prevent cyst formation if ovulation is put to rest. Generally speaking this therapy has with it the numerous complications and side effects of pill usage in general. Furthermore, in the sexually active female, its potential abortifacient action must be considered.

In summary, the decision to use the pill to prevent ovarian cysts must be balanced between the risks and benefits. The non sexually active woman has the medical risks such as hypertension, blood clots, migraine, etc., to deal with while the sexually active woman has the medical plus the moral issue as well. The pill might be prescribed for these woman for say a 3 month period to "put the ovary to rest" but abstinence must be exercised as well. My best advice if the cysts are small and manageable would be to manage the pain with drugs such as motrin, alleve, tylenol, and not take the risk the pills offer. Again, not knowing the severity of the cysts in the case in question here, I can't be more specific but if more information is needed, feel free to rewrite.

Anthony N. Dardano, MD
Judie Brown | July 21, 2009

---

Come on now Ms. Brown don???t play with me. I wrote about Amendment 48 the so-called Personhood Amendment that failed in CO last Nov. by a 3-1 margin and the 2010 ballot initiative has the very same problems that one did and will fail with as big of a margin.

Who are you kidding Madame? The voters, at least in CO are smarter than you give them credit for. They aren???t going to buy a pig in a poke and that???s exactly what you are selling and you know that very well.

The idea that the devil in the details will be figured out later by a legislature (who most voters of any persuasion don???t trust ??? and I know you get that too) is something the voters didn???t buy before and they won???t this time either. Last year the writers of Amendment 48 refused to admit they were out to re-criminalize abortion let alone criminalize birth control and so when that point became very clear they looked foolish and deceptive. Now this year they are readily admitting, like you, that that is one of the intents of their efforts which then make your argument even more foolish.

But the pushers of this so-called personhood amendment again will look deceptive if they, like you, try to hide behind the notion that the legislature will take up the details and well we really don???t know what they will eventually come up with and by the way that???s in the future and doesn???t deserve consideration in the campaign??? Who is going to buy that? Not the voters of CO. Not even anti-abortion supporters bought that. You see many who consider themselves ???pro-life??? also use birth control and don???t believe it causes an abortion ??? AND IT DOESN???T ??? so they along with moderates, D???s and moderate R???s voted 3 to 1 against it. Your position here is so extreme that many so-called ???pro-lifers??? aren???t buying it either. Female hormonal birth control and its ability to prevent pregnancy is a giant genie you can???t put back in the bottle especially when many who agree with you on abortion don???t agree with you on this ??? most especially since they successfully use birth control.

Now let???s talk about the pill. You are absolutely right the pill can interfere with a fertilized eggs ability to implant into the uterine wall however, you are WRONG that medically or scientifically it causes an abortion. You may morally and religiously believe that and you are free to believe that and preach it to whomever would listen and to act upon that believe yourself by not using any birth control but you HAVE NO RIGHT to legislate that personal moral and religious belief upon any other woman. That???s a major reason Colorado voters rejected, and will again any attempt to outlaw birth control.

Next, you do your readers a disservice by not commenting on this in the piece I wrote, attention I did pay, unlike you claimed, to ???scientific facts???: ???However, mainstream medical science disagrees with anti-abortion extremists on when a pregnancy begins. Dr. Lennart Nilsson author of ???A Child Is Born??? notes that after fertilization as the ovum is rolling along the fallopian tube, ???no chemical substances or other mechanisms are yet signaling to the woman about developments deep inside her body???.when the blastocyst has finally come to rest and established contact with the endometrium, [implantation] an intensive chemical exchange of information between it and the mother???s body begins.??? So no woman or doctor can know a woman is pregnant until implantation. That???s when a pregnancy begins. So any birth control method, including the pill that interferes before implantation doesn???t cause an abortion. To say otherwise is to defy mainstream medical understanding an understanding the American public believes in.??? I understand why you wouldn???t go there ??? because medical science disagrees with your personal religious and moral beliefs.

Ah but you didn???t disappoint me in your response by saying that I merely wanted to ???paint a portrait of miserable pro-lifers who want to rob women of their ???right??? to use the drug of choice for recreational sex: the birth control pill.??? Your inexplicable anger at women for engaging in recreational sex because the birth control pill allows them that choice belies your bemoaning of a fertilized egg not being allowed to implant to create a pregnancy. You don???t care about the ???baby??? you simply want to control women???s reproduction options. When government or religious zealots control women???s reproduction, they control women???s participation in the world outside of motherhood. It would be interesting to know what happened to you in your childhood to create such anger with women that you feel you must lead some movement to legislate their reproductive choices, most assuredly their use of birth control, based not on science but on a religious belief. By the way you say I have ???a religious fervor for all things leading to promiscuity and permissive sexual adventure.??? However, millions and millions of married women use birth control too don???t they?

Next, let???s talk about this God thing. First, never condemned or condoned abortion. And for all you and those of like mind make of abortion and birth control allegedly causing an abortion, why didn???t God speak directly and on point to condemn abortion? And since God never condemned abortion he would never condemn women???s use of birth control even under your misguided and false theory of what birth control does. The fact is Roe vs. Wade goes further in protecting fetal life than God. http://www.lifeandlibertyforwomen.org/printer_friendly_pages/issues_god_bible_abortion.pdf

Finally let???s talk about illegal abortion. You don???t seem like an unintelligent woman to me but maybe your extremism has clouded your common sense and judgment. Our own history with illegal abortion is clear that women are maimed and killed by such a law while their ???babies??? don???t get saved. Illegal abortion doesn???t save ???babies??? it just sends the surgical procedure underground where it???s more dangerous to women. Most women who died pre-Roe died from self-induced illegal abortion. And different today then pre-Roe?; RU486, blackmarket RU486. No law ever stopped women from having an abortion and never will. If you would use the intelligence and common sense God gave you, you would put your efforts toward lowering the number of abortions with a proven common sense approach.

I dare you to share this with your readers: What Illegal abortion looks like for women: http://www.lifeandlibertyforwomen.org/gerri_twerdy_santoro.html and this: http://www.lifeandlibertyforwomen.org/abortion_pictorial.html and do you see any ???baby??? being saved in these pictures?

Finally, are you prepared to carry through with the consequences of your movement???s labeling abortion as ???murder???? In this country we don???t just punish murderers (when abortion is illegal that would be doctors) but we also punish solicitors of murder and that would be women and teens who seek an illegal abortion. Women and teens would go to prison or in states like Texas face execution by the state. What happens to the already born children of these women? And if they were to use blackmarket RU486 they would be charged as a murderer. Is that really where you want to take the abortion debate? What???s ???pro-life??? about that? What???s pro-woman about that? What???s pro-already born child about that?

So as I said let???s not play with each other here. The devil is always in the details Ms. Brown and so is true of these so-called ???personhood??? amendments like the one they will try to push again in Colorado. Your side didn???t get away with it before and they won???t again. These amendments??? goal is to set the stage to criminalize abortion and birth control and your side can???t hide behind the lame reasoning that the devil in the details isn???t something we should be worried about right now or can be talked about. That???s dishonest, unethical, and immoral Ms. Brown, and I don???t think God would appreciate that do you?

Peggy Loonan, founder and executive director, Life and Liberty for Women
www.lifeandlibetyforwomen.org peggy@lifeandlibertyforwomen.org

Peggy Loonan | September 22, 2009

---

Dear Ms. Loonan

Obviously, by the length of your screed, we can see that we accomplished our goal which was to expose the false claim and silliness in your original commentary.

Why is it that you cannot simply accept the fact that a human being prior to birth is in every way equal to you and should be protected in the same ways you are by the law.

Is it really that difficult to apply common sense to this question? Personhood now.

Judie Brown
Judie Brown | September 27, 2009

---

When I was growing up, one of the things my parents taught me, by example and instruction, was never to move off the goal, regardless of how many distractions might come in the course of a given day. I really paid attention to that, so I used to practice music four hours daily and get my homework completed before I ever thought about going out to play or eating a snack. Those are lessons I carry with me today, and when I read something like the commentary Kathleen Kennedy Townsend just wrote, I wish that she had been taught the same lesson on focus. She clearly lacks it!

In her Newsweek “web exclusive” titled “Without a doubt: Why Barack Obama represents American Catholics better than the pope does,” Kennedy Townsend propounds a theory that should put every practicing American Catholic at odds with her impudent thinking. She is not only misguided, but intentionally deceptive.

She tells the reader that while it is clear that Obama and the pope disagree on “reproductive freedoms and homosexuality,” the “Catholics back home won’t care because they know Obama’s on their side. In fact, Obama’s agenda is closer to their views than even the pope’s.”

“Reproductive freedoms,” for those unfamiliar with the culture of death’s propaganda, is a code phrase for abortion on demand, sex instruction in schools, birth control for kids, and all manner of bizarre propositions that help the purveyors of smut to define the human person as an animal incapable of self-control. One need only read this comment from Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, to get a whiff of where Kennedy Townsend is headed: "Through sex, mankind may attain the great spiritual illumination which will transform the world, which will light up the only path to an earthly paradise. So must we necessarily and inevitably conceive of sex-expression."

The proponents of this warped thinking, which places the human being on the same plane as your pet dog or cat, have several goals that Kennedy Townsend does not mention. She is dedicated to discrediting the pope, so she does not address the full-fledged Obama agenda.

One can easily tell that her thought process has little to do with Catholic identity and, in fact, is contrary to all that is Catholic. There is no other explanation for her inane claim that President Obama is somehow more in tune with American Catholics that the pope who is, after all, the Vicar of Christ on earth.

In her attempt to discredit the papacy, Kennedy Townsend gives us her interpretation of the Holy Father’s magnificent new encyclical letter, Caritas in Veritate. Of course, she wants her readers to believe that the encyclical is all about giving “moral credence” to Obama’s “progressive politics” when, in fact, the encyclical’s message is something else entirely. As the Holy Father states repeatedly, the proper understanding and appreciation of the human person’s dignity and extraordinary value are foundational to the proper approach to economic and social life. Without respect for the human person, it is impossible to bring about a just society, and in a just society, there is no room for heinous crimes such as abortion. This is the encyclical's underlying theme, which Kennedy Townsend apparently overlooked. 

From there, it doesn’t take long for Kennedy Townsend to throw down the gauntlet and verbally crucify the Holy Father, as she extols the Kennedy family’s hierarchy of values: the radical feminist version of women’s equality, militant homosexual activists’ “cry for justice,” contraception for one and all, and, of course, abortion.

In this diatribe, Kennedy Townsend’s distortion of the truth inherent in Catholic teaching on these matters clearly reflects her personal malice. She misrepresents the intentions that have been foundational to the teaching of Popes Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, and demeans and sullies the reputations of all three.

Her comments on these popes are nothing short of scurrilous. I am positive that she writes in this manner to justify her personal lack of faith in the one true Church and do all she can to lead others astray. She also aims to garner support from other “Obama-ites” who agree with her discombobulated view of what it means to be a Catholic.

Kennedy Townsend is obviously a Catholic dissenter, and this is perhaps why she claims that Pope Benedict XVI, like his predecessors, is “part of this culture that silences dissent.” She is wrong on this point as well. If she were correct, Father John Jenkins, the University of Notre Dame’s president who proudly hosted President Obama as a commencement speaker,  would have been silenced; Father John Paris, SJ, who approves of euthanizing people, would have been silenced; and I could go on and on with similar examples. But rather than doing so, just read my book Saving Those Damned Catholics: A Defense of Catholic Teaching. I have already sent an autographed copy of it to Kennedy Townsend.

I have to tell you that Judie Brown is not the only one disgusted with the Kennedy Townsend’s impudence. Deal Hudson, no stranger to controversy himself, has aired his disdain as well. In his commentary on her tirade, he wrote,

Townsend's argument is this: Obama promotes contraception, therefore his "agenda is closer to their views than even the pope's." OK, fair enough, but the answer to Townsend is "so what?"

Does this mean that the Church and its Holy Father should henceforth change its teaching on contraception and embrace Obama as an agent of "change" within the Church? No, it means the opposite: The Church should do a better job of teaching and evangelization so that the pervasive dissent on issues like contraception and gay marriage is effectively addressed.
 
Church leadership needs to wake up and realize the impact of the Obama presidency on the parish, the chancery, and even the Vatican. This game of footsy Catholic leaders are playing with Obama is empowering Catholic dissenters like Kathleen Kennedy Townsend.

 Hudson is correct. Either the opinions of deluded “Catholic” public figures such as Kennedy Townsend will become commonplace, or fundamental Catholic moral teaching will be forcefully placed in the forefront of the political landscape by the very men called to that vocation: the U.S. bishops.

And that brings me to my final comment on Kennedy Townsend’s manipulative mendacity: Where are the bishops? Where are the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops bureaucrats in charge of giving Catholic bishops the daily news and writing statements for them to issue when someone attacks the pope as Kennedy Townsend has? Where is the bishops' collegiality when the very truth upon which the Catholic Church stands is being verbally assaulted by a renegade rabble-rouser?

Maybe nobody’s there at the USCCB office anymore. If not, call me! I will be happy to come and volunteer!

Responses

As I said below, our society is not letting us off easy, and hopefully individual bishops, if not the USCCB, will continue raising their voices as they did with ND's Obama invitation. They have not confronted the older generation of "Catholics" such as Kathleen's uncle. Now a new generation, even more off-track (who would have thought it possible), is picking up the mantle.

Rep. Patrick Murphy, who introduces himself as the archetypical Catholic - altarboy of the year, etc., - is leading an effort to repeal the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy of intolerance of openly homosexual activity in the military. I have emailed Bishop John Smith, of Trenton, asking if he has discussed this scandal with Rep. Murphy.

Our own Diocese of Peoria has its own 'Catholic' politician, Phil Hare, with a 0% pro-life voting record. I have never seen any comment from Bishop Jenky correcting Rep. Hare, though I have asked if he would.
David Volk | July 14, 2009

---

Not only are you aware of the fools who are worse than asleep at the wheel at USCCB. Re Iowa: I just sent a long-winded (but brief compared to the problem) account of MORE slime around here beyond just the IRS harassing pro-lifers in Cedar Rapids. Extra info: when Sueppel murdered his family with a baseball bat, then burned himself to death on the freeway right after Easter 2008, not only did the Iowa City police deny being able to solve it Tuesday only 24 hours after finding the bodies scattered about, and not only next Thursday did they repeat their cover up lie. ALSO, on Saturday at the mass funeral mass at St. Mary's in Iowa City, Fr. Kenneth Kuntz (longtime Sueppel family confidante and knowledgeable about the perversion aspects of the crime and government cover-up) helped support the cover up by repeating the same anesthesia mantra during the funeral itself: "It's all a big mystery, and we will probably never know why it happened." If it was such a mystery, how did they know before the bodies cooled off they would never be able to solve the crime? It wasn't a mystery at all. They knew exactly the murders and suicide were because Sueppel couldn't face up to his involvement with the Iowa City homos, so the IC police denied knowledge Tuesday AND Thursday AND then Saturday even Fr. Kuntz added to the anesthetic fog. AND the Bishop was right there, along with about a dozen priests brought in special for the event. The Sueppel family is about #1 in the tribe of Johnson County (Iowa) Democrat leadership, and Johannes Sueppel was a founding contributor to St. Mary's about 130 years ago.
Randy Crawford | July 15, 2009

---

Judie,

Thanks for the article and clear information on what Kathleen Kennedy Townsend believes. Fr. Mitch talked briefly about her on his show Threshold of Hope. He was utterly disgusted as well. As Catholic I know she is contradicting her own faith. With this attitude Kennedy-Townsend should be refused communion and possibly excommunicated.

Toby Stark
Toby Stark | July 15, 2009

---

Randy

Indeed this is disgusting, but it means that we have to strive harder to defend the faith against the evil that is being perpetrated by those in authority. Silence is the worst of all such evils, as you have pointed out.

Stand tall and true to Christ and His Church, Randy. The gates of hell will not prevail.

Judie Brown
Judie Brown | July 17, 2009

---

David

If we really examine what is going on in Peoria, not only now but when Archbishop Meyers was there, it is painfully clear that politics and government funding are the new principles at work; not commitment to Christ and His church.

Thank you for your steadfastness; never give up!

Judie Brown
Judie Brown | July 17, 2009

---

As a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life, and as someone who begged its president to correct his statement regarding the nine-year-old Brazilian girl’s abortion, I am gratified to present, in its entirety, a report on the correction made by the Vatican’s Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. We praise God that the light of truth has prevailed and has publicly dispelled the confusion created by Archbishop Fisichella’s original statement.

Retractions. The Holy Office Teaches Archbishop Fisichella a Lesson
   
The congregation for the doctrine of the faith has released a "clarification" that in fact repudiates the article published in "L'Osservatore Romano" by the president of the pontifical academy for life, on the abortion performed on a Brazilian mother-child. Here's the document

by Sandro Magister

ROME, July 10, 2009 - This afternoon, at the very same time as Benedict XVI was meeting at the Vatican with the United States president Barack Obama, "L'Osservatore Romano" printed a "clarification" by the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, "on procured abortion."
The "clarification" is what many were waiting for after a controversial article published last March 15 by the same newspaper of the Holy See, signed by Archbishop Rino Fisichella, president of the pontifical academy for life.

The “clarification” is printed on page 7 of the newspaper of the Holy See, and is announced on the front page.

Fisichella's article concerned the case of an extremely young Brazilian mother-child who was made to abort the twins she was carrying in her womb, and was interpreted by many as justifying the double abortion.

There followed a lively public controversy, which www.chiesa related in two extensive articles ["Drifting Mines. In Africa the Condom, in Brazil Abortion" (March 23) and "The Recife Case. Rome Has Spoken, But the Dispute Has Not Ended" (July 7)].  But at the same time, the Vatican authorities received many protests and requests through private channels.

These included the step taken by 27 of the 46 members of the pontifical academy for life. On April 4, they wrote a joint letter to Fisichella, their president, asking him to correct the "mistaken" positions he had expressed in the article.

On April 21, Fisichella responded to them in writing, rejecting the request.

On May 1, 21 of the signers of the previous letter then went to Cardinal William Levada, prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, asking the congregation for a clarifying statement on the Church's teaching on the matter of abortion.

The letter was delivered on May 4, but did not receive any reply. The writers learned from an official at the congregation that the letter had been forwarded to the secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, "because Fisichella's article had been written at his request."

Two members of the pontifical academy for life then sent a dossier on the matter directly to the pope.

On June 8, Benedict XVI discussed the case with Bertone, and ordered that a statement be published reconfirming that the Church's teaching on abortion is unchanged.

The "clarification" published today in "L'Osservatore Romano," dated July 11, 2009, is precisely the fruit of this decision.

Here it is in its original form:
 

On procured abortion

Clarification from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Recently a number of letters have been sent to the Holy See, some of them from prominent figures in political and ecclesial life, explaining the confusion that has been created in various countries, especially in Latin America, following the manipulation and exploitation of an article by His Excellency Archbishop Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, on the sad affair of the "Brazilian girl."

In this article, which appeared in "L'Osservatore Romano" on March 15, 2009, the doctrine of the Church was presented, while still keeping in mind the dramatic situation of the aforementioned girl, who - as could be demonstrated afterward - had been accompanied with all pastoral delicacy, in particular by the archbishop of Olinda and Recife at the time, His Excellency Archbishop José Cardoso Sobrinho.

In this regard, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reiterates that the Church's teaching on procured abortion has not changed, nor can it change.

This teaching has been presented in numbers 2270-2273 in the Catechism of the Catholic. Church in these terms:

Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you” (Jer. 1:5). “My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth” (Psalm 139:15).

Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion.

This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law: “You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish” (Didaché, 2:2). “God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes” (Vatican Council II, "Gaudium et Spes", 51).

Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae," (Code of Canon Law, can. 1398), “by the very commission of the offense” (Code of Canon Law, can. 1314) and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law (cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1323-1324). The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation: "The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death... The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined... As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights.” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction "Donum Vitae", III).

In the encyclical "Evangelium Vitae," Pope John Paul II reaffirmed this teaching with his authority as Supreme Pastor of the Church:

By the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops-who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine-I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church. (no. 62)

As for abortion procured in certain difficult and complex situations, the clear and precise teaching of Pope John Paul II applies:

It is true that the decision to have an abortion is often tragic and painful for the mother, insofar as the decision to rid herself of the fruit of conception is not made for purely selfish reasons or out of convenience, but out of a desire to protect certain important values such as her own health or a decent standard of living for the other members of the family. Sometimes it is feared that the child to be born would live in such conditions that it would be better if the birth did not take place. Nevertheless, these reasons and others like them, however serious and tragic, can never justify the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. (Encyclical "Evangelium Vitae", no. 58)

As for the problem of specific medical treatments intended to preserve the health of the mother, it is necessary to make a strong distinction between two different situations: on the one hand, a procedure that directly causes the death of the fetus, sometimes inappropriately called "therapeutic" abortion, which can never be licit in that it is the direct killing of an innocent human being; on the other hand, a procedure not abortive in itself that can have, as a collateral consequence, the death of the child:

If, for example, saving the life of the future mother, independently of her condition of pregnancy, urgently required a surgical procedure or another therapeutic application, which would have as an accessory consequence, in no way desired or intended, but inevitable, the death of the fetus, such an action could not be called a direct attack on the innocent life. In these conditions, the operation can be considered licit, as can other similar medical procedures, always provided that a good of high value, like life, is at stake, and that it is not possible to postpone it until after the birth of the child, or to use any other effective remedy. (Pius XII, "Speech to the Fronte della Famiglia and the Associazione Famiglie numerose," November 27, 1951)

As for the responsibility of medical workers, the words of Pope John Paul II must be recalled:

Their profession calls for them to be guardians and servants of human life. In today's cultural and social context, in which science and the practice of medicine risk losing sight of their inherent ethical dimension, health-care professionals can be strongly tempted at times to become manipulators of life, or even agents of death. In the face of this temptation their responsibility today is greatly increased. Its deepest inspiration and strongest support lie in the intrinsic and undeniable ethical dimension of the health-care profession, something already recognized by the ancient and still relevant Hippocratic Oath, which requires every doctor to commit himself to absolute respect for human life and its sacredness. (Encyclical "Evangelium Vitae", no. 89)  

Responses

Hey, how about a positive comment about the Obama selection for Surgeon General or would it hurt you to say that Obama did anything right?
Jimmy | July 14, 2009

---

Dear Jimmy,

What is it about his Surgeon General nominee that Pres. Obama did right?
David Volk | July 15, 2009

---

Hi there, Jimmy

Well, I can tell you that according to Francis Kissling, founder of the pro-abortion Catholics for a Free Choice, Regina Benjamin is pro-abortion. So, no positive word there either.

Judie Brown
Judie Brown | July 16, 2009

---