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 THANKSGIVING REFLECTION: ABORTION AND THE INVASIVE MALIGNANCY Posted: Thursday November 26, 2009 at 2:46 am EST by Judie Brown
There are times when it seems that far too many words are uttered about “choice” and far too few about the human being whose life is expunged because it’s “legal” to do so. America has lost her sense of right and wrong, and perhaps that is because Americans are growing farther and farther away from recognizing why they exist and Who created them.
For example, when I was in the first grade at a Catholic school in Los Angeles, we had a book entitled The Baltimore Catechism. The first question in that educational masterpiece was “Who made us?” The answer: “God made us.”
It is such a simple concept, even now, and yet the popular cultural virulence toward all things pro-life hampers our vision of the truth. In fact, it has replaced common sense and logical thinking with preposterous ideas parading around as so-called constitutionally protected rights to all things sexually perverse, including the murder of our children.
Let me give you a few examples of how this is playing out right now as we prepare to celebrate Thanksgiving.
In Michigan, Alberto Hodari has spent a good deal of time murdering preborn babies, maiming women and, as he admits on YouTube, lying to women. In describing his tactics to a group of Wayne State University students, the most depressing aspect of his lecture is that the audience is snickering during his comments. One is led to believe that Hodari is a comedian. Apparently, the horrendous nature of what he does to make money completely escaped the giddy students.
Is the nervous laughter symptomatic of today’s attitude toward aborting children? Perhaps, but this is also an example of the all-pervasive cancer that has been inflicted on the all-too-willing body politic by the culture of death. The very idea of laughing with and at the comments of a man who kills boggles my mind, but after nearly 40 years of decriminalized abortion, what should one expect?
By the way, Hodari is a prime example of those who ply the practice of abortion for financial gain. The most recent testimony to his evil ways became public earlier this week when it was reported that he is being sued by Caitlin Bruce, who claims Hodari subjected her to a forced abortion last year, when she was six weeks pregnant. Bruce told WJRT-TV that after she saw her baby on ultrasound, she decided not to go through with the abortion, but that didn’t stop Hodari:
He told his assistant, “Hold her down.” They had my arm pinned. His weight was all on my chest and then he took his hand and he had it so tight on my mouth that it was muffled. I was trying to scream, “Stop!” I was screaming. I was crying. It felt like they were ripping a life out of me. When he was done, he looked at me. He gave me a smirk and he left he room.
Voices for Women’s web site lists 49 lawsuits filed against Hodari, two of which resulted from expectant mothers dying after abortion. Not included in the list are two other patients who died after Hodari aborted their babies.
The news about Hodari is apparently not troublesome to the mainstream media, which seems to regard it as something akin to a report on a local football game. Pro-life blogger Jill Stanek points out that some news outlets reporting on Bruce’s allegations have gone so far as to file a report without mentioning Hodari’s name.
Though he is certainly a poster boy for terrorism perpetrated against expectant mothers, Hodari is but part of the problem. Freelance writer Phil Elmore identifies the crux of the matter when he wisely observes,
[A]ll discussion of abortion revolves around the implication, the begged question and conclusion, that an unborn baby is a baby. No matter how we try to distance ourselves from this simple fact, using medical technology to push further and further out the timeline along which we may choose to circumvent the inevitable process of that person’s being, there is no changing it. Abortion is the application of technology to a woman’s body for the explicit purpose of preventing a human being from existing – a human being who, if left well enough alone, would by all rights and in all probability be born. This birth isn’t merely a possibility and is not a choice; it’s a biological fact, unless a natural miscarriage occurs.
Could any parent who is not a monster look at his or her newborn baby and wish it dead – wish it pre-empted, circumvented, prevented from being? Can any woman who is human willingly abdicate the title “mother” without also abdicating her own personhood, at least morally? Can any man truly claim he is a man at all if he is willing to allow innocent human life to come to harm? Can any individual who has watched a baby move its arms and shift its body on a sonographer’s screen honestly believe that ending that unborn baby’s existence is anything but a violent murder?
Elmore applies common sense and this first-grade insight that should still be obvious to anyone who strives to live according to simple truth. And yet, we move ahead at breakneck speed in this nation, moving closer each day to the precipice of hell. Will we be able to turn back?
Imagine, for a moment, a breaking national news story about a new study that found that “abortion may, in fact, increase mental health risks.” There is such a study, and it was conducted by researchers at New Zealand’s University of Otago. In its summary of the research findings, the New Zealand Herald reported,
Researchers who examined the medical history of more than 500 women have concluded abortion “leads to significant distress in some.”
Women reporting adverse reactions were up to 80 per cent more likely than women not exposed to abortion to have mental health problems, the Otago University study found.
That finding has raised questions about justifying abortions on the basis of mental health.
The study, reported in the British Journal of Psychiatry, found the risk of mental illness was “proportional to the degree of distress” associated with the abortion.
Professor David Fergusson, of the [university’s] department of Psychological Medicine, and his team studied data from women who had been interviewed six times between the ages of 15 and 30, each time being asked whether they had been pregnant and, if so, what the outcome of that pregnancy had been.
More than 85 per cent of women reported a least one negative emotional reaction, including sorrow, sadness, guilt, regret, grief and disappointment.
Don’t worry, though, because you won’t hear of this study from any “mainstream” news outlet or, for that matter, few, if any of those self-described conservative news sources that are always “looking out for you.” Why not? It’s just not news in a culture where the act of abortion is revered as a satanic sacrament, shielded from any negative publicity that might actually convince the electorate that abortion is indeed a crime.
It is a reprehensible moral and scientific error to persist in defending the most egregious crime in mankind’s history, but who’s interested in the truth these days, when the “negative” result of sexual sin could be a preborn child?
This is why current efforts, in state after state, to achieve legal recognition of personhood for all human beings are so fiercely maligned, misrepresented and otherwise decried as untimely, imprudent or just a bad idea. Personhood activities focus attention on the reality of the individual whose life begins at his or her creation. Such efforts make us think about the who instead of politics. Personhood proposals invite the public to understand the reasons why abortion is a crime, rather than a panacea for the ill-informed who deny that God made them. Personhood discussions call into question all those weapons in the sexually saturated armory of the here and now, so precious to purveyors of godless behavior.
It is this denial of a simple truth about the human being that is the core problem, the cancerous cell, the beginning of the end of common sense. Who made us? Not the state! Not the politicians! Not the folks who, like Hodari, lie a little in order to gain the upper hand so that another baby can be killed before he is born. No … Even though so many deny it, God made us, each and every one.
As you sit down to your turkey, or your ham, or your cheeseburger and fries on Thanksgiving Day, give thanks to God, the God who made us. Give thanks that you still possess the common sense and logic of a first grader. And while you are at it, say a prayer for America … At present, her condition is terminal, the malignancy is stage 4, and its poison has invaded far too many minds. But there is a cure … It is He Who made us.
how disgusting that hodari was never punished for that or for lying to his patients... Makes me wonder what type of world we are living in elisabeth | November 27, 2009
TWISTED PERSPECTIVES AS THE LAW OF THE LAND? Posted: Tuesday November 24, 2009 at 5:14 pm EST by Judie Brown
The "health care reform" proposal moved a step closer to reality this past weekend when the U.S. Senate approved opening debate on the measure. While a final version is clearly not imminent, there is mounting concern that any version that reaches the desk of President Obama will contain language that advances the agenda of those who support euthanizing the elderly and the vulnerable.
Dr. C.L. Gray, president of Physicians for Reform, has expressed grave concerns about the concept of the government replacing family and physicians in deciding who will and will not receive health care. He wrote,
“We the people” become powerless in dependency. Common to every major health care bill under consideration in Congress is a transfer of $1 trillion from the American people to Washington. With this massive transfer of wealth comes the transfer of power over medical decision-making.
Even now, Washington is proposing more than $400 billion in cuts to Medicare. The elderly are being sacrificed for the “greater good” of society.
In progressive politics, death frequently comes in packages labeled “life.”
And so it is with legislation such as that which is now before the Senate. Think you are supporting pain relief and hospice legislation in order to prevent assisted suicides? Wrong. Thanks to Big Death—a collection of heavily funded nonprofit hospice and palliative care groups—the line between palliative care (pain relief, symptom management) and imposed death has become blurred.
[The collection of nonprofits composing the Big Death group includes AARP, American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, American College of Physicians, American Hospice Foundation, Center to Advance Palliative Care, Consumers Union, Gundersen Lutheran Health System, Hospice and Palliative Nursing Association, Medicare Rights Center, National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, National Palliative Care Research Center, Providence Health and Services, and Supportive Care Coalition.]
One Big Death “thought leader” who has helped create the confusion between life-affirming palliative care and imposed death is Ira Byock, Dartmouth physician and hospice guru. In a blog for the New America Foundation this summer, he illustrated our point. He suggests, using the example of one senior citizen, that we might improve seniors’ lives simply by giving them “reliable transportation … to the local senior center [where they would] share nutritious group lunches and noon-time discussions on advance directives for health care.” In other words, he wants to sell seniors a free trip to the center for a fulfilling and healthy life … to persuade them to focus on death, of course.
Byock drew early attention and support from the late Andrea Kydd, former organizer for the Welfare Rights Organization and board member of the Tides Foundation. Kydd, who was also health program director for the Nathan Cummings Foundation, directed the foundation’s support on two end-of-life projects in 1995: One was a collaboration with the Commonwealth Fund to conduct a caregiver study directed by Ezekiel J. Emanuel and his wife Linda; the other was Byock’s Missoula Demonstration Project. The grant from Cummings was followed by a grant from Soros, one of the earliest grants awarded in Soros’ Project on Death in America.
From there, Byock moved to projects sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. He directed a massive $15 million project, Promoting Excellence in End-of-Life Care, that could have been called “Promoting Rationing.” It tested methods of “moving hospice upstream” in various “difficult” clinical settings and on specific populations: veterans’ hospitals, Native American reservations, African-Americans in urban centers and prisons, for example. The project, headquartered in Montana, focused on financial savings and various ways to convince people to accept “palliative care” earlier in the game.
Blurring the distinction between life-affirming care and hastened death eases the path for bedside rationing, which of course lowers costs. How to convince “difficult” cases to forgo life-sustaining treatment? Offer them palliative care.
When Promoting Excellence moved to South Carolina, the effort was focused on reminding a group of chronically ill patients who “generally do not see themselves as dying” that, in fact, they were dying. Diane Meier and Sean Morrison of Mt. Sinai in New York worked with New Jersey-based Franklin Health and Blue Cross/Blue Shield of South Carolina for intervention by case management teams using advance care counseling and a variety of other tools. Meier’s group reported that the South Carolina population was “an ‘upstream’ population of very sick people, averaging 46 years of age, generally suffering from serious, progressive and life threatening illnesses, who will likely consume high dollar amounts of resources” and were thus chosen for intervention.
When Byock delivered a provocative keynote address to a conference of over
275 end-of-life researchers, policymakers and community activists, he described the “levers” that could be used to change the U.S. death-denying culture. Bureaucracy would be their ally. Byock noted that “German sociologist Max Weber said that social movements that become successful become routinized by the agency of bureaucracy. Therefore, ironically, bureaucracy is the means and the mark of our success to this point.”
While Byock rallied the “levers” and “agents of change,” he also quietly created a new right-to-die consumers’ group that would organize caregiver and hospice groups and pressure legislators to pass living will legislation. Byock brought AAHPM together with Choice in Dying (also known as the Euthanasia Society of America and Society for the Right to Die) to form Partnership for Caring in 1999. PFC’s mission was to articulate “a national policy agenda” and their first priority was “mandated universal access to high-quality care.”
Just when we think we are supporting a partnership for caring, we end up with the choice to die.
Now, 12 years later, the Senate is poised to firmly establish Big Death’s “agency of bureaucracy” by implementing the Obama/Pelosi/Reid plan.
According to the principle of subsidiarity, medical decisions should be made at the lowest level—closest to the patient, with the least bureaucracy. That is the first step in protecting American health care. All current health “reform” legislation is the polar opposite.
This is indeed the case. Pope Benedict XVI teaches the following regarding the differences between a controlling state and one that exists to support initiatives generated by its citizens:
The State, which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person—every person—needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need. (section 28)
What is disturbing about the multiple efforts of Byock and his colleagues is that the language they employ sounds perfectly acceptable to the average American. It gratifies their sense of stewardship and love for those who are perceived to be in pain or are facing death in the not-too-distant future.
Beware! Behind this engaging mask resides a commitment to cut costs by cutting lives short. Of that, there is no doubt. Whitlock’s flawless research confirms this.
As LifeTree's executive director, Elizabeth Wickham, PhD., points out, “No amendment can cure the death-dealing nature of the currently proposed legislation. It is critical that your voice be heard in opposition today and every day so long as these health care ‘reform’ bills are being considered.”
BISHOP THOMAS TOBIN: A LION FOR THE LORD Posted: Sunday November 22, 2009 at 10:23 pm EST by Judie Brown
Ever since Bishop Thomas J. Tobin, D.D., arrived in the Diocese of Providence, Rhode Island, he has been an articulate defender of truth. Since his installation in May 2005, he has focused his attention on shepherding his people, not only with a vision of faith through understanding, but with a clear set of Catholic moral principles that clearly guide his actions and shape his words.
Bishop Tobin is fondly remembered at American Life League for his “My interview with President Obama” column and his follow-up commentary, “Jesus wasn’t always nice,” in which he shared with his flock the various comments he had received after publishing the Obama “interview”:
If the language in my article about President Obama’s funding of abortions seemed harsh and offensive, so be it. It has nothing to do with my personal attitude about the man. Admittedly I’m not a fan, but as I’ve written before, I pray for him and his fine family and I wish him well. As a religious leader, though, charged with carrying on the prophetic mission of Christ, I have the right, and in fact the duty, to challenge his immoral actions. I do so because Christian charity requires me to do so, because I love my country and I believe in the sanctity of human life. As St. Paul said, “Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel.” (1Cor. 9:16)
Bishop Tobin does not mince words. During the latest scuffle with Congressman Patrick Kennedy, for example, he suggested that pro-abortion Catholic public figures “really have to question their membership in the [C]hurch.”
Further, Bishop Tobin published an open letter to Kennedy after the congressman chose to take his disagreement with his bishop to the public square. Bishop Tobin wrote,
Since our recent correspondence has been rather public, I hope you don’t mind if I share a few reflections about your practice of the faith in this public forum. I usually wouldn’t do that – that is speak about someone’s faith in a public setting – but in our well-documented exchange of letters about health care and abortion, it has emerged as an issue. I also share these words publicly with the thought that they might be instructive to other Catholics, including those in prominent positions of leadership.
For the moment I’d like to set aside the discussion of health care reform, as important and relevant as it is, and focus on one statement contained in your letter of October 29, 2009, in which you write, “The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” That sentence certainly caught my attention and deserves a public response, lest it go unchallenged and lead others to believe it’s true. And it raises an important question: What does it mean to be a Catholic?
“The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” Well, in fact, Congressman, in a way it does. Although I wouldn’t choose those particular words, when someone rejects the teachings of the Church, especially on a grave matter, a life-and-death issue like abortion, it certainly does diminish their ecclesial communion, their unity with the Church. This principle is based on the Sacred Scripture and Tradition of the Church and is made more explicit in recent documents.
For example, the “Code of Canon Law” says, “Lay persons are bound by an obligation and possess the right to acquire a knowledge of Christian doctrine adapted to their capacity and condition so that they can live in accord with that doctrine.” (Canon 229, #1)
The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” says this: “Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles, ‘He who hears you, hears me,’ the faithful receive with docility the teaching and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.” (#87)
Or consider this statement of the Church: “It would be a mistake to confuse the proper autonomy exercised by Catholics in political life with the claim of a principle that prescinds from the moral and social teaching of the Church.” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 2002)
There’s lots of canonical and theological verbiage there, Congressman, but what it means is that if you don’t accept the teachings of the Church your communion with the Church is flawed, or in your own words, makes you “less of a Catholic.”
But let’s get down to a more practical question; let’s approach it this way: What does it mean, really, to be a Catholic? After all, being a Catholic has to mean something, right?
Well, in simple terms – and here I refer only to those more visible, structural elements of Church membership – being a Catholic means that you’re part of a faith community that possesses a clearly defined authority and doctrine, obligations and expectations. It means that you believe and accept the teachings of the Church, especially on essential matters of faith and morals; that you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish; that you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly; that you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially.
Congressman, I’m not sure whether or not you fulfill the basic requirements of being a Catholic, so let me ask: Do you accept the teachings of the Church on essential matters of faith and morals, including our stance on abortion? Do you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish? Do you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly? Do you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially?
In your letter you say that you “embrace your faith.” Terrific. But if you don’t fulfill the basic requirements of membership, what is it exactly that makes you a Catholic? Your baptism as an infant? Your family ties? Your cultural heritage?
Your letter also says that your faith “acknowledges the existence of an imperfect humanity.” Absolutely true. But in confronting your rejection of the Church’s teaching, we’re not dealing just with “an imperfect humanity” – as we do when we wrestle with sins such as anger, pride, greed, impurity or dishonesty. We all struggle with those things, and often fail.
Your rejection of the Church’s teaching on abortion falls into a different category – it’s a deliberate and obstinate act of the will; a conscious decision that you’ve re-affirmed on many occasions. Sorry, you can’t chalk it up to an “imperfect humanity.” Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the Church.
Congressman Kennedy, I write these words not to embarrass you or to judge the state of your conscience or soul. That’s ultimately between you and God. But your description of your relationship with the Church is now a matter of public record, and it needs to be challenged. I invite you, as your bishop and brother in Christ, to enter into a sincere process of discernment, conversion and repentance. It’s not too late for you to repair your relationship with the Church, redeem your public image, and emerge as an authentic “profile in courage,” especially by defending the sanctity of human life for all people, including unborn children. And if I can ever be of assistance as you travel the road of faith, I would be honored and happy to do so.
Obviously, even after Bishop Tobin released this letter, Kennedy was not convinced that he needed to pay attention to his bishop. The Providence Journal reported, “Kennedy said yesterday that he has a pastor, and ‘I have my sacraments through that pastor. I have sought the sacraments of reconciliation and Communion and all the rest.’ He said he preferred to keep his pastor’s name private.”
Kennedy also argues that Bishop Tobin erred in publishing this letter when, in fact, it has been clear for some time that Kennedy himself has no problem publicly disagreeing with his bishop. Arrogance is clearly a Kennedy family trait. It is also clear that this discussion will not go away until he stops flaunting his pro-abortion attitude in front of his bishop.
The latest chapter in this saga was reported in the November 22 Providence Journal:
Providence Bishop Thomas J. Tobin has forbidden Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy to receive the Roman Catholic sacrament of Holy Communion because of his advocacy of abortion rights, the Rhode Island Democrat said Friday.
“The bishop instructed me not to take Communion…,” Kennedy said in a telephone interview. Kennedy said the bishop had explained the penalty by telling him “that I am not a good practicing Catholic because of the positions that I’ve taken as a public official,” particularly on abortion. … [H]e declined to say whether he has obeyed the bishop’s injunction.
We are aware of the immense power Bishop Tobin’s words have had for Catholics, including (we hope) those in public life who believe they can divide their faith into various compartments, bringing it out only when it serves their purposes. We applaud His Excellency's public defense of truth and his willingness to make it clear that politicians such as Kennedy, who have no problem defaming the Church and denying the truth of God’s law, will no longer get away with such shenanigans.
Take action:
1. Thank Bishop Tobin for his courage in standing up for the truth and for his concern for Congressman Kennedy’s soul. Contact the bishop’s public affairs manager, Karen Davis (call 401-278-4600, fax 401-278-4659 or e-mail kdavis@dioceseofprovidence.org), or write to this address:
Most Rev. Thomas J. Tobin, D.D.
Diocese of Providence
One Cathedral Square
Providence, RI 02903
2. Contact Congressman Patrick Kennedy to let him know that you are praying for his conversion to truth. E-mail him through his congressional web site, call 202-225-4911, fax 202-225-3290 or write to this address:
Representative Patrick Kennedy
407 Cannon House Office Building
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Judy, thank you for letting us know about Bishop Tobin. I sent an email to let him know how appreciated he is.
thank you,
Mary Mary Kuhns | November 23, 2009
May the Merciful Lord grant Bishop Tobin wisdom and courage as he seeks to advance the Kingdom of God in the midst of this twisted and depraved generation.
"There is something important that we need to understand about the kingdom of God: just as righteousness has no partnership with lawlessness, just as light has nothing in common with darkness and Christ has no agreement with Belial, so the kingdom of God and a kingdom of sin cannot co-exist." [Origen, Feast of Christ the King] Fr. William J Kuchinsky | November 23, 2009
THE TRUTH ABOUT THE CCHD’S FACT SHEET Posted: Thursday November 19, 2009 at 5:50 pm EST by Judie Brown
By Michael Hichborn
Every year, the Catholic Campaign for Human Development sponsors a nationwide appeal for the stated purpose of helping the impoverished. Publicity for the appeal is reminiscent of the 1980s Sally Struthers television spots showing poor children in far-off lands, in which she made pleas along the lines of “For the price of a cup of coffee a day, you can feed this little one.” But the fact is that the CCHD does not give one dime to organizations involved in direct service to the poor, such as soup kitchens or homeless shelters. Instead, it grants money to radical community organizers more interested in political lobbying, voter registration drives and ballot initiatives than buying groceries for starving families.
To hear the speech delivered by Bishop Roger Morin, the CCHD’s chairman, at the semi-annual USCCB meeting this week, one would think that such a claim is completely out of line and that any criticism of the CCHD or call to boycott its collection will somehow deny much needed blankets to homeless people who might freeze to death this winter. But the CCHD’s own funding criteria proves the point.
With regard to community organizing grants, the CCHD stipulates, “Organizations with primary focus on direct service (e.g., daycare centers, recreation programs, community centers, scholarships, subsidies, counseling programs, referral services, cultural enrichment programs, direct clinical services, emergency shelters and other services, refugee resettlement programs, etc.)” are not eligible for funding.
With regard to economic development grants, the CCHD stipulates, “[Economic Development Institutions] whose primary focus is direct service (e.g. job training, business consulting, financial literacy, savings programs, or homeownership education programs…)” are not eligible for funding.
But aside from organizations the CCHD refuses to fund, its most egregious offense is its justification for funding organizations that directly violate Catholic moral and social teaching.
Last weekend, the CCHD issued a fact sheet titled “For the Record – The Truth about CCHD Funding.” This document presents “allegations” followed by the CCHD’s “facts.” Not only do these “facts” not address the fundamental problem we have been exposing, but in some cases, they directly conflict with truth. What follows is a point-by-point analysis of the CCHD’s fact sheet.
1. "ALLEGATION: CCHD persistently funds organizations closely associated with the
pro-abortion movement.”
Rather than address the allegation that CCHD grantees are closely associated with pro-abortion organizations, the CCHD merely points to its grant writing process, guidelines and funding criteria. It is well and good that it affirms the sanctity of human life and claims that “CCHD funds will not be used to support any application which is sponsored or promoted by an organization whose primary or substantial thrust in contrary to Catholic teaching,” but the fact remains that Catholic funds have been used and are still used to support such organizations.
Here is a perfect example of the CCHD ignoring its own policies. Under this allegation, it says,
CCHD funds will not be used to support any application which is sponsored or promoted by an organization whose primary or substantial thrust is contrary to Catholic teaching, even if the application itself is in accord with Catholic teaching. (emphasis added)
If that was the case, then not only should the organizations we have profiled on www.all.org/cchd be immediately defunded, but so should every organization that has ever received funding from pro-abortion organizations, been promoted by Planned Parenthood or been involved with Marxist socialism (as many grantees are).
Moving on to the second allegation:
2. “ALLEGATION: CCHD project funds are ‘fungible’: They free up monies for
organizations to spend on other activities at variance with Catholic teaching.”
The CCHD’s response to this allegation is inadequate and inaccurate. Rather than addressing the problems involved in donating money to an organization engaged in evil as well as good projects, the response focuses on funding procedures, guidelines and monitoring. But this doesn’t answer the concern about fungibility. Every organization has a general fund, and some of the money from the general fund goes toward the organization’s projects. If one project is well funded, then money in the general fund is freed up for other projects. This fact has nothing to do with whether or not the financing of a particular project is monitored.
Suppose Planned Parenthood launched a project to distribute free pregnancy tests to women. Would the CCHD consider this project worthy of funding? According to the response the CCHD gives to this allegation, it appears that this might be acceptable, even though its response to the preceding allegation indicates otherwise.
The bottom line is this: There are organizations that are worthy and those that are unworthy of financial support from faithful Catholics. If an evil organization is running a good project, a faithful Catholic, in good conscience, cannot donate to that project for two reasons: 1) It lends credibility to the evil organization as a whole, while causing scandal to the laity; and 2) such a donation frees up the organization’s general fund for other projects, including the organization’s evil projects.
3. “ALLEGATION: The Catholic Campaign for Human Development does not fund direct service to the poor, and is therefore not worthy of designation as a Catholic charity.”
The CCHD response to this doesn’t even address the allegation itself; it simply affirms the charge, and though no organization’s names are mentioned, it justifies granting money to community organizing groups such as ACORN, which the CCHD defunded in 2008 due to “questions that arose about financial management, fiscal transparency and organizational accountability,” not because it was engaging in immoral activities.
With regard to these first three allegations, we did a little digging and discovered that the CCHD addressed the exact same allegations 12 years ago, using similar fact sheets. In the CCHD’s 1998 fact sheets, following these three general allegations are allegations concerning specific CCHD-funded groups whose activities were in direct conflict with Church teaching. Similarly, after it addresses the first three general allegations, the CCHD’s 2009 fact sheet addresses allegations concerning specific organizations it has recently funded.
These striking similarities between the CCHD’s 1998 and 2009 fact sheets are very telling, because they reveal that these problems have persisted for at least 12 years, were explained away in the exact same manner in 1998 as they are being explained away now and that the granting process in 2009 is just as flawed (or complicit) now as in 1998.
But in the CCHD’s 2009 fact sheet, perhaps the most outrageous statement is made in response to the following allegation:
ALLEGATION: The Catholic Campaign for Human Development funded LA CAN and the San Francisco Organizing Project, which promoted activity contrary to Church teaching.
FACT: The Archdiocese of Los Angeles has reviewed the activity of LA CAN and determined the organization does not engage in any activity contrary to Church teaching, and has recommended continued funding for the organization. The Archdiocese of San Francisco strongly supports the work of the San Francisco Organizing Project (SFOP) to expand access to health care to children. Both Archbishop Levada and Archbishop Niederauer have spoken at SFOP events; SFOP has met regularly with Archdiocesan staff to coordinate work on health care access and other issues that affect the poor and immigrant families.
This is an absolute indictment of the Los Angeles and San Francisco archdioceses for their complicity in supporting immoral organizations. What the LA archdiocese is telling us is that promoting homosexual “marriage,” contraception and family planning are activities not contrary to Church teaching! Click here for the proof.
And there is even less excuse for the Archdiocese of San Francisco, including Archbishops Levada and Niederauer. Given that they cleared SFOP for funding after a reinvestigation and, in fact, have admitted that they strongly support SFOP, have met with SFOP regularly and have spoken at its events, then obviously the archdiocese has found no fault with the fact that SFOP won a $200,000 grant for Mission Neighborhood Health Center, which offers free family planning (read contraception) counseling and emergency contraception for teens.
Of course, as is the CCHD’s general modus operandi, none of the rest of the “For the Record” document addresses the multitude of other problematic organizations receiving Catholic funds. So when Bishop Morin told his brother bishops at the USCCB’s semi-annual meeting this week, “We do not ever grant funds to any group that is specifically involved in any activity contrary to Church teaching,” he was making an indefensible false statement. Apparently, he believes (as the LA archdiocese seems to believe) that LA CAN’s promotion of homosexual marriage, the Chicago Workers Collaborative’s involvement in international Marxism, Voces de la Frontera’s promotion of GayNeighbor.org, Massachusetts Community Labor United’s membership in a coalition to expand access to condoms and the Southwest Organizing Project’s promotion of birth control through “comprehensive” sex education are all in line with Catholic moral teaching, or he is completely unaware of these organizations' activities, or he is lying. There is no other possibility.
Whatever the case, there is no way a faithful Catholic can, in good conscience, give a single penny to the CCHD collection this Sunday, November 22. Be sure to download American Life League’s “No thank you!” cards to drop in the collection basket and tell the CCHD that you are instead donating to an authentically Catholic organization. For more information, visit www.all.org/cchd.
Michael Hichborn is American Life League's lead researcher on the Catholic Campaign for Human Development and host of the American Life League Report.
The Bishops of America and Europe rejected "Humanae Vitae" in 1969. They never corrected that rejection. Many of our Bishops still fail to see that contraception is against God's Law. Some even fail to see that abortion does NOT "help" poor women. Because of that "blind spot" maybe they don't see that they ARE lying about what CCHD is funding. You can be sure I'll use my "NO- Thank You" card this Sunday. Grace Harman | November 20, 2009
It will be interesting to see if Americn Life League be denied any indentification as a Catholic group. In much the same way as Notre Dame seemed dissident on the left with the Obama issue, so no ALL seems disident on the right over the CCHD issue.
I for one, trust the bishops on this one and I am sorry to see the position of ALL, I expected better. Tony | November 20, 2009
Dear Tony, by saying you expected better from ALL, did you mean that there is somehow something better than the truth? Perhaps you have just never seen the evil of abortion, that it is straight from the pit of hell. That is the only way I could understand your statement that you will trust the bishops on this instead of the truth. Mary Kuhns | November 20, 2009
I for one would count it pure joy if ALL is considered dissident for it's stand of the protection for women and their babies. ALL would be in the wonderful company of many, many saints. Mary Kuhns | November 20, 2009
I have listened and read offerings from both sides of this discussion carefully. Thanks to all who have taken the time to post info online and broadcast on the radio.
Just as CCHD has placed "on hold" certain grants to questionable organizations, so will I place my donation to CCHD "on hold" until I am satisfied with the answers. I understand the dilemma of the Bishops, however, my number one priority is obedience to God.
This very much reminds me of the Susan G Komen foundation controversy when it was revealed that the foundation sent money to various pro-abortion groups.
This year, and until this gets cleared up, I will be increasing my donation to our urban soup kitchens.
We all have a duty to study all the facts and act as our well-formed conscience dictates. Mary | November 20, 2009
The evidence is overwelming that CCHD needs serious improvement in their investigation process of those requesting grants. The American Bishop's response to the allegations was weak and unresponsive to most of the concerns raised. Ken | November 20, 2009
Thank you....thank you for helping us be informed (cchd) Rosemary Jepson | November 20, 2009
Judie,
Thanks for the information. Unfortunately, the St. Louis Review published an article about the CCHD but didn't even mention that there was ANY controversy. I did not have time to write a letter to the editor in order to question their reporting, or lack thereof.
Laura Laura Gidley-Feltz | November 20, 2009
Dear Tony
the facts in this matter are not contrived; the USCCB needs to change the way they do business.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | November 21, 2009
Dear Michael Hichborn,
Thank you for exposing the truth about CCHD. I sent out emails to boycott CCHD and I received emails to boycott CCHD.
This was an interesting note I received from someone who was encouraging the boycott of CCHD. Perhaps, you can tell me if this is true:
"In addition to these organizations being funded by the CCHD are organizations connected to Saul Alinsky.
Alinsky is best known as a socialist organizer who wrote Rules for Radicals: Dedicated to Lucifer, this book is the authoritative blueprint for radical activism. His teachings revolve around the principle that the ends justify the means, and he promotes the Marxist concept of continuous class warfare. These principles are the very foundation of the various Alinskyan networks in existence.
The number-one recipient of all CCHD funds is Industrial Areas Foundation, which was created by Alinsky himself. Other Alinskyan organizing groups receiving CCHD grant money are People Improving Communities through Organizing (PICO), Direct Action and Research Training (DART) and the Gamaliel Foundation."
I believe our Archbishop has received information on the CCHD Scandal and yet you can see evidence that the CCHD is being heavily promoted in our Archdiocese like no other year I can remember.
Through the grassroots, I have been told there are a few priests in our Archdiocese that said they will not collect this weekend for the CCHD.
Thanks be to God!
I will not be giving to CCHD and I will be more careful when the 2nd basket comes around.
Thank you for shining the Truth even under persecution.
May God bless you,
Patty Patty Palmquist | November 21, 2009
I am glad to know the truth about the CCHD. I am pro-life and will not donate any money until this group cleans up its act. Marsha | November 21, 2009
Thanks for all your info on CCHD. Because of it I was able to forward the info to many catholic friends.
Keeping you and ALL in my daily prayers..........Andy Andrew Missler | November 21, 2009
I just thought you'd like to know about this. At this morning Mass, our priest read a letter by our Tulsa Bishop, Bishop Slattery, about this weekend's contribution envelopes for CCHD. Bishop Slattery's letter advised that because of these questions about whether CCHD funds are being used in accordance with Church teachings, that the contributions will be reserved and used within the Diocese and *NOT* sent to CCHD. Martin Beckman | November 22, 2009
Dear Judie,
Thank you so much for giving us a means to demonstrate our disillusionment with the CCHD. We were in the midst of a difficult move to another state on the week-end of the CCHD collection. However, we wanted to make a statement about CCHD no matter what church we attended mass at and downloaded the "No thank you" card to put into the CCHD collection.
When the collection basket passed by we only noticed the regular CCHD pre-printed church envelopes and other monies in the basket. It appeared that we may have been the only ones that stepped out in protest.
Sometimes we are a lone voice crying out, but I'm thankful that you gave us the opportunity to be that voice.
May God continue to bless the work that you do.
In His Grace,
Marsha Pasewark
ENTRUSTING ONE'S LIFE TO CONGRESSIONAL FIAT! Posted: Wednesday November 18, 2009 at 5:09 pm EST by Judie Brown
In the aftermath of the Stupak flimflam on abortion funding, it would be a good idea to revisit the problem of inviting the Pelosi-Reid-Obama team into the hospital room. Lately, Congress seems to be full of people who zealously adhere to principles dictating life-and-death control over the vulnerable. Yet they appear to have no understanding of the principle that matters most in health care: upholding the dignity of the human person.
Anyone who saw the YouTube video of Rep. Bart Stupak (whose amendment enabled Pelosicare to pass), in which he admits that—win or lose on abortion funding—he would support an Obamacare bill, knows exactly what I mean. The “majority” means more to these politicians than whether or not taxpayers pay for murder—at least according to Stupak.
So what about the defenseless among us who are already born? What might be in store for the severely disabled, the terminally ill and the “better off dead”? Will decisions be made by an ethical medical professional or a bioethics panel? What should we expect if the Obama administration gets its way?
The stark difference between ethical decision making and applied bioethics could provide a hint.
Professor Dianne Irving explained in Crisis magazine,“Traditional medical ethics focuses on the physician’s duty to the individual patient, whose life and welfare are always sacrosanct. The focus of bioethics is fundamentally utilitarian, centered, like other utilitarian disciplines, around maximizing total human happiness.”
Bioethicist Arthur Caplan defines the role of the bioethicist as a “moral diagnostician.” However, Caplan defends Ezekiel Emanuel's approach to caring for the dying, telling reporters that Emanuel is an “outspoken critic of euthanasia” at the same time he attacks Governor Sarah Palin’s comments on the reality of “death panel” proposals in various health care reform bills.
It is troubling when a self-described moral diagnostician sides with an avowed supporter of allocating “scarce medical interventions.” Emanuel is on record opining, “For indivisible goods, benefiting people equally entails providing equal chances at the scarce intervention—equality of opportunity, rather than equal amounts of it” (page 6).
The Caplan/Emmanuel utilitarian approach confirms Irving’s definition. So let’s move on, because clearly it is the bioethicists, not the traditional medical ethicists, who are influencing Congress these days.
This is one of the primary reasons why direct government involvement in the extremely delicate question of defining who is dying versus who is not could be treacherous. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops walks a fine line in this area and has articulated the reasons why.
In a paper entitled “Killing the Pain, Not the Patient: Palliative Care vs. Assisted Suicide,” Richard M. Doerflinger and Carlos F. Gomez, M.D., Ph.D., discuss the use of morphine as a pain reliever and the question of “terminal sedation”:
Very rarely it may be necessary to induce sleep to relieve pain and other distress in the final stage of dying. Euthanasia advocates call this “terminal sedation,” but it is the same kind of sedation that is sometimes needed to calm distressed or restless patients with non-terminal conditions. While some terminally ill patients may die under such sedation, this is generally because they were imminently dying already.
In competent medical hands, sedation for imminently dying patients is a humane, appropriate and medically established approach to what is often called “intractable suffering.” It does not kill the patient, but it can make his or her suffering bearable. It may also allow a physician the time to re-assess a patient’s pain needs: The terminally ill sedated patient may later be withdrawn from the sedatives and brought back to consciousness, with his or her pain under control.
This may sound tricky, so what if a bioethics panel, approved under Obama-style “health care reform,” is making these decisions and recommending terminal sedation as a cost-saving measure? Who would you trust if the patient in that bed was a member of your immediate family?
As Wesley J. Smith articulated in his analysis of the health care situation in the United Kingdom,
[T]he U.K.’s notorious rationing board, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), urged hospitals, nursing homes, and hospices to follow an end-of-life protocol known as the Liverpool Care Pathway. The Pathway’s guidelines instruct doctors to put patients thought to be near death into a drug-induced coma, after which all food and fluids, as well as medical treatments such as antibiotics, are withdrawn until death. …
Chillingly, current Obamacare plans call for the creation of many cost/benefit/best-practices boards, the full power of which won’t be fully known until the bureaucrats promulgate tens of thousands of pages of regulations between now and 2013, when the law would go into effect. Making matters more alarming, these boards would not only govern treatment provided in any public-option health plan, but would also be empowered to set the standards of care paid for by private insurance. Unless the final version of Obamacare is amended explicitly to prohibit such centralized health planning, don’t be surprised if an American version of the Liverpool Care Pathway comes soon to a hospital or nursing home near you.
Under Obamacare, cost-benefit ratios could become a bioethicist’s mantra. Actually, this is part of what bioethicists do: attempt to balance cost against compassion. Think about it.
Peter J. Smith (no relation to Wesley J. Smith) analyzed the reasons why “death panels” continue to be a major concern:
[I]ncentivizing doctors to offer “end-of-life planning consultations” could lead to senior citizens, the terminally ill, or disabled, being pressured into accepting lower quality care from a doctor who figures he can receive higher reimbursement rates for talking with a patient about when or how he can refuse treatment.
Indeed, as American Life League documented recently, section 240 of the Pelosicare bill (page 130) contains the sort of language that could easily be interpreted as a free pass to making life-and-death decisions.
It is noteworthy that when the editor of the American Journal of Bioethics, Summer Johnson, Ph.D., discussed Obamacare spending proposals, she devoted over half of her commentary to pointing fingers and tossing barbs. She described the current U.S. health care system as “under-performing, over-priced, and inequitable,” whereas she had high praises for the notorious health care rationing programs of the United Kingdom and Canada.
Johnson also took a shot at Governor Palin (apparently fair game for everyone), saying, “I would happily put Harvard’s Atul Gawande MD and the National Institutes of Health’s Ezekiel Emanuel MD, PhD in a room with former Governor and vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin and let them duke it out over health reform any day and let the chips fall where they may. They have two MDs and one PhD on their side; she has rhetoric and a moose gun.”
Fortunately, there is a counterpoint to Johnson’s silliness. It was written by long-time traditional medical ethics expert Nancy Valko, a registered nurse.Unlike Johnson, Valko focused on actual statements from organizations for and against health care rationing, analyzing them fairly and expressing hope that common sense will soon emerge in the health care reform discussions. She makes it clear that some of the travesties in the various Obamacare proposals are already occurring and efficiently ending lives:
Today we have ethics committees developing futility guidelines to overrule patients and/or their families even when they want treatment continued. We have three states with legal assisted suicide. We have even non-brain dead organ donation policies (called non-heart beating organ donation or donation after cardiac death). Some ethicists even argue that we should drop the dead donor rule.
We see living wills and other advance directives with check-offs for even basic medical care and for incapacitated conditions like being unable to regularly recognize relatives. We are willing to sacrifice living human beings at the earliest stages of development to fund research for cures for conditions like Parkinson’s rather than promote research on ethical and effective adult stem cell therapies.
So we should pay attention when Valko warns,
Death panels are not the overwrought fantasy of right-wing nut cases. Real “death panels” are already at work. They have been created by apathy, misplaced sympathy, a skewed view of tolerance and an inordinate fear of a less than perfect life. Death panels? In the famous words of the comic strip character Pogo, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”
Let us not be complacent or fearful when it comes to expressing our concerns about Obamacare. We must not be intimidated into silence by those who label us as politically incorrect, ill-informed or crazy for daring to oppose it. Pelosi, Reid, Obama and their ilk want to drown out our voices as they aggressively promote the agenda that helps them make their way into that hospital room.
By their actions, these ideologues are literally telling America, “Trust us; we know what’s good for you. But please, don’t ask us for any facts to support our position and the policies we want to foist upon you with your own money.”
As I have told people with ever increasing frequency, the only reason our opposition wants to shout us down is that they have taken the indefensible position that they have the authority to choose who lives and who dies. These are the people who have trashed traditional medical ethics in favor of bioethics.
You decide: Will you entrust your life to congressional fiat or common sense? They are not synonymous.
"...maximizing total human happiness??? does not strike me as an illegitimate goal. Dealing with the reality of limited resources (because resources are always limited) is hard work that demands tough decisions. A Death Panel of no or very limited medical care already exists for millions of people just in this country. These are folks that never have the opportunity for treatment because they never even get a diagnosis until it is too late. Mother Teresa did not let her original hospice in Calcutta become a paen to technology, but spent the money raised to open hundreds more of those simple places. Just as the prolife community draws the line at life-creating acts such as fornication and IVF, so must we draw the line at life-sustaining acts that expend huge resources (hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars) while ignoring the many more that could be given life by inexpensive, effective care. Our duty goes beyond those that are already in the door to those that are outside, wanting. Petra Spahr | November 19, 2009
What is particularly striking is that the government's current policies or their proposed future policies result in the same thing: the rationing of health care to those deemed "unworthy of life" or the direct imposition of death on those who are currently not actively dying.
Currently, the US Justice Dept, state Attorneys General, and local district attorneys all refuse to investigate and then prosecute the imposed deaths, i.e., medical killings of the vulnerable very elderly and severely disabled. They all turn a blind eye to the thousands of complaints they receive every year. There are patients in hospitals, nursing homes and hospices who are being denied fluids, often sedated and then die when their circulatory system collapses due to fluid volume deficit.
Rationing of health care is already happening based upon the biases of the physicians and hospital administrators involved. Futile care protocol committees ("ethics" committees) in hospitals already deny care to patients who have specifically said they want to be treated and do not wish to refuse care. In other words, the "ethics" being foisted upon the American public is a one-way street heading toward hastened death.
If rationing and denial of care is not fast enough, many patients are put into hospice where the "new hospice" agenda is implementted: imposed death through the "Third Way" method of killing. It's not assisted suicide, it's not euthanasia, it's the "pretty," peaceful-seeming death of imposed sleep/coma through the misuse of terminal sedation on patients who are not agitated and do not need to be sedated. Ron Panzer, Pres. Hospice Patients Alliance | November 19, 2009
It's distressing when those who want government-controlled healthcare use Mother Teresa to try to defend their reasoning. I think we could do some fact checking and find that even if someone Mother Teresa was taking care of was in constant pain they would not have been given a lethal sedative to maximize "total human happiness", or to make room for someone else to use that hospital bed. Our duty even goes beyond "those that are ouside, wanting" to those MILLIONS waiting to be safely outside of the womb, the most dangerous place on earth. Mary Kuhns | November 20, 2009
Dear Peter
You are describing the use of common sense in the practice of medical ethics. We don't need the government to control our health care in order to emulate the goodness of charity of Christ and His followers like Mother Teresa. What we do need is a restoration of Christian charity and an end to reliance on the government.
WORDS AND PHRASES TO DROP FROM OUR PRO-LIFE VOCABULARY Posted: Tuesday November 17, 2009 at 2:10 pm EST by Judie Brown
By Erik Whittington
As personhood advocates, it is critically important that we use the correct terminology to describe preborn babies, their mothers, the very act of abortion and even the facilities in which abortions are committed. It doesn’t matter if you are a full time pro-life advocate or a “normal” person who works, goes to school, takes care of your family, etc. We must all watch what we say in daily life—even in casual conversation.
So, the words we use are very powerful and can make the difference between life and death. You might be surprised to realize that even we pro-lifers often use terms and phrases that can be dehumanizing to the very people we are trying to save. That can cause confusion and can hamper our efforts to obtain recognition of the human rights of all human persons. As we educate the public and advocate for the rights of all human persons, born and preborn, we must seriously examine the language we use and make some changes, if necessary.
With that in mind, I am going to share with you this short list of terms and phrases that we should drop from our pro-life vocabulary:
1. Fetus, embryo—These terms are generally used by abortion supporters, but I also notice pro-lifers using these terms often. Fetus and embryo are actually terms referring to stages of development. Their use begs the question, which animal species, during its embryonic or fetal development, are you referring to? For human beings, embryo describes human development from the very beginning of a human being’s life through their eighth week of development. Fetus describes a human being’s biological development from the beginning of their ninth week of development until birth. We should replace these terms with “human embryo,” “human fetus” or “human being during their embryonic (or fetal) development.”
2. Fertilized egg—This is a dehumanizing term used as a form of pro-abortion propaganda. It is not a legitimate term, since it isn’t scientifically accurate. Women don’t carry eggs; they have oocytes. Upon first contact of a human sperm and a human oocyte, a newly created human person now exists who is in his/her first embryonic stage of development. This term has become popular with abortion advocates these days, in response to the state personhood initiatives cropping up around the country. We need to correct this whenever we see or hear it. Use correct terminology in its place, such as “human embryo.”
3. Mistake, accident, unwanted, unplanned— These terms have very negative connotations and are very demeaning, especially for the child who happens to overhear some mention of the circumstances in which he or she came into being. Every child is wanted by someone and no one is an accident. God creates every single person with a special purpose in life. A positive-sounding term such as “surprise” should be used instead of terms or phrases that imply that God’s creation of a baby is an unfortunate event.
4. Pro-choice—This term was developed by a marketing firm employed by the abortion lobby before abortion became decriminalized on January 22, 1973. It has been and still is a very effective term, but is very misleading. It begs the question, what is the choice? The child has no choice when threatened with an abortionist’s suction device, knives and forceps. Replace this term with “pro-abortion” or “abortion advocate.”
5. Pregnant woman—This term takes the child out of the equation and can make pregnancy sound like a disease. Abortion is often referred to as “terminating a pregnancy.” Instead, use terms such as “mother,” “pregnant mom” or “expectant mother.”
6. Health clinic/abortion clinic—“Health” gives the impression that health is being restored to an individual. Similarly, “clinic” normally denotes a respectable, morally legitimate health care facility. Abortion is murder, not health care, so we should not dignify it with such terms. Replace such terms with “abortion business,” “abortion mill,” “abortion facility,” “abortion center” and so forth.
7. The abortion issue—Taxes are an issue. Paying for education is an issue. Abortion is not an issue; it’s a tragedy. Abortion is a violent crime that kills a human person and leaves his/her mother scarred for life. You can also replace issue with terms such as “question,” “matter,” etc.
8. It—A baby boy or baby girl is not an it. Yet that is how many of us refer to children in utero or even at the moment of their birth. I hear this so often: “It’s a (boy/girl)!” Instead, say, “He is a boy” or “She is a girl” or “My/our/their/his/her/the baby is a (boy/girl).”
9. I’m going to be a ___!—This phrase usually ends with “mother,” “father,” “grandparent,” “aunt,” “uncle,” etc., But it’s inaccurate and dehumanizes the baby, because actually, it’s a done deal! The person speaking is already a mother (or father, grandparent, etc.). If you catch someone (or yourself) saying this, quickly correct it by reminding them (or yourself) that the child already exists, so they (or you) are already a mother (or father, grandparent, etc.).
This is in no way an exhaustive list. It has been compiled to get you thinking and to start a conversation that will hopefully result in pro-life advocates being more effective in changing minds and hearts, which will eventually result in legal recognition of human personhood for all, born and preborn. Let me know what you think!
Erik Whittingtonis director of Rock for Life, a project of American Life League. RFL is a network of bands, musicians, artists (over 800!) and their fans, who use their talents to provide life-affirming solutions to counter assaults on the right to life. RFL works to educate, activate, mobilize and unite pro-life youth to fight against the attacks made against the most innocent of all human beings. This commentary was originally published as a Rock for Life blogon November 4, 2009.
Please let Erika know how very helpful this article is!
I will work to improve my pro-life language as a result of reading this article and will pass this change in language on to others. Laurie | November 18, 2009
Have always been partial to the term preborn emphiasized by the Chicago veterans speaking in their behalf: Conrad Wojnar and his sacrificial efforts in founding The Women's Centers, and his comrade prayer and protests Joe Scheilder and the Pro Life Action League. Preborn connoates the portential of being born while unborn connotes having been conceived but perhaps not being allowed to be born. Tee More | November 18, 2009
A great article! I've made some of these suggested vocabulary changes already, but there are a few things listed here that I say/write that would be problematic.
The only one in these suggestions I would leave out is "expectant mother". It seems to be used often, at least in Canada, to mean "expecting a baby" when, in fact, the baby is already there in the womb. Other than that one I really like all of the suggestions.
Thank you so much! God bless. Deborah Morlani | November 18, 2009
Great List!
How about changing 'abortion mill' to 'baby aborting mill".
Take care,
J John | November 18, 2009
Judie, First of all, a huge thank-you for all you do to promote the value, dignity, and sanctity of all human life. Keep up the wonderful work.
I appreciate your article entitled "WORDS AND PHRASES TO DROP FROM OUR PRO-LIFE VOCABULARY". For years I've been a stickler for using accurate wording in our conversations about such critical topics. I cringe when I hear an abortuary dignified with a term like "Clinic". Many of the other phrases and terms you mention are in the same category. I appreciate you even pointing out a few that I have misused on occasion so that I can correct my own language. With all of that said, I do think you might reconsider #8.
I understand your intention, and I agree that once the sex of a person is known, it is appropriate to use a pronoun that identifies the sex of the person such as he, she, him, her, his or hers. However, when the sex of the person is unknown or even if it is insignificant in a particular context, at any age, "it" is an appropriate pronoun and should not be construed as dehumanizing when used in such a context.
While it's possible to have a conversation without using any pronouns, such a conversation quickly gets tedious. It's annoying to have a conversation with someone who repeatedly says "he or she" when "it" would suffice. There is nothing unreasonable about asking "Is 'it' a boy or girl?" Even in asking the question, I am acknowledging that there are only two possibilities, both of which are human, and I am indicating that I desire more info so that I can refer to him or her more accurately as 'he' or 'she' in the future. I know I could phrase the question as "Are you having a boy or girl?" or several other ways, but I think it's overkill (no pun intended) to try to say that 'it' is never correctly applied to a person. Even when I am referring to an adult, I may not know the sex of the person or it may be irrelevant in a given context. For example, in response to "Who called?", I can answer "It was a telemarketer." or "It was Pat" without specifying "he" or she". Using the word 'it' appropriately to refer to a human person is not at all derogatory. I am an 'IT'. However, I am also a 'HE'. All 'HEs' are 'ITs', but not all 'ITs' are 'HEs' or SHEs'. The alternative to being an 'it' is to not exist or to not even be imagined. I am glad that I exist, and that I am a 'he'.
Check out the first and second definitions of the word 'it' at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/it
While you're there, look up the word 'gender' and you'll encounter one of my pet peeves along the same line. A person has a SEX, not a GENDER. SEX is either male or female and refers exclusively to living beings. Gender is appropriate in the right context, but it becomes an inaccurate dehumanizing euphemism as used commonly by people who are adverse to the word SEX. Don't ask a person's gender when you really want to know their sex.
Don't sweat the small stuff. Keep up the good work.
God Bless, David David Hall | November 18, 2009
I have printed this handy column, and my wife and I plan on sharing it with many family members this Thanksgiving weekend.
A rather sad side note on terminology...I recently did an experiment in which I "googled" the phrase "abortion rights foes" (as we were called by a national newspaper in a biased article on last year's March For Life) and received 145,000 hits. I did the same for "sanctity of life foes" and received exactly one (1) hit. Try it yourself - I hope I'm somehow mistaken. Bob P. | November 24, 2009
DON’T BE A FACELESS BUREAUCRAT—SAY NO TO STUPAK! Posted: Monday November 16, 2009 at 4:59 pm EST by Judie Brown
American Life League’s “faceless bureaucrat” ad, which will run this week in USA Today, clearly explains what’s wrong with the political posturing that is currently the rage in Washington D.C. Simple statements like these are far superior to the mumbo jumbo the United States Conferences of Catholic Bishops’ bureaucracy is dishing out at this week’s Catholic bishops’ meeting in Baltimore.
(Since you may not be able to read the wording in the above image, here is the text of the ad:
Why are these people speaking for the Catholic bishops?
Payment for some abortions, euthanasia, “family planning services,” promiscuity-promoting sex education, and lack of consistent and comprehensive conscience protection guarantees—these are all provisions left untouched by the Stupak Amendment; yet the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops applauded it.
Without the USCCB’s involvement, the fatally flawed Pelosicare bill would have failed. While the small army of lawyers, staffers and lobbyists working for our Catholic bishops may deny these things, the facts speak for themselves. Consider what remains in the Pelosi health care bill after the Stupak Amendment’s passage:
• Section 240 permits killing of the elderly and infirm.
• Sections 258 and 259 contain contradictory language regarding conscience protection.
• Section 265 (the Stupak Amendment) pays for some abortions.
• Section 304 explicitly forces insurers to cover abortion.
• Section 1714 funds groups such as Planned Parenthood.
• Section 2526 also funds groups such as Planned Parenthood, for providing sex education programs that “improve rates of contraceptive use.”
Where is the “victory” for the culture of life?
Does the USCCB’s apparent support for these provisions send a mixed message to faithful Catholics? Yes!
This is what the Stupak Amendment allowed Speaker Nancy Pelosi to pass—a further entrenchment of the culture of death. This is what was done in the name of the Catholic bishops by the USCCB.
We are concerned. We hope you are too.
It’s time to stop the politics of the faceless bureaucrats. We encourage each of our Catholic bishops to ask why these bureaucrats are acting as their voice.
It’s not a question of political access; it’s a question of life and death.)
In this age of sound bites, no-spin zones and other telltale signs of words without meaning, it’s time for pro-life Americans of every age and state in life to be crystal-clear when it comes to addressing the personhood of every human being, at all stages, and the reasons why we dare not compromise on this principle.
To help in that process, we offer the following talking points on the Pelosi-Obama-shamelessly compromised-anti-some surgical abortions Stupak Amendment to H.R. 3962, the House version of the health care reform debacle, also known as Pelosicare.
(a) IN GENERAL—No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.
What the Stupak Amendment specifically prohibits is abortion funding (with exceptions) for the public option within the Pelosi health care bill.
What the Stupak Amendment failed to prohibit are the remaining provisions for abortion, contraception, medical “care” that allows euthanasia, promiscuity-promoting sex education, “family planning services” provided by organizations such as Planned Parenthood, contradictory and inconsistent language regarding conscience protection and other loopholes still included in the bill.
Q: Would the Pelosi health care bill have passed if the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) had not intervened in the legislative process?
No. As widely reported in the media, the Stupak Amendment gave cover for approximately 40 supposedly pro-life representatives to seemingly support the pro-life cause while also supporting all of the Pelosi bill’s major components. Without the NRLC’s and USCCB’s lobbying efforts on behalf of the Stupak Amendment, it is altogether probable that the Pelosi health care bill would not have passed the House.
Had the Pelosi health care bill failed, none of the alarming provisions included in its current version would have been carried to the U.S. Senate. By enabling the passage of the Pelosi health care bill while failing to address most of the aggressive anti-life and downright life-threatening provisions it contains, the NRLC and the USCCB are, in fact, furthering the abortion and euthanasia agenda.
Q: What is anti-life about this bill?
Here are highlights of some of the anti-life provisions in the Pelosi health care bill, all of which were untouched by the last-minute Stupak deal brokered by the NRLC and the USCCB:
Section 240 permits euthanasia by withholding/withdrawal of medical treatment/medical care and/or nutrition/hydration, by redefining certain terms.
SEC. 240. DISSEMINATION OF ADVANCE CARE PLANNING INFORMATION. …
(d) PROHIBITION ON THE PROMOTION OF ASSISTED SUICIDE.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (3), information provided to meet the requirements of subsection (a)(2) shall not include advanced directives or other planning tools that list or describe as an option suicide, assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing, regardless of legality. [So far, so good, right? But keep reading!]
(2) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be construed to apply to or affect any option to—
(A) withhold or withdraw of medical treatment or medical care;
(B) withhold or withdraw of nutrition or hydration; …
Sections 258 and 259 contradict each other regarding conscience protection (reading section 259 first makes this clearer). Moreover, section 259 only addresses abortion. What about conscience protection for persons who object to contraception, sterilization, euthanasia or any other actions that violate their conscience?
SEC. 259. NONDISCRIMINATION ON ABORTION AND RESPECT FOR RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE.
(a) NONDISCRIMINATION.—A Federal agency or program, and any State or local government that receives Federal financial assistance under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), may not—
(1) subject any individual or institutional health care entity to discrimination; or
(2) require any health plan created or regulated under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) to subject any individual or institutional health care entity to discrimination, on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.
This sounds like a clear guarantee of conscience protection for those who object to abortion. But what about the potential impact of Section 258, which stipulates that state and federal laws regarding conscience protection and requirements to provide abortion override anything in this bill? Therefore, this bill provides no ironclad conscience protection. In fact, you will see that section 304 violates the conscience rights of insurers.
SEC. 258. APPLICATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS REGARDING ABORTION.
(a) NO PREEMPTION OF STATE LAWS REGARDING ABORTION.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to preempt or otherwise have any effect on State laws regarding the prohibition of (or requirement of) coverage, funding, or procedural requirements on abortions, including parental notification or consent for the performance of an abortion on a minor.
(b) NO EFFECT ON FEDERAL LAWS REGARDING ABORTION.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to have any effect on Federal laws regarding—
(A) conscience protection;
(B) willingness or refusal to provide abortion; and
(C) discrimination on the basis of the willingness or refusal to provide, pay for, cover, or refer for abortion or to provide or participate in training to provide abortion.
Section 265 (the Stupak Amendment itself) provides exceptions that allow the killing of preborn children in several circumstances.
SEC. 265. LIMITATION ON ABORTION FUNDING
(a) In General.—No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.
Section 304 forces insurance firms to pay for abortion, which violates the conscience rights of pro-life insurance firms and pro-life insurance firm employees.
SEC. 304. CONTRACTS FOR THE OFFERING OF EXCHANGE-PARTICIPATING HEALTH BENEFITS PLANS. …
(d) NO DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF PROVISION OF ABORTION.—No Exchange participating health benefits plan may discriminate against any individual health care provider or health care facility because of its willingness or unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.
Section 1714 provides “family planning services” through programs administered by state governments, which would, in turn, subsidize organizations that push contraception and abortion, such as Planned Parenthood.
SEC. 1714. STATE ELIGIBILITY OPTION FOR FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES….
… (a) STATE OPTION.—State plan approved under section 1902 may provide for making medical assistance available to an individual described in section 1902(hh) (relating to individuals who meet certain income eligibility standard) during a presumptive eligibility period. In the case of an individual described in section 1902(hh), such medical assistance shall be limited to family planning services and supplies described in 1905(a)(4)(C) and, at the State’s option, medical diagnosis and treatment services that are provided in conjunction with a family planning service in a family planning setting.
Section 2526 funds organizations such as Planned Parenthood for the provision of permissive sex education programs for minors.
SEC. 2526. HEALTHY TEEN INITIATIVE TO PREVENT TEEN PREGNANCY . …
(a) PROGRAM.—To the extent and in the amount of appropriations made in advance in appropriations Acts, the Secretary, acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shall establish a program consisting of making grants, in amounts determined under subsection (c), to each State that submits an application in accordance with subsection (d) for an evidence-based education program described in subsection (b).
(b) USE OF FUNDS.—Amounts received by a State under this section shall be used to conduct or support evidence-based education programs (directly or through grants or contracts to public or private nonprofit entities, including schools and community-based and faith-based organizations) to reduce teen pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases. …
(i) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term “evidence-based” means based on a model that has been found ….
(1) to delay initiation of sex;
(2) to decrease number of partners;
(3) to reduce teen pregnancy;
(4) to reduce sexually transmitted infection rate
(5) to improve rates of contraceptive use.
Q: What tactics did the NRLC and the USCCB use to help obtain the passage of the Pelosi health care bill?
Working in tandem, the NRLC threatened to include Stupak votes on congressional scorecards, and the USCCB made it possible for Catholic Democrats in the House to pay lip service to Church teaching on abortion while voting for a bill that violates Church teachings in several ways, including abortion.
Q: Was the Stupak Amendment a victory for the pro-life movement?
No! In fact, it hurt us by allowing several anti-life provisions to remain in the Pelosi bill and enabled it to move on to the U.S. Senate.
Q: Is opposing the Stupak Amendment divisive to the pro-life movement?
The NRLC has a long history of compromising where there need not be compromise and misleading millions of sincere pro-lifers into believing that abortion-accommodating strategies are necessary to combat abortion. The grassroots pro-life movement remains united; whether the NRLC remains united to the grassroots is debatable.
Q: Is this uncharitable?
Fifty-one million children have died during 36 years of pro-life leadership failures. Now that’s uncharitable!
Hi,
Interesting question. I have a friend who attended a Catholic church in Naples Florida last week, and he said before the service, the priest said that the Catholic Bishops (I guess in this arch-diocese) had endorsed the Health Care bill, because there were provisions to prevent abortions being paid for with tax dollars, etc. He encouraged the parishoners to contact their Senators and Congressmen and ask them to vote FOR the health care bill.
#1, are the Catholic clergy really that stupid?
#2, what right do they have endorsing legislation?
#3, would the Vatican like to know they have some renegade priests and bishops who are disregarding their doctrine??
I am not Catholic, so don't have a dog in their race, but this health care bill is unconstitutional on its face. The priests have nerve endorsing something that is in violation of the Constitution.
cindy kucharski
Ft. Myers, Fl
cindy kucharski | November 16, 2009
You consistently hit the nail squarely on the head, Judie, with your outstanding Catholic commentary.
Keep up the good work for Christ and His Church.
It's up to driven laity like you to set the record straight in light of the confusion coming from those wearing miters!
This has all happened before in the history of the Church where the laity has stood up to be counted for salvation's sake. And it needs to happen again, given that those purporting to be Catholic are anything but in playing with a stacked deck in favor of the father-of-lies.
When it comes to the moral order, your website is an island of orthodoxy in a sea of heterodoxy!
Much thanks for providing a safe haven for those of us who are treading water in that aforementioned troubled sea!
Judie, I don't have to tell you that we're fighting a spiritual war manifested in the natural plane for the heart and soul of our country. There is no such thing as noncombatants in this war! We're all on the front lines now because eternity is at stake.
I have been watching a WWII documentary on the History Channel entitled WWII in HD. It has footage here-to-for unseen. Last night they showed what happened to our Marines on the hell-hole that was Tarawa Atoll.
As a Catholic Vietnam Era Navy Vet, I watched the suffering and deaths of our military to keep us free. Those brave men fought and died for an America worthy of God's blessing, not His condemnation! They gave the last full measure of devotion to keep the tyranny that now has America by the jugular from attack from without.
We are now fighting the toughest war that America has ever had to fight against the tyranny from within. We owe it to those brave Marines to do everything that we can so as to not render their sacrifices, and that of all those who have fought for America throughout her history, to have been in vain!
The Catholic Church, with the help of God, should be our main ally in this war, not a millstone around our necks, such has been the case far too often with the institutional Church's de facto support for the most anti-Catholic candidate to have ever run for the presidency.
The wheat needs to be separated from the chaff in that regard. God is good. He always lets us know who are real friends are, and who will betray us in a heartbeat, in this case, those who are Democrats before they're Catholic!
How sad that is given that the Democratic Party has embraced the totality of a culture-of-eternal-death condemned by Holy Mother Church!
But we have Jesus, Mary, Saint Joseph, and all of the Archangels, Angels and Saints on our side, the Church Triumphant in union with the Church Suffering to give inspiration to the Church Militant which we are NOT going to allow the devil to turn into the Church Wimp!
God bless you! Gary L. Morella | November 17, 2009
Day after day goes by, and I haven't heard a peep from the USCCB or our priests regarding CCHD, or why the Bishops are supporting the abortion president's healthcare. I no longer look to them as beloved shepherds that guard and protect the least of us, but only leaders that I must pray for. I realize there are many things I don't know about why they aren't defending the unwanted unborn, but I still don't understand their silence. I'm reading former slave Frederick Douglass' book Narrative of the Life, and replacing his words regarding slavery with abortion, it is as though they are the same. He said these things, and I believe it to be true that whoever is silent is part of the problem. In fact, it seems to me that the women who have abortions out of distress are less guilty than those who sit in their offices and do nothing to help them. "Slavery with all its bloody paraphernalia is upheld by the church of the country. We want them to have the Methodists of Ireland speak to those of America, and say, 'While your hands are red with blood, while the thumb screws and gags and whips are wrapped up in the pontifical robes of your Church, we will have no fellowship with you, or acknowledge you as Christians. There are men who come here and preach, whose robes are yet red with blood, but these things should not be. Let these American Christians know their hands are too red to be grasped by Irishmen. Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, and Roman Catholics, stand forth to the world and delcare to the American Church, that until she puts away slavery, you can have no sympathy or fellowship with them.. In America Bibles and slave-holders go hand in hand. The Church and the slave prison stand together, and while you hear the chanting of psalms in one, you hear the clanking of chains in the other." And so it is in Mass, we sing joyful songs to the Lord, and at the same time I hear the silent screams of children being torn from their mothers wombs. "..What have you done! Listen: your brother's blood cries out to me from the soil!"
Genesis 4:10 Mary Kuhns | November 17, 2009
Judy,
Why is it so hard to believe that the USCCB staff is actually doing the work of the bishops? Do you have any evidence that the bishops actually disagree with what was done on the Stupak amendment? charles | November 17, 2009
I support you in your pro-life efforts. However, they fall short! Why? Because ALL fails to come down on the Knights of Columbus as it does on other "church-related" organizations like the CCHD. Check the records: Senator Kennedy may still be on the rolls at his local K of C council. I resigned (refused to renew) in Dec 2007 and yet the K of C still sends me the Columbian magazine. Kenneth Aydlott | November 17, 2009
Cindy
The Catholic Bishops are not stupid but they do rely on bureaucrats to provide accurate information, and in some cases, the information they receive is not what it should be. Further, there are some Bishops who prefer politics to principle. I have met some of them and though I find it tragic, we must remember that each of them, like each of us, is a fallen human being stained by original sin. We should pray for them but never cease to point out the facts.
#2 I recently heard one Bishop tell me personally that he was a Bishop, not a politician and then he immediately explained how he was involved with white house negotiations. So I cannot answer #2.
#3 The Holy Father must have a major headache with all this since he too has such individuals advising him. Truth sometimes simply escapes these people.
To my mind, Cindy, I think we should all be grateful to God for His gifts and continue to expect others to see facts instead of political agendas. Catholic or not, we sure have the ability to see the facts; so why do some of us fail?
Judie Brown Judie Brown | November 18, 2009
I received our local Catholic paper yesterday and sure enough, it did have the article telling us to basically ignore all of the "allegations" and go ahead and donate this Sunday to CCHD. Yesterday I also received another request to help Priests For Life financially and all I can wonder is, why doesn't the Campaign for HUMAN DEVELOPMENT give money to Priests For Life? Why does the CCHD help people get jobs but doesn't help them to be born? During the elections this Catholic paper portrayed Obama as a fine choice to vote for, and I think even tried to make him look better than McCain. Bishop Morin's article with all of it's slick smooth wording reminds me of the "Catholic" voting guide by the Bishops. By the time you're finished reading it your mind could be so mushy that you don't even remember who the candidates are. From a simple little person without even a college education I will tell them how to write an understandable Catholic voting guide: Protect the babies still in their mother's wombs. If a candidate cannot promise to do that then do not vote for them. There. Sometimes people can be too "intelligent" for their own good. Again I have to thank you Judy for giving me a safe place to share my thoughts for life. Mary Kuhns | November 20, 2009
Dear Charles
We have no evidence either way. Our hope is, at least in an ideal situation, that the Bishops would eliminate ALL the bureacrats they have on the payroll and return to being shepherds. They really don't need lobbyists; it is God we trust, not Obama or the Congress.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | November 21, 2009
Dear Kenneth
Thank you for reminding us that sin permeates many organizations that have grown fat on money and slender on principle. The Knights of Columbus surely has its own problems, and catering to pro-abortion politicians is very high on that list.
Pro-Life Story: Morning After... Posted By Amanda B on May, 15 2008 One time after sleeping with my boyfriend (which was always done with protection), something happened and there was a possibility that I could have been pregnant.
I didn't even ... Read
