Sunday, November 29, 2009
Voice for the Voiceless
For the Vatican it's Clear - Pro-Abortion Politicians 'Must' be Denied Communion
With the Patrick Kennedy Communion flap and the recent action of the Bishops of Spain having opened up the issue of denying communion to pro-abortion politicians, it is worthwhile to review the position of the Vatican on the matter.
Since the controversy came to a head in 2004, the stance from the Vatican on the matter has been clear and consistent. For the Pope and top Curial Cardinals in charge of the matter there is no question about the responsibility to deny Holy Communion to Catholic politicians who obstinately support abortion. In fact, the issue was closed as early as 2004 with a letter from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.
The then-head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith intervened into a debate among the US Bishops on the issue. Simply put, Cardinal Ratzinger said in his letter titled "Worthiness to receive Holy Communion," that a Catholic politician who would vote for "permissive abortion and euthanasia laws" after being duly instructed and warned, "must" be denied Communion.
Ratzinger's letter explained that if such a politician "with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it."
The letter even answered common objections such as how to deal with politicians that supported war or the death penalty in light of denial of Communion to pro-abortion politicians.
The man who is now Pope, explained: "Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."
Since then, Pope Benedict XVI has confirmed this position speaking as Pope. Answering a reporter on an in-flight press conference in 2007, Pope Benedict addressed a question on the Mexican bishops excommunicating politicians who support legalizing abortion. "Yes, this excommunication was not an arbitrary one but is allowed by Canon law which says that the killing of an innocent child is incompatible with receiving communion, which is receiving the body of Christ," said the Pope.
In the comment, the Pope was referring to the Church's Canon law 915, which states: "Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion."
The highest authority on the subject in the Vatican, next to the Pope, is the head (or Prefect) of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Cardinal Canizares. The head of that Congregation, appointed by Pope Benedict XVI a year ago, quoted the Ratzinger document on the question in a LifeSiteNews interview earlier this year.
In addition, Cardinal Antonio Canizares stated: "The strongest words are found in St. Paul: one who goes to the Eucharist and is not properly prepared, duly prepared, 'he eats his own condemnation.' This is the strongest thing that we can say and what is the most truthful statement."
This line is not only coming from Pope Benedict and his appointees, however. The Cardinal who preceded Cardinal Canizares in heading the Congregation was Nigerian-born Cardinal Francis Arinze.
Arinze is seen on the video as saying that he is regularly asked if a person who votes for abortion can receive Holy Communion. He replies, "Do you really need a cardinal from the Vatican to answer that? Get the children for first Communion and say to them, 'Somebody votes for the killing of unborn babies, and says, I voted for that, I will vote for that every time.' And these babies are killed not one or two, but in millions, and that person says, 'I'm a practicing Catholic', should that person receive Communion next Sunday? The children will answer that at the drop of a hat. You don't need a cardinal to answer that."
Former St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke who has been appointed to head up the highest court in the Vatican remarked on the need for bishops to uphold this canon since without doing so they undermine belief in the truth of the evil of abortion.
"No matter how often a bishop or priest repeats the teaching of the Church regarding procured abortion, if he stands by and does nothing to discipline a Catholic who publicly supports legislation permitting the gravest of injustices and, at the same time, presents himself to receive Holy Communion, then his teaching rings hollow," wrote Burke. "To remain silent is to permit serious confusion regarding a fundamental truth of the moral law."
Friday, November 27, 2009
accidentally got pregnant womens thoughts......!!!!
In June, I accidentally got pregnant. The guy I was dating, of two years almost, was a very godly, upright man. He was 24. I was 19. His entire family thought he was the greatest person in the world. He is now in the process of becoming a youth minister at his church. Whenever he found out that I was pregnant, he insisted that I have an abortion. A "man of God" who preached to me my faults day in and day out, wanted me to get an abortion! Why? Because he was not ready to be a father. It would have inconvenienced his life, simply because he was not ready to face the consequences of his lustful actions. Never really siding one way or another with abortion had come to an end for me. I knew that there was a child, a living being, inside of me, and for the first time I actually accepted the fact that abortion WAS murder.
I was debating the abortion, because my boyfriend kept pressuring and pressuring me to do it. My point of realization came when I went to the doctor for the first ultrasound, and saw my child inside of me. Whenever I heard his heartbeat booming, I knew right then and there that I could never have killed this child, nor would I do it now.
At such an early stage in my pregnancy, you could make out his body. I could see him! He was living inside of me. Seeing him on that monitor was the most heart-warming and loving feeling I have ever experienced. I had never felt more complete in my life than I did at that moment.
It is just amazing to me how selfish people can be. I refused to have an abortion. Unfortunately, I had a miscarriage and lost the child a couple of months into the pregnancy. If I had not lost the child, I would have proudly had that baby, without any aid from my ex-boyfriend, and I would have gladly taken the heat from my family..all of that for the baby. That experience made me realize that we as people should not have a choice when it is a choice to kill another human being. That would be like choosing to kill your four-year-old daughter or son...merely because they are an inconveinence to you. That would never be accepted in today's world...so why should abortion? If you can't kill a living, breathing, walking person, what gives you the right to kill a living child simply because they are still developing in your womb?
Sorry, I just felt compelled to give you my story. It is so weird to think I was ever even remotely okay with the idea of abortion. I have definitely stepped up and made my opinions known ever since that day...and I thank God for that experience. As hard as it was to lose a child, it has forever changed my life and view on the creation of life.
Thank you, and God Bless you for everything you are doing and have already done.
Cheryl, Arkansas
Poll: Large Majority of Canadians Favor Abortion Limits
For the ninth year in a row, a majority of Canadians have rejected the status quo on abortion in this country, according to a new poll. Over half of respondents to the poll said there should be legal protection for human life before birth and over two-thirds say abortions should only be paid for by taxpayers in medical emergencies or in cases of rape or incest. A poll by Environics Research of 2002 Canadians found that only one-third of Canadians agree with the current policy that denies any protection to unborn babies before birth. The majority, 56%, support legal protection at some stage before birth: 30% support legal protection from conception on, 17% after three months of pregnancy and 8% after six months of pregnancy. Once again, support for legal protection from conception on is much higher among women, 35%, than men at 25%.
"With all the financial pressures on our health care system right across this country, it is ludicrous that our governments continue to pay tens of millions of dollars for a procedure which is seldom done for medical reasons," said pediatrician, Dr. Delores Doherty, president of LifeCanada, which commissioned the poll. "This is especially true when a majority of Canadians think unborn babies should be protected, not destroyed."
The poll was conducted in October 2009 on 2002 Canadians. The margin of error is 2.2 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Young Pro-life Women Become a Voice for the Voiceless
Another reason I'm pro-life is because I don't like to see any baby, born or unborn, hurt. He or she is still a life, a precious life, that is not yours to take. It's up to God to decide if and when that baby dies. Killing your baby isn't a choice like most people think. Yeah, they call it a choice because it's legal and it lives in their body for nine months, but why destroy it? That life was made for a purpose--to live, not to die. When women abort, they're trapped in a world of lies and deceit. They have nowhere else to go but down. Whether it's the boyfriend who made the choice, her own mother's, or the family of the mother's, they don't realize what they're going to do will affect them in some way. Most people regret their decision to abort, while some don't. Is their decision not regretable to them because they feel no love for their unborn? Or is it because they feel it just was the right choice they made for their own unborn? We'll never know.
The only way we can stop abortion is by getting everyone to vote against it and see what they're aborting is more than just tissue and cells. Most pro-choicers feel that it is just a blob of tissue because it's "not fully human yet." We're all made of tissue and cells, and more, so does that make the unborn any less human? Care to check an ultrasound? Pro-life is a great road to take. We're for saving the precious unborn lives, while others are for destroying it.
Ashley, Illinois
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).
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).
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
I feel that abortion is wrong!!!
I feel that abortion is wrong because it is the mother and father's fault for not keeping what they were doing safe. Why do they think that they can erase that "mistake" and make it right? You cannot "right" a wrong by killing a human being. It was their choice to do that kind of stuff, but do people ever think about what they really are doing? They are killing their own baby! What kind of person does this? I know if I were pregnant I would never think of an abortion. Yes, I realize these kids may be 16 or 17, but it was their choice, and they know the concequences, so why let them get away with murder? They will not learn--it is giving them more of a chance to do it all over again.
Kristina, Florida
Pregnant & Considering Adoption?
If you are pregnant and considering placing your baby for adoption, Parent Profiles, a service of Adoption Profiles, LLC gives you the opportunity to become familiar with hundreds of couples hoping to adopt a child.
You can contact, by e-mail or phone, the couples that seem to best meet the qualifications and characteristics you would want for parents of your child. Through communication with couples, you can establish relationships and become better acquainted giving you the opportunity to make an informed decision about what couple would love and parent your child like you would want.
ParentProfiles.com Benefits:
* Each couple on the site has completed the pre-adoption requirements in their state or country.
* All couples on the site have a current adoption homestudy.
* You can read about adopting couples at your convenience and in the privacy of your home, work or school.
* You can e-mail couples to find out more about them and form relationships with the ones you select as potential parents for your child.
* You can search for parents based on state, ethnicity, religion, and other important factors to you.
Important Information:
* Make an adoption plan and continue to use it. Keep in touch with the adopting couple you have selected. Participate in making your relationship with them strong and lasting so after your baby is born and adopted you will still be in touch.
* AFTER you have selected adoptive parents, visit chat rooms and message boards such as AdoptionForums.com to get more information and support from others who are experiencing the same feelings and questions as you.
* BE CAUTIOUS about individuals who solicit for the adoption of your child. For your safety, we recommend you DO NOT select adoptive couples from online chat rooms or message boards.
Important Note
Adoption laws vary from state to state and because of conflicting laws not all prospective parents can be listed on this service.
You can contact, by e-mail or phone, the couples that seem to best meet the qualifications and characteristics you would want for parents of your child. Through communication with couples, you can establish relationships and become better acquainted giving you the opportunity to make an informed decision about what couple would love and parent your child like you would want.
ParentProfiles.com Benefits:
* Each couple on the site has completed the pre-adoption requirements in their state or country.
* All couples on the site have a current adoption homestudy.
* You can read about adopting couples at your convenience and in the privacy of your home, work or school.
* You can e-mail couples to find out more about them and form relationships with the ones you select as potential parents for your child.
* You can search for parents based on state, ethnicity, religion, and other important factors to you.
Important Information:
* Make an adoption plan and continue to use it. Keep in touch with the adopting couple you have selected. Participate in making your relationship with them strong and lasting so after your baby is born and adopted you will still be in touch.
* AFTER you have selected adoptive parents, visit chat rooms and message boards such as AdoptionForums.com to get more information and support from others who are experiencing the same feelings and questions as you.
* BE CAUTIOUS about individuals who solicit for the adoption of your child. For your safety, we recommend you DO NOT select adoptive couples from online chat rooms or message boards.
Important Note
Adoption laws vary from state to state and because of conflicting laws not all prospective parents can be listed on this service.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Quote of the Day 22-11-2009
"America you are beautiful . . . and blessed . . . . The ultimate test of your greatness is the way you treat every human being, but especially the weakest and most defenseless. If you want equal justice for all and true freedom and lasting peace, then America, defend life."
- Pope John Paul II
- Pope John Paul II
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Medical Science Proves Abortion Is Killing of Human Beings - Pro-Life Anti-Abortion Video
Medical Science Proves Abortion Is Killing of Human Beings. Original film from rosaryfilms entitled: "Is This A Human Being?". Medical Science Supports Pro-Lifers. Images provided by babypremier
Mother Teresa And Adolf Hitler on Abortion / Anti-Abortion PSA
his video provides quotations from Mother Teresa and Adolf Hitler on the topic of abortion. Simone Stella plays Bach organ works (public domain) of "Christ lag in TodesBanden"
Pro-life Anti-Abortion Video: Development of the Unborn Baby
Anti-Abortion Prolife Video: Development of the Unborn Baby. Anti-Abortion Prolife Video: Development of the Unborn Baby. Fetal Development; From conception to birth; Day 1: fertilization:
Abortion Activist Judge Hamilton Confirmed with Help of Ten Republican Senators
The Senate voted 59-39 yesterday to confirm President Obama's first circuit court appointee, the pro-abortion Judge David Hamilton. Although hailed as moderate by various news sources and dubbed
"thoughtful and distinguished" by President Obama, many conservatives have condemned him as a judicial activist who places his own preferences above the law.
"As a judge, Hamilton has shown
himself to be soft on crime, radically pro-abortion, and hostile towards religion," wrote a group of prominent conservatives upon Hamilton's nomination. "With such a liberal activist record unmarked by significant experience, Judge Hamilton is clearly a bad and politically motivated appellate nominee."
A vote to stop a filibuster of Hamilton was aided by ten Republicans who voted with the Democrats to limit debate on Hamilton’s qualifications. The ten Republicans (along with their contact information) are listed below.
Hamilton’s confirmation came after the failed filibuster attempt by Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama. He outlined the reasons for his attempt in a letter sent to his Republican colleagues on November 3rd.
"Judge Hamilton stated in a 2003 speech that the role of a judge includes writing footnotes to the Constitution," Sen. Sessions wrote. Sen. Sessions continued by saying that Hamilton has said he "believes the Framers [of the Constitution] intended judges to amend the Constitution through evolving case law."
He continued: "This view evidences an activist judicial philosophy. Judges are not given the power to amend the Constitution or write footnotes to it."
Some see such philosophy as evident in Hamilton's 2005 decision in Hinrichs v. Bosma, in which Hamilton ruled that the legislature could not open with overtly Christian prayers--although prayers addressed to "Allah" he judged to be acceptable. Additionally, in 1994 he denied a Rabbi’s request that a Menorah be part of the Indanapolis Municipal Building’s holiday display. Both decisions were subsequently overturned by a higher court.
Similarly, in A Woman's Choice v. Newman, Hamilton obstructed for seven years an Indiana law that required women to be given information about abortion and abortion alternatives at least 18 hours before the procedure. As Heather Smith of Americans United for Life said, “Reversing Judge Hamilton’s rulings, the Court of Appeals noted the law was ‘materially identical to a law held valid by the Supreme Court in Casey, by this court in Karlin, and by the Fifth Circuit in Barnes. No court anywhere in the country (other than one district judge in Indiana [i.e., Hamilton]) has held any similar law invalid in the years since Casey. The court called Hamilton's reasoning on the ruling "an abuse of discretion."
She continued: “Judge Hamilton ignored clear precedent in favor of his own abortion agenda.”
The Seventh Circuit court, which also overturned Hamilton’s opinions, is the court that Hamilton will now join .
Hamilton has has also raised funds for ACORN, the radical left-wing organization linked to prostitution and voter fraud, and worked as a head of the ACLU's Indiana chapter. Not all were bothered by his confirmation, however.
"We applaud the Senate's vote to confirm the eminently qualified Judge David Hamilton to serve in this critical position," said Nancy Keenan, president of the pro-abortion NARAL organization.
"thoughtful and distinguished" by President Obama, many conservatives have condemned him as a judicial activist who places his own preferences above the law.
"As a judge, Hamilton has shown himself to be soft on crime, radically pro-abortion, and hostile towards religion," wrote a group of prominent conservatives upon Hamilton's nomination. "With such a liberal activist record unmarked by significant experience, Judge Hamilton is clearly a bad and politically motivated appellate nominee."
A vote to stop a filibuster of Hamilton was aided by ten Republicans who voted with the Democrats to limit debate on Hamilton’s qualifications. The ten Republicans (along with their contact information) are listed below.
Hamilton’s confirmation came after the failed filibuster attempt by Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama. He outlined the reasons for his attempt in a letter sent to his Republican colleagues on November 3rd.
"Judge Hamilton stated in a 2003 speech that the role of a judge includes writing footnotes to the Constitution," Sen. Sessions wrote. Sen. Sessions continued by saying that Hamilton has said he "believes the Framers [of the Constitution] intended judges to amend the Constitution through evolving case law."
He continued: "This view evidences an activist judicial philosophy. Judges are not given the power to amend the Constitution or write footnotes to it."
Some see such philosophy as evident in Hamilton's 2005 decision in Hinrichs v. Bosma, in which Hamilton ruled that the legislature could not open with overtly Christian prayers--although prayers addressed to "Allah" he judged to be acceptable. Additionally, in 1994 he denied a Rabbi’s request that a Menorah be part of the Indanapolis Municipal Building’s holiday display. Both decisions were subsequently overturned by a higher court.
Similarly, in A Woman's Choice v. Newman, Hamilton obstructed for seven years an Indiana law that required women to be given information about abortion and abortion alternatives at least 18 hours before the procedure. As Heather Smith of Americans United for Life said, “Reversing Judge Hamilton’s rulings, the Court of Appeals noted the law was ‘materially identical to a law held valid by the Supreme Court in Casey, by this court in Karlin, and by the Fifth Circuit in Barnes. No court anywhere in the country (other than one district judge in Indiana [i.e., Hamilton]) has held any similar law invalid in the years since Casey. The court called Hamilton's reasoning on the ruling "an abuse of discretion."
She continued: “Judge Hamilton ignored clear precedent in favor of his own abortion agenda.”
The Seventh Circuit court, which also overturned Hamilton’s opinions, is the court that Hamilton will now join .
Hamilton has has also raised funds for ACORN, the radical left-wing organization linked to prostitution and voter fraud, and worked as a head of the ACLU's Indiana chapter. Not all were bothered by his confirmation, however.
"We applaud the Senate's vote to confirm the eminently qualified Judge David Hamilton to serve in this critical position," said Nancy Keenan, president of the pro-abortion NARAL organization.
"Manhattan Declaration" Embodies U.S. Christian Pushback against Abortion, Same-Sex "Marriage"
A group of prominent Christian leaders and scholars unveiled a manifesto Friday declaring firm opposition to current and future laws infringing upon the sanctity of life, marriage, faith, and liberty.
The 4,700-word "Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience" was drafted by Dr. Robert George, Dr. Timothy George and Chuck Colson and signed by more than 125 Orthodox, Catholic and evangelical Christian leaders, including Focus on the Family Dr. James Dobson and National Association of Evangelicals president Leith Anderson. 15 Roman Catholic bishops, including Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York and Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C., were among the signatories.
The declaration issues a clario
n call to Christians to adhere to their convictions and informs civil authorities that the signers will not - under any circumstance - abandon their Christian consciences. For more information: http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/
"We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right - and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation - to speak and act in defense of these truths," reads the declaration.
"We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence."
The document lays out the groups' arguments against anti-life, anti-family, and anti-religious public policy as contravening "foundational principles of justice and the common good," in defense of which the group says they are "compelled by our Christian faith to speak and act."
In asserting Christians' right to conscientious objection to such policy, the declaration says it is "ironic" that those who advance as "rights" various immoral practices "are very often in the vanguard of those who would trample upon the freedom of others to express their religious and moral commitments to the sanctity of life and to the dignity of marriage."
"Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family," it concludes.
"We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar's. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God's."
Co-author Timothy George, who is founding dean of Beeson Divinity School of Samford University and a senior editor of Christianity Today, said the Manhattan Declaration "represents an ecumenism of the trenches that has been going on for a number of years among many denominations and confessional traditions."
"While we recognize that many important differences of doctrine and discipline still divide us, we nonetheless earnestly seek that unity for which Jesus prayed when he asked that his disciples be one in their love for God, for one another, and for the world," said George.
On his radio show BreakPoint Wednesday, Evangelical leader Chuck Colson called the Manhattan Declaration "probably the most important document I've ever signed."
The 4,700-word "Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience" was drafted by Dr. Robert George, Dr. Timothy George and Chuck Colson and signed by more than 125 Orthodox, Catholic and evangelical Christian leaders, including Focus on the Family Dr. James Dobson and National Association of Evangelicals president Leith Anderson. 15 Roman Catholic bishops, including Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York and Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C., were among the signatories.
The declaration issues a clario
n call to Christians to adhere to their convictions and informs civil authorities that the signers will not - under any circumstance - abandon their Christian consciences. For more information: http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/
"We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right - and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation - to speak and act in defense of these truths," reads the declaration.
"We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence."
The document lays out the groups' arguments against anti-life, anti-family, and anti-religious public policy as contravening "foundational principles of justice and the common good," in defense of which the group says they are "compelled by our Christian faith to speak and act."
In asserting Christians' right to conscientious objection to such policy, the declaration says it is "ironic" that those who advance as "rights" various immoral practices "are very often in the vanguard of those who would trample upon the freedom of others to express their religious and moral commitments to the sanctity of life and to the dignity of marriage."
"Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family," it concludes.
"We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar's. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God's."
Co-author Timothy George, who is founding dean of Beeson Divinity School of Samford University and a senior editor of Christianity Today, said the Manhattan Declaration "represents an ecumenism of the trenches that has been going on for a number of years among many denominations and confessional traditions."
"While we recognize that many important differences of doctrine and discipline still divide us, we nonetheless earnestly seek that unity for which Jesus prayed when he asked that his disciples be one in their love for God, for one another, and for the world," said George.
On his radio show BreakPoint Wednesday, Evangelical leader Chuck Colson called the Manhattan Declaration "probably the most important document I've ever signed."
Friday, November 20, 2009
Quotes of the day
"We fed the public a line of deceit, dishonesty, a fabrication of statistics and figures. We succeeded because the time was right and the news media cooperated. We sensationalized the effects of illegal abortions, and fabricated polls which indicated that 85 percent of the public favored unrestricted abortion, when we knew it was only 5 percent. We unashamedly lied, and yet our statements were quoted [by the media] as though they had been written in law."
-Dr. Bernard Nathanson,
Co-founder of National Assn. for Repeal of Abortion Laws, now called National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League. Today, Dr. Nathanson is a pro-life author and activist.
Six out of ten Americans oppose the public funding of abortion
The news comes as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has released the 2074-page Senate version of the health care reform bill, H.R. 3590, which would permit government funding of abortion.Nevertheless, a mere 37% of respondents said that they were in favor "of using public funds for abortions when the woman cannot afford it." Only 26% of respondents said that abortion ought to be legal at any time.
Similarly, aproximately 63% of respondents said that abortion ought never to be legal, or legal in only a few circumstances. 36% of respondents said that it ought to be legal in all or most circumstances.
The CNN Opinion Research Corporation poll is the result of interviews with 1014 adult Americans, including 928 registered voters. The estimated sampling error is plus or minus aproximately 3% for both groups.
Moment of Truth
At the dawn of the Obama administration, pro-life Democrats believed they had finally gotten their place at the table. The president may be fervently pro-choice, the vice president a Catholic who abandoned his early pro-life views in pursuit electoral success. Widely heralded changes to the 2008 Democratic platform failed to include a "tolerance clause" acknowledging the pro-life Democrats' existence.
But in 2006 and 2008, the party leadership recruited pro-life Democrats to run in culturally conservative areas of the country or in races where they thought the pro-lifer would be the better candidate (Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, as pro-choice as they come, tried to coax a pro-life Democrat into the Rhode Island race for Rockefeller Republican Lincoln Chafee's Senate seat). Harry Reid, a self-described pro-lifer, became the Senate majority leader. Moreover, President Obama was supposed to find new common ground between pro-choice and pro-life Democrats, bringing the party together.
"We need to protect life not from conception to birth but from conception to natural death,"Congressman Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) told a small Democrats for Life gathering last year during his party's national convention in Denver. "[Democrats] need a lot of work on the first nine months, but Republicans have a lot more work to do from birth to natural death."
Alas, the platform's concessions were largely limited to language saying the Democratic Party "strongly supports a woman's decision to have a child." The "common ground" legislation on which pro-life and pro-choice Democrats collaborated frequently contained subsidies for abortion providers. And the Democrats' pro-life Senate majority leader voted against the pro-life side on eight of the first 11 key votes since Reid took over the top position.
Yet some pro-life Democrats were made of sterner stuff. Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) insisted that he could not support any health care plan -- a signature policy initiative of the Obama administration -- if it used taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions. The first effort to mollify such critics came in the form of the Capps amendment, sponsored by pro-choice Congresswoman Lois Capps (D-Calif.). Capps would ban direct federal subsidies to abortion and would allow insurance policies that did not cover abortion to be sold through the health exchanges.
What Capps would not do, however, is keep the federal government from subsidizing health insurance that covers abortion. That is a very large loophole that differs from how the federal government handles insurance for its own civilian employees and for military personnel. Those insurance policies cannot cover abortion, consistent with a meaningful ban on taxpayer funding of the practice.
Enter the Stupak amendment. The House Democratic leadership discovered they could not pass a health care bill unless it contained Stupak's meaningful ban on public financing of abortion. There is simply no other explanation for why House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) allowed the amendment to come up for a vote and allowed the House version of the health care bill to pass with a pro-life provision in place. The pro-life Democrats claim to have swung nearly 20 votes for the bill, including that of its only Republican supporter. The Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus has said Stupak's allies are bluffing, but won't release their own list of people who will vote against health care reform if the Stupak amendment remains intact.
This is the first major legislative victory by pro-life Democrats in the Obama administration (delaying federal subsidies to international family planning groups that perform or promote abortion and Doug Kmiec's ambassadorship do not count). Their erstwhile ally in the Senate, Harry Reid, is working to make sure it is their last. The Senate version of the health care bill strips the Stupak language, mandates that at least one plan offered by state government insurance exchanges cover abortion, and reduces the ban on abortions being subsidized by the government-run public option to an accounting gimmick. A statement by the National Right to Life Committee declared, "Reid seeks to cover elective abortions in two big new federal health programs, but tries to conceal that unpopular reality with layers of contrived definitions and hollow bookkeeping requirements."
Pro-choice groups have sprung into action. The Stupak amendment is far from a "ban" on abortion, as some activists are alleging, but it could have a real impact on abortion coverage throughout the country. This would be particularly true as more people gained their coverage through either the government health insurance exchanges or the public option.
Already, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska -- one of a handful of pro-life Democrats in the upper chamber -- has told the Hill that Reid's abortion language is unacceptable. "I think you need to have it eminently clear that no dollars that are federal tax dollars, directly or indirectly, are used to pay for abortions and it needs to be totally clear," the paper quotes Nelson as saying. "[It's] not clear enough, I don't think."
Even ideal language may not be enough in the long term. "For pro-lifers the prize shouldn't be Stupak," a former Republican congressman who was unseated by a pro-life Democrat told TAS. "The prize is the public option. If a woman has a right to an abortion, eventually the courts will open the door to the public option covering abortions."
A key procedural vote is coming -- as early as Saturday -- that will nevertheless be a moment of truth for pro-life Democrats like Ben Nelson. Do they stand with Harry Reid or Bart Stupak?
But in 2006 and 2008, the party leadership recruited pro-life Democrats to run in culturally conservative areas of the country or in races where they thought the pro-lifer would be the better candidate (Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, as pro-choice as they come, tried to coax a pro-life Democrat into the Rhode Island race for Rockefeller Republican Lincoln Chafee's Senate seat). Harry Reid, a self-described pro-lifer, became the Senate majority leader. Moreover, President Obama was supposed to find new common ground between pro-choice and pro-life Democrats, bringing the party together.
"We need to protect life not from conception to birth but from conception to natural death,"Congressman Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) told a small Democrats for Life gathering last year during his party's national convention in Denver. "[Democrats] need a lot of work on the first nine months, but Republicans have a lot more work to do from birth to natural death."
Alas, the platform's concessions were largely limited to language saying the Democratic Party "strongly supports a woman's decision to have a child." The "common ground" legislation on which pro-life and pro-choice Democrats collaborated frequently contained subsidies for abortion providers. And the Democrats' pro-life Senate majority leader voted against the pro-life side on eight of the first 11 key votes since Reid took over the top position.
Yet some pro-life Democrats were made of sterner stuff. Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) insisted that he could not support any health care plan -- a signature policy initiative of the Obama administration -- if it used taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions. The first effort to mollify such critics came in the form of the Capps amendment, sponsored by pro-choice Congresswoman Lois Capps (D-Calif.). Capps would ban direct federal subsidies to abortion and would allow insurance policies that did not cover abortion to be sold through the health exchanges.
What Capps would not do, however, is keep the federal government from subsidizing health insurance that covers abortion. That is a very large loophole that differs from how the federal government handles insurance for its own civilian employees and for military personnel. Those insurance policies cannot cover abortion, consistent with a meaningful ban on taxpayer funding of the practice.
Enter the Stupak amendment. The House Democratic leadership discovered they could not pass a health care bill unless it contained Stupak's meaningful ban on public financing of abortion. There is simply no other explanation for why House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) allowed the amendment to come up for a vote and allowed the House version of the health care bill to pass with a pro-life provision in place. The pro-life Democrats claim to have swung nearly 20 votes for the bill, including that of its only Republican supporter. The Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus has said Stupak's allies are bluffing, but won't release their own list of people who will vote against health care reform if the Stupak amendment remains intact.
This is the first major legislative victory by pro-life Democrats in the Obama administration (delaying federal subsidies to international family planning groups that perform or promote abortion and Doug Kmiec's ambassadorship do not count). Their erstwhile ally in the Senate, Harry Reid, is working to make sure it is their last. The Senate version of the health care bill strips the Stupak language, mandates that at least one plan offered by state government insurance exchanges cover abortion, and reduces the ban on abortions being subsidized by the government-run public option to an accounting gimmick. A statement by the National Right to Life Committee declared, "Reid seeks to cover elective abortions in two big new federal health programs, but tries to conceal that unpopular reality with layers of contrived definitions and hollow bookkeeping requirements."
Pro-choice groups have sprung into action. The Stupak amendment is far from a "ban" on abortion, as some activists are alleging, but it could have a real impact on abortion coverage throughout the country. This would be particularly true as more people gained their coverage through either the government health insurance exchanges or the public option.
Already, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska -- one of a handful of pro-life Democrats in the upper chamber -- has told the Hill that Reid's abortion language is unacceptable. "I think you need to have it eminently clear that no dollars that are federal tax dollars, directly or indirectly, are used to pay for abortions and it needs to be totally clear," the paper quotes Nelson as saying. "[It's] not clear enough, I don't think."
Even ideal language may not be enough in the long term. "For pro-lifers the prize shouldn't be Stupak," a former Republican congressman who was unseated by a pro-life Democrat told TAS. "The prize is the public option. If a woman has a right to an abortion, eventually the courts will open the door to the public option covering abortions."
Obama Visit
My hubby had the opportunity to be working when President Obama came through the base last week. He didn’t actually meet him and speak to him like he did when President Bush came through and he wasn’t seated on the stage behind him like he was when Vice President Dick Cheney came through but he was in the same hanger and heard the speech. Other than the fact that they made them switch out the planes in the hanger so the one he cut from the budget wouldn’t be there and that he couldn’t read the rank of someone correctly off the teleprompter, here are Hubby’s comments about the whole thing…..
“Stood around for 6 hours at the base just to hear Pres O speak for about 20 min. Lots of promises that made me think my taxes are going up.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
