Dom poses an interesting question:

Do pro-lifers picket IVF clinics? After all, there are many babies who are aborted in the process of in vitro fertilization. For every baby born, there are several more who die in the fertilization process or by “selective reduction”.

I suppose it may be due to the fact that the abortions—and let’s be honest here—take place so early. Heck, many Protestants who are ostensibly pro-life don’t view IVF as immoral. Plus, the goal is to make babies! Just not to let them all live, I guess.

Does it undermine our pro-life witness that we aren’t as vocal about the children who die in IVF as we are about kids who die in Planned Parenthood abortuaries? Those embryos are no less children and no less worthy of defense.

Labels: life issues

How is this possible?

The Chinese governments cruel abortion campaign continues: on April 17th last in the southern province of Guangxi, police forced 41 women to abort their children, dragging them into the local hospital to carry out the termination. The following day the same fate awaited a further 20 women.

China Aid Association (Caa), a United States based non governmental organisation which fights for religious freedom and human rights in China reported the cases.

Eyewitnesses reported to CAA that provincial police transported the women to Youjiang District People’s Hospital; they were injected forcefully with an abortive drug. The agents were led by Family Planning officials. In less than 24 hours 61 foetuses were dead.

At Bed number 37, He Caigan was 9 months pregnant. Officials injected her baby's head and after 20 minutes of pain and suffering, her baby stopped moving and died.

About 6am on April 18, Pastor James Liang's wife Wei Linrong gave birth to a boy, but he was dead because of the injection. She received three doses of injection-one is to induce the birth and the other two to kill the baby in the womb.

...

Since 1978 only one child has been permitted to urban residents, two to rural couples. The average family has dropped from the 5.83 children per household of the 1970’s to 2.1 in the ‘90’s and the current 1.8. The government aims to contain the population within 1.37 billion by 2010. These policies have led to a massive campaign of forced abortions and infanticide of female babies, in order to have a male heir to maintain the family name.

Labels: international, life issues

Overreaction is the nature of the beast, I suppose.

First, I am thrilled about the PBA ban. I've been waiting for this for years. I can remember working on the old postcard campaigns as a teenager. But I'm also realistic. I would love to see abortion banned tomorrow (although I know that won't really solve the problem... a bandaid on a corpse, so to speak).

While I'm thrilled about the ban, I'm not throwing a big party over the end of Roe v. Wade. That's a bit premature. That having been said, however, we deserve this! We've been the underdog right along, let's be honest. There have been few large-scale accomplishments so it's nice for something to finally go our way!

Well, surprise, surprise, not everyone is very thrilled.

Case #1 is our good friend Rosie O'Donnell. I have to say I enjoyed her talk show when it first came on. She was funny and her show always had different things going on. Not the usual. Well, since she came out, started her "political" commentary, and her anti-Catholic ravings, I really can't stand the woman. Not to say that I was a View fan before or anything...

Newsbusters has a transcript and links to videos

Of course, she goes against the Catholics:

... Rosie expressed horror that there are five Catholics on the Supreme Court and Catholics on the Court apparently violate the "separation of church and state"

O’DONNELL: You know what concerns me? How many Supreme Court judges are Catholic, Barbara?

WALTERS: Five.

O’DONNELL: Five. How about separation of church and state in America?

WALTERS: Every one of them, when they were going through their Senate confirmation hearings said the fact of my religion does not mean that I will vote a particular way because of my religion. So we cannot say that they did it because they’re Catholic. It is interesting that they’re Catholic...

Bill Donohue traces Rosie's Catholic rantings:

This is O’Donnell’s eighth attack on Catholics since September. She has said there is no difference between radical Christians and radical Muslims (9-12-06); she has ridiculed the Eucharist (9-28-06); she has falsely claimed that the pope was in charge of policing miscreant priests since the 1980s and did nothing about them (10-2-06); she repeated the lie about the pope again (10-27-06); she has mocked priestly celibacy (2-7-07); she ridiculed the Eucharist again (2-27-07); she mocked Catholic teaching on the Bible and the Virgin Birth (3-26-07); and now she is complaining about too many Catholics on the high court. [source]

To say the least, I'm awfully disappointed. But Jesus and the Apostles enjoyed many of the same types of attacks, and from sources much more articulate than this one. I just keep wondering why this is ok. Don Imus says something absolutely stupid to the wrong group and gets fired. Why can Rosie say what she wants about Catholics and get away with it when if someone said something nasty about her sexuality, it would be a hate crime! What a country!

Case #2: The Philadelphia Inquirer's latest cartoon

Labels: life issues

At the First Things blog, Michael Uhlmann gives a wonderful analysis on the Supreme Court's narrow decision this week to uphold the constitutionality of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. He gives a legal analysis of Roe and its later counterparts that is readable and useful for the legally uninitiated (like me). While rather lengthy, it's worth a few minutes of time.

Labels: life issues

OK, I don't really think this is pro-life, but it's anti-abortion and funny (written by a comedian and commentator), so here it is. Be sure to check out the whole thing from the WSJ:

If I may, let me just point to the truth of an age-old cliché: Carrying is the easy part. And no one's asking you to do the hard part--raising a person. Whether you're a woman or a teenager, nine months won't "ruin your life." I'm here to tell you that if you went and got yourself pregnant, not only is carrying the critter for nine lousy months the least you can do, it's actually conducive to self-centered broads like us.

Because pregnancy is still "me time." Unlike official "parents," if you're pregnant, you don't have to do what the embryo wants; the embryo has to do what you want. That's why the company of an embryo is preferable to that of a child: The embryo and I can talk about whatever I want to talk about; there's no "why" this or "why" that to answer--or playing with blocks, much less having to read bedtime stories. (Or, for that matter, driving to soccer practice, dance lessons or the pediatrician's office.)
...
Feminists heralded the proliferation of abortion as a tool by which to "empower" women and give them control over their lives and destinies. But power is being pregnant. Because it gives you control over other people's lives. Embryos and fetuses get you treated like royalty. Not only do people cede the right of way to you; not only do people in line at the ladies' room let you get in front of them; but if the man who impregnated you sticks around for just a few more months, you get to lie on the couch all day and just point to things, and they magically come to you. You just have to say, "Honey, I think I'm craving a ---," and the chocolate-banana-peanut-butter milkshake appears in your hand. What can be more powerful?

(h/t Mere Comments)

Labels: humor, life issues

I'm perfectly willing to give credit where it's due:

Cardinal Roger Mahony called on members of the nation's largest Roman Catholic archdiocese Monday to beat back a proposal to legalize assisted suicide for the terminally ill in California, and accused the Legislature's most powerful Democrat of being swept into a “culture of death.”

“Assisted suicide is totally unnecessary – not only is it against God's law, God's plan, we simply don't need something like that,” Mahony said during a lightly attended noon Mass at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels.

He urged parishioners to pressure Sacramento legislators “to vote down ... this attack on life.”

He leveled unusually sharp criticism at one of the bill's prominent sponsors, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles, who recently met with the Cardinal to discuss the proposal. Nunez's support is viewed as crucial if the bill is to reach the governor's desk.

Mahony said he was saddened and confused by Nunez's decision to endorse a plan that would allow the terminally ill to obtain life-ending drugs from their physicians.

“We should be troubled that Fabian Nunez – who has worshipped here in this cathedral, is a Catholic – somehow has not understood and grasped the culture of life but has allowed himself to get swept into this other direction, the culture of death,” said Mahony, whose archdiocese is estimated to have more than 4.3 million Catholics.

There have been cases of Catholic leaders specifically naming U.S. politicians whose views are in conflict with the church, such as in 2004 when St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke said he would deny Communion to Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry, who backs abortion rights.

And two years earlier, a priest banned then-California Gov. Gray Davis from playing Santa Claus at a Sacramento Catholic home for troubled children because he supports abortion rights.

But Mahony's criticism of Nunez was unusual in California politics, said Jack Pitney, a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College.

“I've never been to Mass where anybody has named a politician from the pulpit,” Pitney said.

The bill to which Mahony objected was approved last week by an Assembly committee, the fourth attempt in recent years to get it to through the Legislature.

Labels: life issues, U.S. Church

Dom reports the good news:

Frances Kissling, founder of the pro-abortion Catholics for a Free Choice, an organization composed of basically a few people supported by some very big foundations, is retiring. Kissling has waged a one-woman war to advance the proposition that it is acceptable for Catholics to dissent from the Church’s teachings on abortion, contraception, sexual moral ethics, and other fundamental matters. She has worked to have the United Nations strip the Holy See of its observer status and has orchestrated worldwide advertising campaigns blaming the Church’s bishops for millions of AIDS deaths through the tortuous logic that the Church’s call to abstinence somehow forces fornicators not to use condoms but to fornicate anyway.

Good riddance to Kissling, but don’t let down your guard: There are plenty of others willing to step into her shoes.

Labels: dissent, life issues

This is from LifeSiteNews. I usually don't focus on this particular issue to the exclusion of others, but I like his answers. (h/t to Gerald)

An interview with Bishop Coakley of Salina, Kansas:

LifeSiteNews: Here is a tough question. One of the prominent issues as far as Catholics are concerned – both in Canada and the US - it seems worse in Canada – is Catholic politicians promoting and implementing expanded abortion rights and funding and also the redefinition of marriage. So far they don’t feel there is anything wrong with that because there haven't been any significant sanctions for their obstinate, public behavior, even after having been advised by their religious leaders and their parish pastor that this is wrong. Should more be done about this?

Bishop: That is a difficult, challenging question. I think you are right. It is a scandal that so many Catholic politicians who have such power to influence our nation for the good are not accepting that responsibility that comes with that power and acting upon it.

Sadly, as you observed, many of our Catholic politicians have been in the forefront in fostering so-called abortion rights. I think many of the bishops are taking this very seriously and working, as we must, to meet privately and work toward educating, informing those individuals and helping them to recognize the consequences of their actions and what that is going to mean for, well, primarily their spiritual well-being, the salvation of their souls but also in terms of their being in full communion with the Church.

Each bishop finds himself in a very challenging position and I certainly would never dare to sit in judgment on any of my brother bishops. I have my own problems in my own backyard but I think we are really trying to take this matter very seriously because it does become a source of scandal.

LifeSiteNews: A few bishops – one in Canada and a few in the US – have said that it has come to a point now where they would deny them Communion because of the severity of the situation and how it hasn’t gotten any better – in fact it seems to have become worse. Also Cardinal Ratzinger, just prior to becoming pope, did make a very definitive statement that, in such cases where it is obstinate and persistent… they must be denied Communion. What is your response to that?

Bishop: I agree. I think, one has to determine yet at what point it can be determined that they have come to that state of obstinate refusal to desist from that condition of manifest, grave sin. I think we have an obligation as bishops, as pastors, to try to work with them to bring them to a change of heart and refusing them Communion would be, not the first, but more than likely, the last stage in a serious of steps.

LifeSiteNews: So, it is not something that you would rule out?

Bishop: Oh, absolutely not. I think it is something that Canon Law sanctions and that I think many bishops find themselves with no other choice but to make that decision. I think in many cases it becomes the right decision and the only choice.

Labels: life issues, politics, U.S. Bishops

I was hoping I'd find this... via Amy: the homily preached by Fr. Bill Byrne at the Youth Mass in Washington last week before the March for Life. If you were there, you probably liked it and would want to hang onto it just in case you need it someday; for those who missed it, check it out.

(Amy also has links to the other Washington homilies by the eminences)

Labels: homilies, life issues

So why do people criticize the Church for being too political? Well, perhaps it's because her main representatives can't shut up! First, full disclosure: everytime I see the name Fr. Frank Pavone, I cringe. Not because I'm not unequivocally pro-life, but because I think he's a little off. I think he's a media hound and that in the grand scheme of things, he's done very little for the movement.

Thanks to Amy, here's his next gaffe:

In a letter to his own supporters, Fr. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, said he intends to serve on the Advisory Committee of Brownback’s potential campaign for president.

Senator Brownback has not officially announced his candidacy, but has formed an exploratory committee.

The priest said he is making this endorsement in his personal capacity, and not in the name of any of the organizations he leads.

He said Brownback has his “unequivocal support.” He described the senator as “a hero for the unborn and one of the strongest and most consistent supporters of pro-life policies” since Brownback was elected to Congress in 1994.

Now, how can a priest ever say, "well, I'm not representing the Church"? Isn't that a contradiction? Isn't that a denial of his spousal relationship to his Bride? If it were the other way around... let's say a priest supports Hillary Clinton but only as an individual and not as a representative of the Church. Who would be the first to have his name in the paper with a quote that condemns his brother?

We have to stand firm in our faith, but how does endorsing a political candidate in 2007 America further our mission? To me, it detracts from it and here's another reason I don't like the guy.

Am I wrong?? Could I be the only one who feels like this is a bad idea?

Labels: life issues, politics, priesthood, U.S. Church

Read this in the Globe this morning made me nervous about the March!

"It looks like we're going to have one more mild spurt this weekend, but by early next week, it should be dramatically cold, and that will likely last through a good chunk of February," said Carl Erickson, a meteorologist for AccuWeather, a national weather forecasting service.

I checked Weather.com since the March is now 10 days away and in range for its 10 day forecast: they're predicting partly cloudy skies with a high of 43 and a 10% chance of precipitation. We'll see how much this changes over the course of next week, but I wouldn't mind if it didn't!

Labels: life issues, random

Two random stories from CNA:

EWTN will be host to some pro-life programming this month.

A new daily Catholic paper out in California:

The digital newspaper has articulated as its mission “to speak out against the false gods and idols of the day – materialism, hedonism, consumerism, narrow nationalism... holding up for all to see a body of moral truth based on human dignity and rights... and unconditional respect for all human life from conception to natural death.”

Labels: life issues, media, random

Elizabeth Lev uncovers something unfortunate in her Rome Notes column in tonight's Zenit. She expounds on her discovery:

...a ZENIT reader brought to my attention that one of the official Patrons of the Vatican Museums is also an active and public supporter of Planned Parenthood, the world's largest abortion provider.

The Patrons of the Vatican Museums were formed in 1983 as an international society organized from within the Holy See institution. The Patrons were dedicated to supporting and maintaining the art of the Vatican Museums. While there are chapters of Patrons in several parts of Europe, by far and away the greatest number of patrons can be found in the United States.

The Vatican Museums maintain an office just for the Patrons where they are brought on private guided visits and have special events and dinners on the premises.

The Patrons donate between €250 and €1,000 (about $320 to $1,280 at current exchange rates) annually to the museums and are coordinated in different parts of the United States by chairpersons who serve as links between the Vatican institution and the local area.

The chair for the Minnesota chapter is one Maureen Kucera-Walsh, as can be seen on the Vatican Museums Website on the Patrons page.

Kucera-Walsh was particularly instrumental when the "St. Peter and the Vatican" show toured the States in 2004. She was indicated in the June 2004 issue of Basilica, the magazine of the Basilica of St. Mary in Minneapolis, Minnesota, as the point person for visiting the traveling exhibition. Her Minnesota chapter restored the hammer used to verify the death of the Pope as well as the statues of Sts. Peter and Paul from the sacristy of St. Peter's.

But Kucera-Walsh does not limit her charitable activities to the preservation of sacred art. Last Oct. 9, she served as a host for a Planned Parenthood event in Minneapolis.

This event was organized to marshal support against the proposed law in South Dakota which would have make it a crime for anyone to perform an abortion except where the mother's life was in danger. One of the principal items on the agenda of this event was to "get the inside scoop on the effort to defeat South Dakota's abortion ban."

Benefactors of this event paid between $100 and $1,000 to participate. Kucera-Walsh was listed among the hosts for this event.

This activity, unfortunately, is not the extent of Kucera-Walsh's role in Planned Parenthood. In the Planned Parenthood annual report of 2005, she sits on the 2006 board of directors.

What a sad state of affairs when one can be so involved with the preservation and protection of the works of art in the Vatican but so easily turn one's back on most fundamental moral teachings and beliefs that inspired them.

Why does this matter?

The position of Kucera-Walsh reflects the common contemporary view that the art of the Vatican is somehow disconnected from the teaching of the Church that commissioned it.

...

With one hand, people like Maureen Kucera-Walsh polish the effigies of the saints, while with the other they dismiss what the saints died for. That gives a perverted twist to the Gospel injunction not to let the left hand know what the right hand is doing!

Labels: life issues, Vatican