Life Issues

Sotomayor attacked from the abortion left

President Obama has chosen his Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, to replace David Souter. As expected she’s very liberal and she’s not a pro-lifer by any means. But then we couldn’t have expected anything else from the most pro-abortion president ever, and anyway she’s replacing another liberal member of the court and so the conservative-liberal balance remains.

So, it’s interesting to see the abortion-related criticism against Sotomayor coming from’pro-abortion groups. It’s not that she’s too pro-life, there’s certainly no evidence of that. No, it’s that she’s not quite rabidly pro-abortion enough.

In a 2002 case, she wrote an opinion upholding the Bush administration policy of withholding aid from international groups that provide or promote abortion services overseas.

“The Supreme Court has made clear that the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position,” she wrote, “and can do so with public funds.”

In a 2004 case, she largely sided with some anti-abortion protesters who wanted to sue some police officers for allegedly violating their constitutional rights by using excessive force to break up demonstrations at an abortion clinic. Judge Sotomayor said the protesters deserved a day in court.

Judge Sotomayor has also ruled on several immigration cases involving people fighting deportation orders to China on the grounds that its population-control policy of forcible abortions and birth control constituted persecution.

In a 2007 case, she strongly criticized colleagues on the court who said that only women, and not their husbands, could seek asylum based on China’s abortion policy. “The termination of a wanted pregnancy under a coercive population control program can only be devastating to any couple, akin, no doubt, to the killing of a child,” she wrote, also taking note of “the unique biological nature of pregnancy and special reverence every civilization has accorded to child-rearing and parenthood in marriage.”

And in a 2008 case, she wrote an opinion vacating a deportation order for a woman who had worked in an abortion clinic in China. Although Judge Sotomayor’s decision turned on a technicality, her opinion described in detail the woman’s account of how she would be persecuted in China because she had once permitted the escape of a woman who was seven months pregnant and scheduled for a forced abortion. In China, to allow such an escape was a crime, the woman said.

In my quick read of these summaries I see only a judge abiding by the law, who doesn’t undermine it just because she might not like the pro-lifers’ position. Did these radical abortion groups want her to rule against the pro-lifers who thought police used excessive force, to deny them their day in court simply because she doesn’t like their politics? I suppose it’s some small— very small—measure of comfort that she’s not one of those judges who rules on a whim. (What does it say for our society that we have such low expectations for our jurists?) Was she supposed to deport the Chinese woman to a country that would subject her to a forced abortion?

I say this reveals a lot about those who support so-called abortion rights in this country, that these groups don’t really care about women having a choice, but that they view pregnancy and childbirth as evil by default.

Meanwhile, the White House, instead of telling the bloodthirsty mob of Moloch-worshippers to back off, has tried to placate them with assurances of Sotomayor’s reliable vote on any abortion-related case that would come before the Court.

But White House officials appeared eager to send a message that abortion rights groups do not need to worry about how she might rule in a challenge to Roe v. Wade.

“He did not specifically ask, as we’ve stated for the past several days,” Gibbs said. “But as I just said, I think he feels — I know he feels — comfortable, generally, with her interpretation of the Constitution being similar to that of his.”

Win one for the blood-red horde.

Photo credit: Official White House photo.

Imagine the Potential 2

Catholic Vote is back with another great pro-life TV commercial, “Imagine the Potential 2”, a follow on to their earlier ad that showed a child who had everything going against him before he was born but grew up to be our current president.

[Thanks to Amy Welborn.]

Catholic congressmen take on Clinton over Sanger

This is what a real Catholic congressmen sounds like. US Reps. Chris Smith and Jeff Fortenberry take Hilary Clinton to task for her admiration of the racist Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. Here’s what Fortenberry had to say:

Your remarks last month, when you called Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, a person whom you enormously admire, were stunning to me. Margaret Sanger clearly embraced bigotry and racism. She advocated for the elimination of the disabled, the downtrodden and the black child. In one of her writings, she said, “Today eugenics is suggested by the most diverse minds as the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.” I don’t believe these ideologies have a place in our pluralistic society. And you went on to say that you will use American foreign policy in your position to further reproductive rights, which includes abortion, across the globe.

Madame Secretary, I don’t believe we should use American foreign policy to export abortion. This will undermine, in my view, our foreign relations in many areas throughout the world, including Latin America and Africa and among Muslim peoples. Promoting the international abortion industry is an imposition of our own woundedness upon others. Abortion has caused tremendous grief in this society, and its export I believe will be seen as a form of neocolonialism that is paternalistic and elitist and an assault on the dignity especially of the poor and vulnerable. I believe women deserve better, women throughout the world deserve better.

Awesome!

Clinton’s response?

Well, Congressman, let me say with respect to your comments about Margaret Sanger, you know, I admire Thomas Jefferson. I admire his words and his leadership and I deplore his unrepentant slaveholding. I admire Margaret Sanger being a pioneer in trying to empower women to have some control over their bodies and I deplore statements that you have referenced. That is the way we often are when we look at flawed human beings. There are things that we admire and things we deplore.

Apart from that, how did you like the play Mrs. Lincoln? In other words, Clinton says that if we ignore the racist, classist, genocidal stuff, Sanger was pretty cool. Unbelievable.

Of course, she might already have practice overlooking such things: “I admire Bill Clinton. I admire his words and his leadership and I deplore his unrepentant philandering.” Sounds like something she might have said.

[Link via Amy Welborn.]

 

Does Bill Clinton not know basic reproductive biology?

CNN’s medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta—who, let’s remember, was on a shortlist of potential Obama nominees to be surgeon-general—interviews Bill Clinton on embryonic stem cell research and Obama’s policy change to allow federal taxpayer funding.

First, note the slanted, softball question that Gupta proposes: “Is this always going to be as divisive of an issue as it is now? Is this going to be the abortion of the next generation? Or are people going to come around?

Aside from the unintended pun—Yes, this is the abortion of the next generation, i.e. we are aborting the next generation—see how Gupta tries to present embryonic stem cell research as having nothing to do with abortion. You can’t have embryonic stem cells without first aborting an unborn child! But also see how he says pro-lifers need to “come around.” One “comes around” when one wakes up, when one sees reality.

When Clinton responds, he appears to be lacking in knowledge of basic biology. Some have taken that as evidence of ignorance, but I think it’s demonically clever. Clinton says: “If it’s obvious that we’re not taking embryos that can ... that under any conceivable scenario would be used for a process that would allow them to be fertilized and become a little babies ...” Is Bill Clinton really ignorant of the fact that embryos are already fertilized? That they are in fact already little babies in the process of being born? I don’t think so. I think this is yet another cynical attempt at spreading ignorance and trying to convince the general public that embryos are genetically unique and differentiated human beings in the process of development to the point where they can survive outside their mothers’ wombs.

This is not unlike the partial-birth abortion lie perpetuated by pro-choicers who claimed that no more than 1,500 of these horrific procedures were performed in the country each year. In fact, key figures in the abortion industry later admitted that to be a blatant lie that under-counted the procedure by an order of magnitude.

From celebrities to journalists to politicians, we’re told over and over again that we’re just obstructionists who would rather protect a clump of cells out of some misguided principle than help “real” suffering children just waiting for the medical treatments that will come rushing out of medical labs like a torrent once federal funding is assured. And yet, it has been shown again and again that not a single viable treatment has emerged from research on embryonic stem cells, research that has relied on billions of dollars of private funding as well as public funding from states and foreign governments. Meanwhile, adult and cord blood stem cells continue to provide treatments for diseases, yet don’t get nearly the attention or funding.

And now they have resorted to misdirection, obfuscation, and perpetuated ignorance to get the American people on their side and convince, once again, that pro-lifers are benighted medievalists who abhor science and want to enslave the world with unwanted pregnancies and religion.

[Thanks to Kelly Clark for sending the link. She has similar thoughts on this incident.]

Lest there be any doubt…

Cardinal O’Malley has given a direct and unambiguous statement regarding the controversy over Caritas Christi on his blog this past Friday:

To be perfectly clear, Caritas Christi will never do anything to promote abortions, to direct any patients to providers of abortion or in any way to participate in actions that are contrary to Catholic moral teaching and anyone who suggests otherwise is doing a great disservice to the Catholic Church. We are committed to the Gospel of Life and no arrangement will be entered into unless it is completely in accord with Church teaching.

Recognizing the complexity of the proposed arrangement, I will ask the National Catholic Bioethics Center to review the arrangement and to provide me their opinion.

I can say no more on this matter, considering my job, but I wanted to highlight this so others could spread the word and dispel any lingering doubts.

 

Putting the overpopulation set’s money where their mouths are

The inimitable Dale Price boils down the argument of another overpopulation nut, asking him to put his, well, pride, where his mouth is and lay it all on the line. In his satire, Dale responds to Steven Kotler’s call for a five-year moratorium on having children.

I suggest that a five year moratorium is nowhere near enough. Instead, thoughtful, responsible men like ourselves need to lead the way and have our testicles surgically removed.

Radical? I think not. Given the Mathusian nightmare our world is facing, it is the only responsible choice. Also, the drop in testosterone will do wonders for reducing wars, violence and the prevalence of professional sports.

I’ll go you one better, Dale: I think all these overpopulation nuts should lead the way in depopulation and put a slug of lead between their own eyes.

Oh wait, of course, it’s other people who are the overpopulation problem, never themselves.

In all his blather about declining resources, I would love to compare the amount of Earth’s limited resources Kotler consumes each year compared to, say, a family of five from Nigeria. Or an entire village in Nigeria. Yeah, I thought so.

 

Mr. President, consider what could have been your own fate

[Video from CatholicVote.]

Five Alive for Pro-Life Activism

The Aggie Catholics are promoting a new grassroots pro-life initiative they’re calling Five Alive. It’s a five-step plan for getting five of your friends in Catholic activism. I’m thinking it works best for those who work with teens, college kids, and young adults, although there are plenty of middle-aged folks who should get involved too.

FIVE ALIVE

Grassroots effort to increase pro-life activism among Catholics

Goal: Every person involved in pro-life tries to get five more people involved in pro-life activities.

STEPS:

1. Pray – First and Foremost. Pray that God bring these people into your life and once they are pray for them. Ask everyone to pray for a pro-life culture.
2. Identify: Look for 5 easy targets. Someone who is pro-life, someone who used to be involved, an open teenager, etc. This person should be considered a friend.
3. Listen: Listen to the reasons they have not yet been involved. Is it time? Resistance by their parish priest? Lack of clarity of where to begin? Fatigue of previous involvement? Figure out how to overcome these resistances and suggest a good activity for them. Activities can include dedicated prayer, volunteer work, anything!
4. Educate: Give them a pro-life book and bumper sticker, forward them pro-life emails and articles. But don’t overdo it!
5. Support: Get them started on their first activity. Pick them up with a cup of coffee and donut as you go to pray outside an abortion clinic. Carpool to the pro-life march. Overcome resistance with love and a spirit of joy.

Of course, these steps are only a suggestion. It is a unique activity with each person that we embark on this quest. It would be great to see the pro-life marches magnified by a factor of five – at some point that will get someone’s attention! And surely, prayer is the most important and primary activity of changing hearts and minds.

 

In bad economy, children are first to go

Because children aren’t a blessing, they’re a burden, those who make it their business to ensure there’re fewer kids to feed are offering free contraceptives to those feeling pinched by the economy:

With the economy spiraling downward, one nonprofit wants to make sure someone doesn’t accidentally have another mouth to feed.

[…] As an incentive not to skimp on protection, new patients who sign up before Dec. 30 will receive three free months of birth control. Existing patients can get the deal if they recommend a friend.

“Cutting back on contraception because of cost can lead to the high price of unintended pregnancy,” said Lianne Cook, executive director of Health Quarters.

With winter on the way and people struggling to buy food and heat their homes, Cook said birth control can often take a back seat to basic needs.

“We don’t like people to think of it as a luxury,” she said. “But it can be a fairly sizable expense each month.”

The article says that Health Quarters, located in Beverly, Mass., offers the full range of services including so-called emergency contraception, which is often just a form of very early chemical abortion. And it’s funded by your state and federal tax dollars.

Yes, that’s just what people need in a tough economy: birth control. Reminds me of Planned Parenthood’s reaction to the ethnic cleansing and rape camps in Bosnia: donations of vacuum-suction abortion machines. Or to the earthquake in Pakistan a couple of years ago: More contraceptives and abortion. One-track minds.

Photo credit: Ceridwen at Wikimedia Commons via a Creative Commons license.

 

Let’s hold the pro-life Catholics for Obama to account

One thing is for certain. All those “pro-life” Catholics who insisted that an Obama presidency would be better for the unborn and would reduce abortion are going to be held accountable if, as I am firmly convinced, that was a load of hogwash. In four years, it will be their responsibility to prove to the rest of us that their faith in Obama was not misplaced. We need to make ensure we don’t forget to hold them to it.

 

A pro-life defense from a black man’s perspective

This is about the best ten-minute defense of the pro-life position. As a black man he also takes on Barack Obama and other pro-abortion black politicians who support the abortion industry, which has killed 11 million black babies under the philosophy and inspiration of the racist eugenicist Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. But he also says so much more.

New anti-Palin tactic: Go after her baby

Speaking of Leftist hatred for Sarah Palin, pro-abortionist wackos are so incensed by her decision to bring her Down syndrome baby into the world that they’re making donations to Planned Parenthood in her name as a way to protest. Rod Dreher reproduces one of the chain emails going around:

Dear Friends: We may have thought we wanted a woman on a national political ticket, but the joke has really been on us, hasn’t it? Are you as sick in your stomach as I am at the thought of Sarah Palin as Vice President of the United States ? Since Palin gave her speech accepting the Republican nomination for the Vice Presidency, Barack Obama’s campaign has raised over $10 million dollars. Some of you may already be supporting the Obama campaign financially; others of you may still be a little over the primaries. None of you, however, can be happy with Palin’s selection, especially on her positions on women’s issues. So, if you feel you can’t support the Obama campaign financially, may I suggest the following fiendishly brilliant alternative? Make a donation to Planned Parenthood. In Sarah Palin’s name. And here’s the good part: when you make a donation to PP in her name, they’ll send her a card telling her that the donation has been made in her honor. [emphasis added]

“Fiendish” is right. Such mean-spirited and awful actions can only be inspired by the one who also goes by the name of Moloch, the Canaanite god to whom babies were sacrificed.

AP photo

Catholic congressmen respond to Pelosi

Last week, a group of Catholic congressmen from the House of Representatives sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, taking her to task for misrepresenting Catholic teaching on abortion in a TV interview. Here is their letter.

Dear Speaker Pelosi,

On the Sunday, August 24th, broadcast of NBC’s Meet the Press, you stated “as an ardent, practicing Catholic, [abortion] is an issue that I have studied for a long time.” As fellow Catholics and legislators, we wish you would have made a more honest effort to lay out the authentic position of the Church on this core moral issue before attempting to address it with authority.

Your subsequent remarks mangle Catholic Church doctrine regarding the inherent sanctity and dignity of human life; therefore, we are compelled to refute your error.

In the interview, Tom Brokaw reminded you that the Church professes the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death. As stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being” (2274).

To this, you responded, “I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the Church, this is an issue of controversy.” Unfortunately, your statement demonstrates a lack of understanding of Catholic teaching and belief regarding abortion.

From the Apostles of the first century to Pope John Paul the Great “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” (Catechism 2271).

Thus, your erroneous claim about the history of the Church’s opposition to abortion is false and denigrates our common Faith. For example, during the reign of Pope Innocent XI in 1679, the Church unequivocally stated it is an error for Catholics to believe fetuses do not have a soul; and confirmed the teaching that abortion constitutes an unjustified taking of innocent human life.

To reduce the scandal and consternation caused amongst the faithful by your remarks, we necessarily write you to correct the public record and affirm the Church’s actual and historical teaching that defends the sanctity of human life. We hope that you will rectify your errant claims and apologize for misrepresenting the Church’s doctrine and misleading fellow Catholics.

The signatories are:

 
• Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan
 
• Steve Chabot of Ohio
 
• Virginia Fox of North Carolina
 
• Phil Gingrey of Georgia
 
• Peter King of New York
 
• Steve King Iowa
 
• Daniel Lungren of California
 
• Devin Nunes of California
 
• John Sullivan of Oklahoma
 
• John Boehner of Ohio
 
• Phil English of Pennsylvania
 
• Jean Schmidt of Ohio
 
• Jim Walsh of New YOrk
 
• Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska
 
• Michael McCaul of Texas
 
• Paul Ryan of Wisconsin
 
• Walter Jones of North Carolina
 
• Mike Ferguson of New Jersey

I’m glad, but not surprised, to see the name of my friend Jeff Fortenberry there. I’m saddened that not one of the Catholic congressmen from my own state are among them.

Photo credit: Screen capture of NBC’s Meet the Press.

Obama: Babies can live without him

As we prepare for the coronation tonight, let’s keep this in mind.

Catholics Against Joe Biden

Hot of the web presses, so to speak, we find Catholics Against Joe Biden, a new blog by Stephen Dillard, Chris Blosser, and Jay Anderson. Following on the successful Catholics against Rudy (Guiliani) blog, this is a non-partisan effort to point out reasons why Catholics should not vote for Catholic politicians who openly and flagrantly cause scandal because of their dissent from non-negotiable Church teachings that intersect with public policy. In most cases, but not all, this means abortion.

Now that Biden is the vice-presidential nominee for the Democratic Party, it is time for faithful Catholics to stand up and say that we will not be pandered to, that the act of choosing someone who may sit in a pew in a Catholic church on Sunday, regardless of his public beliefs and actions, should convince us to vote for him. Likewise, I would fully expect that if John McCain chose a dissenting Catholic for his VP spot, they would get the same treatment. Neither does it mean that a non-Catholic with the same beliefs would be more palatable.

But when it’s a fellow Catholic and we’re being told that this makes it okay, then we need to stand up and say it is not. I encourage you to bookmark the site, save the RSS feed in your feed reader, link to it, and put a banner on your site, if you have one.