Life Issues
Pushing birth control on new parents
I never realized, until I starting dating good Catholic women, how much the medical establishment doesn’t just push contraception on them, but baldly assumes that every woman takes birth control.
To wit, Melanie was given a pamphlet by the hospital when she was discharged called, “Information for New Parents and Their Babies.” It contains the following paragraph:
Sexual relations - We recommend that you do not have sexual intercourse for four to six weeks and until you have stopped bleeding and have no pain. You will need a birth control method before you resume sexual relations, even if you are breastfeeding. Although breastfeeding may stop ovulation, it is not reliable and should not be considered a form of birth control. The type of birth control prescribed for you will depend on your personal preference, whether or not you are breastfeeding, and your provider’s recommendations. Condoms are a good form of birth control if used correctly. Ask your physician or midwife about available methods of birth control.
Check out that second sentence. There’s no question, no “perhaps you may need” or “if you are using birth control.” Instead, it makes bland assumption that you will need birth control. In fact, the entirety of their advice on sexual relations for mothers who’ve just had babies is “Get birth control” and “oh, by the way, wait four to six weeks to have sex.” Talk about getting your priorities mixed up.
The default position of the medical establishment apparently is that children are to be avoided whenever possible, that families will always default to contracepting except when they explicitly decide to actively acquire a child. Talk about sucking the spontaneity and joy out of family life. But then children are just a burden, right? Or so they seem to say.
Haleigh’s “right to die” or right to live?
The media can’t help itself sometimes. The fingers fly of their own accord, framing stories according to a specific template, no matter the specific circumstances.
When the issue is the taking of the life of someone who is not dying, but whose life depends on ongoing care, then it must always be framed as a “right to die”, even when the person involved is not asking anything of the sort.
A couple of years ago the tragic case of Massachusetts girl Haleigh Poutre was front-page news nationwide. The then-11-year-old was on life support after allegedly being beaten into a coma by her stepdad and her adoptive mom, who happened to be her biological aunt. The Department of Social Services, whose primary duty is supposed to be to help children in need, had gone to court to have her terminated. Ironically, the man accused of beating her opposed the motion, since he would have faced murder charges.
And while DSS prevailed in the court fight, Haleigh herself made a case for herself by showing signs of recovery the day after the court order was issued in defiance of her doctors’ iron-clad judgment that she would make no “meaningful recovery”. And two years later, Haleigh herself is working with prosecutors to build the case against her stepfather (her adoptive mother having killed herself and Haleigh’s grandmother days after the initial criminal case began).
Good for Haleigh.
Unfortunately, the news coverage of this inspiring event is full of the most slanted language. Consider these bits from the Boston Herald’s coverage.
The case sparked a passionate right-to-die debate when, eight days after Poutre’s beating, DSS sought a court order allowing her to be removed from life support.
Consider those bits I’ve highlighted. Who was seeking a “right to die”? Certainly not Haleigh. The young girl was fighting to live, as evidenced by her miraculous recovery. No, Massachusetts was seeking a “right to kill” the girl who had become just another statistic in the long, sad list of children who have suffered while in the care of the commonwealth’s social service apparatus.
And certainly the court order “allowed her” nothing in her own interest, since Haleigh was not seeking to be removed from life support. No, the court order allowed the commonwealth to have her removed from life support.
But the template imposed on such cases by the mainstream media is so ingrained that they can’t write the story any other way, even when it makes no logical sense. When the issue is the taking of the life of someone who is not dying, but whose life depends on ongoing care, then it must always be framed as a “right to die”, even when the person involved is not asking anything of the sort.
Because the near-silenced conscience of a nation still can’t confront the truth the “right to die” is often a “right to kill the mute and defenseless” or a “right to be killed while in the midst of despair.” And the rest of us better hope we don’t end up in the medically nonsensical “vegetative state”, or at least that we don’t end up that way in certain hospitals or under the care of relatives who would just as soon be rid of us.
Into the (abortion) danger zone
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley—to absolutely no one’s surprise—has declared that wider restrictions of the free speech of pro-lifers in Massachusetts are not, in fact, restrictions on their free speech. Her brief in response to a lawsuit by pro-lifers makes the same argument she made before the Legislature last year when she backed the law that expanded abortion clinic buffer zones from 18 feet to 35 feet.
What the abortion clinics and their pet politicians want is to use the coercive power of the legislature and courts to silence an inconvenient opposition
(The buffer zones prevent pro-lifers from approaching or talking to anyone with that distance from an abortion clinic’s entrance or a 6-foot floating buffer around people going in or out of a clinic. How you’re supposed to guess the intention of someone walking down the sidewalk in the general direction of the clinic is beyond me.)
Of course, Coakley is trying to feed us baloney and tell us it’s prime rib.
The “act does not ban any expressive activity, but instead ‘merely regulates the places where communications may occur’ during clinic business hours,” Coakley wrote in the brief.
Typical political doublespeak. So-called “expressive activity” is being banned within a particular place. And, yes, that’s permissible under the Constitution. No one has the right to say anything at any time. Yelling “Fire” in a crowded theatre is the standard analogy. But let’s not beat around the bush here.
The “suggestion that under the act ‘leafleting and solicitation [are] completely banned from public places’ is incorrect,” the brief said. “… Plaintiffs, and everyone else, may continue to hold signs, pray, sing, chant, leaflet, converse, and engage in any other kind of lawful speech so long as they do so from outside any buffer zone.”
I haven’t seen the original complaint she’s quoting, but this is disingenuous too. At how many feet of buffer zone does our free speech become effectively nullified? 35 feet? 50 feet? 10,000 feet? What if the whole state of Massachusetts were one, big buffer zone? We’d still be allowed to hold signs, prayer, etc., as long as it’s not within the boundaries of the state. Free speech!
If we’re pushed beyond the limits of the human voice (or eye, in the case of signs) such that we can no longer effectively communicate our freedom of speech has become irrelevant.
The question should be: What is harassing about a sign or a prayer or a conversation or any kind of lawful speech.
Speech should be restricted only for a very compelling public safety and order issue. Yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre puts lives at risk because it can cause a panic. Making a false police report puts police and the public in danger as they search for a non-existent criminal. Using “fighting words” puts people in danger because it cold cause violence.
How does a Hail Mary endanger a life? How does a level-headed request for a conversation with a woman about to abort her child risk public order?
If inconvenience and undesirability were to be the guidelines, I’d like them to pass laws against aggressive panhandlers and petition holders and people canvassing for politicians with whom I disagree and so on. But part of living in a free, democratic society is putting up with speech we dislike, disdain, or disagree with.
What the abortion clinics and their pet politicians want is to use the coercive power of the legislature and courts to silence an inconvenient opposition whose success is success at saving lives—and siphoning coins from their coffers—depends on being able to warn these mothers of the truth of what they contemplate.
If they have to ravage the Constitution to accomplish this goal, so be it.
Clinton confronted by Steubenvile students at rally
At some Catholic colleges, the problem is that they specifically invite pro-abortion politicians to come speak on campus, thus providing them a platform for their evil agenda and violating the US bishops’ guidelines on this.
But at my alma mater, Franciscan University of Steubenville, if the pro-abortion candidate—or her surrogate—shows up in town—off-campus, mind you—they make it a point to go and let them know that their pro-abortion ways are not universally loved by the Roe generation.
John Kerry learned that difficult lesson in 2004 when he held at a rally in Steubenville, and now Bill Clinton has learned it too. When will the DNC learn to avoid Steubenville. As Darwin Catholic says, it’s not a particularly political campus, but the students are passionate for the cause of life.
Darwin also reproduces a press release from Students for Life of America that gives the transcript of the confrontation.
Note how Clinton claims to have reduced abortions during his presidency. For one thing, it’s all in how you define abortion. Most pro-aborts don’t include so-called “emergency contraception” and other non-surgical abortions. Even more, if the abortion rate went down during his eight years in office, it had nothing to do with him. I’ll bet he couldn’t name a single policy that made a concrete reduction in abortions. But leave it to a liberal: they’d take credit for the sun rising.
Obama’s cold-eyed pro-abortionism
Karen Hall relates an Illinois nurse’s encounter with Barack Obama over born-alive infants who had been targeted for abortion. She quotes at length from Stanek.
In February 2004, U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama’s wife, Michelle, sent a fund-raising letter with the "alarming news" that "right-wing politicians" had passed a law stopping doctors from stabbing half-born babies in the neck with scissors, suctioning out their brains and crushing their skulls.
Michelle called partial-birth abortion "a legitimate medical procedure," and wouldn’t supporters please pay $150 to attend a luncheon for her husband, who would fight against "cynical ploy[s]" to
stop it?But that’s not why Obama’s opponent Alan Keyes said Jesus Christ wouldn’t vote for him.
Obama recalled Keyes’ statement in a recent USA Today opinion piece but omitted his reasoning.
I know his reasoning, because I was there.
As a nurse at an Illinois hospital in 1999, I discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in soiled utility rooms. I discovered infanticide.
Legislation was presented on the federal level and in various states called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It stated all live-born babies were guaranteed the same constitutional right to equal protection, whether or not they were wanted.
BAIPA sailed through the U.S. Senate by unanimous vote. Even Sens. Clinton, Kennedy and Kerry agreed a mother’s right to "choose" stopped at her baby’s delivery.
The bill also passed overwhelmingly in the House. NARAL went neutral on it. Abortion enthusiasts publicly agreed that fighting BAIPA would appear extreme. President Bush signed BAIPA into law in 2002.
But in Illinois, the state version of BAIPA repeatedly failed, thanks in large part to then-state Sen. Barack Obama. It only passed in 2005, after Obama left.
I testified in 2001 and 2002 before a committee of which Obama was a member.
Obama articulately worried that legislation protecting live aborted babies might infringe on women’s rights or abortionists’ rights. Obama’s clinical discourse, his lack of mercy, shocked me. I was naive back then. Obama voted against the measure, twice. It ultimately failed.
In 2003, as chairman of the next Senate committee to which BAIPA was sent, Obama stopped it from even getting a hearing, shelving it to die much like babies were still being shelved to die in Illinois hospitals and abortion clinics.
(As chair of that same committee, Obama once abruptly ended a hearing early, right before Scott and Janet Willis, the parents of six children killed as a result of Illinois’ drivers licenses for bribes scandal, were to testify in favor of Choose Life license plate legislation. I was there for that one, too. The Willises had traveled
three hours. Reporters filled the room. Obama stalled. He later killed the bill when no one was around.)So, the reason Keyes said Jesus Christ wouldn’t vote for Barack Obama was because of Obama’s fanatical support of abortion to the point of condoning infanticide.
What we have in the two Democrat candidates for the nomination is a very rabid pro-abort who’s mostly interested in the rapid acquisition of power and … Hillary Clinton. Who’d have ever thought that Hillary would scare me less than the alternative, but I think that’s coming true. Sheesh, what a world.
Dad walking baby and praying threatened with arrest
As I type this now, I still find it hard to believe. But then I’ve been to pro-life demonstrations before and have seen with my own eyes that the laws of our nation can be suspended when pro-lifers (and marriage defenders) are involved. Check out this video.
This dad was walking on a public sidewalk with his infant daughter asleep in the stroller and because he took out a book to pray to himself, he was stopped by police, questioned (including about the content of his prayer!) and then told that he had to stop or be arrested.
It should be noted that this occurred in Aurora, Illinois, the location of a very contentious public dispute over a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic. This gentleman and his wife have been among the demonstrators outside the clinic, although on this day, the dad was not part of the demonstration outside the area of the protest, and the mom was simply praying and looking for an opportunity to talk to any woman who might be considering an abortion.
I have to admit that the dad handled the situation with more aplomb and calm than I might have. And, I do understand that there are circumstances in which constitutional rights can be ... is “held in abeyance” the right phrase? ... for the sake of public order and safety. But watch the video and tell me that this is the case. Then go to this post at the Catholic Dads blog and read the background material. And then tell me that this isn’t a travesty and trampling of the Constitution.
Without abortion, there would be more to life
The other day I saw a disgruntled Catholic—someone who was annoyed that the Church expects Catholics not to vote for pro-abortion politicians—write the following: “There’s more to life than abortion.”
I wonder if they understand the irony of their words.
Free speech for some, but not for us
The Massachusetts Legislature, emboldened by recent wins in the courts restricting the free speech of pro-lifers and by complete control of all branches of government by pro-aborts, is preparing to expand the so-called “buffer zones” around abortion clinics.
A bill that would establish a 35-foot no-protest zone around clinics where abortions are performed won the support of the state Senate yesterday and now proceeds to the House, where at least 75 lawmakers have endorsed it.
The legislation would almost double the current 18-foot buffer zone and bar protester from entering it. Currently, protesters may come within 6 feet of someone within the zone to provide counsel or share information, as long as the individual consents.
The pro-aborts, who are supposedly all about choice, are opposed to informed choice, apparently. They want to create zones around the death clinics that allow fathers and boyfriends to drive up and drag their daughters/girlfriends into the clinics without interference. That’s not hyperbole; I’ve seen it done with my own eyes. Again, so much for choice.
Where are all the civil libertarians who are always so concerned about the Bill of Rights? Where are they when our free speech is trampled?
I wonder how they would react to a proposal to set up buffer zones around Armed Forces recruiting offices? How quickly would the ACLU file a lawsuit protesting the silencing of anti-war activists?
Vaccines and aborted fetal tissue
Jen F. at “Et tu?” did the hard detective work and tracked down all the background and data concerning vaccines that use tissue from aborted children. (This is a followup to my earlier post.)
Pro-lifers at the IVF clinic
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.
If anyone knows of a pro-life group with a regular prayer witness and outreach at IVF clinics, I’d love to hear about it.
Childhood vaccines that used tissue from aborted children
Subvet at Catholic Dads asks for information on the use of aborted children in vaccines.
I feel like I’m opening a can of worms but here goes.
Anybody know about the use of fetal tissue for the generation of vaccines for common childhood ailments? When I first heard of it I asked my wife (pediatric RN) and was told she’d never come across anything about it. The diseases mentioned included those I got vaccination for back in the ‘50’s, long before our culture of death got up and running in a serious way. For that reason I was willing to write it off as one more conspiracy theory, probably on the same level as the one stating we never made a Moon landing. But it keeps cropping up on various Catholic sites I go to, some of them are fairly solid in their approach to things.
Everybody here seems to have both oars in the water (normally). So I figured I’d throw this out and see what might come up.
Coincidentally, I received the following chart in email. I know it might be a little hard to read so email me if you need a larger version of this.
A mother killed by abortion and silence from the media
Here’s a story you won’t see reported in the local Boston media. I only know about it because I saw a press release from Operation Rescue. A 22-year-old woman died in Hyannis, Mass., earlier this month during an allegedly botched abortion. The seemingly healthy young woman was 13 weeks pregnant when she went in and came out dead of a cardiac arrest. The abortionist is not forthcoming.
The fact that this young woman had led such a troubled life but seemed to be on a good path finally only adds to this tragedy.
Ten days after Laura’s death, Smith [the woman’s mother] met privately for one hour at a public place with Osathanondh [the abortionist]. He would only meet with Smith alone and refused to allow even allow her husband to accompany her. Osathanondh admitted that Laura died during the abortion but refused to admit he did anything wrong.
Smith told Operation Rescue that the details of her daughter’s death appalled and sickened her, but she could not discuss those details because she is seeking legal action against Osathanondh for killing her daughter.
“My daughter was 22, healthy, and alive when she walked into that clinic,” Smith said. “She didn’t even have a cold. There is no reason for her to be dead.”
Laura was born into abject poverty in Hondurus [sic] on May 25, 1985, and was abandoned at an orphanage. An American couple that adopted Laura abused her terribly and gave her up. Laura was then adopted by Tom and Eileen Smith, a Christian family that lovingly raised Laura in the Cape Cod community of Sandwich.
This is what so-called “choice” has wrought. There are many more botched abortions and abortion-related maternal deaths than the media reports (not to mention the obvious death toll for the aborted children), but whenever someone suggests holding abortionists even just to normal medical standards the pro-abortion crowd revs up to full screech mode.
You hear all the time about so-called “back-alley” abortions and the clothes hanger used as a symbol of women’s desperation before abortion was legalized, yet I wonder how the death toll of women under Roe v. Wade would compare with the death toll before it.
Please pray for this family and their lost daughter and grandchild. Already, one woman reports that she has decided not to go through with an abortion after hearing this story. God makes straight with crooked paths and may God make straight with this one. And may the souls of the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace.
A welcome pro-life testimony
Consider the following testimony about why this person is pro-life: (Don’t go to the web site at the link yet. Read the story first.)
I am pro-life. I have been advised on how to answer this question - say this, don’t say that. I have EVEN been advised to change my position. I can’t. I thought maybe I should speak about the nuances of Roe v. Wade, but the reasons for my position are not that complicated.
In grad school I listened to a student deliver a presentation on how to remove Down Syndrome from the gene pool through selective abortion. I listened attentively. When he was finished, I stood up and told the following story:
I grew up on Love Lane in Kittery, Maine. That’s right, LOVE Lane. I was the youngest of seven children. At times you would have thought there was an 8th Scontras. His name was Billy. Billy Wurm was our neighbor. He graced our lives for more than 50 years. Billy had Down Syndrome. Sometimes Ya-ya, my Greek grandmother, would come stay with us. She spoke NO English, and she didn’t like to go to the beach with us. She would stay home by herself - quite content. She would walk about the yard, sit in the shade. I will never forget one particular July day when we returned home to find Billy and Ya-ya hand in hand, walking peacefully around the yard, talking to one another. Funny thing is, Billy couldn’t understand a word Ya-ya said, nor could Ya-ya understand Billy. Yet she had a wonderful look of peace and happiness on her face. Billy was also wearing his perpetual smile.
Years earlier when I was 3 or 4 years old, I stumbled and fell into our neighbor’s pool. No one was around. No one except for Billy Wurm, that is. I will never forget the image of Billy’s face coming toward me as I panicked in silence beneath the water’s surface. He scooped me up and placed me safely on the pool’s edge. I could tell you many more stories about Billy, each one suggesting some greater purpose to life. But they would all need to be considered in the context of that life-saving experience. Were it not for Billy, well…
Society hungers for perfection in our selves and our children, to a fault. As a parent, I see it. We want perfect children, perfect communities, free from pain and toil. It’s only human. My point to the speaker was this - I understand that sometimes a child may place a burden on society for any number of reasons. But they also bring with them unexpected grace, joy and the ability to touch other lives beyond measure. The most wonderful lessons in life often come from those who have had to overcome the greatest obstacles. Their lives seem to teach us the most about our own. Thankfully, our world is full of such stories… full of people like Billy Wurm.
To me, it is the human spirit that needs to be considered and protected. It reminds me of my favorite movie, “It’s a Wonderful Life.” One living person has the ability to shape so many others. It’s dangerous territory when WE become the arbiters of life. I told my classmate that I thought his thesis was well written, but sadly mistaken. Without Billy there would have been a hole in my life, or perhaps a hole where my life had once been.
Billy also had something that each one of us long for - unbridled happiness, unconditional love of all things. As I concluded my observations that day in class, a young woman rose up behind me. “I wasn’t going to say anything,” she said, “but I’m glad Dean did.” She continued, “I have several children. The youngest has Down Syndrome. He is by far the happiest of the bunch!”
Okay, now you can go to the link. This was written by Dean Scontras, a Republican candidate for the seat in Maine’s 1st Congressional District. Amazing! I wish we had candidates like this to vote for in Massachusetts.
Technorati Tags: prolife | Maine | Congress | elections | Republican | Downs Syndrome | abortion |
Amnesty wasn’t pro-abortion?
There’s been lots of talk recently in the Catholic news and on blogs that Amnesty International has moved from a neutral stance on abortion to a pro-abortion stance. That’s resulted in lots of Catholic organizations and bishops denouncing the group and pledging to stop their cooperation.
My response? Frankly, I was surprised they weren’t officially pro-abortion before. I mean they were effectively so before without having been explicitly so.
Amnesty is the leftiest of the lefty non-governmental agencies and despite their work on behalf of the oppressed, they’ve been reliably liberal in all things and if there’s one truth about liberals, it’s that eventually it all comes down to abortion and, like the second shoe dropping, disdain for the Church.
Why is anybody surprised?
Are the Dems shifting their approach to abortion?
Interesting, even as the Republican party becomes less and less responsive to pro-lifers, and social conservatives in general, Democrats are trying to sound more and more like pro-lifers.
Realistically, however, there is less than meets the eye.
Sensing an opportunity to impress religious voters — and tip elections — Democrats in Congress and on the campaign trail have begun to adopt some of the language and policy goals of the antiabortion movement.
For years, the liberal response to abortion has been to promote more accessible and affordable birth control as well as detailed sex education in public schools.
That’s still the foundation of Democratic policies. But in a striking shift, Democrats in the House last week promoted a grab bag of programs designed not only to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but also to encourage women who do conceive to carry to term.
What we have here is an attempt to have it both ways. They want to seem like they’re shifting without actually making the killing of unborn children illegal. And let’s not forget that “preventing unwanted pregnancies” does not mean abstinence and chastity education. It means contraceptives.
Providing cover to weak-kneed pro-lifers
Technorati Tags: Democrat | Republican | abortion | politics | presidential |
