Pro-life

NEW YORK – “Catholic women in many communities feel they have no access to health care that is consistent with their values,” said the founding director of a new women’s medical center in midtown Manhattan that will provide “authentically Catholic” primary care, obstetrics, natural family planning and infertility treatment.

Dr. Anne Mielnik said Gianna – The Catholic Healthcare Center for Women is the first dedicated practice in New York and one of only a handful in the country to offer a combination of effective infertility treatment alternatives to morally objectionable assisted reproductive technologies such as in vitro fertilization.

The facility, sponsored by St. Vincent Catholic Medical Centers, opened Dec. 8, the feast of the Immaculate Conception.

“There’s no suffering comparable to what you see in an infertile couple,” Mielnik said. “They’re desperate to have a child and when they look for guidance, they end up in an IVF clinic. They’re balancing their desperation for a child with doing what they know is wrong.”

The Gianna center uses the Creighton Model FertilityCare System, a natural method of family planning and gynecological health monitoring, in conjunction with a comprehensive system of reproductive health management called natural procreative technology, or NaPro technology. Both methods were developed by Dr. Thomas W. Hilgers, founder of the Pope Paul VI Institute for the Study of Human Reproduction in Omaha, Neb.

Mielnik graduated from Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia and completed her family medical training at Lancaster (Pa.) General Hospital in 2009. She met her medical partner, Dr. Kyle Beiter, an obstetrician and gynecologist, while studying NaPro technology in Omaha.

As a medical student, Mielnik said she dreamed of starting a program that would provide health care and educational services to women to “counter the Planned Parenthood sex education curriculum.”

She said she started the John Paul II Center for Women in Marietta, N.Y., in September 2008 “in response to the pleas of Catholic women for access to reproductive health care and family planning options which affirm their dignity as women and conform to the Catholic Church’s teachings regarding human sexuality and medical ethics.”

The John Paul II center is directed by Joan Nolan, a Creighton Model FertilityCare practitioner. Mielnik said the John Paul II center’s mission is to open Gianna centers for women throughout the United States.

Mielnik said she and the John Paul II center initially planned to open a small medical practice in New York with the support of a pro-life benefactor. Serendipitously, she was recruited by the chairman of the St. Vincent’s Medical Center obstetrics department to establish her Gianna center under St. Vincent’s banner.

She called St. Vincent’s “the last Catholic hospital in Manhattan, the last pro-life hospital” and said it had a waiting list of people interested in NaPro technology and had been trying to recruit a NaPro-trained physician for two years.

Mielnik said NaPro technology addresses infertility by diagnosing and correcting its causes instead of using synthetic hormones to suppress or bypass a woman’s reproductive system. She said problems including anatomical and hormonal abnormalities, infections and ovulation disorders are addressed with surgical procedures and compounded hormones.

Surgeries can open blocked fallopian tubes, remove endometriosis and treat polycystic ovarian disease, she said. By identifying a possibly subtle hormone deficiency and replacing the hormone with an identical compound, delivered at the appropriate time in a woman’s menstrual cycle, Mielnik said NaPro technology can correct conditions that compromise fertility.

Mielnik said NaPro technology is twice as successful as in vitro fertilization, as measured by the number of live births among women using it to help achieve pregnancy. It is also significantly less expensive, rarely results in multiple pregnancies and does not result in frozen embryos. NaPro technology is also used to treat recurrent miscarriages, premenstrual syndrome, menstrual cramps, ovarian cysts, postpartum depression and premature births.

Mielnik said couples who visit the Gianna center for infertility have an initial 90-minute consultation, followed by a two- to four-month monitored evaluation of the wife’s charted menstrual and fertility cycle. Corrective surgery or hormonal therapy then may be implemented.

The Gianna center also will work closely with the New York Archdiocese to offer an educational curriculum that promotes a view of women consistent with their dignity as daughters of God, said Mielnik.

She said the John Paul II center supports Catholic physicians with a confidential Listserv for discussion of ethics and resources. “There is tremendous power in the knowledge of church teaching,” she said.

A pro-life doctor is a “lone voice in most health care systems,” she said, and the Listserv “is a place where Catholic physicians can support one another and share resources.”

The center is named for St. Gianna Beretta Molla, an Italian physician and married mother of four who refused to abort her youngest child when a uterine tumor threatened her own life during the pregnancy. She died in 1962 shortly after the 10-pound baby was born.

Mielnik said St. Gianna is a model for true femininity. She said the saint lived a life of great sanctity, balancing her personal and professional roles.

“She gave her life for her child, but it wasn’t a question of her life or her child’s, but which action – orphaning her children or giving life – was the greater good,” she said. “She chose to give life.” [reference]

It is rather sad that so many fertility critics don’t work to cure the underlining problem, but jump ahead to IVF. This forces so many to see IVF as the only possibility for them to have children even though NaPro technology is more effective and much cheaper.

Mary Meets Dolly posted today on IVF babies ‘risk major diseases’. I agree with her when she states that IVF clinics will ignore this serious problem and it will take future lawsuits to do anything about it.

Creative Minority Reports points to this article in response to the decline of the number of abortion doctors.

Address the shortage of abortion providers. We all know the drill: the average age of an abortion provider in this country is soaring upwards, and many doctors who deserve to retire and spend their days playing golf stay in the business because there’s so many women who need abortions and so few people to provide them. Few counties have abortion providers, and many women have to travel hundreds, sometimes thousands of miles to get one. And it’s because younger doctors don’t want to perform abortions. They don’t have any memories of the horrors of septic abortions (unlike many older doctors), and the harassment they face if they join up seems like too much trouble.

The problem is complex, but not unfixable. We should lobby for stronger protections for abortion clinic workers, so that fear doesn’t drive would-be providers away. More importantly, we need to find a way to get people with the right attitudes and the right skills into the business. Programs encouraging bright, young pro-choice people into medical school to train as ob-gyns who perform abortions is a good start. Pushing medical schools not only to teach the procedures for abortion, but also to highlight the dangers of self-abortion would also help. Perhaps a scholarship program for medical students who train to be abortion providers, or a debt forgiveness program for those doctors that provide abortion? There are endless possibilities, and we should undertake them.

Amazing they always pull out the canard about people not becoming abortionists because of security risks. Funny how people become policemen, fire fighters, and soldiers and yet they can’t find doctors to brave the so-called risk. As tragic as the extremely rare murder of abortionist has been, it is still extremely rare.

No mention is made about those abortionist who stop being abortionists or the group that helps them the Society of Centurions.

I guess it is just hard finding people who are idealistic enough to spend years in training in order to kill and not to save life. Thank God there is still a stigma on this profession and that the “best and brightest” are not drawn toward this anti-vocation. No kid grows up wanting to be an abortionist – though plenty want to be doctors.

You all want to wonder at someone who sees the “horror” of septic abortions and not the “horror” of successful abortions. The problem is not septic abortions, but women choosing abortion in the first place. Their misguided attempt at the cure of a pregnancy does not mean we should have doctors to provide it. Besides the statistics for so-called back alley abortions was made up out of whole cloth by former abortionist and founder of NARAL Bernard Nathanson who is now Catholic. Women seeking abortions when abortion is illegal is tragic. But the tragedy is them seeking an abortion in the first place.

You might think it was rather odd that an auto mechanic instead of fixing cars helped to destroy them. You would notice the strange disconnect between a person dedicated to repairing cards instead helped to keep them from ever running again.

Unfortunately we have a much worse disconnect with so-called Physician-Assisted Suicide.

Montana legalizes euthanasia

When I saw the headline I wondered how that could happen in a state like Montana. Then I slapped my forehead and emitted a “doh” – judges of course.

Montana has become the third state to legalize euthanasia after its high court ruled December 31 that “we find nothing in Montana Supreme Court precedent or Montana statutes indicating that physician aid in dying is against public policy.”
“What the court did, in essence, was to place the issue back into the hands of the legislature, where it should be,” said Jeff Laszloffy of the Montana Family Foundation. “They said there’s nothing currently in statute that prohibits the practice. It’s now up to us to go into the next legislative session fully armed and ready to pass statutory language that says, once and for all, that physician assisted suicide is illegal in Montana.”

Well I guess you can’t blame those judges. After all a judge who thinks he can legislate has it backwards and just might think a physician trained to heal people would help them die instead. Even more messed are those doctors who get this wrong and have decided instead of “First, do no wrong” have selected “First, make sure somebody is paying for this.”

Sister Carol Keehan is upset by a report in the New York times that the Catholic Health Association is split with the USCCB in regards to the health care bill passed by the Senate. Fair enough – anything printed in the NYT is worth closer inspection and large rocks of salt.

“There is not a shred of disagreement between CHA and the bishops,” she said. “We believe there is a great possibility and probability that in conference committee we can work toward a solution that will prevent federal funding of abortion.” [reference]

Though I would have to wonder why the CHA has made no public complaints of the passed Senate bill? This bill without a doubt provides for federally funded abortions along with a host of other problems. Yet their site has made no statements since the 17th of December. That statement said:

The Catholic Health Association is pleased to learn of the work being done to improve the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009. As we understand it, the Senate intends to keep the President’s commitment that no federal funds will pay for abortions and in addition, provide significant new support for pregnant women.

While we have yet to see the manager’s amendment or Senator Robert Casey’s final abortion amendment language, we are encouraged by recent deliberations and the outline Senator Casey is developing. It is our understanding that the language now being written would prohibit federal funding of abortion, ensure provider conscience protection and fund programs to provide supportive care to some of the most vulnerable pregnant women in our society.

Especially now that a public health insurance option is no longer on the table, we are increasingly confident that Senator Casey’s language can achieve the objective of no federal funding for abortion. We urge Congress to continue its work toward the goal of health reform that protects life at all stages while expanding coverage to the greatest possible number of people in our country. We look forward to reviewing the final language these improvements contemplate.

Well there was more than just a shred a difference between what the USCCB said about the Casey amendment and what the CHA said. That amendment was horrific and a travesty in every way. To support it without seeing the text is extreme naivety. Sen Casey has been more than just wishey-washey when it comes to abortion. There is no way anyone could just take his description of the amendment without seeing the actual text.

The senate bill that passed included the wording of the Casey amendment. So is this a case of the CHA being for it before they were against it? What has changed to make them now against the bill and with the USCCB? Well nothing. The bill is just as toxic as it was on the 17th of December.

So count me skeptical on the CHA’s opposition since they have not even taken the time to write one statement in opposition to it. In fact all of their announcements have been generally supportive with only some “concerns.”

After the deal became public Saturday, Nelson was slammed by former allies opposed to abortion. He tells people he feels like he’s been bitten by the family dog. [reference]

When you invite a dog into your home to be part of your family and you say and do things the dog likes and then give him a sudden kick you should not be surprised to hear a yelp. Sen. Nelson courted pro-lifers and certainly talked as if the pro-life cause was the fundamental issue on which could not be trumped. He talked the talk until he voted the vote or imbibed the bribe. I guess pro-lifers were a trophy dog to be used when they suited his purposes to get elected in a pro-ife state. Pro-lifers were a nice ornament to have around.

Contrary to Sen. Nelson this was not a dog bites man story, but a man bites dog story. Pro-lifers have complained about his abandonment of the unborn, it was he who slipped in the knife.

Using pro-lifers as ornaments is nothing new. Even though Republicans usually support the pro-life cause – you often get the feeling that it is more an issue of politics then one of conviction for many of them.

Back in September John Allen Jr. and America Magazine took aim at comments by Jack Smith of the Catholic Key blog and his comments on Sr. Keehan and the Catholic Health Association. John Allen Jr. wrote:

“Over the years she’s emerged as an important spokesperson for Catholic health care, including the church’s unambiguously pro-life position

.”

There were also comments about Raymond Arroyo concerning Sr. Keehan on his show. A week later Sr. Keehan appeared on Raymond’s show and I can’t say I was impressed.

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — The Catholic Health Association is backing the phony compromise on abortion funding in the Senate health care bill released by Sen. Bob Casey and rejected by Sen. Ben Nelson and pro-life groups. The group released a statement yesterday that is sure to raise the eyebrows of pro-life Catholics.

The compromise from Casey is an attempt to get Nelson on board with the pro-abortion health care bill that contains massive abortion funding.

Sr. Carol Keehan, the president of the CHA said that, although she hasn’t seen the text of the Casey proposal, “we are encouraged by recent deliberations and the outline Senator Casey is developing.”

Keehan claimed that “now that a public health insurance option is no longer on the table, we are increasingly confident that Senator Casey’s language can achieve the objective of no federal funding for abortion.”

“It is our understanding that the language now being written would prohibit federal funding of abortion,” Keehan said.

But that’s not at all the case, according to those who have seen the language and provided their analysis.

Nelson himself said yesterday that the language “isn’t sufficient” and “the basic question on funding for abortion hasn’t been answered yet.”

Also, National Right to Life legislative director Douglas Johnson said the language is “unacceptable” and called it a “far cry from the Stupak Amendment” because it “would break from the long-established principles of the Hyde Amendment by providing federal subsidies for health plans that cover abortion on demand.”

Other pro-life groups including the Family Research Council and Nebraska Right to Life confirmed the Casey language did not “prohibit federal funding of abortion,” as Keehan maintained.

Also, in an interview on Wednesday, Richard Doerflinger, a spokesman for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, said that the bishops appreciated the goals of some of Casey’s proposal, but that they did not actually stop taxpayer funding of abortion. As a result, the USCCB could not sign off on it with their support.

Catholic writer Deal Hudon told LifeNews.com Friday afternoon that the Catholic Health Association is making a mistake.

“Although its endorsement has earned it the fawning praise of notorious critics of the Catholic Church such as Amy Sullivan of Time Magazine, the Catholic Health Association does not represent the teaching of the Catholic Church on the non- negotiable defense of innocent life,” he said.

“Moreover, it does not represent the position of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which has clearly stated that the only acceptable language concerning abortion in the federal health care bill is the language of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment,” he added.

Hudonson continued: “It is utterly offensive to think that any Catholic organization would actively support the Casey Amendment – or any amendment – whose language makes abortion the default position of the federal government.”

Meanwhile, in her statement, Keehan says, “As we understand it, the Senate intends to keep the President’s commitment that no federal funds will pay for abortions and in addition, provide significant new support for pregnant women.”

The statement is curious because the Senate has actually rejected the Nelson amendment to ensure no federal funds pay for abortions.

And President Barack Obama has already repeatedly violated his supposed “commitment” to not fund abortions — by endorsing the bill with abortion funding and signing a bill yesterday that overturns the ban on federal funding of abortions in the District of Columbia.

Keehan said the group “urge[s] Congress to continue its work toward the goal of health reform that protects life at all stages,” but her endorsement of the Casey language would undermine that principle.

This isn’t the first time Keehan has raised eyebrows.

She caused controversy last December when she defended President Barack Obama against criticism from pro-lifers and praised his choices of pro-abortion Health and Human Services secretary Tom Daschle and deputy health care director Jeanne Lambrew.

Sr. Keehan seems to be extremely naive when it comes to the Democrats all pursuing goal of abortion, abortion, and abortion.

What changed in the bill to make it so that pro-lifers could support it? Well nothing. Sen. Nelson just got full federal funding of Medicare in his state. A sweetheart deal for Nebraska and his reported pro-life convictions can be bought.

I am not disappointed in Sen. Nelson. I figured he would cave from the start. He talked a good game, but when it came down to it power over protecting the unborn was more important. I had no hope for Sen. Casey another faux pro-lifers who has shown his stripes before. As for the 15 Catholic Senators who voted for this bill at one in the morning they are not exactly quacking in their boots worrying about what their bishops will do about their support of federal funding of abortion.

If Abraham had lived in Washington D.C. he would have despaired at finding just one righteous person.

American Papist has a good post on this and that the USCCB did not support this bill.

Fr. Mallow also thinks Jack Smith is owed an apology.

Matthew at Creative Minority Report with some fine analysis.

I’ve always wondered what was more important to secularist liberals, abortion or socialism. Sure, the two seem to be linked but when it comes down to it, which one, I wondered, was the principal which liberals would cling to no matter what.

And this week gave me my answer. The Senate Democrats needed 60 votes to pass healthcare but Senators Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman stood in the way for different reasons, presenting the White House and Senate leadership with a choice. Lieberman swore he wouldn’t vote for a public option while Nelson said he couldn’t vote for public funding of abortion.

And this week, Harry Reid did what seemed unthinkable just a month ago. He told Lieberman that they would take out the public option out of the healthcare bill. It’s telling that the Democrats in the White House and the Senate surrendered the public option before they were willing to take abortion out.

Let’s remember, the whole point of this healthcare bill and the main focus of Barack Obama’s first year in the Presidency was the public option. And they just gave it away so that they wouldn’t have to take out federal funding of abortion.

So in short, while liberals say that they believe that everyone is entitled to healthcare even at taxpayer expense what they really mean is that everyone is entitled to an abortion at taxpayer expense. They have proven with their actions that abortion is the bedrock principal of the Democratic Party. [reference]

So true. Instead of leaving it out of the health care bill and then through the normal incrementalism to add it in later they decided to compromise on pretty much everything but abortion. The Senate bill even got worse over time. The Democratic Party being a wholly owned subsidiary of the abortion industry might be a polemic statement, but a rather true one. Before they could get Federal funding of abortion they went this route.

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — The Senate approved an omnibus spending bill on Sunday that would lift the 13-year-long ban on directly paying for abortions in the nation’s capital. The legislation, which President Barack Obama is expected to sign, also contains funding for Planned Parenthood and the UNFPA.

The Senate passed the bill, which funds several federal government departments, by a 57-35 vote, with Democrats backing the measure and most Republicans opposing it.

Passage of the measure today was no surprise given that Democrats won a filibuster battle on a narrow 60-34 vote that saw Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Thad Cochran of Mississippi and Richard Shelby of Alabama side with Democrats to move ahead to a vote on the bill.

Those same three Republicans voted for the bill and three Democrats, pro-abortion Sens. Evan Bayh of Indiana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, all voted against it for other reasons.

Shelby voted for the bill even though he signed a letter along with 35 other Republicans saying they would filibuster it because of the abortion funding. Collins and Cochran did not sign the letter.

Democrats held open the vote to allow ailing pro-abortion Sen. Robert Byrd to come to the Senate to vote and for pro-abortion Jewish Sen. Joseph Lieberman to walk from synagogue to support it.

Several pro-life organizations called on members of the Senate to oppose the bill because it overturned the Dornan Amendment that has prohibited taxpayer funding of abortions in the District of Columbia.

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council called the bill “a Christmas gift to Planned Parenthood” and “supporters of coercive abortion.”

“This appropriations bill guts a longstanding prohibition on using public funds to pay for abortions in the District of Columbia,” Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life complained in a statement to LifeNews.com.

“The bill also provides millions of dollars for international ‘family planning’ that could be directed to organizations that pay for and promote abortions. A majority of Americans do not support the use of their tax dollars to pay for abortions,” she said.

The bill also appropriates $648.5 million for international family planning funding, an increase of $103 million from Fiscal Year 2009, without the constraints of the Mexico City Policy to prevent these dollars from being provided to organizations that promote and perform abortions.

The bill also increases funding for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which has an admittedly pro-abortion agenda and has been criticized for working hand-in-hand with Chinese population control officials, to $55 million, a $5 million increase from FY09. [reference]

That subsidy of abortion in Washington D.C was likely to happen has been know for some months. While the Bishops have been generally quite excellent in opposing Federal funding of abortion, I haven’t heard any reference to funding of abortion in Washington D.C. by them. Bishop Wuerl has been outspoken on the D.C. Council’s attempt to not allow religious exemptions in regard to same-sex marriage. As the excellent catechist that he is I wish that he would speak up about this travesty. Unfortunately it will be our nations capitol which will be the first with taxpayer funding of abortion.

One thing we will not hear is the race card dropped on the fact that the populations of an area with a majority black population will also be the first area with federal funding of abortion.

With Senator Boxer and others once again bringing up the argument comparing Viagra to abortion and that if health care pays for one it must pay for the other for equality; you have to wonder when they will ever raise a serious argument.

This argument makes a fundamental error in it’s comparison. An error that is all to prevalent. True health care is aimed at health. Now that is a rather simple statement, but it seems to be forgotten. Medicines like Viagra are suppose to repair a problem. To restore the body to health. Direct abortion does not make a women healthier. It does nothing for the health of the child other than to eliminate it. So this is truly an apple and oranges comparison.

Unfortunately there is a lot of so called heath care that is nothing of the kind. Sterilization and contraception are obstructions and actually prevent the human body to work as intended. They do not make the reproductive system healthier since it causes it to not function correctly. Hormonal contraception has other effects that not only fool the body into to thinking it’s pregnant 24/7 but has other side effects that cause harm not health.

Bryan, TX (LifeNews.com) — The religious denominations that embrace abortion do so supposedly because they are tolerant and welcoming of people who disagree on issues like abortion. Yet, that is not proving to be the case for Abby Johnson, the former Planned parenthood director who quit after converting to the pro-life perspective.

Johnson, quit her position last month as the director of a local abortion business after seeing an ultrasound of an abortion procedure.

Her October decision has drawn national attention, exposed how Planned Parenthood does abortions for significant profit, and saw the abortion business fail to silence her now that she has resigned.

Johnson now faces a battle of a different kind — getting her local Episcolalian Church to accept her new status as a pro-life person.

“Now that I have taken this stand, some of the people there are not accepting of that,” she told The Washington Times today.

“People have told me they disagree with my choice. One of the things I’ve been told is that as Episcopalians, we embrace our differences and disagreements. While I agree with that, I am not sure I can go to a place where I don’t feel I am welcome,” she said. [reference]

Of course pro-choicers disagree with her choice – pro-choicers are usually irony deficient on the issue of choice.

LifeNews’ headline is not exactly accurate “Planned Parenthood Director Who Quit Now Rejected by Episcopalian Church.” Not feeling welcome at one church is not exactly rejection from the whole Episcopalian church.

The Times indicates having problems finding a church home is nothing new — with pro-life denominations rejecting her before her conversion.

“I was raised Southern Baptist but didn’t find the Southern Baptist community was very accepting of my work at Planned Parenthood,” she said.

She said she and her husband Doug “had been told by a couple of churches … that because I worked at Planned Parenthood, we could not be members.”

“I thought that because this church was so accepting, maybe I was doing the right thing,” she said of joining the Episcopal Church. “A lot of people would consider the Anglican faith a pro-choice faith.”

Well I wouldn’t be one of those people who think the Anglican faith is necessarily pro-life since just like Episcopalians there are pro-lifers among them, but it would be hard to call it a majority unless you’re mainly just talking about the high church segments.

There is a problem with leaving a church because you don’t feel welcome. The real question is do they teach the truth. If not then it is not a matter of feeling, but seeking the truth. Jesus did not say I am The Way, The Feeling, and the Light. I hope like many pro-life converts before her like abortion doctor Bernard Nathanson and Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) and many others that she finds her way into the Catholic Church. While Catholics have some work to do to make people feel as welcome on a personal level as many Protestant churches, we do have the fullness of the truth and will always be pro-life. She certainly needs our prayers in what must be a pretty tough transition. But she was able to act on the truth before when she saw the abortion being performed via ultrasound.

Back in September Bellarmine Veritas Ministry revealed that a number of groups being funded by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development had acted in direct opposition to Church teaching. Most of these groups were subsequently dropped by the CCHD which in most cases had been funding these groups for several years. Last week this same ministry reported that the “community organizing” group PICO was still being funded even though they provide contraception and so-called emergency contraception.” See A Shepherd’s Voice for details.

I remember when the report first came out someone working with CCHD or the USCCB had said they were unaware of the other activities of these groups they were funding. I certainly believe this to be true that they were unaware. Though it would have taken only a couple minutes of Googling to determine how problematic these groups are via their sites. No doubt they had their blinders on. In the so-called “Social Justice” arena there are many groups under this umbrella term that have missions directly contrary to the truth of the Church, though there is some overlap in the Church’s ministry towards the poor.

Unfortunately this is all part of the larger problem of the schism between social justice and pro-life causes. From the USCCB on down there are separate organizations and offices. The USCCB on their main page lists a “Life Issues” section and a “Social Justice Issues” section. Please tell me how the pro-life cause is not a integral part of social justice? Cardinal George, tear down this wall. This separation causes confusion and damage. You can not separate the fight for the unborn and others having their lives threatened from the preferential love for the poor. It is part of the preferential love for the poor that we love the poorest of the poor- those in the womb unable to defend themselves. Just as you can not call yourself pro-life and turn your back on the poor. It is love of God and neighbor that is the foundation of any acts we take in regard to social justice.

It was always a false claim that pro-lifers did not care about the child once it was born. Though judging by organizations that define themselves in the social justice arena, they usually either say nothing about abortion or they are directly part of the culture of death. So many Catholics that work under the social justice umbrella have become quite myopic about the groups they deal with and see as their partners. Go to the web site of so many religious orders in the United States and you see plenty of “social justice” links and support of the U.N. despite the intrinsic evils that their partner sites support. The USCCB via CCHD has been pretty much the same way. For anyone with any sensitivity about the culture of death the very names of the groups that CCHD supported would raise alarm bells. That they could go on supporting these groups for years and years without the least bit investigation into those they were partnered with says a lot about those working in the narrowly defined social justice area.

We should be working together towards a culture of life which see the dignity of every human person. We can neither turn our backs on the poor or the unborn and must constantly remember that whatever we do to the least of these we do for Him. Blessed Mother Teresa is the very model of the unity we should be seeing the distressing disguise of both the poorest of the poor, the elderly or infirm in need of care, or the child in the womb. She embodied the very view we must all hold to and to live out.

This schism between pro-life and social justice must end. From the USCCB on down to our hearts any false divisions must be removed. Abortion is the preeminent social justice issue of our times. But once again it is not an either/or situation and the Catholic both/and must prevail.

Blessed Mother Teresa pray for us.