Pro-life

This is kind of a water is wet story. A Kennedy says something stupid about the Church.

(CNSNews.com) – Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I) told CNSNews.com that the Catholic Church is doing nothing but fanning “the flames of dissent and discord” by taking the position that it will oppose the health-care reform bill under consideration in Congress unless it is amended to explicitly prohibit funding of abortion.

“I can’t understand for the life of me how the Catholic Church could be against the biggest social justice issue of our time, where the very dignity of the human person is being respected by the fact that we’re caring and giving health care to the human person–that right now we have 50 million people who are uninsured,” Kennedy told CNSNews.com when asked about a letter the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) had sent to members of Congress stating the bishops’ position on abortion funding in the health-care bill.

“You mean to tell me the Catholic Church is going to be denying those people life saving health care? I thought they were pro-life?” said Kennedy. “If the church is pro-life, then they ought to be for health care reform because it’s going to provide health care that are going to keep people alive. So this is an absolute red herring and I don’t think that it does anything but to fan the flames of dissent and discord and I don’t think it’s productive at all.”

Though it is nice to have a comment from Bishop Thomas Tobin who is Mr. Kennedy’s bishop.

“Congressman Patrick Kennedy’s statement about the Catholic Church’s position on health care reform is irresponsible and ignorant of the facts. But the Congressman is correct in stating that “he can’t understand.” He got that part right.

As I wrote to Congressman Kennedy and other members of the Rhode Island Congressional Delegation recently, the Bishops of the United States are indeed in favor of comprehensive health care reform and have been for many years. But we are adamantly opposed to health care legislation that threatens the life of unborn children, requires taxpayers to pay for abortion, rations health care, or compromises the conscience of individuals.

Congressman Kennedy continues to be a disappointment to the Catholic Church and to the citizens of the State of Rhode Island. I believe the Congressman owes us an apology for his irresponsible comments. It is my fervent hope and prayer that he will find a way to provide more effective and morally responsible leadership for our state.”

Tip to Jay Anderson/Creative Minority Report

Solid statement by the Bishop. Way too often Kennedy’s and so many other pro-abortion politicians have spouted off all kinds of garbage with hardly a public grumble by their bishop.

On October 15th, Day 23 of the 40 Days for Life campaign, a pro-choice woman shouted obscenities at 40 Days volunteers in Fresno, CA, before attempting to break the event security camera and assaulting Victor Fierro, director of Latinos4Life. The attacker cut Fierro’s arm with an unknown object, drawing blood, and then stormed back to her car and fled the scene. Much of the encounter took place right behind the camera, but the audio was all captured, as well as her face and license plate number. [Via Al Kresta]

Of course there are no bubble zone laws to protect pro-life protesters from violent pro-abortion supporters. This seems to be a growing trend that gets no media attention. With the advent of cell phone cameras I believe we will see more and more of these events documented.

Washington D.C., Oct 12, 2009 / 07:03 (CNA).- Twice last week White House spokesman Robert Gibbs stated that federally funded abortions will not be included in the government’s health care reform due to the Hyde Amendment, a statement which is in direct opposition to two recent letters sent to Congress by the U.S. Catholic bishops.

CNA reported that last Wednesday, Gibbs claimed that the Hyde Amendment will also apply to health care reform legislation. The Hyde Amendment, named after the late pro-life advocate Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), prevents federal funds that are appropriated through the annual Health and Human Services appropriation bill from paying for abortions.

Gibbs’ first assertion that abortions will not be paid for with taxpayer funds in the new health care reform bill came last Wednesday at press briefing at the White House. The White House spokesman had said at the time, “there’s a fairly well documented federal law that prevents it.”

…Then, on Thursday the U.S. bishops sent a letter to members of Congress asking them to “exclude mandated coverage for abortion,” and include “policies against abortion funding and in favor of conscience rights.”

The bishops noted that they “remain apprehensive when amendments protecting freedom of conscience and ensuring no taxpayer money for abortion are defeated in committee votes. If acceptable language in these areas cannot be found, we will have to oppose the health care bill vigorously,” they insisted.

The following day, Gibbs contradicted the bishop’s letter at a White House press briefing.

CNSNews.com addressed Gibbs saying, “You said on Wednesday that the Hyde amendment would prevent abortion funding through the health bill. The Catholic bishops have repeatedly said that the Hyde amendment would not apply to the health care bill and yesterday in the letter that they sent to Congress they said that if language expressly prohibiting abortion funding is not added to the health care bill, they will vigorously–‘vigorously oppose’–that’s a quote–the bill. My question on that, does the President support the bishops on this? And to eliminate this as an issue, will he call on Congress to have an explicit prohibition of abortion funding?”

Gibbs answered that his answer is the same as it was on Wednesday. “There may be a legal interpretation that has been lost here, but there’s a fairly clear federal law prohibiting the federal use of money for abortion. I think it is–again, it’s exceedingly clear in the law.”

Lucas then followed up his question, asking, “But the Hyde amendment is only for direct appropriations for HHS, and that’s…”

Gibbs replied quickly, “Again, I think that law is exceedingly clear.”[reference]

Well even if the Hyde amendment did prevent funding of abortion in this regards, it is rather a side issue. This amendment gets voted on each year and could simply be voted down. The Hyde amendment is not a statue and requires annual congressional approval. So to talk of it as a safeguard is rather disingenuous. Though the fact that is specifically applies to the HHS makes the point moot since it does not apply.

Our legislators certainly don’t think it applies since they vote down any amendment to the current healthcare bill that would put a similar restriction on it. As usual the president wants to have it both ways. To talk like their is no abortion funding in the bill while at the same time making no effort to get his party behind him and placing such a restriction in the bill.

What they want to do is to pass a Jekyll and Hyde amendment. That is make the health care bill seem innocuous while it is really a monster.

Father Z on the same article.

Update: Jack Smith at the Catholic Key Blog responds to Michael Sean Winters who tried to talk as if the Hyde Amendment is settled law. I remember when Mr. Winters expressed so much outrage initially at the Federal funding of abortion and that he was never going to vote for them again, It did not take long before it went back to his standard operation of defending the indefensible. I liked him better when he was rightly outraged.

A PHARMACIST has stopped selling contraceptives because of his strong religious beliefs.

Trevor Dal Broi is telling women using oral contraceptive pills for birth control to take their scripts to another chemist.

He removed condoms from his East Griffith Pharmacy several weeks ago and has banned the sale of emergency contraception morning-after pills.

These pills have been available without a prescription for between $20 and $30 since 2004.

Mr Dal Broi is handing out a leaflet to women with scripts for the contraceptive pill saying that he accepts the official teaching of the Catholic Church against the use of artificial contraception and has a moral objection to dispensing them.

Mr Dal Broi, who is married with four children, yesterday refused to comment.

Not surprised he refused to comment considering how negative the rest of the article is. I say “Three Cheers for Me. Broi!”

More from another article.

“As a practising Catholic, it is my obligation to accept the official teaching of the Catholic Church against the use of artificial contraception,” he said.

“When I dispense an oral contraceptive pill I will ask the lady to sit at our counselling desk where I explain that there is a leaflet in the box regarding our pharmacy policy on the pill.

“It explains that I accept the teachings of the Catholic Church against the use of artificial contraception, and asks the lady to respect my view on the use of artificial contraception and have it filled elsewhere next time if it is being taken for contraceptive purposes.”

Mr Dal Broi said the pharmacy would continue to dispense the pill to women taking it for other medical purposes, such as painful or irregular periods, and hormonal and skin problems. [reference]

SOUTH BEND, Indiana, September 28, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The attorney representing the pro-lifers arrested while protesting Obama at Notre Dame today repeated his request that the judge in the case, who is married to a pro-abortion Notre Dame professor, be removed from the case.

Attorney Tom Dixon’s motion provides detailed support for his assertion in a previous recusal motion that there exists sufficient actual and perceived bias that Judge Jenny Pitts Manier, the judge assigned to the “ND 88” case, is required by Indiana state law to recuse herself in the matter. Dixon states that ever since Judge Manier has known her husband, Professor Edward Manier, he has been a well-known and outspoken advocate of the pro-abortion position.

As his views were well-known and have largely defined his identity at Notre Dame, Dixon argues, it seems implausible that Judge Manier could claim to be unaware of his views on the “ND 88” case, which stem from “the single biggest controversy in the history of the University of Notre Dame.” [reference]

Bad enough that the university employs this pro-abortion professor and has even published a book on abortion under the universitiy’s press.

When asked by CNSNews.com whether he agreed with Cardinal Rigali that the bill funds abortion and should be amended to explicitly prohibit abortion funding, Cardindal Mahony said: “This is way beyond my field. My field is immigration. I really haven’t kept up on that, and I spend all my time on this other. You have to get somebody who spends time on that.” [reference]

Silly Cardinal, he was suppose to say it was “Above my paygrade.” Though you would think that if something is above your field of expertise that you might want to default to what Cardinal Rigali said speaking for the Bishop’s conference. If the bill funds abortion for illegal immigrants does it fit into his field of expertise? Plus I can understand how busy the Cardinal is with leading protests at all those abortion clinics in L.A. and being the visible leader for the pro-life cause in his diocese. Oh wait his time must be involved in something else. Possibly it is the time he has spent persuading all of his pro-aboriton friends in the government. Well maybe not. Possibly it is in supervising those seminaries busting with new seminarians. Oh wait. Oh well I am sure he is doing something. Surely covering up sex abuse takes time.

When asked whether he believed abortion should be funded under the bill, Cardinal Mahony said: “No, but that’s what the president said, too, so.”

And we know how truthful the President is when it comes to abortion. After the USCCB said the bill would fund abortion, the president said it wouldn’t – all without any changes to the bill. And of course the latest Baucus Health Care bill does not change the situation.

Cheer up, less than a year and a half until he has to submit retirement.

The health care debate, the greatest challenge of the Obama presidency, has abortion at its epicenter, and no one realizes this more than the White House. In recent weeks, President Obama, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have all insisted that the health care proposals under consideration would not cover abortion.

Nevertheless, that’s not the reality we face on the Hill. Recently, we had a meeting with senior White House officials to focus on our serious opposition to the abortion mandate in health care reform. They reiterated the president’s statement from his address before Congress and were noncommittal about specific language that would address the current concerns of pro-life advocates.

The truth is that the health care packages under consideration do include abortion funding. Without a specific statutory amendment that includes an explicit ban on federal funding and coverage, we face health care reform that includes abortion.

Lost in the debate over whether or not abortion is “in there” – whether or not you can flip to a certain page and point to a particular clause related to abortion funding – is an understanding among political elites that this is a watershed battle over definition. It’s existential, if you will, and comes down to a very straightforward question: Is abortion health care, or is it not? [reference]

Part of the dishonesty in the debate is to maintain that since the current health care bill does not fund abortion in writing that effectively abortion won’t be funded. Well abortion isn’t funded in the Medicare law, but it takes the Hyde amendment each year to keep Medicade from in fact paying for abortion. Every amendment to the health care bill to pacifically forbid abortion funding has been struck down. The defenders of the bill just keep going on lying that the bill does not fund abortion. The Presidents reassurances mean nothing considering his track record and that the bill has yet been changed by his party. The trick has always been to leave the bills vague enough so that the courts could step in and define what it means. They let the courts do the dirty work for them.

Charmaine Yoest very good article goes on to how the attempt to define abortion as health care, as just another procedure, is going. If we let the culture of death to define the terms than the word “health care” will mean nothing. Just as the health of the women was broadened to include mental health so as to allow abortion, this further definition will be disastrous.

There is no moral concern regarding cloning human beings since human embryos, which develop into a baby, are “only a handful of cells,” argued President Obama’s newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein.

“If scientists will be using and cloning embryos only at a very early stage when they are just a handful of cells (say, before they are four days old), there is no good reason for a ban (on cloning),” wrote Sunstein,

It seems to me to be in the Obama administration at any level you must recite the Obama Creed. “I believe in tissues all tiny. Not created by God and that embryos are only potentials….”

Gee and Catholics get a bad rap for science.

“It is silly to think that ‘potential’ is enough for moral concern. [reference]

So when does a embryo go from potential to actual human person?Of course that is the follow up question that will never get asked. No mention that scientifically a embryo of only 1 cell is a new genome. Nothing more is needed either than the environment and nutrition for the embryo to further develop along the exact same path that all of us followed. Something that only has potential needs an outside factor to fulfill that potential. Something with only potential can not give that factor to itself. So I guess this new Czar believes in some magic substance that transforms the embryo into a human at some point. The act of growing could not transform a potential human to an actual human. So he talks about something being “silly” yet he has not given any serious thought to the implication of what he is saying.

Father Frank Pavone has often talked about that when he talks science to someone about abortion they try to talk back philosophy. Considering the science of embryology and what it reveals this is not surprising.

Here is an excellent article by the Catholic News Agency contrasting Catholics who support President Obama and the comparison between how they treated the murder of Dr. George Tiller and the murder of Catholic pro-lifer Jim Pouillon. The Catholic periodicals that had a bit to say about the murder of George Tiller strangely had zero room for even mention of the murder of a pro-life Catholic. Rather sad, but unfortunately not surprising.

Even President Obama managed to release a short statement on Sunday condemning the murder of Jim Pouillon. Unlike pro-life groups after the murder of Mr. Tiller, pro-abortion groups did not release any statement condemning the murder.

Chicago, Ill., Sep 12, 2009 / 07:05 am (CNA).- Liturgy Training Publications, the Chicago-based publisher associated with the Archdiocese of Chicago, has apologized for distributing a controversial prayer that praised the late pro-abortion Sen. Edward M. Kennedy as one who had promoted peace, justice, equality and liberty.

The prayer was made available for use at Sunday Masses after the prominent Catholic senator’s death on August 25.

The original prayer, posted through the publisher’s downloadable Prayer of the Faithful resource, read: “For those who have given their lives to service to their country, promoting values of peace, justice, equality, and liberty; especially, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, that he may find his eternal reward in the arms of God . . . . We pray.”

Pro-life Catholics such as the 87-year-old priest and blogger Fr. John Malloy complained about the prayer, citing the late senator’s ardent support for abortion in the latter half of his political career.

Liturgy Training Publications Director John A. Thomas wrote to Fr. Malloy and others to apologize for the “extremely poor use of words” in the prayer.

He explained that the prayer had been adapted from the text for “Prayers on the Inauguration of a Public Official.” Calling the source text a “poor choice,” he said that the prayer is future-oriented and not intended as a reflection on “the quality of the life of a person.”

“This was not considered enough when adapted. As adapted for the Prayer of the Faithful, the text inappropriately presents a sense of support for the positions and actions taken by the late Senator by those who wrote it or pray it.”

He said the editors did not intend to show support for Sen. Kennedy’s positions.

“I apologize for our failure in judgment and poor selection of words used in the prayer. I pray that we do better in the future,” his letter concluded.

A spokeswoman at Liturgy Training Publications confirmed for CNA that Thomas had sent out the letter, which has been published on several websites.

Responding to the apology, Fr. Malloy explained his reaction to the prayer and commented that Sen. Kennedy “certainly didn’t promote liberty for the unborn, or equality and justice. And that’s what I found offensive.”

“I think we pray for everyone who’s dead, our enemies, we pray for them, but we don’t extol them,” he continued.

Fr. Malloy told ChicagoCatholicNews he has “great respect” for the publisher and said he believes their apology is sincere. “[reference]