Pro-life

Yesterdays vote on a conscience protection law proposed by Senator Tom Colburn that would protect health care workers who object to abortions from participating in the procedure.

Boo!

Catholic Senators still voted against the protection of these “human rights” including: Begich (D-AK), Dodd (D-CT), Kaufman (D-CT), Durbin (D-IL), Harkin (D-IA), Landrieu (D- LA), Collins (R-ME), Mikulski (D-MD), Kerry (D-MA), McCaskill (D-MO), Menendez (D-NJ), Gillibrand (D-NY), Reed (D-RI), Leahy (D-VT), Cantwell (D-WA), Murray (D-WA).

Yeah!

The nine Catholic Senators that voted for the amendment were; Murkowski (R-AK), Martinez (R-FL), Risch (R-ID), Brownback (R-KS), Bunning (R-KY), Vitter (R-LA), Johanns(R-NE), Voinovich (R-OH), and Casey (D-PA).[reference]

This proposal was taken in advance of the Obama administration rolling back conscience protection that was put in place towards the end of the Bush administration. So if it comes to military service in the time of a draft a conscientious objector is to be protected, but somebody in the medical industry who does not want to be involved in killing which is never licit – well that is another story.

Well we can expect Obama supporting Catholics who often talk about following conscience to respond to this – oh yeah cue the crickets.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, has signed a bill into law banning the use of some state funds for embryonic stem cell research.

The move puts the DNC chairman at odds with President Obama, who signed an executive order earlier this month reversing the Bush administration’s ban on federal funding for research on embryonic stem cells.

Kaine approved the Virginia bill on Monday, according to the governor’s office, the same day he enacted legislation that would permit “Choose Life” license plates in the commonwealth — an act that angered state and national abortion rights advocates.

It is nice to be able to praise a Catholic Democrat for a change.

Lynda Tran, the governor’s communications director, said that Kaine’s decision is “in keeping with his faith and his personal beliefs.”

What keeping with his faith and personal beliefs? Didn’t he get the memo about not having to do this?

“The governor is opposed to the use of state funds to fund embryonic stem cell research, but he generally agrees with the national platform broadly, that there are scientific values to stem cell research,” Tran said. “In Virginia, where there has been strong opposition to embryonic research, he has chosen to focus on other forms of research like adult and placental stem cell research.”

Feddie asks at Sounthern appeal “Who would have thought that the DNC chairman would be more prolife than the GOP chairman?”

On Thursday Hillary Clinton visited the Virgin of Guadeloupe’s Basilica in Mexico City Mexican and is seen here with Monsignor Diego Monroy.

On Friday she is given an award by Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards for her work with women’s health issues protecting abortion. The award is called the Maggie named after racist-eugenicist Margaret Sanger.

Quite a transition from visiting the miraculous painting that has become so iconic for the pro-life movement where so often a painting bearing this image is carried during pro-life marches and then to receive an award that is the total antithesis of the pro-life movement.

It also looks like she was not given any information about Our lady of Guadeloupe before visiting the Basilica.

After observing it for a while, Mrs. Clinton asked “who painted it?” to which Msgr. Monroy responded “God!” Reference

Our lady of Guadeloupe pray for us.

“Early ‘markers’ [of Obama’s record on the life issues] are not encouraging in this regard but hope needs to spring eternal and while Notre Dame may have acted way too early and too generously, I am more alarmed that the rhetoric being employed is so uncivil and venomous that it weakens the case we place before our fellow citizens, alienates young college-age students who believe the older generation is behaving like an angry child and they do not wish to be any part of that, and ill-serves the cause of life. Notre Dame has in the past and continues to give this local Church fine, professional and very Catholic women and men who both know and live out their faith. Most of them I know are ardently pro-life and like myself are probably disappointed with their alma mater. They and I will choose to convey our sadness to the Board of Trustees and Administration in a calm and dignified manner.”

— Bishop Robert Lynch of St. Petersburg.

Yes once again more alarmed at the rhetoric than a President that advances death of the innocent. Though I would agree agree that angry reactions will to little to advance the pro-life cause. Though I wonder if he would include the Cardinals and Bishops who have spoken out and with the President of the USCCB Cardinal George today calling it an “Extreme embarrassment” to Catholics?

As for him being ardently pro-life. Yesterday was the 4th anniversary of the forced starvation of Terri Schiavo and unfortunately Bishop Lynch was her bishop. His voice was not one of those opposed and upset about this murder and in fact he called it a “family dispute.” After her death he issued a press release that didn’t even manage to spell her name right. Adding insult to injury he later allowed Michael Schiavo to get married in a diocesan parish despite the fact that he probably incurred the canonical impediment known as crimen (1983 CIC 1090 § 1) for his part in his wife’s death.

He also was rather dismissive about the effects of FOCA on Catholic hospitals and allowed a man to be charged with”criminal trespassing” for handing out pro-life flyers in the parking lot of St. Jude’s Cathedral during mass. The same bishop reduced the practice of exposition of the Blessed Sacrament in local parishes and allowed the dissident group Dignity to hold Masses in the diocese.

Greg and Jennifer Willits of The Catholic Channel’s show “The Catholic’s Next Door” interviewed Professor Scott Appleby of the University of Notre Dame. It was not an official response by the administration of Notre Dame, though no doubt his reasoning followed closely what the defenders of this decision generally beleive.

One of the things the professor mentioned is that a straw poll before the election showed the majority of the student body support then-Sen. Obama. I was wondering why he brought this up since it seems to me that this should be something the university should be rather ashamed about. While the university is made up of people other than Catholics, murdering the innocent is something everybody can come to know it wrong via the Natural Law. A Catholic university that can’t even impart the Culture of Life to their own students is failing on some fundamental levels. Though no doubt many of these students voted for Obama for reasons other than abortion.

It seems to me that these Obama supporting students have made the exact same flaw as the administration. They voted for him largely despite the fact that he was the most radical abortion supporting candidate for the presidency and Fr. Jenkins selected him despite the very same fact. The idea is that just as long as your selection is based on another criteria then it makes the selection perfectly fine.

One of the prevalent pieces of defense of this has been to “reach out” to the President. To open up lines of communication and to dialogue and to create “teaching moment” as the Head of Holy Cross order said. I think it is a bit silly to consider that the President flying in giving a speech and receiving a law degree and then flying out could do any such thing. It reminds me more of appeasement than anything. I just wonder by these arguments exactly what is beyond the pale? If you can support murdering the innocent and experimenting on them then I guess a President could do anything and could still be invited. This President has not exactly been someone reaching out to Catholics (unless they were pro-abortion) and has continuously ignored and slapped the face of faithful Catholics by his actions and nominations. When you ignore the evil somebody is doing you are not helping them. I guess John the Baptist should have reached out to Herod and invited him to speak by the Jordan River instead of rebuking his irregular marriage. St. Thomas More should have created a teaching moment by signing the document and hoping his capitulation would lead to lines of communication.

Professor Appleby got a bit perturbed by Greg’s questions and wanted a yes or no answer to whether it was a reasonable interpretation to think that Notre Dame was honoring the President for his support of abortion. Greg didn’t really want to give a yes/no answer since this really wasn’t the right question. What the invite does is present a relativistic view in regards to abortion and minimizes the evil of it. This is certainly how the majority of pro-lifers see this. The professor though did understand why people were troubled by the honorary law degree given to someone who supports Roe V. Wade. If the President was just invited to speak the case could have been made (wrongly I think) about opening lines of communication, but the honorary law degree really sticks in the craw of those who want to protect life.

When you have 2 cardinasl, your diocesan bishop, and a number of other bishops speak out that you messed up – you probably messed up. Though no doubt we will continue to have a Kmiecation of them trying to justify a bad decision. Cardinal George today called it an “Extreme embarrassment” to Catholics.

I am a pro-life Democrat. I believe that life begins at conception and ends when we draw our last breath and that we must protect life at every point in that process.

My actions as a U.S. senator have been consistent with this philosophy. I have voted against federal funding of stem cell research that would destroy living embryos.

I have voted to codify the federal regulation that provides unborn children with health coverage under the Children’s Health Insurance Program.

I have voted to prohibit funding to organizations that support coercive abortions.

I have voted to prohibit circumvention of parental involvement in abortion decisions.

I have consistently supported the Hyde Amendment and the Helms Amendment regarding federal funding of abortions or abortion-related services.

And I have worked closely with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and other faith groups to introduce S. 270, the Pregnant Women Support Act — last year and again last month. This legislation would reduce the number of abortions by providing health care, education, counseling, nutrition, pre-natal care, and information for pregnant women.

And he voted against bringing back the Mexico City Policy. So he is not exactly telling the truth calling himself pro-life when he voted against a bill that would stop the U.S. funding organizations overseas that provided abortion that the President allowed. Bishop Martino has written two letters to Sen. Casey about this and as far as I know he has not responded. In 2007 Sen. Casey voted against and amendment by Sen. Brownback that attempted to undo the damage by a bill from Sen. Boxer also regarding the Mexico City Policy. Sen. Casey also supported Sen. Obama’s run for president because Obama “thinks we shouldn’t be deaf to the voices of the next generation.” – irony indeed. He also supported the so-called morning after pill Plan B. If you want to call yourself pro-life Senator than stop supporting federal funding of abortions and thinking contraception is find for a Catholic to support.

Many pro-life activists talk about one strategy only — the appointment of a justice who may tip the Supreme Court against Roe v.Wade. I understand this approach. I, too, believe that Roe was wrongly decided. I strongly oppose the Freedom of Choice Act which would codify the Roe decision. While this bill has not been introduced, I will oppose it if it is introduced.

Strawman alert: I don’t know of any pro-life organizations whose only strategy is changing the law. The pro-life movement has been the force around the crisis pregnancy centers that have multiplied throughout the nation. This sounds oh so familiar to the phony complaint by pro-abortion types that we only care about the unborn and not the born. Glad to hear that he is still strongly opposed to FOCA, we will have to wait and see how he votes on President Obama’s first Supreme Court pick when it happens.

Sen. Casey was sorry to hear when pro-abortion Catholic Tom Daschel had to withdraw as a nominee to head Health and Human Services. So far he has not said anything about whether he will support pro-abortion Catholic Gov. Sebelius. Though his bishop has urged him not to.

What we don’t often hear is the reality that overturning Roe will not outlaw abortions — it will send the question to state legislatures. Many states will legalize abortion in some or most circumstances. And that is assuming that five justices will put aside the principal of stare decisis and overturn a 35-year-old ruling.

As if pro-lifers don’t know this.

What are we doing now to help the unborn? Does the fifth-justice strategy help support pregnant women who need help in order to choose life? Does it help women think through their options? Does it provide assistance to teenagers and college students so they can have their babies and stay in school? Does it help pregnant women who have abusive partners get the support they need? Does it eliminate pregnancy as a pre-existing condition in the individual health insurance market? Does it provide home visitation to young mothers without support? The answer, sadly, is no. Neither party does enough What are we doing now to help the unborn? Does the fifth-justice strategy help support pregnant women who need help in order to choose life? Does it help women think through their options? Does it provide assistance to teenagers and college students so they can have their babies and stay in school?Does it help pregnant women who have abusive partners get the support they need? Does it eliminate pregnancy as a pre-existing condition in the individual health insurance market? Does it provide home visitation to young mothers without support? The answer, sadly, is no. Neither party does enough to help pregnant women.

The problem with this thinking is that it assumes an either/or attitude when we can both help to change the Supreme Court and to help pregnant women. Without government funding we are already creating and supporting crisis pregnancy centers within are area. We are already providing support for those who think they have no other choice. We can certainly do more in this direction. We have to work towards changing the culture, changing the courts, and at the same time providing care and hope for pregnant women, but they are not equally exclusive operations.

He goes on to talk about the Pregnant Women Support Act which he has reintroduced. This is actually a pretty good bill and in the past had the support of solid pro-lifers and the USCCB. Though for the most part I think that we can do more in our local communities than any government program ever will do.

I wish that we had actual pro-life Democratic Senators, but the ones who call themselves so are not consistent and mostly will put the party over their pro-life convictions and in the case of Catholic Democrats they put the party over their faith. I get so tired of Catholics who say they are pro-life and then find every excuse to go along with the Democratic party. The Notre Dame scandal seems to be right along party lines where the defenders are known apologists for excusing the Democratic Party for their Molochian support while pretending that their policies will make things better. Within the Catholic blogosphere I was quite happy to see Catholics criticize Republicans when they support the culture of death. The large outcry that there was over Mayor Giuliani’s candidacy. I wish that the pro-life Catholics of a Democratic persuasion would be just as critical when their party does something evil. Unfortunately the same individuals and groups who supported President Obama as being “more pro-life” don’t have anything contrary to say when he funded abortions overseas or declared that a class of human persons could be killed and experimented on. There is no perfect political party, but that does not mean we don’t hold their feet to the fire when they are supporting evil and in no way should make excuses for them.

I don’t want to turn my blog into all “Notre Dame scandal all the time”, it is just stories keep coming out that I want to write about.

When I first saw Fr. Thomas Reese’s defense of Notre Dame’s decision, I figured it was just about par for the course. So far it has only been Catholics and Catholic groups who in the past have been fuzzy or outright hostile to defending the life of the unborn who have defended the decision. That says a lot about the decision.

Creative Minority Report did a handsome fisk of Fr. Reese’s defence as did Carl Olson at Ignatius Insight Scoop.

1. “In his personal life, Obama has never acted in defiance of the fundamental moral principle that abortion is wrong.”

Hard to know where to begin when the argument is hardly serious. Since when can you sin in your professional life as long as it isn’t part of your personnel life? This is a Clintonian divide, besides as Carl pointed out how does Fr. Reese even know this for sure? But this idea that you can vote and support an intrinsic evil in you’re professional life just as long as you don’t act on that evil in you’re private life is just not a morally sane argument. By that logic you could vote for any evil you wanted as long as you didn’t do them yourself.

3. He supports legal restrictions on third trimester abortions with a health-of-the-mother exemption.

So that explains why he voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection act and would allow infants to be killed after they were born after a botched abortion. But actually what the President had said about third trimester abortions is “I have repeatedly said that I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother.” Notice he is only talking in terms of the state and not that he would personally want this. But the reality is that he has already appointed one pro-abortion judge and will continue to do the same. His cabinet picks and other nominees are also radically pro-abortion. So if he actually meant this he has a funny way of encouraging legislation that would actually support this.

Also contrast the reaction by so-called progressive Catholics to the Pope’s lifting the excommunication of the four SSPX bishops and the outcry over Bishop Williamson’s holocaust denial and there defense of Notre Dame. As evil and uninformed as holocaust denying is, it does not measure up to supporting murder of the innocent.

On Friday, March 21, Father John Jenkins, CSC, phoned to inform me that President Obama had accepted his invitation to speak to the graduating class at Notre Dame and receive an honorary degree. We spoke shortly before the announcement was made public at the White House press briefing. It was the first time that I had been informed that Notre Dame had issued this invitation.

President Obama has recently reaffirmed, and has now placed in public policy, his long-stated unwillingness to hold human life as sacred. While claiming to separate politics from science, he has in fact separated science from ethics and has brought the American government, for the first time in history, into supporting direct destruction of innocent human life.

This will be the 25th Notre Dame graduation during my time as bishop. After much prayer, I have decided not to attend the graduation. I wish no disrespect to our president, I pray for him and wish him well. I have always revered the Office of the Presidency. But a bishop must teach the Catholic faith “in season and out of season,” and he teaches not only by his words — but by his actions.

My decision is not an attack on anyone, but is in defense of the truth about human life.

I have in mind also the statement of the U.S. Catholic Bishops in 2004. “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” Indeed, the measure of any Catholic institution is not only what it stands for, but also what it will not stand for.

I have spoken with Professor Mary Ann Glendon, who is to receive the Laetare Medal. I have known her for many years and hold her in high esteem. We are both teachers, but in different ways. I have encouraged her to accept this award and take the opportunity such an award gives her to teach.

Even as I continue to ponder in prayer these events, which many have found shocking, so must Notre Dame. Indeed, as a Catholic University, Notre Dame must ask itself, if by this decision it has chosen prestige over truth.

Tomorrow, we celebrate as Catholics the moment when our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, became a child in the womb of his most holy mother. Let us ask Our Lady to intercede for the university named in her honor, that it may recommit itself to the primacy of truth over prestige.[reference]

“In season and out of season” is exactly right. Though for so many Catholic campuses it is “In treason and out of treason.”

Well I am not surprised at all that Fr. Jenkins didn’t mention the little fact that he invited the President to the Bishop of the diocese. Though I guess really in most cases you wouldn’t need to and perhaps Fr. Jenkins really thought this was no big deal. If so it just shows his poor judgement.

Maybe the best thing that could happen now is if the commencement was heavily boycotted. If that started to come into play I bet it wouldn’t take long for the President to suddenly discover a scheduling conflict.

A reader sent me this article.

A major research project is to be announced this week that will culminate in three years with the first transfusions into human volunteers of “synthetic” blood made from the stem cells of spare IVF embryos. It could help to save the lives of anyone from victims of traffic accidents to soldiers on a battlefield by revolutionising the vital blood transfusion services, which have to rely on a network of human donors to provide a constant supply of fresh blood.

So now we go with an unwilling human donor and kill them in the process.

But developing blood made from the cells of spare IVF embryos will raise difficult ethical issues for people not happy with the idea of destroying embryos to create stem cells. It also raises the intriguing philosophical question of whether the synthetic blood will have come from someone who never existed. In theory, just one embryo could meet the nation’s needs.

As far as intriguing philosophical arguments go – that one is rather lame. This just does not matter and if we ware able to do this ethically with adult stem cells it would just be no question at all. Plus the idea that just one human embryo, in theory, will do is silly. As if the very first human embryo they killed would be all they needed. Though even if only one person was to be killed it is still intrinsically evil.

Scientists in other countries, notably Sweden, France and Australia, are also known to be working on the development of synthetic blood from embryonic stem cells. And last year, a team from a US biotechnology company, Advanced Cell Technology, announced that it has been able to produce billions of functioning red blood cells from embryonic stem cells. But the US work had been held up because of funding problems dating back to the ban on embryonic stem cell work under the Bush administration. President Barack Obama has since reversed that policy.

Will the lies never end? Nothing prevented them legally from this research since the only ban was for federal funding. Advance Cell Technology as Wesley Smith has amply documented is a publicity seeking enterprise that uses press releases to raise venture capital and make claims that are often just made up.

Fr. Jenkins replies about the Notre Dame controversy.

“Presidents from both parties have come to Notre Dame for decades to speak to graduates about our nation and our world. They’ve given important addresses on international affairs, human rights, service, and we’re delighted that President Obama is continuing that tradition,” Jenkins said

One upon a time there were presidents you might have disagreed with prudentially, but they were not advocating intrinsic evils. Just saying this has happened in the past does not mean it should continue. In fact I think Catholic schools should get totally out of the business of inviting politicians to speak on campus regardless of party affiliation. There are plenty of inspiring and faithful Catholics that should be the ones invited for these roles.

Jenkins made clear the University is not honoring the president for his stances on these issues, but for his leadership.

Giving an honorary degree is not honoring someone – what?

“The invitation of President Obama to be our Commencement speaker should in no way be taken as condoning or endorsing his positions on specific issues regarding the protection of life, such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research,” Jenkins said.

Yes giving an honorary law degree to someone who says Roe v. Wade was rightly decided in now way is a mixed message. Funny that pretty much everybody that heard the news thought that this does indeed condone or at least minimize his extreme anti-life views. Amy Welborn is not exactly some wild-eyed pundit and when she titles a post on this “speechless” that pretty much says it. Ralph McInerny who is not prone to hyperbole says that this invite tells America that the teaching on abortion can be ignored. Just why is it that Fr. Jenkins can give an honorary degree despite the USCCB saying that you can’t in these circumstances. If he is aware of this restriction why does he feel he can ignore them?

These “crucial differences” in positions on the protection of life are not being ignored in extending the invitation to the president, Jenkins said, but rather can be used as a catalyst for dialogue.

You knew that was coming. You can justifiy anything if it is about “dialogue” don’t you know. This was basically the same excuse used to justify productions of the obscene and evil Vagina Monologues. So this latest decision is no great surprise. We have covered this ground before.

“We are not ignoring the critical issue of the protection of life. On the contrary, we invited him because we care so much about those issues, and we hope for this to be the basis of an engagement with him,” Jenkins said.

So how does that happen? When you invite someone to a Catholic university to give the commencement you are giving them and others the message that they are an acceptable speaker and role model. This is not engagement, but surrender.

“You cannot change the world if you shun the people you want to persuade, and if you cannot persuade them show respect for them and listen to them,” he said.

This is a silly argument. Not choosing someone for the commencement is not shunning. Otherwise everybody in the world not invited for the commencement are being shunned. You do not show respect by capitulating your values.

President Obama is “an inspiring leader who has taken leadership of the country facing many challenges: two wars, a really troubled economy, he has issues with health care, immigration, education reform, and he has addressed those with intelligence, courage and honesty,” Jenkins said.

Well we can prudentially disagree with that. He has been a disaster for the economy and the added trillions in debt and his idea of education reform will not be open to Catholic thought when the state is given the role as primary educator. As for honesty – I have to laugh. He lied when he justified ESCR when it was already legal, just not federally funded. He lied about cloning saying he was against it when he has no problems with clone and kill. He lied when he promised that all bills would be on the White House web site for five days to be commented on by the public before he would sign. He has broken plenty of promises, so to say he is honest is silly. Remember he called the National Right to Life liars when they told the truth about his record.

He then goes on about his being the first African American President, but we don’t get past race by mentioning it at every corner. If this is his claim to fame then it goes far from Martin Luther King’s wanting people to judge based on content of character.

The Office of the President issues honorary degrees, and he “consulted with many people” about the decision.

Well he needs some new consultants. Reports are that the phone lines to Notre Dame have been swamped and that they have all been against this decision. Fr. Jenkins needs to realize why people are upset about this. They would never have invited a speaker who had racist ideas. So why is choosing someone who supports murdering the innocent acceptable. Those who understand the evil of abortion instantly see why this selection was wrong. This has been a President who has not given a damn about the Catholic community and has repeatedly slapped our faces. His executive orders are bad enough. But he has also gone after the conscience laws and recently nominated a Catholic for HHS who can not even receive Communion along with plenty of other pro-abortion Catholics including his Vice President. He has provided zero olive branches other than rhetorical flourish about respecting opinions and just plows ahead with the culture of death. His very first judicial pick is of course pro-abortion.

Plus the whole idea of doing this to start a conversation does nothing. Fr. Jenkins should be much more concerned that the faith is taught at Notre Dame so that in the future uninformed Catholics will not put men like this into office. No doubt thought there are plenty at students and professors at Notre Dame who right now seem to have a better grasp about this then he does.

Instead how about a prayer rally to pray for the conversion of the President? We will engage the culture of death when we live our faiths and preach the Gospel. Our lives and actions need to be of one accord with the will of Christ. Choosing President Obama, no matter how personable he is, divides the truth of the message that abortion and harvesting embryos is always intrinsically evil – even if you are the first African-American President.

I am with Thomas at American Papist who is pessimistic that the President will be uninvited. Though would love to be surprised and will in the meantime be praying for Fr. Jenkins to do what is right.

Comos-Liturgy-Sex has similar thoughts about this.