New Norms, Renewed Commitment

July 15th, 2010

Today, the Holy See issued revised rules, approved by Pope Benedict himself, that will govern how the most serious offenses under the Canon Law will be handled.  Since the most prominent of these crimes is the sexual exploitation of children, I fully expect that the secular press will fail to understand these norms and present a distorted or complete view of them, permit me to propose a few observations.

This new legislation reflects a great deal of knowledge that has been learned from hard experience during the “Long Lent” of the past decade, and specifically our American experience under the Bishops Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People.

One such lesson is that the process of dealing with sexual abuse cases needed to be standardized across the Church.  The Canon Law already contained rules that, if used prudently, would have been sufficient in many cases in addressing these offenses.  But in many cases these rules were either not being used at all, or were being applied inconsistently from diocese to diocese.  These new norms do what good law should do — make the rules and procedures clear, and make it easier to come to a fair and final determination of guilt or innocence.

Another positive factor is the broadening of the kinds of sexual exploitation that will be treated as grave crimes.  The new norms include possession of child pornography and the exploitation of developmentally disabled adults among the most grave offenses that will be disciplined.  These crimes were not clearly included in the definition before, so it will be helpful to investigators and judges in the future to have this clarification.

It will also be helpful that the process has been streamlined, including easing the process of laicization, the relaxation of rules that permitted only priests to serve as canonical judges, and the ability to resolve clear cases without a trial.  While it always has been true that diocesan bishops had the authority to remove offenders from active ministry at any time, the complex and cumbersome canonical process has at times impeded efforts to bring some cases to a definitive conclusion.

What does all this mean in the big picture?  I think it shows that the Catholic Church, to the highest level, has renewed her commitment to protecting children and vulnerable adults from the wicked sin of sexual exploitation.  For those of us who work for the Church, it is yet another reminder that one of our most solemn obligations, during this time in which the the Bride of Christ has been entrusted to our care, is to ensure that we preserve Her “without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish” (Eph 5:27).

Tags: , ,
Posted in Sexual Abuse Crisis | No Comments »

Why We Must Be Vigilant

July 15th, 2010

For months during the health care reform debate, the US Bishops, and other pro-life groups, adamantly insisted that the proposed health care reform bills were dangerous because they would use public funds to pay for elective abortions.  The Obama Administration and leaders of Congress consistently responded that their bills would not do any such thing.   In fact, the Administration even accused pro-lifers — including the Catholic bishops — of “bearing false witness” when they claimed that the bill would, in fact, pay for elective abortions with public money.

Catholics, including some religious sisters and the Catholic Health Association bought what the Administration was selling, and argued that the health care bill was actually pro-life.  Pro-life Democrats were induced, at the last minute, to vote for the bill thanks to such promises, and the President even signed an executive order that supposedly guaranteed that no elective abortions would be paid for under the bill.  Pro-lifers objected, but were told, essentially, that we were either lying or that we didn’t understand the bill.

Over the past few days, it has become public knowledge that an obscure provision in the health care reform bill (it involves setting up state-by-state “high risk pools”) is being used to pay for elective abortions in at least two states, and potentially in many more.  These programs were approved by the federal Department of Health and Human Services, and at least one of them was already putting out contracts and getting ready to provide services.

Once the publicity started, the Administration began to backtrack, and now promises that they will issue regulations that will ensure that no federal funding will go to elective abortions.

This demonstrates yet again why we must be very, very vigilant when it comes to this Administration’s policies that affect abortion.  It is also clear that legislation must be passed that will forever settle the matter, and ban any federal funding for elective abortions.

Never forget that this Administration, and the people in major policy-making positions, are utterly committed to the legal regime that permits the destruction of innocent human life in the womb for any reason whatsoever.  They will not deviate from their agenda of promoting abortion as a method of “reproductive choice”.   The sad reality is that the Obama Administration, and the President himself, are not moderate on abortion — they are extremist supporters of the “right” to kill unborn children.

Elections have consequences, and so does the passage of well-intentioned but gravely flawed legislation.

Tags: ,
Posted in Abortion, Health Care Reform | No Comments »

Religious Freedom and the Downtown Mosque

July 13th, 2010

There is a serious controversy over the proposal to build a mosque on Park Place in lower Manhattan.  The furor stems from the fact that there are strong feelings about having an Islamic house of worship so close to Ground Zero.  Efforts are being made to have the City government, through the Landmarks Commission, prevent the establishment of this mosque.

I did not lose a loved on on September 11, so I cannot begin to put myself in the shoes of those who did, and who still feel the loss and the attendant anger.  And there are certainly legitimate concerns that some religious institutions are used as a means of spreading violent propaganda.  But an important principle of religious liberty is at stake here, and we must be very careful about how we proceed.

In this instance, it actually helps to have a long memory.

The proposed mosque is right around the corner from the oldest parish in New York, St. Peter’s Church.  The first St. Peter’s was built in 1786.  It’s not that there were no Catholics here before that.  Prior to the American Revolution, Catholics in New York were subject to severe penal laws that restricted their freedom to worship.  Indeed, Catholic priests were not permitted to even be in the colony of New York, subject to criminal penalties.   Fortunately, beginning in 1777 the Legislature repealed these unjust laws, and Catholics began to enjoy religious liberty in our state.  Bigotry and hostility against Catholics continued for many years, including threats in the 1840’s to burn down our churches, and the infamous prejudice against Irish immigrants.

In my ancestral homeland of Ireland, things were even worse.  There were very rigorous penal laws against Catholics into the Nineteenth Century.  My Catholic ancestors were prohibited from owning property or serving in public office, or to publicly observe religious holidays.  Bishops and religious orders were forbidden from being present in Ireland, and the Church could not even establish religious schools.  Catholic emancipation came slowly and grudgingly, and the lingering effects of that oppressive legal regime lasted into the Twentieth Century.  Fortunately, the Catholic roots of Ireland are deep and hardy, and they survived these efforts to suppress our Church.

The upshot of this history is that we Catholics should be very, very dubious about attempts to have the government restrict the ability of religious groups to establish their houses of worship, and otherwise to exercise their religious freedom — no matter how unpopular the group might be.  We defend our religious liberty very vigorously, and we should be equally clear that all other religions enjoy the same freedoms that we do.

Our Holy Father has made religious liberty a significant feature of his advocacy efforts, particularly in countries where the Church is not free.  It was a major theme of his address to the United Nations during his pastoral visit to New York in 2008.  Indeed, the Holy Father has chosen for the upcoming World Day of Peace 2011 the theme “Freedom of Religion, Path to Peace”.

This is a very difficult issue for us in New York, especially for those who were devastated by the evil acts of September 11.  But in defending our liberty, particularly from fear and violence, we cannot sacrifice the religious freedom of anyone.

Tags: ,
Posted in Religious Liberty | No Comments »

By Order of the Court, All Defenders of Real Marriage are Irrational Bigots

July 9th, 2010

I’ve mentioned on several occasions that there is a movement in our nation to stigmatize anyone who opposes same-sex “marriage” as a bigot.  Yesterday, yet another of our Black-Robed Platonic Guardian Rulers in the Courts — I’m sorry, I mean a federal judge — has advanced that movement even further.

A federal district judge in Massachusetts yesterday struck down certain provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), claiming that it is unconstitutional.  You may recall that DOMA was passed  by Congress in 1996 by huge majorities (85-14 in the Senate, 342-67 in the House), and signed into law by President Clinton.  It guarantees two significant things — that for the purposes of federal law and benefits the word “marriage” means only a bond between a man and a woman, and that states cannot be required to grant legal recognition to same-sex “marriages” entered into in other states.  In fact, DOMA was considered to be so strong a law that it was used as the excuse by many legislators for declining to support the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have defined marriage in our Constitution as being between one man and one woman.

This is a simple, common-sense law, and it is supported by wide margins in every public opinion poll ever taken.  But of course, in our judge-ocracy, that is not good enough.  Enter the district court in Massachusetts, which found that parts of DOMA violated the principles of federalism, as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The court’s legal reasoning, such as it is, doesn’t require too much comment, beyond the observation of legal scholar Ed Whalen that “This ruling strikes me as just plain nuts.”  I couldn’t agree more.  How can it violate the Constitution for the federal government to define what a word means, for the purposes of enforcing federal laws?  And how can it violate “equal protection” to treat relationships that are fundamentally different in a disparate way?

Two things about this ruling are most significant to me.  First is the statement by the court that:

… where, as here, there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class [i.e., those in same-sex "marriages"] is different, in relevant respects from a similarly situated class [i.e., those in man-woman marriages], this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification.

Yes, a United States court couldn’t figure out any difference between a man-woman marriage and a same sex relationship, and then proceeded to call every person who is a believing member of virtually every major religious group — Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, whatever — an irrational bigot.  Talk about irrational.

The second significant thing was the approach taken by the Administration in this litigation.  Ordinarily, it’s the duty of the Justice Department to defend the constitutionality of federal statutes.  Unfortunately, the agenda of this Administration, which strongly favors “gay rights” in general and same-sex “marriage” in particular, trumped the duty of the Justice Department.  Instead of defending the reasons underlying DOMA, the Justice Department instead told the court that it “does not believe that DOMA is rationally related to any legitimate government interests in procreation and child-rearing.”   In other words, the Administration gave the judge a nod and a wink, implicitly telling him that they would like him to void the law.

There are many issues involved in these kinds of case:  the replacement of democracy by a judicial oligarchy, the inversion of values in our culture, the willingness of elites to impose their agendas on the people.  To me, the worst thing is the growing momentum behind the marginalization of religious persons, branding us as bigots.  That has frightening implications for the future.

Tags:
Posted in Intolerance, Same-Sex "Marriage" | No Comments »

Erasing the First Amendment

July 8th, 2010

When we all studied American History and Civics 101 in school, we were taught that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees religious liberty to all.  It ensures that the government cannot interfere with religious belief or practice, nor canthe state reward or punish religious people or groups for their beliefs.  All religions are to be treated equally, with no favoritism or legal restrictions.  It’s to enjoy this specific freedom that the early settlers, and many of our ancestors, came to this country.  It’s part of what makes America great.

Too bad that the Supreme Court has been on a path to erase the First Amendment to the Constitution.

This has nothing to do with the issue of prayer in public schools or copies of the Ten Commandments in public buildings.  It has everything to do with marginalizing and penalizing religious practices that are not popular with the current powers that be.

The first major instance of this came in 1990, in the case of Employment Division v. Smith.  The case involved the denial of unemployment benefits to several Native Americans, pursuant to a rule that denied benefits to anyone who couldn’t pass a drug test.  But the reason they couldn’t pass the test is because they used the drug peyote in their religious practices — much as we use wine at Mass.  They challenged the law, claiming that it would force them to violate their religious beliefs.

The Supreme Court held that they were properly denied the benefits, because the government is not required under the Constitution to grant exceptions to neutral laws that apply to all people, even if that law imposes a burden on a person’s religious liberty.  In essence, the Court held that the government can require a person to forego their religious practices — to give up their sacraments — in order to qualify for benefits.

In one decision, the Court essentially gutted the “free exercise” clause of the First Amendment.  The irony is that the majority opinion was by a man whose religion is frequently a subject for attention and comment — the Catholic Justice Scalia.

The most recent shredding of religious liberty came last week, in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez.  This case arose at a public university law school — an arm of a state government.  The Christian Legal Society, an interfaith group of law students, adoped rules that required all its officers and members to subscribe to a basic tenet of Christian moral teaching — that sexual relations are properly reserved only to a man and woman joined in a marriage.  The school denied the organization recognition because of this provision “discriminated” against personw who are engaged in homosexual acts and relationships. The effect of this was to deny the Christian students access to funding and activites that were open to all other kinds of groups (including, ironically, a “gay and lesbian” association).

The Supreme Court upheld the denial of recognition to the group, holding that the school could require that all student organizations accept anyone who applies, both as members and as leaders.  In essence, the Court decided that the state government has the power to regulate the identity and message of religious organizations, and can force them to accept people who deny or undermine the integrity of their beliefs.  And, by implication, the Court’s decision means that a religious group cannot be a full participant in the “marketplace of ideas” unless its beliefs conform to current standards of political correctness.  In other words, the government can play favorites among religious groups — granting “equal” access to those it approves, and denying it to those it disapproves.

So much for the “free exercise” and “free association” rights that are supposedly guaranteed under the First Amendment.

This decision was written by Justice Ginsburg, but was joined by two Catholic Justices, Kennedy and Sotomayor.  Since this was Justice Sotomayor’s first foray into religious liberty jurisprudence, it does not bode well for how she will rule in future cases.

There is a movement afoot in America to stigmatize religious people who uphold traditional moral teaching (particularly about homosexuality and other sexual subjects) as bigots who do not have to be tolerated in the public square.  Whether they knew so or not, the Justices of the Supreme Court have advanced that agenda and, in doing so, have reduced the liberties of all.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Intolerance, Law, Religious Liberty, Supreme Court | No Comments »

On the Edge of the Abyss — Updated

June 27th, 2010

New York State stands poised on the edge of an abyss.  Our State Legislature is contemplating enacting an evil law, called “The Reproductive Health Act”.  As with all acts of the Evil One, this bill is a lie.  It has nothing to do with the health of anyone’s reproductive system.

It is instead dedicated to the killing of unborn children, to enshrining that iniquitous practice in our laws to the maximum extent possible, and to forcing compliance with this monstrous practice by all citizens.

I have written about this bill before (see here), and the New York State Catholic Conference has an exhaustive analysis of the bill and an action alert to allow people to contact their legislators.  Anyone interested in the details of the bill should consult these sources, and consider what our legislators are on the verge of enacting.

For me, I would like to return to first principles, and contemplate the bigger picture.   We have to start talking seriously about the disturbing fact that the legal regime that permits abortion, and this bill in particular, undermine the nature of civil society itself, and call into question the fundamental legitimacy of our current system of laws.

In his great encyclical, The Gospel of Life, Pope John Paul had this to say:

The real purpose of civil law is to guarantee an ordered social coexistence in true justice, so that all may “lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way” (1 Tim 2:2). Precisely for this reason, civil law must ensure that all members of society enjoy respect for certain fundamental rights which innately belong to the person, rights which every positive law must recognize and guarantee. First and fundamental among these is the inviolable right to life of every innocent human being. (71)

Laws which authorize and promote abortion and euthanasia are therefore radically opposed not only to the good of the individual but also to the common good; as such they are completely lacking in authentic juridical validity. Disregard for the right to life, precisely because it leads to the killing of the person whom society exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good. Consequently, a civil law authorizing abortion or euthanasia ceases by that very fact to be a true, morally binding civil law. (72)

Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection…  In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to “take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it”. (73)

Lest anyone think for a moment that this is merely a Catholic sectarian position, allow me to add another quote, this time from a man who was not Catholic, and is considered so significant a figure in American history that his birthday is recognized as a federal holiday:

… [T]here are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all”

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.

Those words were written by Rev. Martin Luther King, in his famous “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”.

Make no mistake.  Legalized abortion has pushed America far into a Culture of Death.  The Reproductive Health Act would cast us even further into an abyss where death is celebrated, life is denigrated, good is called evil and evil good.

We must stand firm, and oppose this evil.

UPDATE –

The New York State Legislature adjourned on July 2 without taking any action on the Reproductive Health Act.  However, the state budget has not been finished and it is likely that the Legislature will return during the summer to finalize their fiscal negotiations.  As a result, it is still possible that RHA may be taken up by the Legislature when they return into session later this summer.  We need to be alert, since we may be called back into action on short notice.

Tags: ,
Posted in Abortion, Cult of Moloch, Legislation, State Legislature | No Comments »

Stop the Radical Reproductive Health Act!

June 18th, 2010

Our dysfunctional New York State Legislature, having failed for months in its fundamental duty to govern our state responsibly, is now threatening to ram through a radical pro-abortion bill, hoping that the public won’t notice.

The so-called “Reproductive Health Act”, which was first introduced by disgraced Governor Eliot Spitzer, and then adopted by Governor David Paterson, has languished in the State Senate for months, with no action imminent.  Now, on a Friday before the last week of the legislative session, it has been suddenly introduced in the Assembly, and may be pushed through the Legislature with virtually no consideration, public input, or debate.  Typical Albany shenanigans.

Make no mistake here.  This bill has nothing whatsoever to do with reproductive health.  It is an extremist pro-abortion bill that would establish the destruction of unborn human beings as a “fundamental right”, and make it impossible to pass common-sense regulations, like parental notification laws. It would also undermine or eliminate the conscience protections in law that protect religious liberties, under the guise of eliminating “discrimination” against the newly-recognized “fundamental right”. Church-owned hospitals, social service agencies, and schools could be required to promote, perform, or refer for abortions. Our schools could be required to help pregnant girls to get an abortion, or risk being sued for “discrimination”. And the licenses of doctors, nurses, and other professionals could be at risk if they don’t promote, perform or refer for abortions.  More information about the bill can be found on the New York State Catholic Conference’s website.

Any legislator who votes for this bill will not be able to hide behind the phony rubric of being “pro-choice”.  This bill is pro-abortion, pure and simple, and would compel every part of society to acquiesce in the legal regime that refuses to recognize the most fundamental right, the right to life, for unborn children.

The Catholic Conference is calling upon everyone who values human life to immediately contact their State Senator and Assembly Representative.  The easiest way is to send an e-mail through the Catholic Conference web site.  Phone calls should also be made; representatives’ phone numbers can be found on the Catholic Conference’s website.

Please don’t let the State Legislature get away with this injustice.  Take action now.  Spread the word.  And pray.

Tags: ,
Posted in Abortion, Legislation, State Legislature | 2 Comments »

Dishonoring Marriage

June 15th, 2010

Our New York State Legislature, unable to do their basic duty to pass a budget, has turned instead to real mischief — they are going to dishonor marriage by passing a so-called “no-fault divorce” bill.  The Senate passed it today (by one vote), and the Assembly is expected to follow suit soon.

New York is the only state in the nation that does not yet have a “no-fault divorce” law.  Divorce is always a tragedy, but sometimes it is necessary to protect the well-being of a spouse or children.  But it shouldn’t be easier to end a marriage than it is to get out of a cell phone contract.

Essentially, this “no-fault” bill will establish a new ground for divorce — all you need is for one spouse to swear under oath that the marriage has been “broken down irretrievably” for a period of six months.  In essence, you could just run down to the corner drug store and swear before the notary that your marriage isn’t working, and that’s the end of it.

This utterly fails to respect the importance of marriage to individuals, families, and society.  Unilateral divorce by ambush would be permitted and even encouraged by this law.  There is no standard for determining what’s “broken down irretrievably” – it is an entirely subjective standard that is based entirely on the attitude of the spouse who wants to end the marriage.   There is no requirement of mediation or counseling to stave off an unnecessary divorce.  And there’s no waiting period before the divorce is granted, which doesn’t allow for a “cooling off period” for reconciliation.  That’s important, because many people have regrets about their divorce, and many couples reconcile during the process.  Even worse, there is no consideration for the best interests of the children in dissolving the marriage, or any requirement that they receive counseling.

The “no-fault” approach completely turns the law on its head.  Marriage will be the only civil contract that can be breached for any reason at all, with no demonstration of fault, and no damages to the injured  party.  This makes the marriage contract less worthy of protection (and easier to get out of) than mere economic contracts (e.g., a cell phone contract or a real estate lease).  This also gives an unfair advantage to a wrong-doer (e.g., the spouse who abandons the other, or an adulterer).  This is contrary to the traditional legal “clean hands” doctrine, under which you can’t ask for relief from the court when you have committed misconduct.

Contrary to what its advocates claim, “no-fault” divorce will not eliminate conflict from the domestic relations courts.  Because the legislation permits divorce by ambush, an innocent party can be blindsided by a wrong-doer — not only will that  fail to eliminate conflict, it will make it worse.  And the bill does nothing to reduce disputes over any of the other key issues at play in a divorce — maintenance, child custody and support.  These will still have to be resolved by the courts, and because the innocent party is treated so cavalierly, the level of conflict over these issues will likely increase.

Of course, there are parties to the divorce whose interests will be well-protected by our Legislature — the lawyers.  Alongside the “no-fault” bill, they will also pass a bill that ensures that legal fees are paid by the more wealthy party to the divorce.  So, the psychological and social well-being of kids — not so important to our solons.  But the economic health of lawyers?  That will be fully protected.

Once again, our New York State government has lived down to expectations.  This time, instead of just passing bad economic legislation, they’re dishonoring the foundation of society itself — marriage and the family.  Shame on them.

UPDATE — In an extraordinary example of incompetent journalism, the Times led its story on the bill today by stating that the Senate “approved legislation that would permit couples to separate by mutual consent…”  Sorry, that’s not even close.  New York already has a method by which couples could end their marriage by consent — it involves a formal separation agreement, or just not contesting the grounds for divorce (e.g., abandonment).  This bill has nothing to do with mutual consent, and everything to do with empowering one spouse to try to get out of the marriage unilaterally.  Don’t they have editors at the Times, or reporters who can read legislation?

Tags:
Posted in Marriage, State Legislature | 2 Comments »

Where Would I Be Without These Men?

June 13th, 2010

Fr. Edward Higgins, OFMCap, baptized me.

Msgr. John Considine gave me my First Holy Communion.  Hundred of other priests have followed in his footsteps and given me the Body of Christ.

Bishop Patrick Ahern confirmed me.

Fr. Frank Corry witnessed my marriage.

Hundreds of priests have heard my Confession and have absolved me of my sins. (I can’t recall who was the first, but God bless him)

I was educated by, among many others, the great Msgr. William Smith.

I have had the privilege of calling many priests my friends.

Where would I be without these men?

This week marks the end of the Year for Priests, as declared by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.  The intention of the year was to call the Catholic people to a deeper awareness of the value of our priests, and to pray for their growth in holiness and virtue.  It was also designed to renew our priests in their sacred vocation, and to encourage them in their witness to Christ in our world.

There have been many great events during this year, particularly the beautiful celebrations in Rome offered by our Holy Father himself.  Archbishop Dolan has worked very hard to reach out to our priests, to boost their morale and to demonstrate to them how much they are valued and loved.

Over the last two weeks, I have had the privilege of seeing most of the priests of the Archdiocese, and many religious priests, at the safe environment program we just put on up at St. Joseph’s Seminary.  It was truly awe-inspiring to stand on the podium and look out at the hundreds of men who have placed themselves in the person of Christ to serve us.

These are the men who have helped me in my life-long struggle with sin, they have mourned and rejoiced with me, and they have led me closer to God.  I couldn’t possible say or do enough to thank them.

It’s good that we’ve had a Year for Priests, and it’s good that we take the time to think about what they’ve meant to us, in our everyday lives.

But to me, it keeps coming back to that same simple question — where would I be without these men?

Tags:
Posted in Saints | No Comments »

More Lies from the Cult of Death

June 10th, 2010

One of the consistent lies that we hear from the defenders of abortion, and particularly from the abortion industry, is that they are deeply concerned about the health of women.  Never mind that they ignore the long-term psychological and physical health effects of abortion, or that they also promote hormonal contraceptives that damage women’s fertility and, on occasion, kill them.  Or that at least half of the unborn children who are killed by abortion are, in fact, women.

Still, they continue to say that it’s all about women’s health.

Which brings us to the latest development.  As reported the other day in the newsletter for the abortion industry, er, I mean the New York Times, Planned Parenthood has a new initiative to dispense abortion drugs after a brief video conference over the internet with a doctor.  That’s right, the doctor never personally sees the woman or conducts a physical examination (that’s done by a nurse at another location).  Instead, he just talks to her for a couple of minutes and then dispenses a powerful regimen of drugs that will kill her child, and that has potentially dangerous side-effects.

This, despite a specific FDA warning against buying the abortion drug over the internet, and clear instructions from the FDA about the need for follow-up visits and careful medical screening to avoid dangerous complications.
What are those potential complications?  Listen to the FDA:

Since the approval of Mifeprex in September 2000, FDA has been informed of eight deaths in the United States due to serious infections following medical abortion with mifepristone and misoprostol that FDA has concluded may possibly be related to the use of these drugs.  These women died from sepsis (serious infection involving the bloodstream).  Seven cases were found to involve infection with bacteria known as Clostridium sordellii and one case involved infection with Clostridium perfringens.  Sepsis is a known risk related to any type of abortion.  The symptoms in all of these cases of serious infection were not the usual symptoms of sepsis.  We do not know whether using Mifeprex and misoprostol caused these deaths.   (emphasis added)

I frequently call Planned Parenthood “the Cult of Moloch”, a reference to the ancient demon-god to whom parents would sacrifice their children.  I do this because, in my view, the fanaticism of abortion supporters has all the characteristics of a religious cult, committed to the killing of children to placate their inner demons.

The bottom line is this.  Everything they say about protecting women’s health is a lie.  In the end it’s all about the death of unborn children.   All else will be sacrificed to serve that evil end.

Tags: ,
Posted in Abortion, Cult of Moloch | 1 Comment »

« Older Entries