Abortion « Stepping Out Of The Boat

Posts Tagged ‘Abortion’

New Bill to Stop Federal Funding for Abortion

Saturday, August 21st, 2010

In the aftermath of the enactment of the health care reform law, we have been told over and over by the Administration and its allies that the bill will not provide for public funding for abortion, and that the President’s executive order ensures that.

Nobody who is familiar with the bill actually believes this. Both pro-lifers and pro-abortion advocates know full well that they law will require federal funds to go to insurance plans that cover abortions, direct funding of abortions though such means as “community health centers”, and through the rulings of courts on the meaning of terms in the law like “family planning” and “preventive care”. For a detailed explanation, see this fact sheet from the U.S. Bishops’ General Counsel.

In response to the threats to human life contained in the bill, pro-life members of Congress — led by the stalwart Chris Smith of New Jersey — have introduced legislation that would prevent any federal funding of abortion under the new law, and would also provide adequate conscience protection to those institutions and individuals who do not want to cooperate in abortion. The bill is called, appropriately, the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act”, and it would prevent any payments for abortion from any federal program.

Daniel Cardinal DiNardo, Archbishop of Galveston/Houston, and Chairman of the Bishops’ Pro-Life Committee, has now written a letter to all members of Congress, calling on them to co-sponsor this bill. The Cardinal’s letter provides an excellent summary of the bill and the reasons it is necessary, so I reproduce the entire text here. It’s long, but well worth the read:

Dear Representative:

The “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” (H.R. 5939) was introduced by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) at the end of July, and already has 166 co-sponsors including 20 Democratic members. I am writing to urge you to support and co-sponsor this important legislation if you have not yet done so.
H.R. 5939 will write into permanent law a policy on which there has been strong popular and congressional agreement for over 35 years: The federal government should not use taxpayers’ money to support and promote elective abortion. Even public officials who take a “pro-choice” stand on abortion, and courts that have insisted on the validity of a constitutional “right” to abortion, have agreed that the government can validly use its funding power to encourage childbirth over abortion.

So secure is this agreement, in fact, that some in the past have simply assumed that it is already fully implemented at all levels of the federal government. For example, some wrongly argued during the recent debate on health care reform that there was no need for restrictions on abortion funding in the new health legislation, because this matter had already been settled by the Hyde amendment. However, the Hyde amendment is only a rider to the annual Labor/HHS appropriations bill; and while it has been maintained essentially intact by Congress over the last 35 years, it only governs funds appropriated under that particular act.

In reality, federal funds are prevented now from funding abortion by riders to various annual appropriations bills as well as by provisions incorporated into specific authorizing legislation for the Department of Defense, Children’s Health Insurance Program, foreign assistance, and so on. On various occasions a gap or loophole has been discovered that does not seem to be addressed by this patchwork of provisions – as when unelected officials in past years were construing the Indian Health Service or the Medicare trust fund to allow funding of elective abortions, and Congress had to act to correct this grave situation. While Congress’s policy has been remarkably consistent for decades, implementation of that policy in practice has been piecemeal and sometimes sadly inadequate.

The absence of a government-wide law against federal funding of abortion has led most recently to the passage of major health care reform legislation that contains at least three different policies on federal funding of abortion – none of which is consistent with the Hyde amendment (now Sec. 508 of the Labor/HHS appropriations bill for the current fiscal year) or with similar longstanding provisions that govern all other health programs. For example, one provision of the final Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act technically complies with the first sentence of Hyde (against direct and traceable funding of abortion procedures themselves), but violates Hyde’s second sentence (against funding health plans that cover abortions) – and then violates the spirit of the entire amendment, by directly forcing conscientiously opposed citizens in many plans to fund other people’s abortions through their health premiums (sec. 1303). Another provision appropriates its own new funds outside the bounds of the Hyde amendment and allows those funds to be used for abortions or not, depending on a decision by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (sec. 1101). Yet another provision leaves out any reference to Hyde, and allows its new funding for community health centers to be governed by the underlying mandates in the authorizing legislation for these centers – mandates that in other health programs have been interpreted by the federal courts to require federal funding of abortion (Sec. 10503). These disparate policies are not compatible with the Hyde amendment, or even with one another. This is one reason why passage of a bill like H.R. 5939 is overdue.

The Catholic bishops of the United States strongly support legislation to correct these and other abortion-related problems in health care reform (H.R. 5111/S. 3723). But by implementing the policy of the Hyde amendment throughout the federal government once and for all, H.R. 5939 would prevent such problems and confusions in future legislation as well. Federal health legislation could be debated and supported in terms of its ability to promote the goal of universal health care, instead of being mired in debates about one lethal procedure that most Americans know is not truly “health care” at all. Annual appropriations bills could be discussed in terms of how their funding priorities best serve the common good, instead of being endangered because ideologues favoring abortion want to use them to reverse or weaken longstanding federal policy on abortion funding.

H.R. 5939 would also codify the Hyde/Weldon amendment that has been part of the section containing the Hyde amendment in annual Labor/HHS appropriations bills since 2004. Hyde/Weldon has ensured that federal agencies, and state and local governments receiving federal funds, do not discriminate against health care providers because they do not perform or provide abortions. It is long overdue for this policy, as well, to be given a more secure legislative status. No hospital, doctor or nurse should be forced to stop providing much-needed legitimate health care because they cannot in conscience participate in destroying a developing human life.

In short, I urge you to co-sponsor the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act and help ensure its enactment.

Sadly, New York’s Congressional delegation is probably the most anti-life collection in the entire nation (with two exceptions — Rep. Peter King of Long Island and Rep. Christopher Lee of upstate).

Nevertheless, I would strongly encourage everyone to write to their representatives, and urge them to support the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act”. The easiest way to do this would be to go to the NCHLA website (http://www.nchla.org/actiondisplay.asp?ID=284) and send an email to your representative.

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

The “Morality” of Planned Parenthood

Thursday, August 12th, 2010

Every so often a news piece appears that serves as a reminder of the face of evil at the heart of the abortion industry. This time, it was a piece about an abortion clinic in California that lost it’s affiliation with Planned Parenthood, and it offers a good opportunity to reflect on the moral values of the organization that I prefer to call the Temple of Moloch, after the ancient death cult in which parents sacrificed their children to a demon.

So, let’s do an inventory of the moral standards of Planned Parenthood.:

Kill babies? Yes — they do over 300,000 abortions each year.

Harm mothers physically and psychologically? Yes — they even deny the reality of post-abortion syndrome.

Kill a woman with an abortion drug? Yes — there are many documented cases, including one at the clinic in California.

Hand out the same dangerous abortion drugs after a telephone conference, and no physical exam by a doctor? Yes — that’s their newest innovation, virtual killing by a virtual doctor.

Give dangerous hormone pills and injections to kids without their parents knowing? Yes — “family planning” is their bread-and-butter, well financed with millions of our tax dollars.

Encourage violence against pro-life protesters? Yes — the clinic in California put out a comic book glorifying killing pro-lifers.

Corrupt morals with pornographic “sex education”? Yes — they do this regularly in school districts all over the nation, supported by our tax dollars.

Lie to women about fetal development? Yes — they have been captured on video multiple times doing this, giving the lie to any rhetoric about “empowering women”.

Cover up the rape of children? Yes — undercover journalists have made it clear that Planned Parenthood clinics evade state reporting laws, and encourage pregnant girls to lie to cover up the identity and age of their rapist.

All these represent the “morality” of Planned Parenthood. It truly is a cult of lies and death.

So, here’ s the question of the day: what did the clinic in California do that led to them being cast out of Planned Parenthood?

They didn’t make enough money. That was the only sin that was sufficient to have them thrown out of the Temple of Moloch.

So I stand corrected. Planned Parenthood — and, indeed, the entire abortion industry — is a cult of lies and death and greed.

All this evil, supported richly by every level of government, by private foundations, and by “charitable” groups (like many local chapters of the United Way).

Some “morality”.

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

Why We Must Be Vigilant

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

On the Edge of the Abyss — Updated

Sunday, 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: Abortion, Reproductive Health Act
Posted in Abortion, Cult of Moloch, Legislation, State Legislature | No Comments »

Stop the Radical Reproductive Health Act!

Friday, 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: Abortion, Reproductive Health Act
Posted in Abortion, Legislation, State Legislature | 3 Comments »

More Lies from the Cult of Death

Thursday, 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: Abortion, Planned Parenthood
Posted in Abortion, Cult of Moloch | 1 Comment »

A Bad Time for “Catholic” Public Officials

Tuesday, June 1st, 2010

This has been a bad time for people who were baptized as Catholics, and who are now either public officials or candidates for public office.

First, we had the sight of Andrew Cuomo, Attorney General of New York and now the Democratic candidate for Governor. Mr. Cuomo, a baptized Catholic, has long been an ardent supporter of the legal regime that permits the slaughter of unborn children, and has also proclaimed his support of the redefinition of marriage into something that it is not, and never has been, and never could be — a union of any two persons, regardless of sex. And, it is sad to say, the teachings of the Church — much less the natural law — seem to have little or no impact on Mr. Cuomo’s thinking.

Next, we had the selection by Mr. Cuomo of a running mate for Lieutenant Governor. Now, it has to be admitted that nobody has ever been able to identify the purpose of that office (aside from waiting for the Governor either to leave the state or resign in disgrace). But it’s a position that has to be filled, and Mr. Cuomo selected the Mayor of Rochester, Robert Duffy. Like his mentor, Mr. Duffy was also baptized as a Catholic, yet he too has proclaimed that he favors the legal destruction of human beings in the womb, and the radical re-definition of marriage.

So the Democrats are 0 for 2 this week.

Then, we have the imminent possibility that the Republican and Conservative Parties will nominate Rick Lazio for Governor. Also a baptized Catholic, and also in favor of permitting the killing of unborn children with impunity, and favors “civil unions” for same-sex couples, even though that is just a re-definition of marriage by stealth.

Yes, the Republican and Conservative Parties are the ostensibly pro-life parties, which gives a pretty clear idea of the dismal state of New York politics for pro-lifers.

And finally, last but not least, we have yet again the spectacle of the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, demonstrating the old adage that sin darkens the mind and blunts the intellect. Without any sense of self-awareness, the baptized Catholic yet ardently pro-abortion Ms. Pelosi spoke to a group of “Catholic” activists in May, in a speech that was just recently made public. In her remarks, she said the following (I added the emphasis):

“They ask me all the time, ‘What is your favorite this? What is your favorite that? What is your favorite that?’ And one time, ‘What is your favorite word?’ And I said, ‘My favorite word? That is really easy. My favorite word is the Word, is the Word. And that is everything. It says it all for us. And you know the biblical reference, you know the Gospel reference of the Word.”

“And that Word is, we have to give voice to what that means in terms of public policy that would be in keeping with the values of the Word. The Word. Isn’t it a beautiful word when you think of it? It just covers everything. The Word.

“Fill it in with anything you want. But, of course, we know it means: ‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us.’ And that’s the great mystery of our faith. He will come again. He will come again. So, we have to make sure we’re prepared to answer in this life, or otherwise, as to how we have measured up.”

There has been no response yet from the millions of unborn children who have been killed while the deplorable Ms. Pelosi has had a hand in shaping American public affairs, and while she has accumulated a virtually uniformly pro-abortion voting record in Congress.

This calls to mind my favorite quote from Cardinal Egan. He was speaking about Ms. Pelosi, but he might as well have been speaking about Mr. Cuomo, Mr. Duffy, and Mr. Lazio as well.

We are blessed in the 21st century with crystal-clear photographs and action films of the living realities within their pregnant mothers. No one with the slightest measure of integrity or honor could fail to know what these marvelous beings manifestly, clearly, and obviously are, as they smile and wave into the world outside the womb. In simplest terms, they are human beings with an inalienable right to live, a right that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is bound to defend at all costs for the most basic of ethical reasons. They are not parts of their mothers, and what they are depends not at all upon the opinions of theologians of any faith. Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being “chooses” to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name. (emphasis added)

If there’s one thing that’s clear from this, it’s that now, more than ever, we need to redouble our prayers for the conversion of heart of our public officials, especially those who are fellow members of the Church of Christ.

Tags: Abortion, Catholic Public Officials, Same-Sex "Marriage"
Posted in Abortion, Catholic Public Officials, Discipleship, Same-Sex "Marriage" | 2 Comments »

Misguided “Personhood” Initiatives

Thursday, May 6th, 2010

In a number of states, pro-lifers are sponsoring what they call “personhood” initiatives — either legislation or state constitutional amendments that they claim will overturn Roe v. Wade and grant legal protection to the unborn. Unfortunately, this is a well-intentioned but legally and tactically misguided strategy.

We need to recall the state of the law. The Supreme Court held in Roe v. Wade, and has upheld in every subsequent abortion decision, that an unborn child is not a “person” who is entitled to protection by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and that a woman’s right to an abortion is protected by that same Fourteenth Amendment. Obviously, I believe that this is an awful miscarriage of justice, but that’s the law as it stands.

Because the federal constitution is the supreme law of the land (see Article VI of the Constitution), the Supreme Court’s rulings on abortion override all state laws or constitutions. Congress cannot overrule a Supreme Court decision interpreting the Constitution. Nor can a Supreme Court decision interpreting the federal constitution be overruled by state constitutional amendments or legislation. Only a federal constitutional amendment (e.g., the Human Life Amendment) or a subsequent Supreme Court decision can overrule the holding in Roe that an unborn child is not a “person” within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

As a result, “personhood” bills like the federal “Sanctity of Human Life Act” or the “Life at Conception Act” simply cannot accomplish what their sponsors desire — they cannot overturn Roe v. Wade by simply defining an unborn child as a “person” under the Fourteenth Amendment. The same holds true for similar state constitutional amendments that are being proposed around the nation. I wish it were otherwise, but there it is.

We also have to consider the state of the judiciary. Some people are proposing these “personhood” initiatives as a way of starting a case that will challenge the Supreme Court to overturn Roe. The problem with this approach is two-fold.

First, no justice who has ever sat on the Supreme Court has ever given any indication that he or she would hold that an unborn child is a “person” under the Fourteenth Amendment. In fact, only two justices currently on the Court have ever said that they would overrule Roe on any grounds (Justices Scalia and Thomas). Even if we assume (without any factual foundation) that Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito would also vote to overrule Roe, there’s no indication that they would support the “personhood” theory. In any event it would still not be enough — you need five votes, and there just isn’t another Justice on the Court who would vote to overrule Roe. Second, the result of this strategy will almost certainly make things even worse. Instead of overturning Roe, a case involving a “personhood” law would likely produce an even stronger Supreme Court decision upholding the right to abortion, either by affirming Roe on the non-personhood of the unborn, or (God forbid!) by holding that abortion rights are necessary to ensure women’s equal status in society, based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Justice Ginsburg’s favorite rationale for abortion rights).

On the whole, I believe that these “personhood” initiatives are a distraction from practical, achievable ways that we can reduce abortions and increase legal protection for the unborn. Parental notification, limits on public funding, and fetal homicide/assault bills are far more profitable ways for the pro-life movement to spend our time. We have to use these kinds of bills to build an authentic pro-life culture, so that a real Human Life Amendment, or a pro-life Supreme Court, becomes politically possible.

So, while I fully respect the intentions of those who promote “personhood” bills or amendments, I would not endorse or support them, or encourage anyone else to do so.

Tags: Abortion, Personhood Bills, Supreme Court
Posted in Abortion, Law, Legislation, Pro-Life, Supreme Court | 4 Comments »

The Women Who Have Had Abortions — What We Can Learn From Them

Thursday, May 6th, 2010

An important study was released the other day by the Guttmacher Institute ( a research organization that is a spin-off from Planned Parenthood) on the women who have abortions. It contains lots of revealing data, and pro-lifers can learn several key lessons from it.

Among the findings:

In 2008, the majority of women obtaining abortions (58%) were in their 20s; women in their 30s made up the second largest age-group (22%).

42% of women having abortions were poor, a substantially greater proportion than were poor in 2000 (27%).

The overwhelming majority of women having abortions (85%) were unmarried, including 29% who were cohabiting.

62% of women having abortions were in a relationship with the father of the child for at least one year. Even among the unmarried women, almost half were in a relationship with the father for over a year.

Women with no religious affiliation had a relative abortion rate one and one-half times that of all women.

In 2006, the average woman paid $413 for a first-trimester abortion and $1,300 for an abortion at 20 weeks.

61% of women obtaining abortions in 2008 already had children, including 34% who had two or more.

Half of the women surveyed reported one or more prior abortions; most of these women (37% of all abortion patients) reported both a prior birth and a prior abortion.

What can we learn from these findings, and how can they inform our activities? To me, there are several salient points:

Fighting poverty is a pro-life issue. It is essential that we work to alleviate the economic pressures that are driving low-income women to abortion. Issues like availability of day-care, economic support (including health care) for pregnant women and new mothers, and flexible employment rules are all needed to assure women at risk that society supports them in choosing life. This is not just a question of legislation or government programs, but mobilizing the Church, families, and communities to provide the pragmatic support that women need.

Promoting chastity is a pro-life imperative. It is clear from the data that one of the highest risk factors for abortion is sexual activity outside of marriage. We need to reinforce the message that sex should be reserved for marriage, which alone can provide the stable and supportive environment for having and raising children. This message must be pitched not just at teens, but at young adults as well, since they are the largest group that are having abortions now.

Men need to be challenged to support women in crisis. It is heart-breaking to read that so many women having abortions are actually in long-term relationships — and that some are married. Whenever I go to pray at the abortion clinic, I am devastated to see women being dropped off by their boyfriends, or even their fathers. We men need to “man up” and take responsibility for our actions, and never, never, never let a woman feel she has no choice but to go to that clinic.

Healing from prior abortions must be promoted. Given the rate of multiple abortions, there really can’t be any doubt that so many of these women are hurting from their experiences, and that they haven’t healed. We need to continue to promote programs like Lumina and Abortion Changes You to convince women in crisis that there is hope for them, and that they do not have to go back into that clinic.

We need to be clear that abortion is being used as birth control. The contraceptive, anti-life mentality of our society is deeply rooted, and is destroying lives and love. We must do a better job of proclaiming the truth about human sexuality, that it entails an openness and generosity to life. The best way to do this is by celebrating and encouraging those who have children, especially those who have large families (which in this day and age, means those with three or more children).

Listening to women who have had an abortion is essential if we are to learn how to prevent them in the future. This study, even though it is from an arm of the abortion industry, is a useful tool in that task. We need to pay attention.

Tags: Abortion
Posted in Abortion | 3 Comments »

Nominees and Code Words

Tuesday, April 27th, 2010

The President will soon be announcing his nominee to serve as the next Associate Justice on the Supreme Court, to replace Justice John Paul Stevens, who is retiring at the end of this term.

Over the past half-century, the Supreme Court has developed into an institution that bears no resemblance to the role originally envisioned by the framers and ratifiers of the United States Constitution. Rather than being a neutral arbiter of disputes under federal law, it has evolved into board of Platonic Guardians Rulers who undemocratically settle significant policy disputes, all under the guise of interpreting the Constitution. For a demonstration of this, just take a look at any of the Court’s decisions on “social issues” like abortion or “gay rights”. In fact, this development has gone so far that some have speculated that we no longer live in a democracy, but in a system where ultimate authority rests not in the people or in their elected representatives, but in unelected, life-tenured judges.

Given this situation, it is clear that the policy preferences of prospective Supreme Court Justices becomes an appropriate area for inquiry and discussion. After all, if they are going to act as our de facto rulers, perhaps we should get to know them better.

To that end, I thought it would be useful to look at some of the code words that will be used during the discussion of the new nominee, and especially during the confirmation hearings in the Senate.

“Precedent” and “Settled Law” — I have written before about these phrases, which are used by nominees to suggest that they are careful to respect existing law. In reality, they mean that the nominee can be expected to overturn previous decisions that they don’t agree with, and sustain those they favor. Or, to be more specific, these phrases mean that the nominee will support the Court’s abominable abortion decisions.

“Empathy” — This phrase was used by the President to describe what he was looking for in a nominee — somebody who would be sensitive to how law affects the lives of regular people. This is a troublesome phrase, since to apply that standard in decision-making would violate a judge’s oath of office, which says: “I, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as Justice of the Supreme Court under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.” (28 U.S.C. section 453)

“Women’s Rights” — This phrase has nothing whatsoever to do with the Nineteenth Amendment (which guarantees women’s suffrage) or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (which bans discrimination based on sex). All it means is that the nominee can be counted on to support the right to destroy unborn human beings in the womb.

“Right to Privacy” — This has nothing to do with the Fourth Amendment (which guarantees the security of your person, home and papers from intrusion by the government). It means that the nominee will support abortion rights.

“Right to Choose” — Nobody even pretends anymore that this means anything other than the right to abort unborn children.

“Judicial Activist” — As used by those who actually care about what the Constitution says and means, this phrase refers to judges who make up new rights and dress them up in Constitutional language — or those who invent new rights, like the right to abortion, and hide them in nonsense like the “penumbras” and “emanations” from the Bill of Rights (Griswold v. Connecticut), or “the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” (Casey v. Planned Parenthood). For those who don’t care about what the Constitution says and means, but instead adhere to the more flexible concept of the “living constitution” (i.e., it means whatever the current “wisdom” desires), the phrase is used to attack anyone who might overrule Supreme Court rulings on abortion rights or other social issues, or who might strike down statutes for exceeding the authority granted to Congress in the actual Constitution.

The public debate over nominees to the Supreme Court offer us an opportunity to re-assess where we are as a constitutional republic. The use of code words deflects from that important consideration. In the upcoming months, as the Senate deliberates over the new nominee, we should be very careful to pierce through the fog to the truth about what the nominee believes, and what the consequences will be if that person becomes our newest Black-Robed Platonic Guardian Ruler on the Supreme Court.

Tags: Abortion, Supreme Court Nominees
Posted in Abortion, Law, Supreme Court | 1 Comment »