Posts Tagged ‘Pro-Life’

Capital Punishment and the Culture of Death

Monday, July 29th, 2019

The battle against the Culture of Death has many front lines. The most important, of course, is the struggle to extend full legal protection to human beings who happen to be still within their mother’s womb. Every year, more unborn children are killed in the womb than all U.S. combat deaths in all our wars – combined. This horrendous injustice is a blight against our nation and we can never tire until it has been rectified.

As Catholics, we follow the leadership of our Church and promote what St. John Paul II called “the greatness and the inestimable value of human life” (The Gospel of Life 2) against all manners of threats. While we are particularly alarmed by the recent legislation in our own state and elsewhere that eliminated virtually all limits on abortion, we also see the growing threats in many other areas. St. John Paul, quoting the Second Vatican Council, condemned a legion of attacks on the dignity and value of human life:

any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or willful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others like them are infamies indeed… (The Gospel of Life 3)

Each of these attacks on life cannot be isolated as merely individual acts, but they must be seen as part of a broad assault on human dignity. They not only affect their direct victims, but they have a corrosive effect on all of us. As John Paul said, “They poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practice them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonor to the Creator” ( The Gospel of Life 3).

It is in this context that we must express our disappointment and opposition to the recent announcement that the U.S. government will soon resume executing prisoners. Obviously, there is a grave moral difference between intrinsically evil acts like abortion or euthanasia that can never be acceptable, and capital punishment, which may be permitted under certain circumstances. It is also clear that one of the primary duties of governments is to protect its citizens from violence and crime, and that those who transgress the law should be appropriately punished and isolated until they can safely be returned to society.

But the execution of prisoners is plainly unnecessary to achieve those goals, and it has the direct effect of reducing respect for human life as a whole. America has the most sophisticated criminal justice and penal system in the world, and can easily remove dangerous people from society and keep them separate until they are no longer a threat. Studies by scholars continue to show that capital punishment has no deterrent effect against future homicides. It just isn’t necessary to kill prisoners to protect society.

Fortunately, our society has been gradually phasing out judicial killing. Public opinion polls have shown growing opposition to executions. Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia have outlawed capital punishment, thirty-seven states have had no executions in the last five years, and thirty-one have had none in the last ten years. The federal government has executed only 3 people in the last twenty-five years and none in the last ten years. Most of the executions are taking place in only a handful of southern states: Texas, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Missouri. Executions around the world are also falling, and over 70% of countries have eliminated capital punishment.

There has been a lot more attention in recent years to the possibility that innocent persons are being convicted, particularly due to the use of DNA evidence. The risk of executing innocent people is thus becoming more difficult to ignore. Earlier this year, for example, two men in Texas were exonerated for a murder they didn’t commit, after serving over fourteen years in prison. Just a few years ago another man was exonerated in Illinois after serving twenty-eight years for a murder he didn’t commit. And last year a man was exonerated for a rape he didn’t commit after serving thirty-eight years!

In a way, though, what concerns me most about capital punishment is the effect it has on the hearts of people. If there is anything clear from the New Testament, it is that an attitude of retribution, retaliation or revenge is absolutely forbidden. The law of charity commands us to see that even a person who has committed the most heinous act may be punished but still retains his human dignity and must be loved unconditionally. Any argument that appeals to the effectiveness or usefulness of executions, or any sense of proportionality of punishment, is thus irrelevant to Christians. The early Church understood this very well, and forbade Christians from having anything to do with executions (and military service as well). Church teaching has been evolving in a way that is actually a return to the early Christian understanding that Our Lord explicitly replaced the Old Law of retribution with the New Law of mercy.

Yet when the issue of capital punishment is raised in public, far too many Christians seem to be unaware of or even in opposition to the clear Gospel teaching. Just look at the comment section of any article or Facebook post that states the Church’s opposition to executing prisoners. You will see a shocking callousness and hardness of heart – repeated assertions that we are speaking of “animals” and not humans, an almost voyeuristic description of crimes that can only be intended to enflame hatred, desires that opponents of execution become victims of grievous injuries, greater concern about the cost of incarceration than the value of life, and an uncritical citation of Old Testament penal provisions such as “an eye for an eye”. Some comments by people who consider themselves to be pro-life and Christian display an undisguised bloodthirstiness that is truly appalling.

This is ultimately why the Church opposes executing prisoners, just as she opposes dismembering unborn children. Acts of violence do harm not only to the victim, but to the perpetrator and anyone who supports or justifies them. The Culture of Death is not something that is “out there”, or an abstract concept existing among the  Platonic ideals, or in some law book or court decision. The root of the Culture of Death in our own hearts, in our disordered desires and thoughts that see violence as the answer to problems (see Mt 15:10-20).

That is where the ultimate battle is taking place. It is only in the human heart, with the conversion that comes from faith in Christ, that we can lay the foundation of a true Culture of Life. That is why we defend the dignity of every human person, no matter what they have done, how old they are, or what their condition may be.

Catholics and the Border

Wednesday, July 10th, 2019

There can be no real doubt that the situation on America’s southern border, particularly in Texas, has reached crisis levels.

Record numbers of families have come to the border without legal authorization to enter the United States. The detention centers that house these people are overwhelmed, and a government watchdog has found that the conditions in some facilities have become dangerous to both the residents and the staffs. The separation of children from their families has caused wide-spread outrage.

The causes of this crisis are like a Gordian Knot. There are so many interrelated moving parts — social disorder and violence in their home countries, liberal U.S. laws governing asylum applications, deliberate policies by government agencies to detain people punitively to deter further migration, the insufficiency of current visa programs, inadequate funding, court staffing shortages, and much more.

Any policy responses will have to be incredibly complex. Of course, the laws that are already on the books have to be enforced, and we cannot accept all who come to our shores. Other nations have an obligation to correct the social conditions that are causing people to flee. Everyone agrees that our immigration and asylum laws are in desperate need of reform, yet our government has a lamentable history of failure in getting the job done. Surely the rancid partisanship that has infected our body politic is largely to blame for our inability to even talk about these issues in a constructive way.

That is where we as Catholic Americans can make a unique and important contribution to this crisis. Because of the rich heritage of Catholic social teaching, we can transcend the partisan divisiveness and look at the problem from an entirely new perspective. By doing this, we can focus on the human dimension of the issue, which will help us to unlock some parts of the policy problem.

The foundational step for us to take is to make sure that we always focus on the humanity of those we are speaking about. It’s all too easy to dismiss those at the border as “aliens”, “illegals” or “invaders”, or even worse. It has become a reflex for people to reject reports that challenge their settled views as “fake news”. Tribalism is becoming more influential than facts. Emotionally-loaded terms like “concentration camps” only inflame things. Insensitivity and even cruelty are becoming mainstream. I see all this every time I post a piece about immigration on our Office Facebook page.

That’s not the Catholic way. This is the Good Samaritan moment — recognizing that we are speaking about human beings, made in the image and likeness of God and loved by him, people whom we are commanded repeatedly to love, and people who are in desperate need of help.

If we can shift the rhetoric of this debate even the smallest step in this direction, we will have succeeded greatly in creating an environment for policy solutions to be developed in a rational, human-centered way. Here’s an example from Pope Francis this last weekend:

In the spirit of the Beatitudes we are called to comfort them in their affliction and offer them mercy; to sate their hunger and thirst for justice; to let them experience God’s caring fatherliness; to show them the way to the Kingdom of Heaven. They are persons; these are not mere social or migrant issues! “This is not just about migrants”, in the twofold sense that migrants are first of all human persons, and that they are the symbol of all those rejected by today’s globalized society. (Homily at the Holy Mass for Migrants, July 8, 2019)

Is there anyone in American politics who speaks like this? That’s why we must step into the breach. Unless we start speaking about the people involved in this crisis in that way, no decent policy solutions will ever be adopted.

We Catholics should also remember that this loving solicitude for migrants is not something revolutionary and unprecedented. It is strongly based in Sacred Scripture and has been repeatedly proclaimed by the Church. For example, in the aftermath of World War II and the dislocation after the foundation of the State of Israel, Venerable Pope Pius XII made a powerful statement about the duty to care for and accept people who are fleeing to another country because of the conditions in their home:

You know indeed how preoccupied we have been and with what anxiety we have followed those who have been forced by revolutions in their own countries, or by unemployment or hunger to leave their homes and live in foreign lands. The natural law itself, no less than devotion to humanity, urges that ways of migration be opened to these people. For the Creator of the universe made all good things primarily for the good of all. Since land everywhere offers the possibility of supporting a large number of people, the sovereignty of the State, although it must be respected, cannot be exaggerated to the point that access to this land is, for inadequate or unjustified reasons, denied to needy and decent people from other nations, provided of course, that the public wealth, considered very carefully, does not forbid this. (Exsul Familia Nazarethana, 1952)

I have no illusions about the charged political environment in the United States right now. I get that the increasing abortion radicalism of certain factions in the Democratic Party, as well as their growing hostility to religious freedom, is a grave threat to life, dignity and freedom. I understand that we need to keep our main focus on the direct threats to human life like abortion and assisted suicide, and that any other activism might dilute our effectiveness.

But I also think that Catholics and pro-lifers can walk and chew gum at the same time, and that this moment is an opportunity for some real Christian public witness. Religious leaders from across the nation have been decrying the inhumane conditions at some of the border detention centers. Staunch pro-life groups like New Wave Feminists have been going to the border to help the over-stretched Catholic Charities workers in providing material support to those in detention. Scholars like Fordham Prof. Charles Camosy are providing the intellectual framework for a genuine Consistent Life Ethic that protects human life and dignity at all stages and conditions. More needs to be done.

There’s no question that the policy responses to this crisis are difficult. But that’s no excuse for us as Catholics to shirk our duty to humanize and evangelize our public square and to focus on the real-life people who are stuck in the middle of this crisis. Yes, laws need to be reformed and enforced, but there are a lot of people on the border who could use a little kindness in the midst of their misery.

After all, we have it on good authority that showing mercy is not optional, but is mandatory.

Exposing the Ugly Ideology of Abortion

Wednesday, May 29th, 2019

The recent spurt of pro-life legislation on the state level has gotten a great deal of attention. That also means that more and more attention will be focused on the abortion cases that will come before the Supreme Court.

The latest case produced a disappointing result. Formally called Box v. Planned Parenthood, it involved two laws from Indiana, one that required a respectful disposition of the human remains produced by abortion, and the other banning abortions motivated by race, sex or disability. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit struck down both laws based on the Supreme Court’s prior abortion decisions, and the state then asked the Supreme Court to take the case.

There was a great deal of anticipation that this case might provide a vehicle for the Court to revisit its abortion jurisprudence, perhaps to expand the ability of legislatures to regulate it or even to review or reverse Roe v. Wade. Those hopes turned out to be unfounded. The Court did reverse the lower court and reinstated the human remains law. This is a good result – the more respect we show for human remains, the more respect we show for the humans who have died. This law thus serves a good purpose of reminding us of the humanity and dignity of unborn children.

But the unanimous Court refused to consider or reinstate the anti-discrimination law. It thus remains permissible to abort a baby solely because it is black, female, or has a disability or some unwanted trait. This is a tragic missed opportunity.

Nevertheless, there was a very important part of this decision – the concurring opinion of Justice Clarence Thomas. He is a vastly underrated jurist. If one were to listen to the media, the only thing he is known for is his silence during oral arguments before the Supreme Court or the controversy that arose during his confirmation. But in reality, he is a man of great intellect, principle and integrity, and his opinions are always worth reading because they are so well-done, and so clear about the authentic meaning of the Constitution.

In this case, Justice Thomas took the Court – and our nation – to school about the evil eugenics movement, and its historic and continuing involvement in the effort to keep abortion legal. He specifically called out the malign roots of Planned Parenthood and the appalling values of Margaret Sanger and other major figures in the birth control, pro-abortion, and eugenics movement.

Justice Thomas’ opinion is worth reading in full, but I will quote some of its most important parts that dealt with the anti-discrimination law. (Justice Thomas’ words will be in italics, I have done some mild editing).

The basic premise of the case was presented very plainly: this law and other laws like it promote a State’s compelling interest in pre­venting abortion from becoming a tool of modern-day eugenics.”

Make no mistake about eugenics. It is an inherently evil mindset, and typically uses language that would horrify modern readers. For example, as Justice Thomas noted: “As a social theory, eugenics is rooted in social Darwinism — i.e., the application of the ‘survival of the fittest’ principle to human society.” Sanger herself was an enthusiastic supporter of eugenics and was openly in favor of limiting the ability of certain parts of the population to reproduce because the unbalance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit’ was ‘the greatest present menace to civilization.'” (quoting Sanger)  This repulsive notion that there is “too many of them” is at the heart of eugenics.

This “threat” perceived by the eugenicists was unabashedly racist. “Many eugenicists believed that the distinction between the fit and the unfit could be drawn along racial lines”. Sanger herself particularly targeted black communities for birth control, and even initiated a “Negro project” to promote a reduction  in black births. She was once famously photographed giving a speech to a group of the Ku Klux Klan and bought off black ministers to allay the concerns of their flocks. In [Sanger’s] view, birth-control advo­cates and eugenicists were ‘seeking a single end’ — ‘to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit.'” (quoting Sanger)

But eugenics was not just racist – it sought to eliminate other people deemed unacceptable or flawed. “Although race was relevant, eugenicists did not define a person’s ‘fitness’ exclusively by race. A typical list of dysgenic individuals would also include some combination of the ‘feeble-minded,’ ‘insane,’ ‘criminalistic,’ ‘de­formed,’ ‘crippled,’ ‘epileptic,’ ‘inebriate,’ ‘diseased, ”blind,’ ‘deaf,’ and ‘dependent (including orphans and paupers).” You can imagine how such invidious and subjective terms would be interpreted by ideologues obsessed with purifying the race. Indeed, this attitude was so widespread in the early part of the 20 th Century that it led to the enactment of eugenic laws in a majority of the states (including New York) and the involuntary sterilization of over 60,000 Americans – the last one as recently as 1983.

It also led directly to the legalization of abortion. Justice Thomas noted that “From the beginning, birth control and abortion were promoted as means of effectuating eugenics.” In fact, “some eugenicists believed that abortion should be legal for the very purpose of promoting eugenics.”Noted figures affiliated with Planned Parenthood were explicit in pursuing these goals.

It must also be clear that we are not just talking about abstract principles, possible future horrors, or ancient history. We are talking about current events . “This case highlights the fact that abortion is an act rife with the potential for eugenic manipulation.” At the present time, from around the world, “a growing body of evidence suggests that eugenic goals are already being realized through abortion.”

Justice Thomas specifically cited horrifying statistics about the systematic genocide of children with Down Syndrome: 100% in Iceland, 98% in Denmark, 90% in the United Kingdom, 77% in France, and 67% in the United States. Any woman who has had an adverse fetal diagnosis knows this – the pressure to terminate the pregnancy begins immediately upon delivery of the news. He also noted the widespread incidence of sex-selection abortions in Asia, which “have led to as many as 160 million ‘missing’ women—more than the entire female population of the United States.”  So much for pro-abortion advocates being pro-woman.

And he also highlighted the disproportionate impact of abortion on American blacks. The extremely high abortion rate among blacks in our nation is 3.5 times higher than among whites, and in some areas of New York City there are more abortions than live births among blacks. Justice Thomas sardonically noted that insofar as abortion is viewed as a method of ‘family planning,’ black people do indeed take the brunt of the planning.” Usually, such a disproportionate impact would lead to outcries against racist policies. Yet when it comes to abortion, those voices are strangely silent.

When this anti-discrimination law was enacted, Planned Parenthood promptly filed a lawsuit to block the law from going into effect, arguing that the Constitution categorically protects a woman’s right to abort her child based solely on the child’s race, sex, or disability”. Consequently, the position of Planned Parenthood and all those pro-abortion advocates who stood with them would constitutionalize the views of the 20th-century eugenics movement”. This is directly contradictory to the herculean efforts in our nation over the past decades to eliminate racist, sexist and anti-disability discrimination in all other areas of the law and society. That is the price that pro-abortion forces want us to pay, to keep abortion legal.

In his opinion, Justice Thomas did the nation a great service by tearing back the curtain that hides the true wickedness of the pro-abortion movement. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court – including those Justices who are considered pro-life – has once again shown that it has no enthusiasm for revisiting or overturning the evil abortion regime it established in Roe or repudiating the ugly legacy of eugenics.

The battle for a Culture of Life goes on.

When Ignorance and Arrogance Collide with Truth

Thursday, May 9th, 2019

There is an expression (oddly enough, coined by the heavy metal band Mettalica) that “ignorance and arrogance go hand in hand”. When those two fellow-travelers collide with truth, it can produce a moment of exceptional clarity.

First, the truth. Last Saturday, thanks to Focus on the Family, an extraordinary event took place in Times Square — a pro-life rally. The mere occurrence of the rally was remarkable enough. But what made the day truly special was the climax of the event. Thanks to the amazing technology of 4D sonography, live pictures of a baby in her mother’s womb were broadcast to the thousands present in New York and many more watching online.

You can’t get more of the truth than this. Before the age of science, people could have professed ignorance about what is going on inside a mother’s womb. But now the truth is right there before our eyes, available to anyone with an open heart or mind.

Alas, we must move on to the ignorance. Only two days after the unequivocal display in Times Square, there was a spectacle on television that truly shocks the conscience. Old-time New York politico and current abortion shill Christine Quinn actually made the following statement: “When a woman is pregnant, that is not a human being inside of her.”

Yes, you read that correctly. A human being who managed to emerge from her own mother’s womb, and who otherwise gives every appearance of being educated and intelligent, failed Biology 101 and Common Sense 101 on world-wide television. This is far beyond the point of arguing about the legal concept of “personhood”, or about whether the child is “wanted” or has some kind of “defect”, or what effect the child will have on her mother’s life. This can only be attributed to an act of willful ignorance, driven by an ideology that cannot bear to recognize even the basic humanity of an unborn child and that has created an implacable enmity between  mothers and their children.

An ideology that is so deeply rooted in the denial of reality is a very dangerous thing, particularly to vulnerable human beings whose lives hang in the balance. It is no wonder that pro-abortion advocates are becoming more and more extreme and more and more angry — the persistent denial of reality can’t help but cause great mental distress to them.

And so we must speak of the arrogance. The other day, a federal judge in Virginia — the kind whom I often refer to as a Black-Robed Platonic Guardian Ruler on the Bench — struck down a law that required that only doctors could do abortions. This is truly breath-taking, for many reasons. It is bad enough that anyone would be foolish enough to think that a surgical procedure or the prescription of potentially dangerous drugs should be done by a non-doctor. Our abysmal State Legislature and Governor have already gone that far off the deep end. It is even worse that an unelected judge would be so bold as to overturn a validly-enacted provision that has been the law of the jurisdiction for decades. We truly are far past the point of what Thomas Jefferson warned about when judges arrogate absolute power to themselves — “the despotism of an oligarchy”.

But perhaps the worst thing is that this one single federal judge saw fit to ignore two specific Supreme Court decisions that explicitly upheld the authority of legislatures to limit abortions to doctors only ( Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Mazurek v. Armstrong). It is clear that in the eyes of the Imperial Judiciary, no law regulating abortion is safe from being erased, no matter how old or sensible it might be, and no matter how unambiguous the judicial precedent. A long time ago, in dissenting from a Court decision that eviscerated the First Amendment to protect abortion clinics, Justice Antonin Scalia said this: “Today’s decision… makes it painfully clear that no legal rule or doctrine is safe from ad hoc nullification by this Court when an occasion for its application arises in a case involving state regulation of abortion” ( Madsen v. Women’s Health Center).

Many pro-lifers hold on to a cherished belief that if only people knew the truth about what abortion really is, they will change their heart and mind and reject it. That truth was on display in Times Square for all to see. Christine Quinn and other abortion advocates are able to see that truth any time they want. Federal judges, too, are not barred from finding the truth.

But ignorance and arrogance are very deeply seated in the contemporary legal and political ideology. We must remember that “we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Eph 6:12). Cardinal John O’Connor, the great pro-life hero, was very wise in saying that when it comes to the pro-abortion mindset, we need to heed the words of Jesus about why the Apostles could not cast our a particular demon: “this kind never comes out except by prayer and fasting” (Mt 17:21).

So we must keep proclaiming the truth about the reality of abortion and of the humanity of unborn human beings. But we must also pray and fast for a spiritual renewal and conversion of heart for those who are in the grips of the demonic pro-abortion ideology that has produced so much ignorance and arrogance — and that has cost so many lives.

The Battle is Far From Over

Friday, January 25th, 2019

The catastrophic enactment of the Reproductive Health Act has left pro-lifers, both in New York and beyond, feeling numb, angry and dispirited. The bill legalizes abortions up until the moment of birth, allows non-doctors to do abortions, removes any legal penalty for a domestic violence attack against an unborn child, and eliminates protections for babies born accidentally in an abortion. Perhaps the better name for the law is the “Guaranteed Dead Baby Act”.

It was the most devastating defeat for the pro-life cause in New York since the original legalization of abortion in 1970 and the failure to repeal the law in 1972. It came at the end of twelve years of fighting, in which we were able to hold off the passage of various versions of the law, including one specifically drafted by the Governor’s office and slipped into his budget. But after last fall’s election, which swept away the GOP control of the Senate, the passage of the bill was foreordained.

We never gave up – our bishops issued strong statements of opposition, we sent information to our parishes, our allies in the Evangelical churches fought hard, and about 40,000 emails were sent to the Legislature through the Catholic Conference’s Action Center. But elections have consequences. If it wasn’t clear before, it certainly is now. This is what happens if Catholics, other Christians, and all good people fail to make life a priority in their voting decision. And that means voting only for pro-life candidates and refusing to vote for anyone who favors legal killing of unborn children.

The injury was compounded by the insult of Governor Cuomo’s celebratory mood, climaxed by his decision to have state facilities lit up in pink to mark the passage of the bill. The obscenity of that decision is best seen in the lighting of the Freedom Tower’s pinnacle in pink. Remember, the Freedom Tower is built on a grave – the last resting place for the victims of 9/11, which included several unborn children. Every day in the United States, more children are aborted than the number of people who were murdered on 9/11. The Governor took a war memorial that belongs to all Americans, and perverted it into a beacon of the Culture of Death.

But the battle is far from over. The pro-abortion advocates who pushed for this horrific bill are powerful, rich and arrogant. They think we’re going to give up or that they can force us to conform, but they’re seriously mistaken. We will never stop working to create a Culture of Life and Civilization of Love. So what do we do now? Here are some thoughts.

The real question of abortion is not up to any legislature or governor. It will be decided one pregnancy at a time. The pro-abortion message relies on fear of all kinds — losing autonomy or lifestyle, the opposition of families, abandonment by the baby’s father, and so on. Every pregnant woman’s situation is unique, and we must be ready to respond to them as individuals, not as puppets in a political theater, and help them through their fears to hope and joy.

This is where our pregnancy assistance programs are so important. We clearly need to make a massive new investment in supporting pregnant moms and post-natal moms and babies. We have many great pregnancy support initiatives. One example is the wonderful Mother Theresa Home in Buffalo. Another is the Visitation Mission of the Sisters of Life. There are many, many more.

These pregnancy centers are in the cross-hairs of the pro-abortion movement, which desperately wants to shut them down. After all, they can’t handle it if women actually hear the truth and feel the love of people who will support a decision for life. The Supreme Court recently upheld the free-speech rights of  pregnancy centers, but they didn’t resolve the issue definitively. We expect further legislative and enforcement threats to the centers, so we have to be ready to defend them.

That leads to another key issue – the protection of religious liberty and conscience rights. Our resistance to abortion is grounded in the truth. We can never compromise with lies, and we can never permit anyone to force us to accept them. New York already has robust anti-discrimination protections for people who oppose abortion for religious or moral reasons. But people don’t know their rights and the government isn’t going to tell them. A major publicity campaign has to be undertaken to ensure that people know that they don’t have to knuckle under to the pressure to cooperate in abortion, and that they can’t be punished for their religious beliefs. This can lead to a wonderful legal irony – filing complaints and making our hostile state and local governments enforce the anti-discrimination laws to protect us.

We also have to keep our eyes open for the next big pro-life battle front – this time, at the other end of life. We are not a one-issue movement that only cares about abortion. There is a serious, well-funded and relentless effort to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia, and they have set their sights on New York. This battle has been going on for a while, but it’s going to move to center stage now.

This is a spiritual battle, not just against political adversaries but against the powers and principalities (see Eph 6:11-18). On the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Cathedral of St. Patrick was filled for a Holy Hour and Mass for life. The Holy Spirit uplifts us, even in our dark hours, and nothing can prevail against Him. We have to convert our anger against this bill and its supporters into prayer. Remember what Jesus told us: “In the world you have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world” (John 16:33).

The rich and powerful people in our society like to call themselves “the resistance” because they oppose the President and march wearing silly hats. But they’re just oligarchs in exile who want to recapture power. We are the real resistance. Our goal is not power, but conversion of heart for those who are appalled by injustice. Our message is “come, join us”, and not “we will force you to agree”. The most important tactic is our willingness to testify to the truth by our words and our actions, and our refusal to cooperate with injustice and lies.

We are in the epicenter of the Culture of Death, so if anyone really wants to fight it, this is the place. It’s easy to be pro-life in the deep red states, where they’ve already enacted every pro-life law imaginable and there are few abortion clinics. If you want to go where the action really is, come to New York.

We will never give in to the Culture of Death. We need to keep on our lips the brave words of the prophet Daniel when he stood up against the powerful people who wanted him to conform: “Be it known to you, O king, we will not serve your gods or worship the [pink] image which you have set up” (Daniel 3:18). Amen to that.

On the Precipice of Abortion Expansion

Thursday, January 10th, 2019

With the beginning of the new session of the New York State Legislature, we are now on the verge of having the most radical and extreme abortion law in the United States, if not the world. It’s the latest version of a bill that we have been fighting against for over a decade, the “Reproductive Health Act” (S.240/A.21). It’s more aptly called the “Abortion Expansion Act”.

The leaders of our Legislature, thanks to the wide majority of newly-elected Democrats, are totally committed to passing this bill as soon as possible. The Governor, whose appetite for abortion expansion seems to have no end, has pledged to have it pass this month and has even gone so far as to promise to have the New York State Constitution amended to enshrine abortion as a basic right. Barring a miracle, the bill will be signed into law later this month.

How much more abortion do our elected officials want? There were over 82,000 abortions reported in 2016 (the most recent official statistics). We already have highest abortion rate of any state —double the national average. Over 1,700 of these abortions took place at 20 weeks gestation or later – after a baby can feel pain. In over 2,600 abortions, the mother had at least five previous abortions. Do we really want even more of that suffering and death?

As New York is about to plunge even deeper into the Culture of Death, we must be very clear about what this bill would do:

It is designed to allow more late-term abortions — killing babies through all nine months of pregnancy.

The promoters of this legislation frankly admit that its main goal is to expand late-term abortion.  Current state law already permits abortions through 24 weeks of pregnancy for any reason whatsoever, but only after that if it is necessary to save a woman’s life.  This bill would permit a “health” justification for late-term abortions. But the term “health” has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to include pretty much anything related to a woman’s physical, psychological, emotional health, including things like age and economics.

In other words, it’s such a broad term that this bill will allow abortion for any reason whatsoever at any time during a pregnancy even up to the moment of birth.

It would allow non-doctors to perform abortions.

New York law right now is clear that only licensed physicians can do abortions. This bill would eliminate that requirement, by allowing the state government to permit other health care professionals to do abortions — which could include nurse practitioners, physician assistants, midwives, as well as other non-physicians. Let’s say that again so it’s perfectly clear — this bill would allow people to do surgical abortionswho haven’t gone to medical school, haven’t served as an intern, haven’t done a medical residency.

That’s how extreme this bill is. And that’s exactly the goal of the advocates — because so few doctors want to get involved in the grisly business of killing children, they want to expand the pool of potential abortionists.

It is designed to guarantee a dead baby.

Currently, New York law gives full legal protection to any child who might be born alive as the result of an abortion, which can happen during a late term abortion. It also requires that a second doctor be available during a late-term abortion to care to a child born alive. This bill would repeal these protections, leaving a child born alive at the mercy of the doctor and staff who were just minutes ago trying to kill her. We’ve seen how that turns out, thanks to the horrific Kermit Gosnell case from Pennsylvania.

How callous have we become that we are passing a bill that would permit – and even require – doctors to stand by and let a baby to die of neglect?

It will leave women and babies vulnerable to back-alley abortions and domestic violence.

This bill would completely decriminalize any kind of abortion. Currently, the crime of “abortion” is the only way to prosecute unlicensed abortionists, people who coerce women into having an abortion, and domestic violence attacks against pregnant women that are intended to harm the unborn child. These crimes happen all the time. Just last month a man in upstate New York was arrested after pushing his fists into the belly of a 26-week pregnant woman to try to cause a miscarriage. This bill would give him a free ride for such a heinous act.

At a time when violence against women is being given so much more scrutiny, how can our legislators be so blind as to pass such a bill?

It could compel health professionals and institutions to cooperate in abortions.

The bill declares that abortion is a “fundamental right,” and that the state may not “discriminate, deny or interfere with” this right. The result may be that doctors and other health providers may be required to perform or refer for abortions or risk losing their license to practice. This has happened in other countries and there’s no reason to think that it couldn’t happen here. Medical facilities, even religious ones, could be also be forced to allow abortions on site or risk fines, penalties, or loss of licenses.

So much for the “right to choose”.

What can we do about this?

First, please contact your legislator and urge them to reject this radical bill. The easiest way is to use the New York State Catholic Conference’s Action Center.

Second, we need to step up our efforts to support women who are pregnant and are at risk of choosing abortion. A wonderful example of this is the Sisters of Life Visitation Mission. We also need to reach out to the women who have had abortions and now need healing. Two great programs are the Sisters of Life Hope and Healing Mission and Lumina.

Third, we need to pray. For conversion of heart of our elected officials and advocates for abortion. For hope and support for pregnant women. For an increase in a culture of sexual purity and respect for the sacredness of every human life. For God to withhold his hand of judgment against our wicked society.

New York, and indeed our entire society, is on the precipice. In times past, society looked the other way when unwanted children were abandoned or killed. With this Abortion Expansion Act, we are reverting to a state of barbarism.

Abortion and Elections

Tuesday, November 13th, 2018

The election last week was a watershed event for the pro-life cause in New York. For the first time in years, the Democratic Party gained control of the Senate, giving it complete control of both houses of the Legislature and all of the State-wide offices, and also of appointments to the Court of Appeals and intermediate appellate courts.

Our blue state has gotten even bluer. This is the result of long-term trends, including the increased share of the Latino vote, the increased activism of young voters, growing numbers of people who do not practice any faith, and shifts in political views among college educated people (particularly women) and those who live in the suburbs. The deep unpopularity of the President was a major factor. No Republican has been elected to a state-wide office since 2002, and the likelihood of the GOP staging a significant comeback are bleak.

Why does this matter so much for the cause of life? Because the Democratic Party in New York has become the Extremist Pro-Abortion Party. The Governor ran a campaign that highlighted his support for a vast expansion of abortion under the guise of “codifying Roe v. Wade“. Remember, this is the man who once said that pro-lifers “have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.” The new Democratic majority in the State Senate has promised to pass the Reproductive Health Act as one of their first priorities in the upcoming legislative session, and we expect more anti-life bills to follow — like discriminatory measures targeting pregnancy centers and mandated coverage of contraception and abortion in all health insurance policies.

Make no mistake. This is an extremist agenda. The reality is that New York already has one of the most liberal abortion laws in the nation, one that pre-dates Roe and which permitted thousands of abortions prior to Roe. Abortion is available on demand, for any reason whatsoever, at any time prior to 24 weeks of pregnancy, and afterwards if the life of the mother is at risk. Overturning Roe will have no effect whatsoever on that – the vast majority of abortions will still be legal in New York.

The official statistics tell the horrible story of abortion in our state. 86,627 abortions in New York State in 2015; 367 abortions per 1,000 live births (so over a quarter of all pregnancies in our state ends with an abortion); 505 abortions per 1,000 live births in New York City (so over a third of all pregnancies in the City ends with an abortion); 1,038 abortions per 1,000 live births for African-Americans in New York City (so there are more abortions than live births among African-Americans); 2,106 abortions in our state after 20 weeks, after the time when unborn children can feel pain. The current abortion regime in our state has decimated entire swaths of our population and has left millions in post-abortive pain. It is the very definition of a gross dereliction of duty by our government.

The legislation being promoted by the Governor and the Democrats would make things even worse. It would expand the availability of late-term abortions on demand; it would permit non-doctors to do abortions, including late-term abortions; it would virtually eliminate the ability of the State or local governments to regulate the practice of abortion; it would immunize from criminal prosecution any person who directly tries to cause the death of an unborn child (e.g., in a domestic violence incident); and it would eliminate the legal obligation to have a doctor on hand to care for a baby born alive after an abortion. That’s not a “pro-choice” bill, it’s the abortion industry’s dream list.

I am in the middle of reading the book Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer. The recently-released movie is based on this book. It’s the story of how Kermit Gosnell was brought to justice, almost by accident, for running an atrocious abortion mill in Pennsylvania. The book is a harrowing read. The clinic was filthy, staffed by unprofessional morally depraved incompetents, and the patients were treated worse than animals. The doctor was a psychopath who kept body parts and intact dead babies as trophies of his work. He and his staff routinely and callously killed any baby born alive and threw them in the garbage. It is horrifying and stomach-turning reading.

The worst thing about the Gosnell case is that it was permitted to happen because of the pro-abortion ideology of the state government of Pennsylvania, who were criminally negligent in responding to complaints and inspecting the clinic. The “pro-choice” governor of that state made it clear that abortion clinics were off limits to government regulators. Gosnell was permitted to commit mass murder with impunity because of the complicit inactivity of the government.

Now that the Pro-Abortion Extremist Party is in full control of the New York government, the Gosnell case stands as a vivid warning of what may happen here. We’ve already seen the results of an abortion industry that has no accountability. We’ve seen videos of women being taken from clinics in ambulances due to complications from abortions, the State Health Department inspects virtually no abortion clinics, and they have never shut down an unlicensed clinic in recent memory. Neither the State government nor local law enforcement has been interviewing women who have been coerced into abortions, or who were the victims of sex traffickers or child rapists who were never reported by abortion clinics.

Elections obviously have consequences. Voters obviously were unaware of or indifferent to the current Culture of Death that exists in our state. St. John Paul, in The Gospel of Life, spoke of a “a war of the powerful against the weak” and a “conspiracy against life”. New York is deeply in the grips of this conspiracy. We need to become even greater prayer warriors, defenders of women who are vulnerable to abortion, and promoters of the truth of the beauty and dignity of every human life. We have powerful adversaries, and we have our work cut out for us.

The Truth is on Trial

Tuesday, October 9th, 2018

[On October 4, I was honored to receive the Great Defender of Life Award from the Human Life Foundation. The following is the text of my acceptance address.]

As we’ve all seen in recent weeks, one of the greatest challenges of our time is that the truth is on trial. We’ve heard that we live in a post-truth and post-moral society. But nothing could be more dangerous than to fall for the pernicious lie that there is no such thing as objective, eternal moral truth.

We see this all around us. Academia has long peddled the idea that “everything is relative”, and that we can define our own “truth”. In the public square we see the truth subordinated to political ends or distorted by “spin” and ideology. I don’t have to cite specific examples. Just pick up the newspaper.

We can see this in the sufferings of the Catholic Church that I love and serve. We see it especially when we listen to the victims of abuse, as I do. We see what happens when people betray the truth, ignore it, hide it or hide from it. For the longest time we didn’t realize — and in some places we still don’t realize — that the only way to address the problem is with the truth, by living according to it and accepting the consequences. If you want to see the case study of what happens when we fail to uphold the truth, look at the Church.

The denial of truth is certainly not a new phenomenon. But in the communication age, it is spreading like a virus and is having a corrosive effect on society on all levels — from our public institutions down to our own individual lives.

Truth is on trial, and the vulnerable are at risk. In reality, we are all at risk.

My particular focus is on the degradation of the law. Up in the Bronx, at the majestic County Courthouse, you can see inscribed above the north portico: “The administration of justice presents the noblest field for the exercise of human capacity.” That certainly presupposes that there is such a thing as justice, and that there is nobility in serving it.

Does anyone believe this anymore? I do, but I certainly wasn’t taught that in law school, and it’s hard to see it anywhere in our politics or government. It has been replaced by legal positivism — the idea that there is no objective morality, that the law is nothing but an expression of power, special interest, and domination, and that there is no law but man’s law.

You can see the danger. If there is no law but man-made law, then nothing is safe and, as my first-year Contracts professor told us — “It’s all up for grabs”. Pope Benedict warned us about this, “A purely positivistic culture… would be the capitulation of reason, the renunciation of its highest possibilities, and hence a disaster for humanity, with very grave consequences.”

How far we have come from the day, when in the midst of the slavery debate, the great statesman William Seward said “there is a higher law than the Constitution, which regulates our authority over the domain, and devotes it to the same noble purposes.”

Instead we have a Supreme Court that echoes the infamous Dred Scott decision by holding that unborn human beings have no rights that born people are bound to respect. A Court that says that absolute personal autonomy is the highest value, and that everyone can somehow define the meaning of the universe for himself. A Supreme Court Justice who cynically instructed his law clerks that the most important thing to know about the Court is five — the bare majority needed for a decision.  A series of nominees who are forced by the confirmation process to talk about decisions that were wrong the day they were decided – Roe and Casey in particular – and call them “settled law” that have to be respected as “precedent”.  Not much has changed since Frederick Douglass said of the Dred Scott Supreme Court, “[they] can do many things, but [they] cannot change the essential nature of things — making evil good, and good, evil”. But they certainly are still trying, and will continue to try.

We see this in every issue we face in the pro-life movement, where the powerful first devalue, then dehumanize, and then dispose of the weak. For the past few years I’ve spent a lot of time on the issue of assisted suicide. People with disabilities and elderly people are being told their lives have no value because they lack some kind of quality or capability or because they are too costly to maintain. They are being told that they are better off dead. Insurance companies won’t pay for treatment but they will pay for suicide drugs. Doctors become killers, laws put people in danger rather than protecting them, the advocates hide behind phony terms like “medical aid in dying”, they claim that it’s not really “suicide” and they call it “compassionate”. This is what the denial of the truth brings us to.

Yes, the truth is on trial. We are on trial. The stakes are very high. But we have an answer because our movement is at its heart a truth-teller.

One of the fundamental truths we hold is that there is a law that governs us all — the natural law.

It is a universal objective moral order that God wrote in our hearts and in our very nature, but it is discernible by reason also. The truth of this law does not depend on power, identity, feelings, culture, or the whims of courts or legislatures. It is real, eternal, binding on us all and essential for our safety and happiness. All human laws must conform to it, or at least not contradict it, or they are not binding on us, and we must try to correct them. James Wilson, Founding Fathers and one of the first Supreme Court Justices, said “it should always be remembered, that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same divine source: it is the law of God… Human law must rest its authority, ultimately, upon the authority of that law, which is divine”. All the Founders of our nation believed this. Abraham Lincoln believed it. Can you imagine any Supreme Court nominee saying this now?

This higher law stands against any abuse of power, whether by individuals or governments. Under this law, abortion and euthanasia would be unthinkable – nobody can take into their own hands the absolute, unaccountable power over life and death.

The natural law and its objective moral truth are the cure for the pessimism and nihilism of the legal positivists.  It gives us the foundation to uphold what is right and good and most human — polices that embody justice, charity, and the common good, and laws that protect the most vulnerable, and defend religious freedom and human rights.  How much better life would be, if these fundamental truths were embodied in our law. How much more happiness there would be in our world.

This is why our movement is so important. We are the advocates for the weak and vulnerable who are most at risk when the powerful act as if there is no truth, no eternal law, and “it’s all up for grabs”. In the end, we know that we will be judged — as individuals and as a nation — not according to man’s “settled law”, or the Supreme Court’s precedents, but by God’s eternal law.

And we prove these truths by how we love — from the mother vulnerable to abortion, to the single parent struggling to survive, to the disabled person living in loneliness. Including loving those who oppose us. Love is the most powerful argument for the truth.

Our society has lost sight of these truths. But we are here to remind them.

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

  • Every human being has been endowed by God with dignity and rights that cannot be taken away by anyone.
  • The first and foremost of these rights is the right to live.
  • Every unique individual human being has inestimable value that is not dependent on productivity or ability or usefulness or convenience.
  • It is a fundamental injustice to hurt or kill an innocent person no matter their age or condition.
  • The government has a solemn duty to protect and defend everyone.
  • It is a disgraceful dereliction of duty for the government to stand by and do nothing while innocent lives are taken, or, even worse, to encourage it or pay for it.
  • We are all united in one human family — what hurts one hurts us all.
  • Because either everybody’s life matters or nobody’s life matters.

Our challenge is the same it has always been, in every movement to eliminate injustice and oppression — from abolitionism to the civil rights movement to our pro-life movement. Abraham Lincoln once said, “[T]he real issue… is the eternal struggle between these two principles—right and wrong—throughout the world.  They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time; and will ever continue to struggle.”

This is our struggle, our trial, in our time – to defend every human life.

We do this because have an unshakable confidence. We are not be discouraged by the powerful forces that oppose us. We will speak the truth with love. We will uphold the law that God has written into every human heart. We will lift up the weak and vulnerable. We will dare to do our duty to them.

And we know that by the grace of God and our hard work, our cause — our glorious cause — will triumph in the end.

The Supreme Court Nominee’s Error about Roe v. Wade

Wednesday, August 22nd, 2018

We are once again in the midst of the circus leading up to confirmation hearings for the new Supreme Court nominee. Judge Brett Kavanaugh is making the rounds of the Senate, speaking to the Senators who will consider his nomination, and seeking to woo some of the potential swing votes in his favor. It’s the standard ritual, with all the usual photo ops, pre- and post-meeting press comments, etc. Little of any substance usually comes of these things.

But today, something of significance came out of the meeting between the nominee and a Republican Senator who considers herself to be “pro-choice”. After the meeting, the Senator said that the nominee called the infamous Roe v. Wade decision to be “settled law”. Presumably this is an accurate account of their conversation, because neither the nominee nor his handlers have disputed the Senator’s account.

This is very unsettling to hear from a Supreme Court nominee. We have heard it before, and it is a clear indication that the nominee has no real interest in overruling Roe. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Gorsuch both called Roe “settled law” during their own confirmation hearings, and Justice Alito has said that it has added strength as a precedent because it has survived prior challenges and people have come to rely on it.

This is a terrible way of thinking, and it fails to recognize the fundamental duty of a judge to do justice and to decide cases correctly. An unjust law, or one that is clearly wrongly decided, can never be considered “settled”. And there is no question that Roe v. Wade was wrong as a matter of morality and legal reasoning, and that it is profoundly unjust. Its progeny, Planned Parenthood v. Casey (which really is the controlling law now, not Roe), was also wrongly decided. Both of these cases ruled that there is an entire class of human beings who have no constitutional rights – they have been judicially defined as non-persons, in effect outlaws, and they can be subjected to violence and killing with impunity. It is deeply troubling that the nominee has signaled that he would uphold such a law.

The nominee likes to consider himself an “originalist”, meaning that he believes that the Constitution should be interpreted according to its original public meaning at the time of its ratification. Unfortunately, he doesn’t seem to understand that judges of that time would never have viewed a wrongly-decided case as “settled”. Instead, they would have understood it to be their duty to correct the injustice.

The giant of English legal thinking, William Blackstone, wrote that prior decisions are not controlling if they are “flatly absurd or unjust” or “contrary to reason”. In the words of an great American legal scholar, Chancellor James Kent, “If, however, any solemnly adjudged case can be shown to be in error, it is no doubt the right and the duty of the judges who have a similar case before them, to correct the error”. Throughout our history, the Supreme Court has overruled prior decisions when it is clear that they were wrong or poorly reasoned. Judge Kavanaugh’s originalism clearly is not in keeping with these “settled” legal principles.

In another interview with a Senator, the nominee declined to say whether he thought Roe and Casey were correctly decided. One can understand his reticence, given the politicization of the confirmation process. But his failure to take a stand is incoherent. To believe that a case is “settled law” necessarily means that one believes that it was correctly; if one does not believe that a case was correctly decided, then it cannot be “settled law”. The nominee’s failure to take a stand is simply illogical – it violates the Law of Contradiction (a thing can’t be both A and not-A at the same time) that even lawyers understand very well. In any event, the nominee’s non-position certainly does not show any burning desire to overturn Roe.

So what is the final significance of all this? I have long been certain that the Supreme Court is not going to overrule Roe any time soon. Only Justice Thomas has ever said that he would do so, and all the other “conservatives” are now all on record saying that they believe Roe to be “settled law” or binding precedent. So, regardless of the assurances and wishful thinking of his supporters, I don’t believe that the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh brings us to the verge of Roe’s much-deserved demise.

That is not to say that I think Judge Kavanaugh will make things worse. I fully expect that he will show respect for the separation of powers and federalism, and that he will vote to permit states to have greater leeway in regulating abortion. That may begin the process of at least limiting the malign effects of RoeCasey. It may also contribute, in the long term, to the rebuilding of a culture of life in the law.

But in the meantime, the idea that the abortion decisions are “settled law” is an awful way of thinking, one that violates the fundamental duty of everyone – including judges – to do justice and act in accordance with the universal natural moral law. That law is “settled” – one may never deliberately take the life of an innocent person and the government has a solemn duty to ensure that all lives are protected from unjust violence.

Human Rights Failure at Fordham Law School

Monday, September 25th, 2017

The United Nations General Assembly has been holding its annual session, with this year’s theme being “Focusing on People: Striving for peace and a decent life on a sustainable planet.”

The notion of “focusing on people” naturally brings to mind the struggle to protect the fundamental human rights of everyone on our planet. Human rights, of course, is a highly fraught issue, particularly at the UN where it is frequently honored more in the breach than in the observance.

But you can always count on the representative of the Holy See to make sure that human rights are understood in their full and correct sense. Today, Archbishop Paul Richard Gallagher presented the Holy See’s contribution to the debate. In his remarks, he said the following:

Putting people always first means protecting, at every stage and in every circumstance, the dignity of the person, and its human rights and fundamental freedoms, and in a specific way, the rights to life and to freedom of religion from which all other rights flow and which are therefore the common foundation of the pillars of peace and security and integral human development. These two human rights are indivisible from those other rights and fundamental freedoms relating to a dignified spiritual, material and intellectual life for each citizen and for their families – among others, the right to food, the right to water, the right for housing, the right to a safe environment and the right to work.

One would think that this understanding of human rights, which is so deeply rooted in Catholic social teaching, would resonate clearly with all Catholics and Catholic institutions, as well as all persons with good will. It is in keeping with the best aspects of the UN’s tradition, particularly the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Tragically, Fordham Law School has apparently decided to reject that vision of human rights.

While Fordham University as a whole continues to assert its self-understanding as a “Catholic and Jesuit” institution, one would be very hard-pressed to find evidence that the Law School views itself that way, or that it sees value at all in Catholic legal tradition or jurisprudence.

The latest example of their abandonment of a Catholic understanding of law comes in a particularly egregious way. Last week, Fordham Law’s “Leitner Center for International Law and Justice” hosted a presentation by a representative of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, entitled “Using the UN 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda to Advance Sexual and Reproductive Rights”.

Now let’s be perfectly clear about something. The International Planned Parenthood Federation openly boasts in their 2015-2016 report of being the perpetrator of approximately 1.1 million abortions worldwide, and “counseling” and “consulting” with several million women about having an abortion. They brag about having provided almost 5 million “abortion-related services”. They distribute hundreds of millions of doses of chemical contraceptives that can cause further early abortions. They systematically work to undermine or eliminate legal protections for unborn children around the world, under the Orwellian guise of “reproductive rights” — a code word that includes legalized abortion.

In other words, IPPF is likely the single most prolific killer of human beings in the world — a massive violator of the fundamental right to life of every human. They work for the oppression of the weakest and most vulnerable among us and seek to eliminate legal protection of an entire class of human beings whose only offense is that they haven’t been born yet. It is an evil organization.

To celebrate IPPF in a forum dedicated to law and justice is perverse in the extreme. But this is not an isolated event by the “Center for International Law and Justice”. Its list of events and publications demonstrate a consistent advocacy for legalized abortion, with never a dissenting voice being heard. Nor is that an isolated event for the Law School in general, which encourages students to concentrate studies in “reproductive rights” but doesn’t offer a single class in Catholic legal studies.

Put aside for a moment the Catholic Church’s unequivocal and unbroken historical denunciation of abortion as an egregious violation of fundamental human rights. Forget for a moment the Jesuit Pope’s repeated condemnation of abortion and of the “ideological colonization” that seeks to impose Western values on developing countries. Clearly Fordham Law School cares little for these Catholic or Jesuit traditions.

All that’s necessary is to look at secular human rights sources. How about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN in 1948, which states plainly that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” Or the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, adopted by the UN in 1959, which states as a foundational premise that “the child… needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”, and guarantees that “the child shall enjoy special protection… In the enactment of laws for this purpose, the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.” Or the Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted in 1989, which reiterates the guarantee of legal protection before birth and says that “the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration”.

How does killing 1.1 million unborn children a year fit into that tradition of “human rights” or “law and justice”?

The fact is that never, in any document or declaration, has the UN or the international community ever recognized abortion as a fundamental human right. Subsidiary UN agencies and committees have done so, under intense pressure from Western governments and abortion advocates, again under the misleading rubric of “reproductive rights”. But they have not yet been able to revise the traditional understanding of “human rights” to exclude unborn children.

The Holy See’s presentation at the UN was an uplifting and beautiful tribute to true human rights. Fordham Law School has chosen a different direction, one that betrays Catholicism, the Jesuit charism, and even secular human rights.

That is a catastrophic human rights failure.