Delaware
Conservative
Bloggers
Alliance
DCBA Logo
Delaware Blogs

Catholic Blogs

Conservative
Blogs

Catholic
B-Team
Catholic B-Team Bloggers Logo

Prolife Blogs
Friends

"I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate."
--Romans 7:15 (RSV)



Catholics Against Rudy

Main

April 25, 2008

Damon Wayans: Abortion Man

Some pro-lifers are calling for this video to be removed from YouTube, but I think that would be a mistake. This video, whether intentionally or not, shows how abortion is really about keeping men from having to deal with the consequences of their actions. Far from "choosing" abortion, many women who have had abortions state they felt pressured into aborting a child they would have liked to have kept.

Abortion is the irresponsible man's best friend: a loophole in case the girl he's using get pregnant. This video shows that and that abortion is one more manifestation of violence against women.

April 14, 2008

Idaho Becomes First State to Criminalize Coercing a Woman to Have an Abortion

Idaho Becomes First State to Criminalize Coercing a Woman to Have an Abortion

Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter signed a bill into law on Thursday that makes Idaho the first state to legally forbid individuals from forcing a woman to have an abortion.


House Bill 654 criminalizes any physical harm or threats used with the intention of inducing an abortion.

Thanks to the new law, "a woman or girl wronged by a predator or abusive partner would not have to wait upon the mercies of some prosecuting attorney to seek justice - even after an abortion. In fact, the language of the law allows a woman to seek civil damages even if she doesn't undergo an abortion," explained an Idaho Chooses Life web report.

"We currently have laws that protect a woman's right to choose abortion but virtually nothing that protects a woman from being forced into having an abortion. Predators, abusive boyfriends and angry mothers and fathers have been violently coercing women into getting abortions for years," stated Brandi Swindell of Engage the Culture in a March testimony to the House committee looking at the bill.

Planned Parenthood, that "champion" of women's rights, opposed the bill.

Planned Parenthood of Idaho expressed disappointment over the enactment of the new law on their website. Instead of the anti-coercion legislation, the Planned Parenthood encourages more programs dealing with domestic abuse, increased contraceptive distribution, and the development of "comprehensive sex education" programs.

Would have been bad for business, no doubt....

April 11, 2008

Why Pro-Lifers Shouldn't support the Susan G. Komen Foundation

Komen Gave Planned Parenthood Abortion Businesses Over $700K Last Year

A new report from a Planned Parenthood watchdog finds chapters of the Komen Race for the Cure breast cancer group gave affiliates of the national abortion business over $700,000 last fiscal year. The enormous amount should be a red flag to pro-life advocates, one leading activist says.


Figures from STOPP International show Komen chapters giving $711,485 from April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2006 to Planned Parenthood affiliates.

If you've been a donor in the past, ask the Komen Foundation to stop funding abortion. And note, this is just one year of funding. Who knows what's happened in the past or is still going on.

February 27, 2008

Barack Obama: Most Anti-Life Presidential Candidate Ever?

Barack Obama Would Take Back Vote Helping Terri Schiavo Avoid Euthanasia

Senator Barack Obama debated his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton on Tuesday night and said his biggest mistake was voting with a unanimous Senate to help save Terri Schiavo. Terri is the disabled Florida woman whose husband won the legal right to starve her to death.

When asked his biggest mistake, Obama said that trying to save an innocent woman's life, trying to prevent her from being starved to death, was a big mistake. (Take note, too, that this bill passed the Senate unanimously.) As the article linked above points out, it's not the first time he stated that either.

As Hube points out today, and I mentioned before, Obama opposed a bill that would defend the right of children born alive after an abortion attempt to live.

In my earlier post linked above, I also take note that Obama said he would not intervene militarily in Iraq, even to stop a genocide of innocent Iraqis.

So, to sum up:

* He opposes saving innocent people from being starved to death
* He opposes requiring that innocent children who are already born be saved
* He opposes trying to save the lives of innocent genocide victims

He also supports the death penalty. Who would Obama grant the right to life to?

January 22, 2008

35 Years of Legal Infanticide

fetus.jpgToday is the 35th anniversary of the handing down of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases, which combined to legalize abortion for any reason up to the moment of birth. It's amazing that a Supreme Court that in the past has upheld the constitutionality of segregation, slavery, and forced sterilization could sink even lower, but with these decisions it did. It now became enshrined as a constitutional right that one person could kill another for no better reason than convenience or a whim.

It's commonly believed that Roe v. Wade allowed abortion in later trimesters (itself a medically meaningless distinction) for health reasons. Those who believe this are unaware that Roe referred to Doe v. Bolton for its definition of health, and Doe defined health so broadly that even something as innocuous as "having stretch marks would bum me out" grants medical permission for an abortion.

This is the great shame of our time: that one person can determine the worth of another. And that's what the pro-life movement is about: the fact that all humans have the same innate worth, regardless of age, disability or other excuses some would use to deem them less worthy of life. Denying that other human being have less dignity than others has been used to justify a great many evils over the years: slavery, the Holocaust, and segregation to pick just a few.

A final note to Catholics: today is "a particular day of penance for violations to the dignity of the human person committed through acts of abortion, and of prayer for the full restoration of the legal guarantee of the right to life." (As is every January 22nd, unless it falls on a Sunday, in which case it's transferred to January 23rd.) (Hat Tip: Amy Welborn) Personally, I'm fasting and may stop by an adoration chapel to say a rosary. (Pray the pro-life mysteries of the rosary.)

January 18, 2008

Abortion rate continues to drop, but still a ways to go

Omaha.com Nation/World Section

The most comprehensive study in years of abortion in America underscores a striking change in the landscape, with ever-fewer pregnant women choosing abortion and those who do increasingly opting to avoid surgical clinics.

The number of abortions has plunged to 1.2 million a year, down 25 percent since hitting a peak in 1990, according to a report being released today — days before the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion.

The abortion rate has fallen to its lowest level since 1974, the first full year after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized the procedure nationwide.

The annual rate has been falling steadily since 1981, paralleling a sharp decline in the number of abortion providers.

Since abortion on demand is still the law of the land, much of this decline is likely due to a choice of life, the only truly valid choice. The article says that pro-choice advocates are claiming this decline is due to increased use of contraception, but given that there has also been an increase in the birthrate recently, a likelier explanation is that women are choosing to keep the children they have conceived.

However, 1.2 million abortions is still 1.2 million innocent lives ended; 1.2 million people who never got the chance to grow up, to live, to play in a field, to love, to have children of their own. We all need to continue to work to remind women of the wonderful gift they have been given and help them understand that even if they can't handle this gift, there is someone who would be glad to receive a "re-gift."

But the good news is, more women are choosing life, and while their pocketbooks may be lighter, they are richer for it.

Hat Tip: The Corner

January 13, 2008

Quote of the Day

"Personally, I'm opposed to the death penalty, but we have to keep it legal. Otherwise, we'd be trying to carry out executions in an alley with a coat hanger." -- Right Wing Duck on IMAO

Available on t-shirts, pins and coffee mugs!

January 11, 2008

Obama a radical on abortion

ABC News, "The abortion vote the GOP is planning to use to bring down Obama" :: Infanticide :: ProLifeBlogs

.... Republican operatives have been examining Obama's record in Springfield, Illinois, and think they have caught Obama voting the wrong side of an abortion bill that will turn off the public "like partial birth abortion cubed," in the words of one GOP operative.

The bill would have required medical care for babies born during unsuccessful abortions - an issue no Democrat trying to win over independents and Republicans would want to spend any time discussing.

Those who call themselves "pro-choice" often say that they believe abortion should be allowed because the "fetus" is merely a "leech" living off the mother's body. But here we have a case where a child is born, and Obama believes the child should be left uncared for until they die. And given his willingness to allow genocide, we have to wonder if Obama values human life at all.

January 6, 2008

Book Review: Can a Catholic Be a Democrat? by David Carlin

David Carlin is a former Democrat member of the Rhode Island House of Representatives and is currently a professor at the Community College of Rhode Island as well as a faithful Catholic. A life-long member of the Catholic Church, he grew increasingly disturbed by what he saw as an increasing pro-secular and anti-Christian perspective starting to dominate the Democrat party.

He begins by chronicling the history of the secularist takeover of the Democrat party, beginning with the destruction of the local party machines which helped keep the party from being too ideological as they would have to appeal to a wide variety of voter across the country. With the destruction of these machines, they lost the ability to keep people easily in the Democrat fold come Election Day and so the ability to raise money grew in importance. As money grew in importance, the Party had to rely more and more on the very wealthy for support. With their money came their influence and their ideology, which pushed the Democrats to oppose traditional values driving out many Catholics and Southern Protestants who had formerly been a significant portion of their coalition. (I spoke a little about this effect and how Mike Huckabee is emblematic of it here.) He also feels the commitment of the new elites of the party to supposed "civil rights" movements like gay rights is merely a "penance" for their seeking to steer the Democrat party towards more of an oligarchic position, to promote their own wealth, which he feels has steered the Democrats away from their traditional support for the poor. This was an interesting history to read.

The next section of the book deals with the incompatibility of Catholic belief and Democratic policies. First he explains why Catholicism is incompatible with the secularist agenda now pushed by the Democrats. Then he demolishes the many excuses used by Catholics to attempt to justify their continued support for Democrats. My favorite was his tearing down of the "personally opposed, but..." line taken by so many Democrats, including our own Senator Biden, by showing how their argument can be used in defense of white supremacy:

I have a duty to represent all my constituents, not just Negroes. I'm duty-bound to represent my racist constituents too, and they favor a regime of white supremacy. Personally, I'm opposed to racism, but... ... I've taken a solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. In Plessy v. Ferguson the U.S. Supreme Court has declared that racial segregation is a constitutionally protected practice. Therefore, it's my duty to support and defend the institution of racial segregation.

He also does an effective job defusing the arguments of Catholics who support pro-abortion candidates using the "seamless garment" metaphor of the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin. He shows not only that most of those fail to actually account for abortion in the seamless garment but also that they misinterpret what the Cardinal was actually urging.

Surprisingly, in his summary, Carlin acknowledges he is still a registered Democrat and actively advises and supports many Democrats. He makes a valid point that, living in Rhode Island, there isn't much difference between the two parties, so there's no real point in switching. He also admits that it might be just an inbred bias against the Republican Party given that his family is Democrat for generations back or that he's just too old to change.

One criticism of the book I'd have is that he seems to accept as fact that the GOP is dominated by the rich and looks out for business interests. (Although he is generous and honest enough to admit that those who argue that a strong economy is better for the poor than government welfare programs have a strong case.) Besides the fact the Republican Party is on the correct side of the moral debate, one of the reasons I am a Republican is because their economic policies will help the poor more than those of the Democrats. As the trope goes, "the best welfare program is a job," so we need to support policies that will create jobs. Unfortunately, the Democrats propose policies such as increased governmental regulation, higher taxes, higher minimum wage, protectionism, etc that will destroy jobs.

Carlin closes his section on the future of this secularist-Christian divide that serves as a warning for Democrats that also works as a good closing for this review:

Once upon a time it was the most natural thing in the world for a Catholic to be a Democrat. In the foreseeable future, unless the Democrats drastically change their present anti-Catholic course, it will be the most natural thing in the world for a Catholic to be a Republican.

December 26, 2007

Lest you begin to believe that those in support of abortion "rights" aren't really pro-abortion...

...I present to you Joyce Arthur of Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada who is "Cranky That Jamie Lynn Spears Didn't Choose Abortion":

"It certainly shows any young women watching these movies or following these celebrities that the best option is to have the baby and it glorifies that choice," said Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada in CP report.

"But it (abortion) is just sort of being totally ignored, as though no one would ever even think of doing that. But abortion is a very commonly resorted-to option for women, especially unmarried teenaged girls," opined Arthur.

Imagine that: glorifying giving of yourself so that someone else might live. Arthur, and those like her, are just sick. Abortion is commonly supported with the argument that the woman can't afford to take care of a child especially when the child's father has abandoned the mother. Well, the obviously doesn't apply in this case, since in addition to her sister's wealth, the younger Ms. Spears has had a successful career herself. But any reason is a good reason to have an abortion for some; they're just usually more circumspect about voicing that opinion than Arthur was.

Most support the notion of "No Child Left Behind" (regardless of their feelings on the law that bears that name); some, it seems prefer "No Child Left Unaborted."

December 22, 2007

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair Becomes Catholic

BBC NEWS | UK | Tony Blair joins Catholic faith

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has converted to the Catholic faith.

His wife Cherie is a Catholic and there had been speculation that he would convert to Catholicism from his Anglican faith after leaving office.

Mr Blair's official spokesman confirmed he had converted on Friday night and said it was a private matter.

As has been rumored for years, (I discussed almost exactly six months ago), Mr. Blair has become a Catholic. While certainly glad to have him (and anyone reading this who's not Catholic; talk to a priest today!), given some of his stances on issues (see my link in this paragraph), hopefully he'll spend some time recognizing the wisdom of Church teaching in these areas and work to undo some of the damage his past support for policies in opposition to Church teaching has caused.

December 20, 2007

Passing Debt on to the next generation

An argument you frequently hear against government deficit spending is that it's not proper to pass our debt on to the next generation. As a general principle, this is certainly true. Unfortunately, those making this argument are often expressing disagreement with what the money is being spent on, rather than on the total amount of spending. As a contemporary example, witness the Democrats who argued so fervently against deficit spending when they were out of power, but are now quite eager to expand the deficit to cover their pet projects.

However, there are circumstances when deficit spending is not only proper, but necessary. For one example, think of a new government building. If that building will be used for the next 50 years, it's completely appropriate to pay for that building over a 50 year span. Even though we're passing that debt on to the next generation, the debt is attached to a building they will still be using. An even more extreme example is war debt. It was less than a year that the United Kingdom finished paying off its World War II debt. Had they not passed the burden of paying for World War II on to their children and grandchildren, those generations might not have their own nation to support. Those generations clearly enjoy the benefits of the debt their parents and grandparents ran up, so it's not inappropriate for them to bear some of the responsibility for it.

As a final point, why are so many of those who are quick to argue that it's wrong to pass a burden on to the next generation so eager to support the supposed right of a woman to make sure a member of that generation doesn't exist? If it's wrong to make the next generation bear our burdens through a financial debt, why is it acceptable to make them bear our financial or psychological burdens by paying with their lives through abortion? Speaking for myself, and most would no doubt agree, I'd rather be in debt than dead.

December 7, 2007

Presidential Candidates' Religions

Presidential candidates' religions - Yahoo! News

The saddest thing about this list? There are no Catholics who agree with the Church's position on the rights of the unborn. The best we can get out of them is a "personally opposed, but...." copout. (Don't think it's a copout? Imagine someone saying they were personally opposed to rape, but thought it should be left to an individual's choice.)

December 3, 2007

Our Lady of Guadalupe Novena for Life

Priests forLife - Novena Prayer for Life to Our Lady of Guadalupe

Oh Mary, Mother of Jesus and Mother of Life, We honor you as Our Lady of Guadalupe.

Thank you for pointing us to Jesus your Son,
The only Savior and hope of the world.

Renew our hope in him,
That we all may have the courage to say Yes to life,
And to defend those children in danger of abortion.

Give us your compassion
To reach out to those tempted to abort,
And to those suffering from a past abortion.

Lead us to the day when abortion
Will be a sad, past chapter in our history.

Keep us close to Jesus, the Life of the World,
Who is Lord forever and ever. Amen.

The feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe is December 12th, so the novena begins today. Pray for the unborn and those dealing with decision to abort, past and present through the intercession of the patroness of the pro-life movement.

November 13, 2007

"Why Fred?"

For those (like me) who asked the above question, National Right to Life explains their endorsement of Fred Thompson for President:

National Right to Life endorsed Fred Thompson based on three factors: his commitments on life issues, his record on life issues and his ability to win.

UPDATE: An alternate take:

The reason the National Right to Life Committee is endorsing Fred Thompson is that they figured the best way to preserve life is to not piss off Fred Thompson.

October 12, 2007

Former Bush Strategist: Giuliani will lose Catholic Vote in 2008, and with it the election

Political expert examines the Catholic Vote for 2008

If the United States presidential race comes down to candidates Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton, the Catholic vote will swing to Clinton. That's the claim of Steve Wagner, a chief political strategist who helped George W. Bush win the majority of Catholics' votes in the 2000 and 2004 elections. He has argued that appealing to Mass-going Catholics is a key factor in a presidential candidate's electoral success.

Hat Tip: New Advent

October 11, 2007

This should help convince pro-lifers not to vote for Giuliani...

In a phone interview with the Huffington Post, NARAL's political director Elizabeth Shipp acknowledged it "would help" the pro-choice movement if a Republican proved it was possible to win the presidency while still supporting abortion rights.

"The Republican Party used to be about the conservative principles of limited government intervention in private life," Shipp said. "It seems to me if they went back to that and stood out from the rigid mainstream, anti-choice agenda, I think yeah, it would be good for the movement."

Could Giuliani be the candidate to take the Republican Party down that road? And would NARAL support him?

"I don't know yet," said Shipp. "He has said some very concerning things since getting into this race. If you have to grade him compared to everyone else you have to give him an incomplete."

The National Abortion Rights Action League (who won't even use the "abortion" in their name since they recognize people don't like abortion) recognizes that a pro-abortion Republican winning the Presidency would be a good thing for their movement, so, ipso facto, it would be bad for those who defend innocent life. We must work as strongly (or even more strongly) against Giuliani as we would any pro-abortion Democrat.

Hat Tip: The Corner

October 10, 2007

Twenty-Seven Percent of Republicans Would vote 3rd party if Rudy is the Nominee

Rasmussen Reports™: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a mid-term election.

If Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican nomination and a third party campaign is backed by Christian conservative leaders, 27% of Republican voters say they’d vote for the third party option rather than Giuliani. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that a three-way race with Hillary Clinton would end up with the former First Lady getting 46% of the vote, Giuliani with 30% and the third-party option picking up 14%.

I don't believe that Giuliani would actually lose one out of four Republican voters come November 2008. Many of them will change their minds; some will look at the third party candidates and say "Who are these guys" and stick with the Republicans; others will be unable to vote that way once they're actually in the voting booth. But even if a third of that total goes through with their threat, then Giuliani will face tough odds in the general election. Losing one of out ten of his base voters is a tough hurdle for any candidate. If the GOP is serious about winning, they can't take the risk of choosing someone who so alienates a significant percentage of their base.

Hat Tip: The Corner

September 13, 2007

There are no Pro-Life National Democrats

Pro-Life Democrat Bob Casey Casts Strange Votes for Abortion Funding

Democrats who take a strong stand against abortion are few and far between -- especially in the United States Senate. When Bob Casey defeated Rick Santorum for a Pennsylvania seat in the Senate pro-life advocates hoped Casey would vote the same as his predecessor; but, Casey cast his first pro-abortion vote last week. ... Boxer's amendment overturns the policy that President Reagan first instituted and President Bush revived in 2001 that protects taxpayers from funding groups that perform or promote abortions overseas.

Pro-life groups strongly opposed the Boxer Amendment, but it was adopted on a 53-41 vote. Just 20 minutes later, pro-life Sen. Sam Brownback offered an amendment to undo the Boxer amendment but senators defeated it by the same margin.

Casey voted for the Boxer amendment and but also for the Brownback amendment -- taking a seemingly contradicting stand on the abortion funding issue.

On Monday, as David Freddoso of National Review notes, Casey said on the Senate floor that he had made a mistake -- but not because he voted to fund foreign abortions and abortion advocacy.

He said that, on the pro-life Brownback amendment, “it was my intention to vote ‘nay.’ Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome of that vote.”

In other words, he feels so strongly about funding these groups that he asked that his vote be changed so that he could be recorded as supporting funding groups that support abortion. He argues that since it's illegal to spend this money on abortion directly, his vote does not support abortion. The problem with this, as the linked article points out, is that money is fungible; that is, it can be easily moved from one budget line-item to another. So giving money to a group to spend on budget line item 13.A.3, which you support, can free up money for them to spend more money under line item 17.C.2.a, which you vehemently oppose. The thing is, as former Auditor General and State Treasurer in Pennsylvania, Casey should (and likely does) know that.

Here's an example: would you give money to the Ku Klux Klan to support, say, a food for the poor drive? Of course not, that would free up some money for them to pursue their hateful activities and give them some positive publicity that might make them look good in the eyes of more people than they already unfortunately do. Instead, you'd give the money to a worthy charity who would help feed the poor without all the baggage that the KKK brings.

Similarly, we shouldn't give money to any organization who supports, performs or promotes abortions, even if that money won't be going directly to their abortion advocacy: it still will make them look better and free up money to spend on the slaughter of the unborn.

This is just one more example of how pro-life Democrats inevitably cave on the issue of the right to life of unborn children when they reach national office. They'll campaign as pro-lifers but when the rubber hits the road, they line up with those seeking the death of innocent children. Whether they're deliberately lying to us, or simply caving under pressure from the rabidly pro-abortion Democrat party, the result is the same: there are no pro-life Democrats at the national level. If you want to defend the right to life of unborn children, the Republican Party unfortunately offers the only option, and a shaky one at that.

September 10, 2007

Quote of the Day

The Roman Catholic Church holds that abortion is the deliberate killing of a human being. Catholic liberal politicians since Mario Cuomo have said they personally accept the doctrine of their church but nevertheless believe in a woman's right to choose. This is silly. There is no right to choose murder. Either these politicians are lying to their church, or they are lying to us.

-- Michael Kinsley

August 24, 2007

Amnesty International Loses U.S. Bishops' Support

Read the full article

The U.S. bishops condemned Amnesty International's recent decision to support abortion, and said that it will only work with organizations that promote the right to life from conception to natural death.

...
"In promoting abortion," said Bishop Skylstad, "Amnesty divides its own members -- many of whom are Catholics and others who defend the rights of unborn children -- and jeopardizes its support by people in many nations, cultures and religions who share a consistent commitment to all human rights."

The bishop said that while the "essential work of protecting human life and promoting human dignity must carry on ... we will seek to do so in authentic ways, working most closely with organizations who do not oppose the fundamental right to life from conception to natural death."

"True commitment to women's rights," he continued, "puts us in solidarity with women and their unborn children. It does not pit one against the other but calls us to advocate on behalf of both."

Now, will they apply this logic the Democrat Party and pro-abortion Catholic politicians as well?

July 24, 2007

"Population Control" always seems to lead to dead women

Secondhand Smoke: India's Shame: 30 Bags Found Stuffed with the Bodies of Female Babies and Fetuses

Thirty polythene bags stuffed with the remains of female foetuses and newly born babies have been found in a dry well near a private clinic in the east Indian state of Orissa, police said yesterday. ... Despite laws banning sex determination tests, the killing of female foetuses is still common in India, where the preference for sons runs deep. Infanticide is also practised in some areas. The government has said that around 10 million girls have been killed by their parents--either before or immediately after birth--during the last 20 years.

This pattern repeats itself around the world. In India, a 2000 census reported that there were 1000 men per 927 girls among children. The ratio is even worse in China, with 20% more boys than girls. The average birth ratio in the rest of world is 106 boys for 100 girls, but boy are more likely to die in youth than girls so the ratio evens out by adulthood.

The obvious practice of sex-selection abortion is wrong for a number of reasons. First, there's the obvious horror of abortion, the murder of the innocent. Next, we see that girls are being targeted due to many cultures' preferences for boys. In addition, a surplus of boys leaves a number of sexually frustrated boys who will sublimate their sexual energies into other activities either out of frustration or in an attempt to draw attention to themselves to attract women. (There's a reason so many Islamic terrorists are excited about the prospect of 72 virgins in the afterlife; it's because they aren't getting any here. Even though abortion is generally proscribed in Muslim countries, polygamous societies have similar issues: the most attractive men get more women, leaving fewer for the not so attractive. A different cause then sex selective abortions, but the supply of women is reduced just the same.) As I read remarked somewhere in the past, war has historically been the means of keeping excess male population to a minimum.

Population control negatively impacts women, by targeting them for elimination through abortion. (India outlaws sex determining tests, but has had little success in enforcing such a law.) And, as it leads to surplus male population, it can lead to a less stable society. It's bad news both in the present and in the future.

July 20, 2007

Liberals: Is there anyone they don't want dead?

Liberals often criticize President Bush for the alleged thousands of Iraqi civilians who have died as a result of the Iraq War. Meanwhile, they laud Senator Barack Obama for his desire to pull our forces out of Iraq. But this is a man who cares nothing for the fate of Iraqi civilians:

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

So which is it? Invading Iraq was wrong in part because of the impact on Iraqi civilians, or we have to get out immediately, even if it a "genocide" were to be the result. President Bush finds the death of Iraqi civilians as a result of the invasion to be regrettable, but is pledged to try to save their lives by keeping American forces there to restore order. Obama? His attitude towards Iraqi civilians, and, if you read the article other victims of genocide, is "Sucks to be them."

We can tell who really cares about innocent life.

Meanwhile, in another front in the battle over innocent life: it's not enough that there are 1.3 million abortions in America each year; Democrats want to increase that number by paying women to have abortions:

The right to choose abortion is not enough for longing-to-be-First-Lady Elizabeth Edwards. She and her presidential hopeful husband John want to offer a health care plan that would pay for abortions.

...
Please note that Edwards is not the only Democratic presidential hopeful who wants to spread the hopelessness of abortion around.

Obama said that his insurance plan would include "reproductive-health services." The Tribune later contacted Obama's office and a spokesperson said abortion was part of his package.

It's framed as "reproductive health services," because Democrats can't ever mention the dreaded "A"-word, but make no mistake: Democrats want you to pay for abortions.

They (rightly) oppose the death penalty for murderers and other violent offenders, but if you're not guilty of any crime: make no mistake, it seems the liberals want you dead.

New Direction in Supreme Court Abortion Policy?

Chris Gacek of the Family Research Council points out that both sides may have misunderstood Justice Kennedy's stance on abortion:

Many well-informed observers believe that Kennedy was set to overturn Roe v. Wade in 1992 in the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey. At some point while the decision was being written, he changed sides and joined Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and David Souter in their decisive plurality opinion that affirmed Roe while emphasizing each state's "legitimate and substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life."


With the 1993 retirement of Roe opponent Justice Byron White and his replacement by pro-Roe Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Kennedy was no longer the "fifth" vote in abortion cases -- that role fell to O'Connor. When O'Connor retired in 2006 and was replaced by Justice Samuel Alito, Kennedy again became the deciding vote on abortion.

Carhart reveals that Kennedy's interpretation of Casey's possible limitations may have real teeth. Whereas O'Connor would overturn abortion regulations for virtually any reason, Kennedy seems poised to enforce Casey's more restrictive language. Three major features of his abortion jurisprudence are discernible.

First, abortions performed before viability will receive high-level constitutional protection with no substantial interference permitted. Second, after viability, the state's interest in preserving and promoting fetal life may allow substantial restrictions. Third, abortion is not benign and its capacity to harm women psychologically is undeniable.

Kennedy's view of abortion can be summarized as follows: Abortion is a regrettable but necessary evil that will be protected within well-defined boundaries. Even though Kennedy will protect most abortions (i.e., those performed before viability), he clearly regards the procedure as destructive to both child and mother.

This policy, if Gacek's analysis is correct, could lead to a final compromise on abortion that most people could live with. I think most people are for a compromise that would limit abortion to early in pregnancy. (I, of course, believe abortion is murder no matter when it occurs, but I know many pro-lifers could grudgingly accept such a compromise in the legal realm while continuing to work to change the hearts of people so that abortion, while legal, would be extremely rare. I'd prefer to see it be both rare and illegal, though. A legal structure that condones the murder of the innocent is inherently unjust.)

Could Kennedy be trying to lead us to a position on abortion other than all-or-nothing? It would help tone down the rhetorical excesses of our political culture and could only be a good thing for our country.

July 9, 2007

Catholics Against Rudy Officially Launches!

Catholics Against Rudy has officially debuted their webiste. You can see a permanent link to the site on my right link bar.

Be sure to check out the many pages on the site showing why Catholics seeking to promote Catholic values must oppose this Catholic.







June 25, 2007

Bobby Cutts Jr. Charged with Two Murders - Girlfriend and Unborn Child

Bobby Cutts Jr. Charged with Two Murders - Girlfriend and Unborn Child

A Canton policeman, 30-year old Bobby Cutts Jr., was charged today with the murder of his girlfriend, Jessie Davis. He was also separately charged with a second murder—that of Jessie’s unborn child. Davis was nearly nine months pregnant with a baby girl, due on July 3.

This only makes sense; after all, two people did die as a result of this violence. In the past, abortion supporters have objected to this formulation, denying that the death of the unborn child was a murder. (Apparently, "Every child a wanted child" really is just a slogan, since this wanted child doesn't count as a life in some eyes.)

This incident brings to life another factor: abortion may help create an environment what encourages violence against pregnant women. With Bobby Cutts, Jessie Davis' boyfriend and rpesumed father of the child, being charged with the murders, it's not unreasonable to speculate that Cutts didn't want this child and when she refused to have an abortion, perhaps he ought to induce an abortion on his own. (Obviously, should Cutts turn out to be not guilty this speculative motive does not apply in this case, but there have been a number of cases where boyfriends attacked the mothers of their unborn children hoping to induce an abortion.) When the child is seen as disposable, men might seek to dispose of the child on their own.

Abortion doesn't just hurt the child, it hurts their mothers. Women deserve better.

June 23, 2007

Tony Blair to become Catholic?

It's been rumored (or should that be rumoured?) for while now that British Prime Minister Tony Blair would like to become Catholic. There's a few problems with that:

  • "Friends say that he studies both the Bible and the Koran daily, and much of his political philosophy has been influenced by the social teachings of the Catholic Church." - The Koran? He needs to remember that it's the bible that's the inspired Word of God. The Koran was at best written by Muhammad. Worst case: written by the Devil.
  • He is a particular admirer of the maverick German theologian Hans Kung. - The Hans Kung who's not allowed to teach as a Catholic theologian because his writings are not in union with Catholic belief?
  • Father Russ [who has spoken to Blair about converting] added that Mr. Blair, whose views on a range of issues from abortion to stem-cell research are at odds with traditional church teaching, had "some way to go" on important moral issues. - 'Nuff said.

(Quotes from article linked above.)

As further evidence that crossing the Tiber is not going to be smooth sailing for Mr. Blair, see this article:

Tony Blair's eagerly awaited meeting with the Pope resulted in discomfort for the Prime Minister when he found himself on the receiving end of a stern lecture over his record in office.

During a 25-minute face-to-face audience in the Pontiff's private apartments, Pope Benedict XVI tackled Mr Blair on the continuing crisis in Iraq and the Middle East.

Italian news agency reports said Pope Benedict also made direct criticism of New Labour laws allowing greater stem cell research on human embryos, easy access to abortion, same-sex marriages, and adoption by gay couples.
...
Friction even seemed to emerge as the Pope and Prime Minister appeared in public for the cameras. Mr Blair, joined by his wife Cherie, presented Benedict with a framed set of three antique pictures of Cardinal Newman, who converted in 1845 after more than 20 years in the Church of England clergy and is now a candidate for sainthood.

Mrs Blair said: "I believe you are very familiar with him and he is on the journey to sainthood."

To which the Pope responded: "Yes, yes, although it is taking some time - miracles are hard to come by in Britain."
...
After the meeting, the Pope's office issued a strongly worded statement, saying the two men had a 'frank discussion on the international situation, in particular the delicate question of the Middle East conflict'.

The actual wording of the communique contained the Italian phrase 'franco confronto', literally translated as 'frank confrontation' - inflammatory language seen as highly unusual in Rome.
...
But the statement was seen as indicating the Vatican's continuing unease with the Iraq conflict, and also recent domestic legislation in Britain. In the language of diplomatic communiques, 'frank discussion' is customarily seen as code for an argument.

The statement was all the more surprising because the Vatican always uses carefully controlled language.

A conversion of this magnitude will draw a lot publicity. The Church will likely make sure that Mr. Blair makes some sort of public correction of his earlier erroneous views on issues where he taken a public stand against settled Church teaching. He's welcome to come to the Catholic Church (as is everyone....), but he'll likely have to make some accounting for his past errors before he can welcomed fully.

Hat Tips: The Corner for the first article, Amy Welborn for the second.

June 20, 2007

Nope, no media bias here.

New York Daily News Promotes Pro-Abortion Language in Writers Guidelines

The New York Daily News (NYDN), the sixth largest newspaper in the United States, uses a set of writer guidelines that promote abortion through their choice of language.


The NYDN writing requirements promote an anti-life mindset by instructing writers to avoid certain words when dealing with the abortion issue. The words "pro-life" and "pro-lifers", for example, must be replaced with "abortion foes", "abortion opponents" or in the case of constricted title space, "abort foes".

The pro-abortion bias is even more evident in the fact that NYDN writers may only include the positive terms "pro-life" and "pro-lifers" in direct quotations.

On the other hand, when describing someone who supports abortion as a woman's right, writers must choose positive terms, such as "abortion rights activist", "pro-abortion rights" or