Monday, August 2, 2010

Pro-lifers should take heart



The ‘New Abortion Providers’
July 20, 2010 3:03 PM
By Michael J. New

The Sunday New York Times Magazine featured an interesting article entitled “The New Abortion Providers,” which details efforts by supporters of legal abortion to cultivate a new generation of physicians who perform abortions. Unsurprisingly, the article painted a very sympathetic picture, but it still makes interesting reading for pro-lifers, because it demonstrates that the pro-life movement has been quietly effective in ways that often receive little media attention. It also shows that the effort to encourage young physicians to perform abortions may well achieve little success.

One unheralded success of the pro-life movement is that it has convinced many Americans that abortion is wrong. Now, obviously, not everyone wants to see abortion banned. Some individuals see abortion as a necessary evil; others think that keeping abortion legal reduces the amount of misery and suffering in the country. But the fact that many Americans think abortion is immoral has paid some important dividends.

For instance, as this article nicely demonstrates, ever since Roe v. Wade, abortion has been effectively divorced from mainstream medicine. Many hospitals will not allow abortions to be performed on their premises; a very high percentage of doctors have no interest in performing abortions at all; most abortions are performed in clinics away from doctor’s offices and hospitals. This has done some good things for the pro-lifemovement : It has further stigmatized abortion; it has made it easier for sidewalk counselors to identify and approach abortion-minded women; it has also made abortions more difficult to obtain in many parts of the country.

Supporters of legal abortion realize that abortion has become increasingly stigmatized and marginalized within the medical community — indeed, the number of abortion providers has fallen by over a third since 1982 — and that younger physicians are less likely to perform abortions than their older counterparts. Furthermore, there are relatively few abortion providers in rural areas. The two programs this article highlights, the Kenneth J. Ryan Residency Training Program and the Family Planning Fellowship, are intended to reverse this trend.

But although both of these programs are well funded and have received generous donations from a foundation started by Warren Buffett, their efforts may not be effective at expanding access to abortion. The article cites a study of 30 OB-GYNs with abortion training: Of eighteen who wanted to perform abortions, only three were doing so. This is sometimes because of high malpractice-insurance rates, sometimes because hospitals or group practices will not allow it. Even those physicians performing abortions seem to have little interest in taking their practice to rural areas: One physician in the article left Rockford, Ill., for the friendlier confines of a university campus.

Of course, most mainstream media outlets are quick to portray the pro-life movement as violent, deceitful, and ineffective, and this Times article is certainly no exception. It begins with the tragic murder of abortionist David Gunn, who was assassinated in Pensacola, Fla., in 1993. It also describes pro-lifers harassing the reporter and an abortion provider as they departed for lunch.

The author also presents abortion statistics from 1977 to make it appear that abortion rates have remained constant over time. In reality, the number of abortions has declined nearly every year since 1990, and overall, the number of abortions has fallen by around 25 percent between 1990 and 2005. Additionally, the article claims that crisis-pregnancy centers provide misleading information to women; it gets this information from the politicized investigation authorized by Rep. Henry Waxman (D., Calif.). Stories about abortion providers providing misleading information to women appear nowhere in the article.

Regardless, pro-lifers should take heart. Our efforts may not result in puff pieces in The New York Times Magazine, but this article indicates that our efforts have made a real difference, in the medical community and elsewhere. Every January, the media seems surprised at how many young people attend the March for Life; those of us in the pro-life movement are not surprised at all. The fact that supporters of legal abortion have to make such substantial investments on medical-school campuses is perhaps the best evidence of the gains pro-lifers have made among America’s youth.

– Michael J. New is an assistant professor at the University of Alabama and a fellow at the Witherspoon Institute.

Peter Kreeft's "Reasons against Abortion"

very simple. very concise. very right.

PART ONE


PART TWO


PART THREE

Saturday, August 15, 2009

Pray...



Prayer to End Abortion

Lord God, I thank you today for the gift of my life,
And for the lives of all my brothers and sisters.

I know there is nothing that destroys more life than abortion,
Yet I rejoice that you have conquered death
by the Resurrection of Your Son.

I am ready to do my part in ending abortion.
Today I commit myself
Never to be silent,
Never to be passive,
Never to be forgetful of the unborn.

I commit myself to be active in the pro-life movement,
And never to stop defending life
Until all my brothers and sisters are protected,
And our nation once again becomes
A nation with liberty and justice
Not just for some, but for all.

Through Christ our Lord. Amen!

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

ENDING ABORTION - Not Just Fighting It


ENDING ABORTION - NOT JUST FIGHTING IT
By Fr. Frank A. Pavone, M.E.V.

In this collection of stirring and informative pro-life essays, Fr. Pavone convincingly portrays the negative ramifications that the abuse of freedom and the right to choose have unleashed on our society since abortion was legalized. Father Pavone insists that people of goodwill can end the scourge of abortion and restore the right to life for those who cannot speak for themselves. This 216 page book is a must read for all pro-lifers. Makes a great gift for any occasion!

"I speak about 'ending' abortion becase it is a goal we can achieve...A culture can be created in which abortion is not only illegal, but unthinkable. We can bring society to the point where, both in theory and practice, it regards abortion as it regards slavery today." - Fr. Frank A. Pavone, M.E.V.

PURCHASE HERE!

What stinks?

Gov't Insurance Would Allow Abortion Coverage

Advocates on both sides are preparing for a renewed battle over abortion, which could jeopardize political support for Obama's health care initiative aimed at covering nearly 50 million.

WASHINGTON -- Health care legislation before Congress would allow a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions, a decision that would affect millions of women and recast federal policy on the divisive issue.

Federal funds for abortions are now restricted to cases involving rape, incest or danger to the health of the mother. Abortion opponents say those restrictions should carry over to any health insurance sold through a new marketplace envisioned under the legislation, an exchange where people would choose private coverage or the public plan.

Abortion rights supporters say that would have the effect of denying coverage for abortion to millions of women who now have it through workplace insurance and are expected to join the exchange.

Advocates on both sides are preparing for a renewed battle over abortion, which could jeopardize political support for President Barack Obama's health care initiative aimed at covering nearly 50 million uninsured and restraining medical costs.

"We want to see people who have no health insurance get it, but this is a sticking point," said Richard Doerflinger, associate director of pro-life activities for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "We don't want health care reform to be the vehicle for mandating abortion."

Donna Crane, policy director for NARAL Pro-Choice America, said abortion opponents "want an abortion ban in private insurance, and that's not neutrality at all -- that's a radical departure from current law. They want something far more extreme than where I think the American public is."

A compromise approved by a House committee last week attempted to balance questions of federal funding, personal choice and the conscience rights of clinicians. It would allow the public plan to cover abortion but without using federal funds, only dollars from beneficiary premiums.

Likewise, private plans in the new insurance exchange could opt to cover abortion, but no federal subsidies would be used to pay for the procedure.

"It's a sham," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for National Right to Life. "It's a bookkeeping scheme. The plan pays for abortion, and the government subsidizes the plan."

Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif., author of the compromise, said she was trying to craft a solution that would accommodate both sides. Her amendment also would allow plans that covered no abortions whatsoever -- not even in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother -- to be offered through the insurance exchange.

"With all due respect, not everyone adheres to what the Catholic bishops believe," said Capps, who supports abortion rights. "Our country allows for both sides, and our health plan should reflect that as well."

For years, abortion rights supporters and abortion opponents have waged the equivalent of trench warfare over restrictions on federal funding. Abortion opponents have largely prevailed, instituting restrictions that bar federal funding for abortion, except in cases of rape and incest or if the mother's life would be endangered.

A law called the Hyde amendment applies the restrictions to Medicaid, forcing states that cover abortion for low-income women to do so with their own money. Separate laws apply the restrictions to the federal employee health plan and military and other programs.

But the health overhaul would create a stream of federal funding not covered by the restrictions.

The new federal funds would take the form of subsidies for low- and middle-income people buying coverage through the health insurance exchange. Subsidies would be available for people to buy the public plan or private coverage. Making things more complicated, the federal subsidies would be mixed in with contributions from individuals and employers. Eventually, most Americans could end up getting their coverage through the exchange.

The Democratic health care legislation as originally introduced in the House and Senate did not mention abortion. That rang alarm bells for abortion opponents.

Since abortion is a legal medical procedure, experts on both sides say not mentioning it would allow health care plans in the new insurance exchange to provide unrestricted coverage.

It would mirror the private insurance market, where abortion coverage is widely available. A Guttmacher Institute study found that 87 percent of typical employer plans covered abortion in 2002, while a Kaiser Family Foundation survey in 2003 found that 46 percent of workers in employer plans had coverage for abortions. The studies asked different questions, which might help explain the disparity in the results.

In the Senate, the plan passed by the health committee is still largely silent on the abortion issue. Staff aides confirmed that the public plan -- and private insurance offered in the exchange -- would be allowed to cover abortion, without funding restrictions.

Under both the House and Senate approaches, the decision to offer abortion coverage in the public plan would be made by the health and human services secretary.

Abortion opponents are seeking a prohibition against using any federal subsidies to pay for abortions or for any part of any costs of a health plan that offers abortion. Such a proposal was rejected by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the same panel that approved Capps' amendment.

But abortion opponents say they can't accept a public plan that would cover abortion. And they say private plans in the insurance exchange should offer abortion coverage separately, as an option.

"You can have a result where nobody has to pay for other people's abortions," said Doerflinger.

Heidi Hartmann, president of the Institute for Women's Policy Research, said applying the current restrictions for federal employees and low-income women to a program intended for the middle class will provoke a backlash.

"There is a difference between picking off one group of women here and one group there and something that would affect a very large group," Hartmann said. "Everyone would like to avoid that fight."

From Fox News - Wednesday, August, 05, 2009

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

MAKE A STATEMENT



Click here to read Summary and Background information on "Draft National Institutes of Health Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research". The NIH welcomes public comment on the draft Guidelines. Comments may be entered at: http://nihoerextra.nih.gov/stem_cells/add.htm.
_________________________________________________

On March 9, 2009, President Barack H. Obama issued Executive Order 13505: Removing Barriers to Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells (108KB PDF; get Adobe Reader). The Executive Order states that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, through the Director of NIH, may support and conduct responsible, scientifically worthy human stem cell research, including human embryonic stem cell research, to the extent permitted by law.

The purpose of these draft Guidelines is to implement Executive Order 13505, issued on March 9, 2009, as it pertains to extramural NIH-funded research, to establish policy and procedures under which NIH will fund research in this area, and to help ensure that NIH-funded research in this area is ethically responsible, scientifically worthy, and conducted in accordance with applicable law. Internal NIH procedures, consistent with Executive Order 13505 and these Guidelines, will govern the conduct of intramural NIH research involving human stem cells.

_________________________________________________

This is an important opportunity to express your comments on the dual expansion and retraction of legislation regarding the use of embryonic stem cells. Please prayerfully consider taking the time to comment on the President's Executive Order.

Prayer for Changing the Culture

from Priests for Life

God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, we come into your presence in His name.

We have heard the voice of your Son,
And therefore we can make our voices heard.

We have been justified in the blood of your Son,
And therefore we can oppose every form of injustice.

We have repented of our sins,
And therefore we can lead the sinner to repentance.

We have done battle with the power of evil,
And therefore we can have compassion on those still within its grip.

We have been freed from the kingdom of darkness,
And therefore we can bear witness to your Kingdom of Light.

Lord, as we come before you today, we repent, we resolve, and we rejoice.

We repent of every instance in which fear has made us silent when we should have spoken.
We repent of the ongoing bloodshed in our land,
And for ever daring to think that we can deprive the unborn of protection but keep it for ourselves.

We resolve that we will work more generously to advance your Kingdom.
We resolve that we will advance the cause of righteous candidates for public office,
And that we will be more afraid of offending you by our silence
Than of offending the IRS by our speech.

We resolve that we will declare boldly to our people that no public official who fails to respect the life of a little baby
can be trusted to respect our lives.

Father, today we rejoice, because we are not simply working for victory - we are working from victory.
The victory of life, truth, and grace has been won by your Son's death and Resurrection.
Today we hear his voice again.
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I hold the keys of death and of hell.
Behold, I make all things new."

Father, we rejoice that we have been made new,
And as we work to renew our culture
We look forward to the great day of his coming,
When every eye will see him, even of those who pierced him,
And every knee shall bend, and every tongue confess, to the glory of God the Father,
JESUS CHRIST IS LORD!

In his Blessed Name we pray. Amen!

- by Fr. Frank Pavone, M.E.V.

Mother Theresa...on abortion


"But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child - a direct killing of the innocent child - murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love, and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts. Jesus gave even his life to love us. So the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love - that is, to give until it hurts her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts. By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. And by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. That father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching the people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion. "

Congressman Jeff Fortenberry exchange with Secretary of State Clinton on U.S. foreign assistance abortion policy

Monday, May 18, 2009

So many thoughts which could make another convincing argument to stop abortion...but...

The following is a transcript, as provided by the White House, of President Obama's commencement address to the University of Notre Dame:

OBAMA: Well, first of all, congratulations, Class of 2009. (Applause.) Congratulations to all the parents, the cousins -- (applause) -- the aunts, the uncles -- all the people who helped to bring you to the point that you are here today. Thank you so much to Father Jenkins for that extraordinary introduction, even though you said what I want to say much more elegantly. (Laughter.) You are doing an extraordinary job as president of this extraordinary institution. (Applause.) Your continued and courageous -- and contagious -- commitment to honest, thoughtful dialogue is an inspiration to us all. (Applause.)

Good afternoon. To Father Hesburgh, to Notre Dame trustees, to faculty, to family: I am honored to be here today. (Applause.) And I am grateful to all of you for allowing me to be a part of your graduation.

And I also want to thank you for the honorary degree that I received. I know it has not been without controversy. I don't know if you're aware of this, but these honorary degrees are apparently pretty hard to come by. (Laughter.) So far I'm only 1 for 2 as President. (Laughter and applause.) Father Hesburgh is 150 for 150. (Laughter and applause.) I guess that's better. (Laughter.) So, Father Ted, after the ceremony, maybe you can give me some pointers to boost my average.

I also want to congratulate the Class of 2009 for all your accomplishments. And since this is Notre Dame --

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Abortion is murder! Stop killing children!

AUDIENCE: Booo!

OBAMA: That's all right. And since --

AUDIENCE: We are ND! We are ND!

AUDIENCE: Yes, we can! Yes, we can!

OBAMA: We're fine, everybody. We're following Brennan's adage that we don't do things easily. (Laughter.) We're not going to shy away from things that are uncomfortable sometimes. (Applause.)

Now, since this is Notre Dame I think we should talk not only about your accomplishments in the classroom, but also in the competitive arena. (Laughter.) No, don't worry, I'm not going to talk about that. (Laughter.) We all know about this university's proud and storied football team, but I also hear that Notre Dame holds the largest outdoor 5-on-5 basketball tournament in the world -- Bookstore Basketball. (Applause.)

Now this excites me. (Laughter.) I want to congratulate the winners of this year's tournament, a team by the name of "Hallelujah Holla Back." (Laughter and applause.) Congratulations. Well done. Though I have to say, I am personally disappointed that the "Barack O'Ballers" did not pull it out this year. (Laughter.) So next year, if you need a 6'2" forward with a decent jumper, you know where I live. (Laughter and applause.)

Every one of you should be proud of what you have achieved at this institution. One hundred and sixty-three classes of Notre Dame graduates have sat where you sit today. Some were here during years that simply rolled into the next without much notice or fanfare -- periods of relative peace and prosperity that required little by way of sacrifice or struggle.

You, however, are not getting off that easy. You have a different deal. Your class has come of age at a moment of great consequence for our nation and for the world -- a rare inflection point in history where the size and scope of the challenges before us require that we remake our world to renew its promise; that we align our deepest values and commitments to the demands of a new age. It's a privilege and a responsibility afforded to few generations -- and a task that you're now called to fulfill.

This generation, your generation is the one that must find a path back to prosperity and decide how we respond to a global economy that left millions behind even before the most recent crisis hit -- an economy where greed and short-term thinking were too often rewarded at the expense of fairness, and diligence, and an honest day's work. (Applause.)

Your generation must decide how to save God's creation from a changing climate that threatens to destroy it. Your generation must seek peace at a time when there are those who will stop at nothing to do us harm, and when weapons in the hands of a few can destroy the many. And we must find a way to reconcile our ever-shrinking world with its ever-growing diversity -- diversity of thought, diversity of culture, and diversity of belief.

In short, we must find a way to live together as one human family. (Applause.)
And it's this last challenge that I'd like to talk about today, despite the fact that Father John stole all my best lines. (Laughter.) For the major threats we face in the 21st century -- whether it's global recession or violent extremism; the spread of nuclear weapons or pandemic disease -- these things do not discriminate. They do not recognize borders. They do not see color. They do not target specific ethnic groups.

Moreover, no one person, or religion, or nation can meet these challenges alone. Our very survival has never required greater cooperation and greater understanding among all people from all places than at this moment in history.

Unfortunately, finding that common ground -- recognizing that our fates are tied up, as Dr. King said, in a "single garment of destiny" -- is not easy. And part of the problem, of course, lies in the imperfections of man -- our selfishness, our pride, our stubbornness, our acquisitiveness, our insecurities, our egos; all the cruelties large and small that those of us in the Christian tradition understand to be rooted in original sin. We too often seek advantage over others. We cling to outworn prejudice and fear those who are unfamiliar. Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism; in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game. The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice. And so, for all our technology and scientific advances, we see here in this country and around the globe violence and want and strife that would seem sadly familiar to those in ancient times.
We know these things; and hopefully one of the benefits of the wonderful education that you've received here at Notre Dame is that you've had time to consider these wrongs in the world; perhaps recognized impulses in yourself that you want to leave behind. You've grown determined, each in your own way, to right them. And yet, one of the vexing things for those of us interested in promoting greater understanding and cooperation among people is the discovery that even bringing together persons of good will, bringing together men and women of principle and purpose -- even accomplishing that can be difficult.

The soldier and the lawyer may both love this country with equal passion, and yet reach very different conclusions on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm. The gay activist and the evangelical pastor may both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their efforts. Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in an admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son's or daughter's hardships can be relieved. (Applause.)

The question, then -- the question then is how do we work through these conflicts? Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without, as Father John said, demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?

And of course, nowhere do these questions come up more powerfully than on the issue of abortion.

As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I describe in a book I wrote called "The Audacity of Hope." A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an e-mail from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the Illinois primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election. He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life -- but that was not what was preventing him potentially from voting for me.

What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my website -- an entry that said I would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose." The doctor said he had assumed I was a reasonable person, he supported my policy initiatives to help the poor and to lift up our educational system, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable. He wrote, "I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words." Fair-minded words.

After I read the doctor's letter, I wrote back to him and I thanked him. And I didn't change my underlying position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that -- when we open up our hearts and our minds to those who may not think precisely like we do or believe precisely what we believe -- that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.

That's when we begin to say, "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions.

So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let's reduce unintended pregnancies. (Applause.) Let's make adoption more available. (Applause.) Let's provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term. (Applause.) Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women." Those are things we can do. (Applause.)

Now, understand -- understand, Class of 2009, I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. Because no matter how much we may want to fudge it -- indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory -- the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words. It's a way of life that has always been the Notre Dame tradition. (Applause.) Father Hesburgh has long spoken of this institution as both a lighthouse and a crossroads. A lighthouse that stands apart, shining with the wisdom of the Catholic tradition, while the crossroads is where "¼differences of culture and religion and conviction can co-exist with friendship, civility, hospitality, and especially love." And I want to join him and Father John in saying how inspired I am by the maturity and responsibility with which this class has approached the debate surrounding today's ceremony. You are an example of what Notre Dame is about. (Applause.)

This tradition of cooperation and understanding is one that I learned in my own life many years ago -- also with the help of the Catholic Church.

You see, I was not raised in a particularly religious household, but my mother instilled in me a sense of service and empathy that eventually led me to become a community organizer after I graduated college. And a group of Catholic churches in Chicago helped fund an organization known as the Developing Communities Project, and we worked to lift up South Side neighborhoods that had been devastated when the local steel plant closed.

And it was quite an eclectic crew -- Catholic and Protestant churches, Jewish and African American organizers, working-class black, white, and Hispanic residents -- all of us with different experiences, all of us with different beliefs. But all of us learned to work side by side because all of us saw in these neighborhoods other human beings who needed our help -- to find jobs and improve schools. We were bound together in the service of others.

And something else happened during the time I spent in these neighborhoods -- perhaps because the church folks I worked with were so welcoming and understanding; perhaps because they invited me to their services and sang with me from their hymnals; perhaps because I was really broke and they fed me. (Laughter.) Perhaps because I witnessed all of the good works their faith inspired them to perform, I found myself drawn not just to the work with the church; I was drawn to be in the church. It was through this service that I was brought to Christ.

And at the time, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin was the Archbishop of Chicago. (Applause.) For those of you too young to have known him or known of him, he was a kind and good and wise man. A saintly man. I can still remember him speaking at one of the first organizing meetings I attended on the South Side. He stood as both a lighthouse and a crossroads -- unafraid to speak his mind on moral issues ranging from poverty and AIDS and abortion to the death penalty and nuclear war. And yet, he was congenial and gentle in his persuasion, always trying to bring people together, always trying to find common ground. Just before he died, a reporter asked Cardinal Bernardin about this approach to his ministry. And he said, "You can't really get on with preaching the Gospel until you've touched hearts and minds."

My heart and mind were touched by him. They were touched by the words and deeds of the men and women I worked alongside in parishes across Chicago. And I'd like to think that we touched the hearts and minds of the neighborhood families whose lives we helped change. For this, I believe, is our highest calling.

Now, you, Class of 2009, are about to enter the next phase of your life at a time of great uncertainty. You'll be called to help restore a free market that's also fair to all who are willing to work. You'll be called to seek new sources of energy that can save our planet; to give future generations the same chance that you had to receive an extraordinary education. And whether as a person drawn to public service, or simply someone who insists on being an active citizen, you will be exposed to more opinions and ideas broadcast through more means of communication than ever existed before. You'll hear talking heads scream on cable, and you'll read blogs that claim definitive knowledge, and you will watch politicians pretend they know what they're talking about. (Laughter.) Occasionally, you may have the great fortune of actually seeing important issues debated by people who do know what they're talking about -- by well-intentioned people with brilliant minds and mastery of the facts. In fact, I suspect that some of you will be among those brightest stars.

And in this world of competing claims about what is right and what is true, have confidence in the values with which you've been raised and educated. Be unafraid to speak your mind when those values are at stake. Hold firm to your faith and allow it to guide you on your journey. In other words, stand as a lighthouse.

But remember, too, that you can be a crossroads. Remember, too, that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It's the belief in things not seen. It's beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He asks of us. And those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own.

And this doubt should not push us away our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, cause us to be wary of too much self-righteousness. It should compel us to remain open and curious and eager to continue the spiritual and moral debate that began for so many of you within the walls of Notre Dame. And within our vast democracy, this doubt should remind us even as we cling to our faith to persuade through reason, through an appeal whenever we can to universal rather than parochial principles, and most of all through an abiding example of good works and charity and kindness and service that moves hearts and minds.

For if there is one law that we can be most certain of, it is the law that binds people of all faiths and no faith together. It's no coincidence that it exists in Christianity and Judaism; in Islam and Hinduism; in Buddhism and humanism. It is, of course, the Golden Rule -- the call to treat one another as we wish to be treated. The call to love. The call to serve. To do what we can to make a difference in the lives of those with whom we share the same brief moment on this Earth.
So many of you at Notre Dame -- by the last count, upwards of 80 percent -- have lived this law of love through the service you've performed at schools and hospitals; international relief agencies and local charities. Brennan is just one example of what your class has accomplished. That's incredibly impressive, a powerful testament to this institution. (Applause.)

Now you must carry the tradition forward. Make it a way of life. Because when you serve, it doesn't just improve your community, it makes you a part of your community. It breaks down walls. It fosters cooperation. And when that happens -- when people set aside their differences, even for a moment, to work in common effort toward a common goal; when they struggle together, and sacrifice together, and learn from one another -- then all things are possible.

After all, I stand here today, as President and as an African American, on the 55th anniversary of the day that the Supreme Court handed down the decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Now, Brown was of course the first major step in dismantling the "separate but equal" doctrine, but it would take a number of years and a nationwide movement to fully realize the dream of civil rights for all of God's children. There were freedom rides and lunch counters and Billy clubs, and there was also a Civil Rights Commission appointed by President Eisenhower. It was the 12 resolutions recommended by this commission that would ultimately become law in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

There were six members of this commission. It included five whites and one African American; Democrats and Republicans; two Southern governors, the dean of a Southern law school, a Midwestern university president, and your own Father Ted Hesburgh, President of Notre Dame. (Applause.) So they worked for two years, and at times, President Eisenhower had to intervene personally since no hotel or restaurant in the South would serve the black and white members of the commission together. And finally, when they reached an impasse in Louisiana, Father Ted flew them all to Notre Dame's retreat in Land O'Lakes, Wisconsin -- (applause) -- where they eventually overcame their differences and hammered out a final deal.

And years later, President Eisenhower asked Father Ted how on Earth he was able to broker an agreement between men of such different backgrounds and beliefs. And Father Ted simply said that during their first dinner in Wisconsin, they discovered they were all fishermen. (Laughter.) And so he quickly readied a boat for a twilight trip out on the lake. They fished, and they talked, and they changed the course of history.

I will not pretend that the challenges we face will be easy, or that the answers will come quickly, or that all our differences and divisions will fade happily away -- because life is not that simple. It never has been.

But as you leave here today, remember the lessons of Cardinal Bernardin, of Father Hesburgh, of movements for change both large and small. Remember that each of us, endowed with the dignity possessed by all children of God, has the grace to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we all seek the same love of family, the same fulfillment of a life well lived. Remember that in the end, in some way we are all fishermen.

If nothing else, that knowledge should give us faith that through our collective labor, and God's providence, and our willingness to shoulder each other's burdens, America will continue on its precious journey towards that more perfect union. Congratulations, Class of 2009. May God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

Saturday, May 16, 2009

If you can't make the trip...write an email...


Write to the President of Notre Dame... follow this link.

Not so golden...



GEORGE WEIGEL

from National Review

Notre Dame’s decision to make President Obama its 2009 commencement speaker is a very bad thing. It’s bad for Notre Dame, bad for Catholic moral witness in America, and bad for the bishops who are trying to mount a defense against the Obama administration’s assault on the conscience rights of Catholic health-care professionals.

The invitation to deliver a commencement address, especially when coupled with the award of an honorary degree, is not a neutral act. It’s an act by which a Catholic institution of higher learning says, “This is a life worth emulating according to our understanding of the true, the good, and the beautiful.” It is frankly beyond my imagining how Notre Dame can say that of a president who has put the United States back into the business of funding abortion abroad; a president who made a mockery of the very idea of moral argument in his speech announcing federal funding for embryo-destructive stem cell research; a president whose administration and its congressional allies are snatching tuition vouchers out of the hands of desperately poor Washington, D.C., children who just as desperately want to attend Catholic schools.
As to Lenin’s question, “What, then, is to be done?,” one does not risk a charge of cynicism by suggesting that the most effective advocates for Notre Dame’s recovering its senses will be alumni and other donors capable of withdrawing or withholding contributions in the range of seven, eight, or nine figures. That is the sad state to which things have descended under the Golden Dome: moral argument seems to be unavailing with the leaders of an institution dedicated to developing the arts of moral reason.

— George Weigel holds the William E. Simon Chair in Catholic Studies at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

Friday, May 15, 2009


12-May-2009 -- Catholic News Agency

Sweden Allows Sex-selective Abortions

Stockholm, Sweden, May 12, 2009 (CNA).- Sweden, which legalized abortion in 1938, has taken its abortion extremism one step further by legalizing “gender based” abortion which allows a mother to decide to abort her baby solely due to his or her sex.

The Local reported that a pregnant woman in South Sweden, who already has two girls, arrived at Mälaren Hospital and inquired whether or not she would be giving birth to another girl. She went on to tell her doctors that her previous two pregnancies ended in abortion because she did not want to have another girl - and if this child was another girl, she would have it aborted as well.

Doctors expressed concern over this and brought it to the attention of Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare. They asked how to handle requests where doctors felt “pressured to examine the [fetus’s] gender” without a medical rationale.

The Board came back and said that requests to for abortions based on a child’s gender cannot be refused.

Johnston’s Archive reported that over 25% of Sweden’s pregnancies end in abortion. An increase of 17% after the introduction of the morning after pill, which was promoted by pro-abortion advocates as a way to reduce the number of abortions performed.

Life UP! More Americans pro-life than pro-choice

From FOX NEWS

POLL: MAJORITY OF AMERICANS ARE PRO-LIFE FOR THE FIRST TIME

Fifty-one percent of Americans consider themselves "pro-life" and just 42 percent say they are "pro-choice," the first time a majority of the country has stated a personal objection to abortion since Gallup polls began tracking the data 15 years ago.

FOXNews.com

Friday, May 15, 2009

Fifty-one percent of Americans consider themselves "pro-life," the first time a majority of the country has stated a personal objection to abortion since Gallup polls began tracking the data 15 years ago.

The numbers correspond with FOX News polls this month showing 49 percent of Americans as pro-life and 43 percent as pro-choice on abortion. Last year the numbers were essentially the reverse of the current findings: 41 percent were pro-life and 49 percent were pro-choice in September 2008.

The Gallup poll released Friday also marks a massive shift from one year ago, when 50 percent of Americans called themselves pro-choice, and just 44 percent said they were pro-life. Today 42 percent say they are pro-choice, by far the lowest level of support for abortion ever measured by the Gallup poll.

Despite that change in opinion, most Americans still believe that abortion should remain legal. Yet Gallup reports that the new numbers come in stark contrast with the last four years, when polls found a strong tilt of public opinion in favor of unrestricted abortions, which is now declining.

Fifty-three percent say abortions should remain legal under certain circumstances, and nearly equal numbers take hard-line views -- 23 percent say it should be illegal in all circumstances, and 22 percent say it should be legal no matter what.

The sample study of 1,015 adults was conducted from May 7-10 and has a margin of error of 3 points. Though the changes were notable for a single-year period, they were not an anomaly -- Gallup conducted two more polls on the issue and came out with nearly identical results.

The big jump came mostly from moderates and conservatives, whose personal opposition to abortion jumped 7 and 5 points respectively. Liberal support for abortion also increased this year.

Support for abortions has wavered among men and women in recent years, but Gallup noted that for the first time in nearly a decade significantly more men and women are pro-life than pro-choice."

__________________________________________

While this news certainly indicates that the discussion is not near over, and should be cause for celebration, this poll articulates what many of us feel happening in our communities and even in our Catholic parishes: that polarity between one half of "America" and the other half of "America" is increasing.

Gallup indicated that the "big jump came mostly from moderates and conservatives"... and "liberal support for abortion also increased." What is to be made of this leaving the middle ground? If moderate opposition to abortion jumped 7 percent alone, does this makes President Obama's tactic to try to control the middle-ground on the abortion issue more difficult? Sure it does! Does this leave the President without troops in the middle? No.

The work to persuade through prayer and action is not nearly over. The work to draw our friend's and family member's attention to these facts is still very much upon us. Please pray that our President will follow the nation's people to a pro-life position...to a pro-life LIFE.

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Terrible News...



From Fox News

WASHINGTON -- Seventeen-year-olds will soon be able to buy the "morning after" emergency contraceptive without a doctor's prescription, after the Food and Drug Administration bowed to a federal judge's order Wednesday.

Reversing a contentious policy of the Bush administration, the FDA said in a brief statement it will not appeal a judge's order that overturns restrictions limiting over-the-counter sales of "Plan B" to women 18 and older.

Conservatives called the decision a blow to parental supervision of teens. But women's groups said the FDA's action was long overdue, since the agency's own medical reviewers had initially recommended that the contraceptive be made available without any age restrictions.

U.S. District Judge Edward Korman ruled last month in a lawsuit filed in New York that Bush administration appointees let politics, not science, drive their decision to restrict over-the-counter access.

Korman ordered the FDA to let 17-year-olds get the birth control pills. He also directed the agency to evaluate whether all age restrictions should be lifted.

The FDA's latest action does not mean that Plan B will be immediately available to 17-year-olds.The manufacturer must first submit a request.

"It's a good indication that the agency will move expeditiously to ensure its policy on Plan B is based solely on science," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which filed the lawsuit.

Conservatives said politics drove the decision.

"Parents should be furious at the FDA's complete disregard of parental rights and the safety of minors," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.

Plan B is emergency contraception that contains a high dose of birth control drugs and will not interfere with an established pregnancy. It works by preventing ovulation or fertilization. In medical terms, pregnancy begins when a fertilized egg attaches itself to the wall of the uterus.

If taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, it can reduce a woman's chances of pregnancy by as much as 89 percent.

Critics of the contraceptive say Plan B is the equivalent of an abortion pill because it can prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. Recent research suggests that's possible but not likely.

The battle over access to Plan B has dragged on for the better part of a decade, through the terms of three FDA commissioners. Among many in the medical community, it came to symbolize the decline of science at the agency because top FDA managers refused to go along with the recommendations of scientific staff and outside advisers that the drug be made available with no age restrictions.

"The FDA got caught up in a saga, it got caught up in a drama," said Susan Wood, who served as the agency's top women's health official and resigned in 2005 over delays in issuing a decision. "This issue served as a clear example of the agency being taken off track, and it highlighted the problems FDA was facing in many other areas."

The treatment consists of two pills and sells for $35 to $60. Women must ask for Plan B at the pharmacy counter and show identification with their date of birth. The drug is made by a subsidiary of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, an Israeli company. It does not prevent sexually transmitted infections, such as HIV/AIDS.

Supporters of broader access argued that Plan B is safe and effective in preventing unwanted pregnancy and could help reduce the number of abortions.

Opponents, including prominent conservatives, counter that it would encourage promiscuity and might even become a tool for criminals running prostitution rings, as well as for sexual predators.

Early in the Bush administration, more than 60 organizations petitioned the FDA to allow sales without a prescription. But according to court documents, the issue quickly became politicized.

In 2003, a panel of outside advisers voted 23-4 to recommend over-the-counter sales without age restrictions. But top FDA officials told their subordinates that no approval could be issued at the time, and the decision would be made at a higher level. That's considered highly unusual, since the FDA usually has the last word on drug decisions.

In his ruling, Korman said that FDA staffers were told the White House had been involved in the decision on Plan B. The government said in court papers that politics played no role.

In 2005, the Center for Reproductive Rights and other organizations sued in federal court to force an FDA decision.

The following year, the FDA allowed Plan B to be sold without a prescription to adults. But the controversy raged on over access for teens.

Sunday, April 19, 2009

A Culture of Life



Pope John Paul II's description of America's moral history, eloquently expressed when the pope accepted the credentials of the last Democratic ambassador to the Holy See, Lindy Boggs, in 1997:

"No expression of today's [American] commitment to liberty and justice for all can be more basic than the protection offered to those in society who are most vulnerable. The United States of America was founded on the conviction that an inalienable right to life was a self-evident moral truth, fidelity to which was a primary criterion of social justice. The moral history of your country is the story of your people's efforts to widen the circle of inclusion in society, so that all Americans might enjoy the protection of law, participate in the responsibilities of citizenship, and have the opportunity to make a contribution to the common good. Whenever a certain category of people—the unborn or the sick and old—are excluded from that protection, a deadly anarchy subverts the original understanding of justice. The credibility of the United States will depend more and more on its promotion of a genuine culture of life, and on a renewed commitment to building a world in which the weakest and most vulnerable are welcomed and protected."

The above is excerpted from this article by George Weigel, Distinguished Senior Fellow Of Washington’s Ethics And Public Policy Center.

"From natural conception to natural death"

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

For Life



Easter Prayer for Life

Lord Jesus, In rising from the dead,
You have conquered the entire kingdom of death.
Make me a voice for life,
Especially for children threatened by abortion.
Fill me with Easter joy,
For you live and reign forever and ever.
Amen.

Straight from the President's Mouth!



"From the first moment a woman dared to speak that hope -- dared to believe that the American Dream was meant for her too -- ordinary women have taken on extraordinary odds to give their daughters the chance for something else; for a life more equal, more free, and filled with more opportunity than they ever had. In so many ways we have succeeded, but in so many areas we have much work left to do."

-- Barack Obama, Speech in Washington, DC November 10, 2005

Posted here on The White House website.

How can it be possible for a man to rise to such ranks and not realize the folly of one's words?

Here, in this very speech, then just Mr. Obama, speaks of the rights of women. Can you assume he also means "girls"? If he also means "girls" then why not assume he also means "baby girls" or "girls that have the potential to become women" and that it's only possible to become a woman if you are made to be a woman, and that...

OK maybe that's assuming too much...

It is truly amazing that one might as easily be able to read the President's above comments as an argument for defending the rights of the unborn.

How ironic..."President Obama has a long record of standing up for women".

How about standing up for all women...born and unborn!

Oh.. and since when did the American Dream mean being able to take someone's life from them without question or pause?

(By the way, how about that "From the first moment" line above? How concurrently right and wrong he is!)

The slippery slope

Selective abortions result in 32m excess males in China

PARIS: Selective abortion in favour of males has left China with 32 million more boys than girls, creating an imbalance that will remain for decades, warned a paper published by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) on Friday.

The study provided ammunition for those experts who predicted that China’s obsession with a male heir would sow bitter fruit, as men facing a life of bachelorhood would eventually have to fight for a bride. “Although some imaginative and extreme solutions have been suggested, nothing can be done now to prevent this imminent generation of excess men,” says the paper. In most countries, males slightly outnumber females, with an average of 103 to 107 male births for every 100 female births.

Widened: But in China and other Asian countries, the gender ratio has widened sharply as the traditional preference for boys was reinforced by the availability of cheap ultrasound diagnostics and abortion. This has enabled Chinese couples to use abortions to prevent a female birth, a practice that was officially condemned as well as being made illegal.

In the paper, Zhejiang University professors Wei Xing Zhu and Li Lu and Therese Hesketh of the University College London found that in 2005 alone, China had more than 1.1 million excess male births. Amongst the Chinese aged below 20, the greatest gender imbalances existed amongst one-to-four-year-olds, where there were 124 male to 100 female births, with 126 to 100 in rural areas, they found.

One-child policy: However, an additional factor leading to the gender imbalance has been the Chinese government’s “one-child” policy. In general, parents who had a second child were liable to pay a fine and contribute disproportionately towards the second child’s education. The gender ratio gap was especially big in provinces where the one-child policy was strictly enforced and in rural areas. Jiangxi and Henan provinces had ratios of over 140 male births compared to female births in the one-to-four-year-olds age group.

When it came to second births, the sex ratio was even higher, with 143 male births to 100 female births. It peaked at a massive 192 boys to 100 girls in the Jiangsu province. afp