more ignorant religion journalism

From Carl Keating's Jan. 29th e-letter [www.catholic.com ]:

UNBIASED AND UNINFORMED

The Religion News Service [http://www.religionnews.com/ ] describes itself as "the only secular news and photo service devoted to unbiased coverage of religion and ethics--exclusively." These words imply that RNS gets the facts right, whereas competing services (which are not secular and thus are hampered by denominational affiliations) are biased.

Well, maybe such services do have a bias, but I suppose it depends on what you think is the greater failing, toeing a denominational party line or not knowing what you're writing about.

Consider an RNS story written by Daniel Burke in September of last year. The headline was "Archbishop Heats Up 'Wafer' Wars." The Archbishop in question was Raymond Burke of St. Louis.

The story began this way:
"A hard-line U.S. Roman Catholic archbishop is urging ministers to deny Holy Communion to politicians who support abortion rights, arguing that it's a 'mortal sin' to offer the sacrament to 'the unworthy.'"

Right off, I see bias in the unbiased RNS report: "hard-line." Would the story have lost anything, other than a tilt, if that term had been absent? But let's go on. The third paragraph is the one I'm interested it. It read this way:

"Now, the conservative cleric is invoking the church's highest punishment--mortal sin--to convince the lay and ordained Catholics who distribute Holy Communion at Mass to safeguard the sacrament."

Daniel Burke tried to explain the instructions that Archbishop Burke issued to those under his authority:
"Drawing on the works of the late Italian Jesuit scholar Felice Cappello, Burke says those ministers are 'held, under pain of mortal sin, to deny the sacraments to the unworthy.'"

To me, this means that if those ministers disobey the Archbishop and knowingly give Communion to "the unworthy," the ministers themselves commit a mortal sin. But that’s not quite how Daniel Burke understood things. Let's go back to that third paragraph, where he referred to "the church's highest punishment--mortal sin." Have you ever read it explained that way? I had been under the impression that the Church's highest punishment was excommunication--or maybe interdict, if the Church wanted to levy a widespread punishment. I never read about mortal sin being something the Church slapped on you for being disobedient.

Mortal sin is something you bring on yourself. It's something you do, not something the Church does to you. Mortal sin is not itself a punishment or some kind of judicial decree, but there are punishments associated with it, the chief being going to hell if you die unrepentant (a fairly stiff penalty, I'd say).

Daniel Burke doesn't know what he's talking about. To call mortal sin "the church's highest punishment" is to say, at least to knowledgeable Catholics, "I don't understand the basics of your religion."If that is the case, why is he writing about our religion at all?

New trend in recent films: characters rejecting abortion

Via PewSitter.com, from Rick Santorum, former senator from Pennsylvania and a Catholic...

The Philadelphia Inquirer

Posted on Thu, Jan. 3, 2008
The Elephant in the Room:
5 characters reject abortion in a
cultural shift in movies
By Rick Santorum

I begin this new year with greater hope for our culture. That is saying something, given our pop culture's violence, gratuitous coarseness, hyper-commercialism, and obsession with sex and celebrity. I can sympathize with parents who are increasingly tempted to gather their children and retreat to the catacombs. But don't head down there just yet. This last year saw something that we should take heart in.

No, it wasn't the American public's stout rejection of a slew of anti-American "war on terror" movies such as Redacted and Rendition. The most encouraging news was quieter and more life-affirming.

If art is a reflection of our culture, our culture - and particularly our youth culture - is awaking to the reality of life in the womb. You hear it in Nick Cannon's autobiographical single "Can I live?" You see it in the stunning episode of the television show House where Dr. Gregory House's finger is grasped by a baby in the womb during intrauterine surgery. The recognition of the life in the womb is going mainstream.

But the biggest shift came at the movies. In a nation with one of the world's most wide-open abortion regimes, U.S. audiences flocked to see five motion pictures with life-affirming texts or subtexts: Knocked up, Waitress, Bella, August Rush and Juno.

In these movies, abortion was urged on women facing an unplanned pregnancy, and rejected. Ultrasound images awakened characters and audiences to the humanity of the unborn. Having a baby, even in the most challenging circumstances, became the compelling "choice." Adoption was held up as a positive alternative to abortion. And, unlike the news media's portrayal of pro-lifers, protesters outside abortion clinics were authentically depicted as warm and concerned. This stood in contrast to the indifference of the staff within.

These movies came from four different companies (Waitress and Juno are Fox Searchlight movies) and right out of our pop culture. Given the degraded state of that culture, this sometimes comes at a price when it comes to a movie's language, humor, and the treatment of sexual relations. Bella is a gentle celebration of family and adoption amid an unplanned pregnancy. August Rush is a PG-rated look at the gut-wrenching consequences of an out-of-wedlock affair. But Knocked Up, Waitress and Juno are most certainly hip-deep in today's bawdy mainstream culture.

Any movie titled Knocked Up is not going to win awards for decorum, and this one doesn't disappoint. Its pro-life, pro-marriage message - Alison (Katherine Heigl) decides she wants to have the baby after she becomes pregnant during a one-night stand - comes wrapped in X-rated language, sex jokes and drug abuse.

In Waitress, abused Jenna (Keri Russell) decides to have a baby instead of an abortion while having an adulterous affair with her doctor.

As for Juno, for all its tenderness and antiabortion, pro-adoption themes, it's pretty edgy. But it's exactly these movies' connection to the pop culture that makes them so heartening.
They are meeting audiences where they live, and, through good storytelling, smart - if often raw - dialogue, and compelling character development, are presenting themes we rarely associate with much of our popular culture. And audiences and critics are largely saying "two thumbs up."
The best thing about all of these movies is, they are not "pro-life" message movies. They are, instead, chronicles from the children of our divorce- and abortion-oriented culture. There is lived experience, emotional understanding, hard-earned authenticity at the heart of these scripts. And pain.

One of the most poignant recurring themes may be the message to baby-boom parents from their own children. The characters most often urging abortion on the expectant mother were aging boomers, and they are not attractive moments. In August Rush, Lyla's father tells her that her baby was killed in an auto accident and gives the child to an orphanage - to protect her career. After career-bound Alison becomes pregnant in Knocked Up, it's her mother who urges her to have an abortion - she can always have "a real baby" later on.

Alison doesn't take her mother's advice. She decides to have her baby after seeing the unborn child's heart beat on a monitor. What ultimately triumphs in Knocked Up and these other movies is the simple reality of human life.

On the way to an abortion, Juno Ellen Page stops and talks to a nerdy but caring pro-life schoolmate who is protesting there. As Juno continues into the clinic, the girl calls out, "Your baby has fingernails!"

Your baby has fingernails: It's enough to stop Juno from going ahead with an abortion.
Yes, the ultrasound - and now Hollywood - see that unborn baby whose eyes, spinal cord, nervous system, liver and stomach are developing within the first month, whose heart begins beating at 18 days. That unborn child who can make a tiny fist, hiccup, wake and sleep at three months.

It may be a small thing in our vast pop culture. But what a blessing small things can be.

E-mail Rick Santorum at rsantorum@phillynews.com.

Original article post:
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080103_The_Elephant_in_
the_Room___5_characters_reject_abortion_in_a_
cultural_shift_in_movies.html

Pharmacists told to check their conscience at the door

Whatever happened to "do no harm" in the medical profession?

Via American Papist blog again:

"New Jersey Forces Pharmacists to Dispense Abortifacient Drugs Regardless of Conscience"

"Another domino falls:

The state of New Jersey has passed a law denying the conscientious objection right of pharmacists, won in other states through lengthy court battles, to refrain from dispensing abortifacient and contraceptive drugs.“Discussions of morals and matters of conscience are admirable, but should not come into play when subjective beliefs conflict with objective medical decisions,” said state Sen. Joseph Vitale, D-Middlesex, a bill sponsor.

The decision comes just days after Pope Benedict XVI gave his support to pharmacists worldwide who reject the culture of death in their profession. “Pharmacists must seek to raise people's awareness so that all human beings are protected from conception to natural death, and so that medicines truly play a therapeutic role,” the pope said on Monday.

He called the right of conscientious objection, “a right that must be recognized for people exercising this profession, so as to enable them not to collaborate directly or indirectly in supplying products that have clearly immoral purposes such as, for example, abortion or euthanasia.”

The New Jersey law was passed in the context of numerous battles in courts and legislatures between pro-abortion governors and pharmacists fighting for conscience rights currently raging across the US. - LifeSiteNews

Once again, I reiterate. "

Prayer Request UPDATE: Holy Spirit at work in high school abortion debate

My friend sent me this update from Sr. Raffaella, thanks for the prayers all! (note: editorial packaging: I put the email into an article format and emphasized some points in bold print):

[above, from left to right: pictures of gestation at 8 weeks, 6 weeks, and 16 weeks]
____________________________________________________

A High School Abortion Debate:
A report by Sr. Raffaella of the Apostles of the Interior Life
[ http://www.apostlesofil.org/AilIndex.htm ]

"I had ONE goal in mind upon entering the debate:

drilling in the students' mind

that we're talking about a child

and not a piece of tissue."

"Dear friends,
Thank you so much for your support this past week of preparation and for today's debate.
After I left the High School I drove to the 40 days for life vigil at PP, where I prayed and thanked the thousands of little babies that have been aborted there for their support from heaven!

"Both sessions of the debate went very well (for the pro-life!). I had ONE goal in mind upon entering the debate: drilling in the students' mind that we're talking about a child and not a piece of tissue. I felt that if the kids could leave the debate at least having that thing clear, I'd consider it a victory.

"Well, the Lord went FAR BEYOND that.

"All the questions that the students addressed always referred to the unborn as a child and never to anything different. Also, it made all the difference when in the final part of the debate I explained the surgical procedure of abortion, as well as showed the pictures of aborted babies. That brought it home for most of the kids. They had NO IDEA what abortion does to a child.

Even starting from a theoretical level many of them were moving towards agreeing with the pro-life position; some were still arguing the validity of abortion for rape or incest or danger for the mother's health and life; yet none were defending abortion for reasons other than those. (It was funny to see how some of the kids made "pro-life rebuttals" to their classmates in between questions!!) Yet, when I got concrete and explained the abominable procedure of abortion (and even before some of them chose to look at the images), the questions on abortion stopped. They then started asking about birth control and the last 5 minutes of the conversation pretty much shifted towards sex and hormones.

"So, upon entering the classroom I could tell that most students had confused ideas on the topic, and a couple were strong either on the pro-life or on the pro-choice side. By the time the debate was over, the "middle-grounder" had mostly shifted towards opposing abortion in all cases (except a couple who still saw it doable in extreme situations). As for the birth control aspect, there was really too little time to seriously tackle the issue, so I used all my bullets on abortion, thus leaving most of them clueless on why pro-lifers are against birth control (although they got the part that some forms of birth control are actually abortifacents).

"All in all I consider it a very positive experience. The teacher was very pleased with the debate (very fair on both sides), and she invited me back for her next class in the Spring. I thought that that was a positive thing, although I don't know how to read it necessarily.
I don't know if the students will stick in the future to what they felt the truth was during the debate. But with all the prayers that you along with thousands of people have been sending up for the past 4 days, I'm pretty confident that the Lord is not done with this job!
We planted the seeds, He'll take care of the growth.

"One regret that I have is that I did not have pro-life gadgets with me (I honestly didn't think I was allowed to bring any). The pro-choice person brought pins and pens and bumper stickers, which a good number of students picked up on their way out. I offered them the Project Rachel and Rachel Vineyards brochures, which some students picked up. So, for the future, we should make gadgets available. Honestly, I think that if today I had t-shirts and bumper stickers to offer, several students would have taken them.

"Once again, thank you so much for your support, for the suggestions and the material that you offered. I really feel that this is a team victory and it couldn't have been otherwise, regardless of who the person on the debate ended up being.

"God bless and keep you
Sister Raffaella"

Sr. Raffaella - St. Paul's University Catholic Center - University of Wisconsin - Madison, WI

Planned Parenthood Opens in Aurora... People still lack logic on the abortion question

October IS Respect Life Month, so I will highlight pro-life issues a little more during this month. Here is the latest on what is going on with the huge Planned Parenthood facility that opened up in the western Chicago suburb of Aurora, IL:

From the Chicago Tribune:
10/3 Clinic Opens Among Cheers and Protests
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/
chi-auroraclinic03oct03,0,3984092.story

cheers?--"yeah, the Grim Reaper has settled in our town!"

More from the Trib:

VOICE OF THE PEOPLE (Letters)
October 3, 2007

Offering choices

"You know the great thing about pro-choice? That's right, people, choice! When did that become such a dirty word? It is not synonymous with "pro-abortion."

"As a married 20-something with two kids, I can say that I don't believe that I could have an abortion. The only reason I can say that at all is because I have the luxury of never having been faced with such a heart-wrenching decision. Just like I have the choice to seek out such a health-care provider, those who choose differently can avoid one. No one viewpoint should dictate or limit the choices of all, regardless of a desire to police the morals of all. The Planned Parenthood clinic in Aurora will provide so much more than abortions -- screenings, exams, treatment, prenatal care, counseling, adoption referral, even assistance for women and children living with domestic violence.Shame on those who wanted to mix church and state, and cut off much-needed services to those who badly need them and choose to use them!
-Mary Braddish, Sandwich, IL"

I WILL PUBLISH MY RESPONSE (in blue) HERE ON MY BLOG:

"Choice" is great!... unless, that is, it becomes a deadly weapon that you aim at the innocent!
Ms. Braddish, allow me to help you out with some of your questions. Is "choice" a great thing? When did "choice" become such a dirty word? Well, choice is great when you are talking about talking about your choice of side orders, or Pepsi vs. Coke, or a real choice between different political parties in a truly free democratic election. Choice is good in selecting between the best schools for your child, or the best health care providers (that is, those who heal not those who kill), etc. We, as Americans, love choice of course. But one man's freedom to choose--when not balanced with the common good and the inherent rights of others--can become a recipe for evil.

"Choice" becomes a bad word precisely when one person's "choice" impedes upon the basic human dignity and fundamental rights of another person. Historically, it was determined that neither states nor individuls had the "choice" whether to keep slaves or not... you see, that free choice by the slaveowner impeded upon the right of the slave to live a free and humane life. "But the slave is not human!... the slave is MY property," protested the slaveowner. Ooops, they were in the dark about that, weren't they. We realized that slaves were not animals, they were fellow human beings who possessed the same inherent human dignity as the slave owner. The trick is that our culture has blinded itself to what is obvious through basic science and philosophy: the pre-born child in the womb is a human person, regardless of his or her dependence on the mother.

"I have the luxury of never having been faced with such a heart-wrenching decision."
Well, thank the good Lord for your kids sake that you had that luxury. Ask yourself which of your 2 children deserved to die if you HAD BEEN in a difficult spot and had to make "such a heart-wrenching decision." What financial/psychological/health conditions would have made it the reasonable choice to destroy your child in the womb? Can you imagine taking their lives now that you have seen them continue to grow and develop outside of the womb? When did they receive their own rights and dignity?... the second they crossed through the birthcanal? That seems a rather arbitrary place to make the distinction. One second before birth and one second after birth the baby looks, weights, etc. the same. On one side of the birth canals, however, "it" is merely a blob of tissue and organs that are merely part of a woman's body (like an appendix or a tumor) and on the other side "he or she" is a human person with inalienable human dignity and rights. Even if you do not believe in abortion through all 9 months, you still have to draw a line of distinction between animal/body part and distinct, individual human person. No matter where you draw the line it would be arbitrary.

How can we have laws that charge someone with double homicide when they murder a pregnant woman, and then legally allow a pregnant woman to "choose" herself to kill the very same child in the womb at a Planned Parenthood Clinic. Can you honestly say that the status of the fetus in the womb--whether it is just a part of a woman's body with no inherent rights to protection, and a pre-born human person with human dignity and rights--does that status depend on whether or not a woman wants the child to be born? Does loving a fetus in the womb and wanting him or her to come to term and be born actually bestow upon the fetus the status of human personhood? What a ludicrous idea!

Of course, I have sympathy for a woman who faces a crisis. However, we do not help her by assisting her in an action that murders a defenseless child and scars her with trauma for life.

"No one viewpoint should dictate or limit the choices of all, regardless of a desire to police the morals of all."
No one view except, I guess, your viewpoint, Ms. Braddish: the view point that a child in the womb is merely the property of a woman and is only accorded rights, dignity, and that status of human personhood IF THE WOMAN WANTS IT TO. Allowing for abortions DOES limit the choices of many... just ask yourself, if you were allowed the chance to choose--would you have wanted to be born, and given a chance to live your life? What choice is given to those babies... those babies who cannot speak for themselves, though, they are, in fact, human persons (even if their brain is still in development and cannot yet execise their own power to choose). Why do we have "living wills"?--precisely so that we can respect the rights and what would be the choices of a person who is, at the moment, unable to exercise or communicate their choices for themselves. This is not a case of policing morals. This is another application of the precept basic to any civilized society: Do not murder. This is a case of protecting a basic human right to life. This question, therefore, has nothing to do with "mixing church and state". That is a red herring. She writes that simply to pray on many secularists fear and hatred for people who live by deeply-held religious beliefs. Even an atheist should be able to know that it is simply wrong and dangerous to a society to allow the killing of an innocent human life in the womb. If we can make it illegal to destroy the eggs of some endangered bird, then we should be able to use our common sense to apply the same respect for valuable life to the human person in the womb.

Men, women, teens, families in Aurora have EVERY RIGHT to protest against Planned Parenthood. They do not want this multi-million dollar death mill coming into their city (a city with a large lowerclass population, by the way) and manipulating their daughters and sons with fear, presenting them with only one choice (the one that SEEMS easy at the time--murder and cover up)... and not presenting other choices--such as giving birth and/or adoption. If they really wanted to present a woman with all of her choices, why wouldn't they do free ultrasound to show the woman what/who she would be terminating? So, forgive me if I do not trust Planned Parenthood's "counseling" services as much as Ms. Braddish. Planned Parenthood, after all, is part of a big profit abortion industry. They are selling a product--death, and they use fear as their main selling point. I think of the undercover reports of Planned Parenthood skirting around their legal obligation to report statuatory rape. I think of how they press for a denial of parental rights to know when their underage daughters are undergoing serious medical operations (abortion) that can forever affect their physical, psychological, and spiritual health.

REASON MIGHT NEVER PREVAIL IN THIS DEBATE... SO WE CAN ONLY SACRIFICE, FAST, AND PRAY!!!
_____________________________________________
More from the Trib:

Perspective Readers Respond... Secularist bias against peaceful religious protesters and charges of anti-Catholicism to boot:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion
/chi-071004readersrespondabortion,0,7366927.story

prayer request

This comes from a friend's email:

Please see Sr. Raffaella's prayer request below. Sr. Raffaella is one of the Apostles
of the Interior Life who is evangelizing the campus of UW-Madison. She has spoken
at the Martha & Mary Women's Conference in the past. Thanks for your prayers.

Keep your eyes on Christ

----- Original Message -----

Per gli amici Italiani: troverete la traduzione dell'e-mail piu' sotto!

Dear friends,
Hope all is well with you. I am sending out this general e-mail
because I'm looking for powerful prayers.

This Wednesday I will be part of a debate on abortion in a local
public High School in Madison, WI. They were looking for a pro-life speaker to debate on abortion, while there will be someone from
NARAL (National Abortion Right Alliance League)/PP arguing
on the opposite side. There will be 2 debates, each of which will
last 90 minutes, and it will be with juniors and seniors in High
School.

Apparently there is much to know about public debates, many ins
and outs, many tricks and stuff. I honestly won't spend much time
looking into that. I will rather spend the next 2 days in prayer and
in preparation for the topic, for questions that will be posed or
thrown at me. The best thing though about this debate is that I
won't be alone, because there will be hundreds and hundreds of
people praying for me and for the spiritual success of the debate.
I invite you to ask the Lord to open the hearts and minds of the
students as they hear the debate; as I have come to realize
throughout the years, it is not a matter of winning an argument
but of winning hearts. So, let us pray that the success will be a
spiritual one, one of those that touches the depth of the lives of
the students.

Thank you very much for your help. May the Lord reward you all abundantly.
Peace and prayers,

Sister Raffaella
St. Paul's University Catholic Center
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI

--
Just because something is common doesn't make it normal!
Il fatto che qualcosa sia comune non lo rende normale!
Learn more about us at www.apostlesofil.org

Video of Youth For Truth Rally against Planned Parenthood in Aurora, IL

Blogger Fighting Irish Thomas has a wonderful video of the the "Youth for Truth" rally that took place in Aurora, IL. to combat the opening of the new Planned Parenthood "abortion fortress."

Check out the video and related news links on his site:

http://www.fightingirishthomas.net/2007/09/
video-auroras-youth-for-truth-rally-9.html

Also,

Read this post from a Yahoo discussion board:

The new Planned Parenthood building in Aurora, IL has been dubbed the "Abortion Fortress" [Photo above by EJS]
______________________________________
Take a look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NLY8h9SXMk

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/08/
prolife_protest.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytZvxkFpVso

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnA3aGEeOcs

Get involved:

www.familiesagainstplannedparenthood.org

http://www.prolifeaction.org/

Join the 40-Day Prayer Vigil For the 40 days before Planned Parenthood's scheduled opening on September 18, Families Against Planned Parenthood are holding a Prayer Vigil at the site (map). Rain or shine, day or night, hot or cold, we will be there praying that Planned Parenthood never opens. Please joins us, and sign up for an hour of prayer.

Participate in a Special Event FRIDAY, September 7, 2007: Candelight Vigil—9:15-10 p.m. The Most Reverend Peter Sartain, Bishop of the Diocese of Joliet, has called for a day of prayer and fasting to for the intention of keeping Planned Parenthood out of our community, September 7. Many parishes will be holding prayer services that evening. All the faithful are invited to gather at the Vigil site from 9:15-10:00 p.m. for a Candelight Vigil to close the day of prayer and fasting.
_______________________________________

Remember, those of you who do not live anywhere near the Chicagoland area, you can still observe 9/7 as a day of prayer and fasting for this situation in solidarity with our brothers and sisters in Christ. Prayer knows no boundaries.

More Updates on Planned Parenthood's Invasion of Aurora, IL

Planned Parenthood is trying to set up shop (would be the largest abortion clinic in the U.S.) in the large Chicago suburb of Aurora, IL. A large number of people attended the city council meeting last night to stand up for life.

A friend of mine is currently a youth minister in Dekalb, IL but has spent the last few years serving as a youth minister at Holy Angels parish in Aurora. The following is her first hand account of the city council meeting that occurred last night:

So, ironically last night I didn't even speak. I showed up with another youth minister friend of mine. ... We got into the City Council room it was packed to the point that people were out in the hallway.

In the 26 years that my mother has been blessed with my existence, I have never ever been to a City Council meeting. So at first I thought wow, this is a lot of people, I wonder if this many people always show up? The first hour was all boring business stuff that you wonder why anyone really even has to care or vote about those things, but whatever. Then one of the alderman made a call to finish the meeting @ 9PM no matter what and that the first hour should only be Aurora residents. Another alderman, thankfully one from the Holy Angels district spoke up and said that they were there for the people and because of the people and it was unconstitutional to not allow people from other cities speak. Well they had a vote and we won by 1 alderman vote.

I stayed until midnight, but the meeting did not finish until 1:30AM. For the entire time that I was there, only 2 Pro Planned Parenthood representatives presented. Of course they were from NOW, one of the 3 most hated organizations on my list along with NARAL and PP. They were old biddies who were totally not in touch with reality. They claimed that we were all outsiders and extremists. Kinda funny, cause all night I only heard 3 people who were not from Aurora speak. After the one lady's stupid comments, every Pro-Lifer got up and said well, based on the fact that I have lived here in Aurora for 20, 50, or whatever amount of years I don't consider myself an outsider and as someone who has true concern for the protection of my family I don't consider myself a fanatic. The speakers were lawyers, teachers, moms, nurses, doctors. They represented multiple ethnicities, ages, and religions. However, they all stood together for the cause of Life. There were retired military veterans that got up and talked about their promise to protect every American citizen and they believed that to be born and unborn.

The one doctor I remember the most was a woman of African American descent and she was an OBGYN and she talked about all the women she continually treats from the after affects of abortions. She gave a powerful testament with graphic details of how she has found leftover baby body parts in women, and how women come in and will never be able to have children again. All kinds of sad stuff. But man she was Charismatic and a tough cookie who knew her stuff.

There were pastors and priests from every denomination there talking about how many women they had counseled. There were teenagers and young people who were awesome in their speeches. Honestly, I have to say it was truly the closest I have had to a spiritual experience without being in a real church. It was awesome.

And everyone of the speakers got up and pointed out the district they were from and the alderman and reminded them come election time they would remember how they voted on this issue. There were speakers who even challenged the council with asking them what kind of legacy would they be leaving if this is allowed.

Plus, another irony, the city's phrase all over the banners is, "Character counts". So everyone brought that phrase up and reminded the council about the lack of character Planned Parenthood had in coming into the community.

My name had still not been announced, which by midnight I decided I really just have to go home, because I do have work in the morning. Hence, I never spoke but really all the topics had been covered and it was just important to be a body who was present to prove that it wasn't just something a small group of people felt affected by. Regardless, all went well and it was a really cool experience.

I know that the mayor has agreed to an investigation, but hopefully he will do the independent investigation as we asked for, make the findings public, suspend PP from opening until the investigation is finished, and if they got into the community illegally revoke their license to be there. That is what the hope is, but for now all we can do is keep praying and hoping. I will keep you posted as I know more details. Thanks as always for all your prayers and support of me and for the cause of Life!

Love,Katie

__________________________________

Here is some news coverage:

Chicago Tribune: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news
/local/chi-abortion_protest_26aug26,1,7181765.story

Pro-life Blogger:

http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/
2007/08/prolife_protest_1.php

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/
2007/08/aurora-planned-.html

http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/
2007/08/did_planned_par_1.php

Rockford Observer (Catholic diocesan paper)-

http://observer.rockforddiocese.org/Archives/
August172007/Prayervigilsprotest
plannedparenthoodsite/tabid/583/Default.aspx

LifeSite News

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/aug/07082704.html

____________________________________

Other recent articles pertaining to abortion:

Vatican newspaper calls abortion "assasination":

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/aug/07082902.html

Vatican Talks of Eugenics Culture After Abortion of Wrong Twin:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/
comment/faith/article2343739.ece

Update on Planned Parenthood's Invasion of Aurora, IL

This email comes from a friend, so I thought that I would post it:
______________________________
Dear all,

In case you haven't heard, Planned Parenthood tried to sneak into Aurora, IL by building a huge clinic (the largest in the nation?) under another name. They are scheduled to open on Sept. 18th. The pro-life community found out about this a couple of weeks ago and is trying to do everything they can to keep it from opening. (See message below.) They had a very large rally there this past weekend, with over 1000 pro-lifers present, and plan another one this coming Saturday. I know many of you won't be able to make it, but if you can forward this to any family and friends who might live in or near the Chicago area and encourage them to go, that would be great. It seems like a small thing to ask, but if we all work together we can make a big impact. Thanks!

Ellen & Colleen, Dubuque County Right to Life


>-------------- Forwarded Message: --------------
>From: "Eric Scheidler" <eric@prolifeaction.org>
>To: "Jerry and Mary Ann O'Reilly" <oreillyma@comcast.net>
>Subject: Aurora's Teens Need Your Help, Jerry!
>Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:28:11 +0000
>
>Dear Jerry,
>
>I'm sure you're expecting a mesage about the City Council meeting
>last night, but I only have time for a few words here because I
>need to ask for your help making this Saturday's "Youth for Truth"
>Rally a success. Please read on!
>
>Last night's Council meeting was amazing! One hundred pro-lifers,
>most of them Aurora residents, stood up and told the Council their
>stories about why Planned Parenthood is bad for Aurora, and called
>for a true investigation of fraud by PP.
>
>I'll say more later at the Families Against Planned Parenthood blog >a little later, but for now I just want to say how proud I am of everyone who stood up and spoke or came to support the effort,
>which lasted until 1:30 in the morning!
>
>Here's the blog address:
>
> http://familiesagainstplannedparenthood.org/blog
>
>Now I've got to ask for you help -- again.
>
>This Saturday, a group of pro-life youth, led by Danny Schleitwiler >of Aurora Central Catholic H.S. and home-schooler Mary Kate Guest,are putting on a "Youth for Truth" Rally at the Planned Parenthood
>site from 1-3 p.m.
>
>They're counting on >>500<< young people coming out to stand with
>them against Planned Parenthood. They really need your help to pull >this off, so I am counting on you to help them, as I know you will.
>
>I'll say more in a minute about why it's so important that young
>men and women stand up to Planned Parenthood, but first I want to
>tell you exactly how you can help them do it:
>
>1. Please encourage IN PERSON OR BY PHONE anyone you know from
>high school through college age to come out Saturday -- sons
>and daughters, nieces and nephews, grandchildren, brothers and
>sisters, neighbors, etc. Make it your personal goal to get
>THREE young people out there.
>
>2. Please FORWARD THIS MESSAGE to all your contacts, especially
>people you know who have children who are in Planned
>Parenthood's target audience.
>
>3. If you have a WEBSITE or BLOG, please put up an item about
>the Youth for Truth Rally.
>
>4. Make sure mention the FREE T-SHIRT that everyone who
>participates in the Youth for Truth Rally will receive, thanks
>to generous donors.
>
>Here are the details:
>
>EVENT: "Youth for Truth" Rally
>WHEN: Saturday, Sept. 1st, 1-3 p.m.
>WHERE: Oakhurst Drive and New York Street, Aurora
>MAP: http://tinyurl.com/3azgla
>
>The "Youth for Truth" Rally will include:
>
>* Music, praise and worship
>* Teen speakers on fighting for life
>* A talk by Yvonne Florczak-Seeman on her abortion
>experience at Planned Parenthood
>* Free "Youth for Truth" T-shirts
>
>We really need to bring out a good crowd Saturday. These high
>school and college kids are the ones Planned Parenthood's targeting >with their lies and propaganda.
>
>Planned Parenthood is telling them that they are incapable of
>self-control, that every sexual desire must be indulged, that their >parents are to ignored or even mocked, that the Church is irrelevant.
>
>Every value that these fine young people hold dear -- chastity,
>honesty, integrity, respect for their parents, faith in Jesus
>Christ -- is under attack from Planned Parenthood. And what's most
>outrageous, Planned Parenthood claims to be "serving" young people!
>
>The "Youth for Truth" will be out there Saturday proclaiming that
>the young people of Aurora are capable of virtue, capable of
>responding to the demands of love -- and they don't appreciate
>Planned Parenthood telling them they're not.
>
>Jerry, I hope you're as excited as I am about the "Youth
>for Truth" Rally, and that you'll do everything you can to bring
>out a big crowd. And don't forget the free T-shirt for every high
>school or college student who participates.
>
>Let's support our youth!
>
>Eric Scheidler
>Communications Director
>Pro-Life Action League
>Tel: 773-251-8792
>Pro-Life Action League,
>6160 N Cicero Ave, Ste 600,
>Chicago, IL 60646, USA

Planned Parenthood Coming to Aurora, IL

This comes to me from a friend. One of the main "architects of the culture of death"--Planned Parenthood is setting up shop in my old area--Aurora, Illinois. A western Chicagoland suburb of nearly 180,000 people... a town with a large amount of crime and poverty... will soon have another source of violence...

Pray against it.

You probably are aware, but if not, Planned Parenthood is building its largest abortion clinic in the country in Aurora, IL! It's set to open Sept. 18th. It makes me sooo sick to my stomach. Here's some links about it.

http://www.prolifeaction.org/

http://familiesagainstplannedparenthood.org/

http://familiesagainstplannedparenthood.org/vigil.php

United Church of Christ, United Methodists rally for abortion rights:

This is sad indeed. You often hear about some Christian denominations supporting abortion rights in opposition to Sacred Scripture and 2,000 years of Sacred Tradition, but then to read about public demonstrations like this is really sobering. Get the story via Raiders News Network:

http://www.raidersnewsnetwork.com/articles/
columbiatribune-com-2007-Mar-20070303Feat001-asp

Contraception and Abortion (post #3)

RESPECT LIFE

This is the third of three posts in response to Aus Blog who commented on my post on pro-life resources. (Though, I also would like to post a summary of Hummanae Vitae a bit later).

Aus Blog has a blog entitled simply "Abortion." On this blog, Aus Blog has one post entitled "An Atheist's View on Abortion":
http://abortion-whats-your-oppinion.blogspot.com
/2006/11/atheists-view-on-abortion.html#links

Aus Blog is an avowed atheist, but he/she believes abortion is immoral in 98% of the cases (when it is used only as a form of contraception vs. the 2% of times that it is used in the case of rape, incest, or for health condition of the mother).

I read the post and would like to make some comments.

Aus Blog (comments in green) states: "I am a 98% pro-lifer, 2% Pro-choicer, who has no religious convictions at all. I didn't need the fear of god or anything else to come to my decision, just good sense of what is right and wrong."

This statement is interesting on a couple of levels. I also do not believe that one needs to be a Christian or even a believer in God to see the immorality of abortion. However, it is always curious to me what atheists cite as their source of "right and wrong." My source of morality is natural law (known through my conscience) which is aided by divine revelation (which reached its highpoint in Jesus Christ and His Church). I am not sure what atheists hang their hat on (if there is no God... where does such abstract concepts of "right and wrong" come from?). Still, I am glad that Aus Blog is an atheist who believes in ethics and morality. Atheists who forego ethics and morality can be far more dangerous than "religious extremists" (I refer to the bloody reign of the communists).

Aus Blog displays some sound logic as to why all people (be they religious or not) should be against abortion: because it destroys a defenseless human life who has no choice in the matter.
Aus Blog says "What is she [your mother] had decided to terminate? Would that have been OK?" ... Lucky you had a mother that made the choice of life for you."

Aus Blog also states the correct understanding of when life begins: "At the point of conception is when life began for you" ... and later... "egg + sperm = human being"

But then there are errors: "Though it pains me to say it, there may always be a need for the 2% medical reasons and such, but that's all."

To this, I would ask 'why?' Are the 2% of humans conceived through rape, incest, or with associated medical risks to the mother any less human than the 98% of humans who were conceived by the consent of two healthy non-relatives? Do they have any less inherent human dignity just because of the situation surrounding their conception? Should the child of a rapist suffer the death penalty for his father's sin? Does a mother's attitude (whether she desires the child or not) make a child human... or is human dignity inherent in the person?

At any rate, Aus Blog then zeroes in on the 98% who abort as contraception: "How do we get the other 98% to be responsible...."
Ah, there is the key word--responsible. Many atheists would probably cringe at this reality, but the fact is that the Christian view of human sexuality is the only one that teaches true responsibility. In fact, Karol Wojtyla (before he was elected Pope John Paul II) wrote a famous theological/philosophical treatise entitled "Love and Responsibility" that deals with this issue. His "theology of the body" is the most beautiful expression of the truly responsible and liberating exercise of human sexuality is.

Aus Blog continues: "Sadly many prefer an occasional abortion, over using birth control, they have all kinds of reasons, each of them selfish."

This presumes that the use of abortion and contraception are not intimately related (see the article by Janet Smith in post #1 "Is 'more contraception' the answer to limiting the number of abortions?"). It also presumes that the use of contraception is not selfish. The use of contraception is selfish in that it says that I want the benefits of sexual union without the natural consequences of human life... it objectifies men and women and makes them means towards sexual gratification without the committment and responsibility inherent in monogamous parenthood.

"Then there's the christian impossition, (all a bit talibanish), and their men in high places (church and state should never entwine) their stance against birth control has only added to the numbers."

This is bad logic now. The Church must oppose birth control because it is intrinsically evil and violates the entire point of sexual union (the union of a married man and woman, and procreation... in other words, "bonding and babies"). What else should the Church do, lie about contraception and pretend that it is good for women and society just because that may be the popular opinion? Should they pretend that contraception would lead to a responsible use of human sexuality when it does just the opposite? I am not sure how much power the Church has in New Zealand, but there is no "talibanish" regime in the U.S. where abortion on demand is available up to "partial-birth" and contraception, divorce, fornication, homosexuality, etc. are all legal practices. (In fact, in some countries, religious rights are being tramped upon by countries that make preaching of homosexual acts as immoral as a "hate crime" [Canada], or by forcing Catholic institutions that have been providing adoption services for centuries to have to give children to same-sex couples, etc [U.S.A.].). People should have the legal right to be free to sin, but I do think that abortion should be illegal because it is an infringement of another's human right to life. People often blame the Church for the plague of abortion and AIDS because the Church opposes the false idea that contraception leads to sexual responsibility. I, on the other hand, would stop blaming the Church and look more towards what sexual practices lead to abortion and AIDS (adultery, prostitution, fornication, etc.). If people obeyed Church teaching there would be far less AIDS and abortions. Of course, we must help to treat those with AIDS... just like we must work with out of wedlock pregnancies (encourage keeping the child or adoption)... but let's not pretend that the fault lies with the Church for the recklessness some people choose.

Aus Blog: "People should be able to choose the use of birth control, to avoid having to make another choice."
I think that these people who choose birth control also choose irresponsible sex, and then choose abortion when their contraception fails (see Janet Smith's article). Ask Planned Parenthood how many abortions they perform on women who have been using contraception the month before they come in.

Aus Blog: "Sanity must provale [sic], abortions should remain available and safe for the 2% and such and the rest need to have a good look at themselves and get their act together."

Yes, I agree... sanity must prevail! However, contraception and irresponsible sex that is divorced from love, committment, and oppenness to human life is neither sane nor responsible... and will not help people "get their act together."

In short: I thank you for your thoughts, Aus Blog. I would say that you are 98% right and only 2% wrong... but your underlying assumptions about contraception miss the mark.

Contraception and Abortion (post #2)

RESPECT LIFE

This is my second of three posts in response to Aus Blog's comments to my post on Pro-Life resources.

I believe, contrary to Aus Blog, that:
1. contraception and abortion are related abuses of human sexuality
2. increased use of contraception would not necessarily result in a a decrease in abortion
3. contraception is actually harmful to women physically and spiritually.

Premise #2 is dealt with in the post below entitled "Is 'more contraception' the answer to limiting the number of abortions?."
Premise #3 is dealt with by referring to some links that I list below:

When does human life begin? [Aus Blog, you are right on this... at conception!]
http://www.prolifephysicians.org/lifebegins.htm


The link between abortion and breast cancer:

http://www.polycarp.org/
overviewabortionbreastcancer.htm

“If a woman takes the oral contraceptive pill before her first full-term pregnancy, she suffers a 40% increased risk of developing breast cancer compared to women who do not take oral contraception pills. If she takes oral contraception pills for 4 years or more prior to her first full-term pregnancy, she may have an even higher risk.” [The Polycarp Research Institute]:
http://www.omsoul.com/newsview.php?idnum=170
http://www.polycarp.org/overviewbreast
canceroralcontraceptives.htm
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/kah/
kah_01pillbreastcancer1.html
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/kah/
kah_05ocpworldramification.html

How about a link between oral contraception and cervical cancer?

http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/kah/
kah_17chapt13oralcontra.html


How does “the pill” work… can it fail… and can it cause an early abortion?

http://www.polycarp.org/how_does_the_pill_work.htm
http://www.prolifephysicians.org/abortifacient.htm
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/wilks/
wilks_04pillworks1.html

What are the medical side effects of the pill?

Medical side effects: The birth control pill increases the risk of breast cancer by over 40% if it is taken before a woman delivers her first baby.4 This risk increases by 70% if the Pill is used for four or more years before the woman’s first child is born.5 Other side effects that women have experienced include the development of high blood pressure, blood clots, stroke, heart attack, depression, weight gain, migraine, dark spots on the skin and difficulty with breast-feeding. Diabetics who take oral contraceptives may note increased sugar levels. Some women who stop taking the Pill do not have a return of their fertility (menstrual cycles) for a year or longer. Although the Pill decreases ovarian and some uterine cancers, it increases breast, liver, and cervical cancer.4 At least three studies have noted that the AIDS virus is transmitted more easily to women who are taking the Pill and whose partner(s) has the HIV virus. 6, 7, 8 The cost of using the Pill for five years is over $1,000.

See the full article at:
http://www.omsoul.com/contraception-side-effects.php

Will giving people more birth control solve the problem of abortion? [this pertains also to premise #2]

The following excerpt is from the book Why Can’t We Love them Both by Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Wilke (available on-line at:
http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_
them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_
both_1.asp#Contraception: )

“A major thrust of pro-abortion rhetoric has been the assumption that if only young people were given adequate education in how to use contraceptives, and then adequate access to them, the problem would be solved.
A portion of the pro-life side has serious moral reservations about contraception per-se. Many other pro-lifers do not share this. Almost universally, however, pro-lifers feel that pushing contraceptives onto teenagers encourages fornication and at younger ages. Most pro-lifers oppose contraceptives for premarital sex, for adultery, and for homosexual liaisons.
Title X, the U.S. federal family planning program which has expended billions of dollars giving contraceptives to teenagers over the last three decades, has proven to be a colossal failure. Wherever its clinics have been established, an intense campaign has been launched to teach contraceptive use to unmarried teens. The result? The pregnancy rate has gone up. The sexually transmitted disease has gone up. The abortion rate has gone up. The age of first sexual encounter is younger. Planned Parenthood has reported that 60% of women getting abortions had used contraceptives the month they became pregnant (Chapter 35). This evidence, along with other studies, has convinced many that the siren song of "give them contraceptives and the problem will be solved," is not part of the solution, but rather part of the problem.”

How effective is contraception in preventing pregnancy?

http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/
love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_35.
asp#How%20effective%20are%20contraceptives%20in
%20preventing%20pregnancy?

An article on the declining population rate [another by-product of the contraceptive mentality]:
http://wf-f.org/02-2-lifeissues.html

Is "more contraception" the answer to limiting the number of abortions?

RESPECT LIFE

This post is in response to a comment Aus Blog made to my post about pro-life resources.
Briefly, Aus Blog wrote:
"World estimations of the number of terminations carried out each year is somewhere between 20 and 88 million (likely 55 to 60). Over 3,500 per day / Over 1.3 million per year in America alone. 50% of that 1.3 million claimed failed birth control was to blame. A further 48% had failed to use any birth control at all. And 2% had medical reasons. That means a staggering 98% of unwanted pregnancies may have been avoided had an effective birth control been used. People have to stop using abortion as birth control. People should be able to choose to use birth control, to avoid having to make another choice. I'd like to see effective birth control made available to all who can't afford it." "People should be able to choose to use birth control, to avoid having to make another choice. " [emphasis mine]

I respect Aus Blog's right to his/her opinion... but I must disagree. Well, people ARE able to choose to use birth control, but I disagree that birth control really limits the amount of abortions that would otherwise occur. Also, I believe contraception to be harmful to women biologically and spiritually.

Aus Blog draws a sharp distinction between abortion and contraception, as if the two are not intimately related abuses of human sexuality. I am going to paste in its entirety an article by Janet Smith, PhD (Philosophy Dept. of University of Dallas). In addition, I will also post some links to scientific studies showing the damaging effects of contraception (link to breast cancer, cervical cancer, etc.). I know that such ideas go against the almost universally held dogma that contraception is the greatest invention since sliced bread... but if the Catholic Church has a prophetic voice on this matter... a voice that demands to be heard. Later (perhaps in another post) I will also give a summary of Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae (on the regulation of birth). This article is long... but worth the read [all lines in bold are my emphasis]:

The Connection between Contraception and Abortion

Janet E. Smith, Ph.D. Philosophy Department,University of Dallas
Reproduced with permission [via http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/
smith/smith_02contraandabortion.html ]

Many in the pro–life movement are reluctant to make a connection between contraception and abortion. They insist that these are two very different acts — that there is all the difference in the world between contraception, which prevents a life from coming to be and abortion, which takes a life that has already begun.

With some contraceptives there is not only a link with abortion there is an identity. Some contraceptives are abortifacients; they work by causing early term abortions. The IUD seems to prevent a fertilized egg — a new little human being — from implanting in the uterine wall. The pill does not always stop ovulation but sometimes prevents implantation of the growing embryo. And, of course, the new RU 486 pill works altogether by aborting a new fetus, a new baby. Although some in the pro–life movement occasional speak out against the contraceptives that are abortifacients most generally steer clear of the issue of contraception.

This seems to me to be a mistake. I think that we will not make good progress in creating a society where all new life can be safe, where we truly display a respect for life, where abortion is a terrible memory rather than a terrible reality until we see that there are many significant links between contraception and abortion and that we bravely speak this truth. We need to realize that a society in which contraceptives are widely used is going to have a very difficult time keeping free of abortions since the lifestyles and attitudes that contraception fosters create an alleged "need" for abortion.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the recent Supreme Court decision that confirmed Roe v. Wade, stated, “in some critical respects abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraception . . . . for two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail.”

The Supreme Court decision has made completely unnecessary any efforts to “expose” what is really behind the attachment of the modern age to abortion. As the Supreme Court candidly states, we need abortion so that we can continue our contraceptive lifestyles. It is not because contraceptives are ineffective that a million and half women a year seek abortions as back–ups to failed contraceptives. The “intimate relationships” facilitated by contraceptives are what make abortions “necessary”. “Intimate” here is a euphemism and a misleading one at that. Here the word “intimate” means “sexual”; it does not mean “loving and close.” Abortion is most often the result of sexual relationships in which there is little true intimacy and love, in which there is no room for a baby, the natural consequence of sexual intercourse. Contraception enables those who are not prepared to care for babies, to engage in sexual intercourse; when they become pregnant, they resent the unborn child for intruding itself upon their lives and they turn to the solution of abortion.

Contraception currently is hailed as the solution to the problems conosequent on the sexual revolution; many believe that better contraceptives and more responsible use of contraceptives will reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions and will prevent to some extent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

To support the argument that more responsible use of contraceptives would reduce the number of abortions, some note that most abortions are performed for “contraceptive purposes”. That is, few abortions are had because a woman has been a victim of rape or incest or because a pregnancy would endanger her life, or because she expects to have a handicapped or deformed newborn. Rather, most abortions are had because men and women who do not want a baby are having sexual intercourse and facing pregnancies they did not plan for and do not want. Because their contraceptive failed, or because they failed to use a contraceptive, they then resort to abortion as a back–up. Many believe that if we could convince men and women to use contraceptives responsibly we would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and thus the number of abortions. Thirty years ago this position might have had some plausibility, but not now. We have lived for about thirty years with a culture permeated with contraceptive use and abortion; no longer can we think that greater access to contraception will reduce the number of abortions. Rather, wherever contraception is more readily available the number of unwanted pregnancies and the number of abortions increases greatly.

The connection between contraception and abortion is primarily this: contraception facilitates the kind of relationships and even the kind of attitudes and moral characters that are likely to lead to abortion. The contraceptive mentality treats sexual intercourse as though it had little natural connection with babies; it thinks of babies as an “accident” of pregnancy, as an unwelcome intrusion into a sexual relationship, as a burden. The sexual revolution has no fondness — no room for — the connection between sexual intercourse and babies. The sexual revolution simply was not possible until fairly reliable contraceptives were available.

Far from being a check to the sexual revolution, contraception is the fuel that facilitated the beginning of the sexual revolution and enables it to continue to rage. In the past, many men and women refrained from illicit sexual unions simply because they were not prepared for the responsibilities of parenthood. But once a fairly reliable contraceptive appeared on the scene, this barrier to sex outside the confines of marriage fell. The connection between sex and love also fell quickly; ever since contraception became widely used, there has been much talk of, acceptance of, and practice of casual sex and recreational sex. The deep meaning that is inherent in sexual intercourse has been lost sight of; the willingness to engage in sexual intercourse with another is no longer a result of a deep commitment to another. It no longer bespeaks a willingness to have a child with another and to have all the consequent entanglements with another that babies bring. Contraception helps reduce one's sexual partner to just a sexual object since it renders sexual intercourse to be without any real commitments. Certainly one can easily imagine how attractive abortion would be in the face of a contraceptive failure — one has made not commmitment to one's sexual partner or exacted one, so how can one expect one's self or one's sexual partner to take on the responsiblity of raising a child. Some clinics report that up to 50% of the abortions are of pregnancies that resulted from contraceptive failure.

Futhermore, the casualness with which sexual unions are now entered is accompanied by a casualness and carelessness in the use of contraceptives. Studies show that the women having abortions are very knowledgeable about birth control methods; the great majority — eighty per cent — are experienced contraceptors but they display carelessness and indifference in their use of contraception for a variety of reasons. Contraception has enabled them to enter a sexual relationship or a life style, but while the relationship or life style continues the contraceptive practise does not continue..

One researcher reports the reasons why sexually active, contraceptively experienced women stop contracepting: she observes that some have broken up with their sexual partners and believe they will no longer need a contraceptive but they find themselves sexually active anyway. Others dislike the physical exam required for the pill, or dislike the side–effects of the pill and some are deterred by what inconvenience or difficulty there is in getting contraceptives. Many unmarried women do not like to think of themselves as sexually active; using contraceptives conflicts with their preferred self–image. The failure to use birth control is a sign that many women are not comfortable with being sexually active. That is, many of the women are engaged in an activity that, for some reason, they do not wish to admit to themselves.

One researcher, Kristin Luker, a pro-abortion social scientist, in a book entitled Taking Chances: Abortion and the Decision not to Contracept attempted to discover why, with contraceptives so widely available, so many women, virtually all knowledgeable about contraception, had unwanted pregnancies and abortions. The conclusions of her studies suggest that it is not simple “carelessness” or “irresponsibility” that lead women to have abortions, but that frequently the pregnancies that are aborted are planned or the result of a calculated risk. She begins by dismissing some of the commonly held views about why women get abortions; she denies that they are usually had by panic–stricken youngsters or that they are had by unmarried women who would otherwise have had illegitimate births. She also maintains that statistics do not show that abortion is an act of final desperation used by poor women and “welfare mothers” or that abortion is often sought by women who have more children than they can handle. What she attempts to discern is what reason women had for not using contraception although they were contraceptively experienced and knew the risks involved in not using contraception. Luker seeks to substantiate in her study that “unwanted pregnancy is the end result of an informed decision–making process. That pregnancy occurred anyway, for the women in this study, is because most of them were attempting to achieve more diffuse goals than simply preventing pregnancy.”

Luker argues that for these women (women who are having non–contracepted sex, but who are not intending to have babies), using contraceptives has certain “costs” and getting pregnant has certain “benefits”. The women make a calculation that the benefits of not using contraception and the benefits of a pregnancy outweigh the risks of getting pregnant and the need to have an abortion. She concurs that many women prefer “spontaneous sex” and do not like thinking of themselves as “sexually active”. She notes that some wondered whether or not they were fertile and thus did not take contraceptives. The “benefits” of a pregnancy for many women were many; pregnancy proves “that one is a woman”, or that one is fertile; it provides an excuse for “forcing a definition in the relationship”; it forces a woman's or girl's parents to deal with her; it is used as a “psychological organizing technique.”

In the end, almost all of the unmarried women Luker interviewed had the option to marry (and supposedly to complete the pregnancy) but none chose this option. Luker attributes this to unwillingness of women to get married under such conditions, to the disparity between this kind of marriage and their fantasy marriage, and to their belief that they were responsible for the pregnancy, and thus they had no claim on the male's support. One of her examples is of an unmarried woman who did not like using the pill because it made her gain weight. Coupled with this was her wish to force her boyfriend to openly admit his relationship with her to his parents who rejected her, and possibly to force marriage and thus she decided not to use contraception. Upon becoming pregnant, this woman had an abortion.

Much of this data suggests that there is something deep in our natures that finds the severing of sexual intercourse from love and commitment and babies to be unsatisfactory. As we have seen, women are careless in their use of contraceptives for a variety of reasons, but one reason for their careless use of contraceptives is precisely their desire to engage in meaningful sexual activity rather than in meaningless sexual activity. They want their sexual acts to be more meaningful than a handshake or a meal shared. They are profoundly uncomfortable with using contraceptives for what they do to their bodies and for what they do to their relationships. Often, they desire to have a more committed relationship with the male with whom they are involved; they get pregnant to test his love and commitment. But since the relationship has not been made permanent, since no vows have been taken, they are profoundly ambivalent about any pregnancy that might occur. They are very likely to abort a pregnancy they may even have desired. It may sound far–fetched to claim that some women may in some sense “plan” or “desire” the very pregnancies that they abort but this analysis is borne out by studies done by pro–abortion sociologists.

Contraception clearly leads to many abortions by those who have sex outside of marriage. Even within marriage, those who contracept are more likely to abort than those who do not, especially those who use NFP. It is easy to understand why contraceptors would be more likely to abort. Those using contraception who get pregnant unexpectedly, are generally very angry, since they did everything they could to prevent a pregnancy. The pregnancy is seen as a crisis. The married have often planned a life that is not receptive to children and are tempted to abort to sustain the child–free life they have designed. I am not, of course, saying that all those who contracept are likely to abort; I am saying that many more of those who contracept do abort than those who practice natural family planning.

It should be no surprise that unlike contraceptors, those using methods of natural family planning are highly unlikely to resort to abortion should an unplanned pregnancy occur. Some argue that couples using natural family planning are as closed to having babies as are those that use contraceptives; that they too wish to engage in “baby–free” sexual intercourse. But the crucial difference is that those using NFP are not engaging in an act whose nature they wish to thwart; they are keeping to the principles of sexual responsibility. Their sexual acts remain as open to procreation as nature permits. They are refraining from sexual intercourse when they know they may conceive and engaging in sexual intercourse when they are unable to conceive — precisely because of their desire to be responsible about their child–bearing.

It should be no surprise that countries that are permeated by contraceptive sex, fight harder for access to abortion than they do to ensure that all babies can survive both in the womb and out. It is foolish for pro–lifers to think that they can avoid the issues of contraception and sexual irresponsibility and be successful in the fight against abortion. For, as the Supreme Court stated, abortion is “necessary” for those whose intimate relationships are based upon contraceptive sex.

Pro-Life resources for catechists

RESPECT LIFE

January 22nd marked the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. Since 1973 an estimated 40 million children have lost their lives to abortion. It is important to ask ourselves how much the culture of death has pervaded our world. How do our children view the dignity of human life? We need to incorporate the Church's teachings about the universal dignity of all human life from conception to natural death into our teaching of the Catholic faith. Whenver we teach about mankind being made in God's image and likeness, about the commandment prohibiting murder, about the need to work for social justice... the great scandal of abortion should not be far from our minds... nor the minds of our young Catholic children.

Here are some links--and I am trying to post more as I find them...

Resources for the classroom

The Catholic diocese of Richmond, Virginia has an excellent site on education materials for social justice issues: http://www.richmonddiocese.org/cst/ From this site, check out the link on
abortion... and you will find resources and links for middle school, high school, and adult.

Catholic Teaching and the Bible concerning Conception and Abortion:
http://www.scriptureforlife.org/

What does the Bible teach about abortion:
http://www.nprcouncil.org/bibleteaching.htm

What did the early Christians teach about abortion:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9005frs.asp

A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum (Knights for Life). This is a lengthy intensive curriculum for HS, college, adults, etc. available on-line via PDF. Also available is the Huntsville Respect Life Curriculum for Pre-K to grade 12. One could wade through and pick out parts that seem useful. [ via Christian Patriots for Life’s Pro-Life Education Program http://www.cpforlife.org/pro_life_education.htm ]
http://www.cpforlife.org/curriculum.htm

Athletes for Life http://www.lifeathletes.org/ founder, Chris Godfrey, has a whole course "That's Where I Live" on chastity and pro-life for school use that may be able to be adapted in some way for a catechism class. [The book can be ordered if you go into the "locker room" page]

www.lifeprinciples.net Life Principles: some more good things, some geared to college-age, but also some nice articles that can be used with high school age kids.

The Legionaries of Christ have a new site www.ourfaithinaction.org ("connecting faith to current events") that has some archived articles that could be useful: on embryonic stem cell research: http://www.ourfaithinaction.org/archive_pages/sept_05.htm ; Abortion survivor shocks Colorado legislators: http://www.ourfaithinaction.org/archive
_pages/sept_06.htm

Websites and organizations-ABORTION and general life issues

News on the life issues:
LifeSite: http://www.lifesite.net/
Life News.com: http://www.lifenews.com/

U.S. Bishops’ Pro-Life activities page:
http://www.usccb.org/prolife/

Abort73.com “Abortion unfiltered”: The case against abortion, facts about abortion, finding help, etc.
http://www.abort73.com/

More facts regarding abortion: http://www.secondlookproject.org/

Pro-Life Action League http://www.prolifeaction.org/ and

Students for Life of America http://www.studentsforlife.org/

Feminists for Life
http://www.feministsforlife.org/

Priests for Life
www.priestsforlife.org

Defendlife.org
http://www.defendlife.org/

Swallowed Scroll post on abortion:
http://swallowedscroll.blogspot.com/2006/11/
abortion-great-malady-of-our-time.html

Websites and organizations—STEM CELL RESEARCH

Do no harm: The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics
http://www.stemcellresearch.org/

Stem Cell Research Facts
http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/

Documents and addresses on stem cell research:

Pontifical Academy for Life: Declaration on the Production and the Scientific and Therapeutic Use of Human Embryonic Stem Cells:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/
acdlife/documents/rc_pa_acdlife_doc_20000824
_cellule-staminali_en.html

Pope Benedict XVI: Stem Cells-What Future for Therapy? Address to the Pontifical for Life symposium:
http://www.wf-f.org/06-4-Benedict_StemCells.html

Swallowed Scroll posts on Embryonic stem cell research:

http://swallowedscroll.blogspot.com/2007/01/
house-passes-destructive-stem-cell.html

http://swallowedscroll.blogspot.com/2006/10/
embryonic-stem-cell-research-lets-look.html

http://swallowedscroll.blogspot.com/2006/11/
more-on-evils-of-embryonic-stem-cell.html

Websites and organizations—DEATH PENALTY

http://www.americancatholic.org/News/DeathPenalty/
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12565a.htm (Catholic encyclopedia)
http://www.cacp.org/ (Catholics Against Capital Punnishment – I don’t know much about this group, just found it via a google search)

Marriage, Family, Openness to children, Contraception, etc.

Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body
http://www.theologyofthebody.net/

Couple to Couple League: Better marriages through Natural Family Planning
http://ccli.org/

One More Soul: Fostering God’s Plan for love, chastity, marriage, sex, and children:
http://www.omsoul.com/

Natural Family Planning Outreach

http://www.nfpoutreach.org/

New Jersey Natural Family Planning

http://www.njnfp.org/

Fr. Peffley's website on marriage and family issues
http://www.transporter.com/fatherpeffley/
Family/index.html

Humanae Vitae (1968) – Pope Paul VI on the regulation of birth:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/
encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968
_humanae-vitae_en.html

Familiaris Consortio – Pope John Paul II on the role of the Christian Family in the Modern World
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/
apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122
_familiaris-consortio_en.html

Evangelium Vitae – Pope John Paul II encyclical on the Gospel of Life
http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/_INDEX.HTM

Euthanasia

Pope John Paul II speaks out on end of life issues:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/
speeches/2004/march/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20040320
_congress-fiamc_en.html

Political involvement

Activate your political voice in defense of life and the family:
http://www.yourcatholicvoice.org/

National Committee for a Human Life Amendment:
http://www.nchla.org/


ARTICLES

A blogger’s March for Life coverage
http://studeo.blogspot.com/search/label/Life%20Issues

Critique of Washington D.C. Archbishop Donald Wuerl on pro-abortion Catholic politicians receiving Holy Communion
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jan/07012501.html (LifeSite news)
http://amywelborn.typepad.com/openbook/
2007/01/theres_your_ans.html (Amy Welborn)

“Roe v. Wade Week” at Yale features do it yourself abortion demonstrations
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jan/07012503.html

CBS Poll says most Americans want abortion illegal/restricted:
http://www.lifenews.com/nat2897.html

Catholic bio-ethics priest cuts through spin on stem-cell research debate:
http://www.catholic.org/international/
international_story.php?id=21666

Priest with disability opposes stem-cell initiative:
http://www.stlouisreview.com/article.php?id=11465

A fascinating letter by Bishop Morlino (Madison, WI) to his priests regarding the need to speak out in defense of Church teaching on marriage, the death penalty, and embryonic stem cell research:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/061102a.html

Pregnancy Support

(Crisis Pregnancy Centers):
http://www.pregnancycenters.org/

Do you know someone who has been affected by abortion? There is help and hope after abortion (Project Rachel retreats):
http://www.hopeafterabortion.com/