George A. Sprecace M.D., J.D., F.A.C.P. and Allergy Associates of New London, P.C.
www.asthma-drsprecace.com
Dr. Sprecace's Home Page...
Information categories at this site...
About Dr. Sprecace and this site...
Access related links...
Terms for usage of this site...


The Involved Citizen - Common Sense Revisited

> Abortion, Morality, and Ethics <

Please visit the following website and other Asthma-DrSprecace.Com pages for excellent and up-to-the-minute daily news and commentary regarding this vital issue and all the legal and political activity going on.  And please ACT on the information that you gain here.  Thank you.  GS

www.lifenews.com

> The Catholic Church <

Physician-Patient Spirituality

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Rapid Response for MONDAY and TUESDAY, March 6 and 7, 2017

To Paraphrase:
"YOU WANT TO KNOW EVIL? CAN YOU TAKE KNOWING EVIL?"

GS

Democrats Kill Bill to Protect Babies Born Alive After Botched Abortions - LifeNews.Com

Meet the enemies of life, faith, and family

We are seven days away from one of the most dangerous meetings of the year; the UN Commission on the Status of Women.

I want you to meet the leaders of the organizations that are the most dangerous in the world to men, women, and children; the leaders of the organizations that will spend and direct hundreds of millions of dollars to spread the sexual revolution even to Christian and Muslim countries that do not want their poison.
Help us stop their murderous agenda. Help us stop Nancy Northrup and Tewodros Melesse. Help us stop International Planned Parenthood Federation and the Center for Reproductive Rights, among the most murderous groups the world has ever known. And I am not exaggerating.

Pray right now for their defeat.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Rapid Response for FRIDAY, October 16, 2015

"JUST THE FACTS, MA'AM".
"Justice is mine, sayeth The Lord.  I shall repay."  (From Romans).

GS

Planned Parenthood Turns 99 Today: Has Killed 7 Million Babies in Abortions - LifeNews.Com

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Rapid Response for SUNDAY through TUESDAY, March 8 through 10, 2015

THE ACA AND ABORTION. The duplicity never ends.

GS


Bishops: We Have Long Warned That Obamacare Covered Abortion - Zenit.Org

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Rapid Response for SUNDAY, March 1, 2015

A LOGICAL AND REASONED POSITION ON "ASSISTED SUICIDE", to which I add my comment: HELL, NO!

GS


Conn. should again reject suicide bill  - TheDay.Com

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Rapid Response for SUNDAY, February 22, 2015

ABORTION AND BREAST CANCER, especially before a full-term delivery, which may be protective. The state of knowledge...and of pro-abortion hysteria at this time.

GS


Cool Heads Needed on Abortion-Breast Cancer Link - Zenit.Org

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Rapid Response for TUESDAY, September 9, 2014

I MUST KEEP REMINDING MYSELF:
'"JUSTICE IS MINE.  I SHALL REPAY", sayeth The Lord".  (Romans)

GS

September 10, 2:00 a.m.
Dear Friend of the Unborn,
Gettysburg was one of the bloodiest battles in the history of warfare. In a single day 51,000 men lost their lives.
Here’s a statistic you may not know. Those 51,000 deaths totaled the horrific 31% of the 157,289 men who fought on both sides that day.
Now consider this.
If those men had Down syndrome diagnosed in the womb, the death toll would have been 141,560. That is because 90% of children diagnosed in utero with Down syndrome are aborted.
The chances of living through childbirth with Down syndrome are substantially less than living through the horrors of Gettysburg.
Why?
Because folks are scared. They live in fear of seeing that knuckle fold on the ultra-sound pictures.  I remember my wife and I were scared. You wonder, what if we get that diagnosis? We have faith in our lives and would have viewed it as a gift from God.
But others are not so blessed with faith and they will think immediately of having the child killed, torn limb from limb, more brutal than the deaths at Gettysburg.
We can fix that. How? By letting people know that children with Down syndrome are like all children, gifts from God send here to teach us about love, even more so!
On October 18, my friends and I are climbing on our bikes and riding 100 kilometers for a wonderful group founded precisely to make people know they have nothing to fear from a child or an adult with Down syndrome.
Best Buddies International is that group and they have my personal and my organization’s full endorsement.
Best Buddies is not pro-life like we are, that is explicitly pro-life, shouting it from the rooftops pro-life. They are quietly pro-life, helping people with Down syndrome live fuller and more meaningful lives and helping families come to know God’s gift that has been given to them.
We are an explicitly pro-life group and we take the pro-life message to these people.
Each year I make a pledge that if I win the individual fundraising title that I will make a pro-life speech. Each year for the past three years I have come in second place! I can’t seem to beat out a very wealthy banker! A good guy! But, I want to win so I can say this:
“My team and I ride for all those with Down syndrome and most especially we ride for with Down syndrome who never make it out of the womb. 90% of those children diagnosed in utero with Down syndrome are aborted. Best Buddies was founded to chase out fear and replace it with love. We ride for all of them.”
Short, simple, pro-life. I guarantee those good people do not know the deadly statistic I will tell them that day. It may change lives.
So, please help me raise money for this good charity. My immediate goal is $20,000 and I am halfway there. I suspect I will need to raise more like $30,000 to win.
In the mean time, will you please go to…
http://mydc2014.bestbuddieschallenge.org/austinruse and give as much as you are able! Fives, tens, and twenties get the job done. If someone has the means, $500 would be amazing and even more, if you can.
Help me make that pro-life speech on October 18. Go to
http://mydc2014.bestbuddieschallenge.org/austinruse and give. And please send this note to you mom and dad, your daughter and son, your grandma and grandpa. Don’t forget to send it to your neighbor, too.
Many many thanks. Pray for us, too!
Yours sincerely,
Austin Ruse
PS After my first letter last week something amazing happened. I received a letter from a congregation of poor nuns living in South America and they are praying for this ride! Let’s let them know that God hears them:
http://mydc2014.bestbuddieschallenge.org/austinruse


- Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Pro-Life Campaign That Is Closing Abortion Clinics - Zenit.Org

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Rapid Response for SATURDAY, July 5, 2014

REGARDING CALLS FOR "ASSISTED SUICIDE".


For an excellent summary, including a famous literary reference, of the position of the Medical Profession to this grossly inappropriate call to involve physicians, please see the article by my friend and colleague Michael M. Deren, M.D., Editor of Connecticut Medicine, The Journal of the Connecticut State Medical Society.

"Assisted Suicide: To Be or Not To Be
", May 2014, Vol. 78, Number 5, p307.

GS

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Rapid Response for SUNDAY, February 23, 2014

MORE ABOUT ABORTION...AND THE "DISSEMBLING MISCREANTS" WHO SUPPORT IT.

GS

The 'Right' to Abortion and Its Consequences - Zenit.Org

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Rapid Response for SATURDAY, January 25, 2014

Here's a real-life dilemma with medical, legal and moral dimensions.  My approach is as follows:

  1. At the moment of conception, there are two human beings with rights. 
  2. At that moment, the mother loses some of her rights "to her body". This includes the right of "self-determination" articulated in an "Advanced Directive".
  3. The exception is the right to protection, in the least invasive but effective method, of her physical life.  
  4. Even in the advanced state of medical science, "brain dead" is dead.  Any further medical "treatment" is "futile", something that no physician is required - or even allowed - to render. 
  5. In the case of a pregnant woman who has died, leaving a demonstrably living human being in her womb, she becomes no different from an incubator for that child until or unless the child also dies or gets to a point where viability outside the womb is likely. 
  6. Any demonstrable deformities of the fetus considered incompatible with life outside the womb, like the absence of a functioning heart or brain, would make the above approach for the fetus also "futile".  
  7. All of the above is predicated on a legal standing of the conceptus - fetus as a "human person", a human being under a post-Civil War interpretation of the U.S. Constitution (ie. 100% human, not "3/5's).
  8. Of course, that "standing" does not now exist. 
  9. Thus, the above moral / ethical approach will defer in a Court of Law to the current state of the applicable law, involving concepts of "self-determination" and "futility".  
The key to this "gordian knot" must await a legal - legislative - Constitutional declaration of a conceptus as a human being, a human person with all and equal attendant rights.  Will that ever occur?

GS

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

RIGHTS DO NOT EXIST IN A VACUUM.  THEY MUST BE CONSTANTLY ASSERTED.

GS

==================================================
ZENIT, The world seen from Rome
News Agency
==================================================

Religious Liberty at Risk

New Reports Point to Increasing Threats

By Father John Flynn, LC


ROME, SEPT. 28, 2012 (Zenit.org). - Two recent reports on religious liberty have amply documented the challenges believers face in practicing their faith.


The Texas-based Liberty Institute recently published “The Survey of Religious Hostility in America.” The introduction affirms that the Founding Fathers considered religious liberty as the “first freedom.”


“They understood that one’s right to worship God and follow his conscience according to the principles of his religious faith was foundational to civic tranquility,” the introduction stated.


The report went on to detail threats to religious liberty in such areas as the public display of nativity scenes, memorials to soldiers, and prayers at legislative assemblies. It noted that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has mandated that funerals for veterans at national cemeteries be completely secularized, even when the veteran or his family expressed a desire for a religious funeral.


The opposition to any form of religious expression goes to such extreme lengths as the case of Jonathan Morgan, a third-grader in Plano, Texas, who was told by school officials that he could not include a religious message in the goodie bags that he was bringing to the “Winter Party” to share with his classmates.


Then, there was the case of a Houston-area school district that banned any religious content in the Christmas and Valentine’s Day cards. The report said that: “When one student was asked what Easter meant to her, she was told that she could not say, “Jesus.”


Another case was that of an eleven-year-old student in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, who was penalized for mentioning Jesus in a Christmas poetry assignment. His teacher asked him to submit a rewrite of the poem.


Work-related cases were also numerous. A Mount Sinai Hospital nurse was forced to participate in a late-term abortion against her conscience and religious convictions. She was threatened with termination and loss of license. The nurse lost in both the district court and the Second Circuit, the report noted. 


The report contains brief summaries of hundreds of cases over the last two decades of attempts to silence any religious expression in the public square of religion. 


Regions of the world


The second recent report came from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. They published their third report on religious liberty that looked at the period from mid-2009 to mid-2010. 


It found that restrictions on religion increased not only in countries with a record of bad practice in matters of religious freedom, but also in hat began the year with high or very high restrictions, such as Indonesia and Nigeria, but also in many countries with a good record, such as Switzerland and the United States. 


No less than 75% of the world’s population “lives in countries where governments, social groups or individuals restrict people’s ability to freely practice their faith,” the report stated. 


According to the Pew Forum the share of countries with high or very high restrictions on religious beliefs and practices rose from 31% in the year ending in mid-2009 to 37% in the year ending in mid-2010. 


Sub-Saharan Africa had the largest share of countries with increases in restrictions on religion, while Europe and the Americas had the lowest proportion of countries with greater restrictions. 


Overall, in the report found that government restrictions were highest in the Middle East and North Africa. These two regions were also the ones with the highest level of social hostility to religious freedom.


Given that some of the most restrictive countries are very populous, the report noted that three-quarters of the world’s approximately 7 billion people live in countries with high government restrictions on religion or high social hostilities involving religion, up from 70% a year earlier. 


More hostile countries 


According to the report during the four years that the Pew Institute has been examining religious freedom the number of countries with very high government restrictions on religion rose from 10 in mid-2007 to 18 in mid-2010. Among the countries added were Afghanistan, Algeria, Indonesia, Russia, Syria and Tunisia.


Only two countries, Brunei and Turkey, were removed from the list.


Christians topped the list as the religious group most likely to face harassment. In the year ending in mid-2010, government or social harassment of Christians was reported in 111 countries; the previous high was 107 countries in the first year of the study. 


They also came top of the list for the cumulative total of countries where harassment took place during the last four years, a total of 139 nations.


The hostility came from either government sources or individuals. Christians were harassed by government officials or organizations in 95 countries in the year ending in mid-2010 and by social groups or individuals in 77 countries. 


Both reports point to worrying trends regarding religious liberty, above all for Christians, but also for other religions.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

==================================================
ZENIT, The world seen from Rome
News Agency
==================================================

The Dangers of Abortion

New Studies Reveal Risks

By Father John Flynn, LC


ROME, SEPT. 21, 2012 (Zenit.org).- Advocates of abortion often insist that it needs to be legal and readily available so as to reduce health risks for women. Some recent studies show, however, that abortion brings with it considerable risks.

Research in Finland published in the journal “Human Reproduction” collected data from all 300,858 first-time mothers in Finland between 1996 and 2008, LifeNews.com reported on Sept. 6. The results showed that women were three times more likely to have a very premature baby, born before 28 weeks, if they had had three or more abortions.

According to an analysis of the findings published by LifeNews.com and written by Dr. Peter Saunders, it is an important study, but by no means the first revealing such risks. He said there are “around 120 articles in the world literature already attesting to an association between abortion and premature birth.”

Nevertheless, the Finnish study carries a lot of weight due to the large number of women in it and also because it controlled for factors such as maternal age, socioeconomic level and various health factors.

Similar results were found in another study also recently published. Lead researcher Professor Siladitya Bhattacharya, chair in Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the University of Aberdeen, and his colleagues studied how differing methods of abortion affected the future likelihood of premature births, the Medical Daily Web site reported on Sept. 5.

They looked at the records of Scottish women from 1981 to 2007 and found that abortions increased the risk of giving birth prematurely in future pregnancies by an average of 37% compared to women who had never been pregnant before.

Complications

The study was presented at the British Science Festival. The risk of complications in future pregnancies rises with each abortion. As well, the research showed that having just one abortion brings with it a significant risk for the safety of later pregnancies.

We found that women who had an induced abortion in their first pregnancy were more at risk of maternal and perinatal risks in comparison with women who had had a live birth or no previous pregnancy, said Bhattacharya.

A further recent study, titled “Short and long term mortality rates associated with first pregnancy outcome: Population register based study for Denmark 1980–2004,” was published by David Reardon and Priscilla Coleman.

They looked at the records of 463,473 women who had their first pregnancy between 1980 and 2004, of whom 2,238 died. “In nearly all time periods examined, mortality rates associated with miscarriage or abortion of a first pregnancy were higher than those associated with birth,” according to a summary of the study published by the Medical Science Monitor.

Commenting on the risks of abortion for the Family Research Council, Jeanne Monahan pointed out that, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, at least 450 women have died in the United States as a result of abortion complications.

Monahan added that this is a low estimate because many states do not report abortion data. This includes California, which, she noted accounts for approximately one-fifth of all abortions in the United States.

She also commented on the risks from the use of chemical abortion, with the pharmaceutical RU-486. According to the Food and Drug Administration as of April 2011 (10 and a half years after RU-486 was approved in the U.S.), there were 2,207 adverse event reports on file with the government. This includes 612 hospitalizations, 339 blood transfusions and 11 deaths.

Maternal mortality

Additional information on the health risks of abortion came in an article published Sept. 6 by the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. According to Wendy Wright a study from Sri Lanka found that in developing countries widespread misuse of abortion “has led to partial or septic abortion thereby increasing maternal mortality and morbidity.”

Further studies, carried out by the Association for Interdisciplinary Research in Values and Social Change, found that RU-486 has high complication rates, with greater medical risks to women in developing countries.

In Vietnam, for example, one in four women who used RU-486 had to subsequently undergo a surgical abortion due to an incomplete result from the pharmaceutical.

Wright put at 14 the number of women who have died in the United States as a result of using RU-486 since it was legalized.

Nevertheless, the push to make RU-486 available continues. In Australia until now only a small number of doctors were authorized to administer it, but now pharmacies will be able to sell it following a decision by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), the Australian newspaper reported Aug. 31.

In the past six years that RU-486 has been available in Australia, TGA figures show 792 cases of adverse events from the use of the drugs.

“Women facing un-supported pregnancy should be offered real choices by our society, not a dangerous chemical to poison their unborn child,” commented Wendy Francis for the Australian Christian Lobby. A valid point not only for Australia but for other countries as well.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FRIDAY, August 17, 2012

Another example of my observation: THERE ARE THREE KINDS OF LIARS: LIARS; DAMNED LIARS; AND THE GOVERNMENT, IN THIS CASE THE "WORLD GOVERNMENT" AS WELL AS OUR OWN.

GS

Disability Rights Treaty Loses U.S. Support Over Abortion

by Wendy Wright | LifeNews.com | 8/16/12 6:19 PM

Washington, DC (CFAM/LifeNews) — U.S. ratification of a UN treaty is stumbling due to a problem that has hounded the treaty since its beginning: does “sexual and reproductive health” include abortion?

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) is encountering resistance from senators, congressmen and groups who fear it will undermine national sovereignty, that its vagueness will harm those it ought to protect like disabled pre-born babies, and intrude on established rights, such as those of parents.

A letter of opposition circulating among the leading American pro-life groups is expected to be delivered in the coming days to the U.S. Senate.

The letter explains how UN officials and advocates misuse UN documents to expand rights and pressure countries on abortion – despite an unambiguous record of UN member states rejecting abortion during the negotiations and adoption of these documents.

While the Disabilities Treaty is the first hard law treaty to include the term “sexual and reproductive health,” there is plenty of evidence that the drafters do not consider abortion a part of the definition. First, the term is used in the document only as a category of non-discrimination. Additionally, negotiators gave repeated assurances throughout the negotiations and adoption that the treaty does not include a right to abortion.

The Chairman of the negotiations called concerns over UN committees taking advantage of the phrase to mean abortion “invalid” because the delegates did not intend to create any new human rights. At another point the chairman polled the room, asking if anyone believed the proposed treaty created any new rights. No country said yes.

The chairman also stressed that the traveaux preparatoire (legislative history) would guide future interpretations of the treaty. A footnote was added to that text stating, “The Ad Hoc Committee notes that the use of the phrase ‘sexual and reproductive health services’ would not constitute recognition of any new international law obligations or human rights.”

When the UN General Assembly adopted the CRPD in 2006, fifteen nations stated that abortion is excluded from “sexual and reproductive health” or that the treaty does not create new rights. No nation contradicted this.

However concerns remain. Neither the legislative history nor the footnotes are actually in the document and therefore can easily be ignored.

What’s more, since the treaty came into force abortion advocates maintain the term includes abortion and that the treaty created a new right.

In 2010, UNFPA’s Thoraya Obaid told an audience that ”reproductive health” is a “right” that was most recently enshrined in the Disabilities treaty, which includes the phrase “sexual and reproductive health.”

The Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) trumpets the “(Disability Rights Convention) is the first comprehensive international human rights instrument to specifically identify the right to reproductive and sexual health as a human right.” CRR believes reproductive rights and health encompass abortion.

At UNFPA and CRR briefings with UN treaty committees, the agenda listed “denial of reproductive healthcare services, including abortion” among “reproductive rights violations.”

Attempts to “evolve” the definition prompted diplomats to reject “reproductive rights” at the Rio+20 summit because it has come to be “a code at the UN for abortion.”

This conflict was reflected at a U.S. Senate hearing in July on the disability treaty. Pro-abortion senators gutted an amendment clarifying the treaty is abortion-neutral, stating it was unnecessary. It is expected the U.S. Senate will vote on ratification sometime this Fall.

LifeNews Note: Wendy Wright writes for the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. This article originally appeared in the pro-life group’s Friday Fax and is used with permission.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TUESDAY through THURSDAY, August 14 through 16, 2012

DAMNABLE.  BUT, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, SAYETH THE LORD. I SHALL REPAY".

GS

Physicians reaffirm status of fetus
Life begins at birth, say MDs concerned about renewal of abortion debate
By Sharon Kirkey, Postmedia News

The organization representing Canada's doctors says life begins when a baby emerges from its mother's womb.
 
Delegates to the Canadian Medical Association's annual general council meeting Wednesday supported keeping a section of the Criminal Code that declares a child becomes a human being at the moment of birth.
 
Their move comes after concerns a private member's motion in Parliament could be a back door to criminalizing abortion and the doctors who perform it.
 
Conservative MP Stephen Wood-worth tabled his motion this spring. It has been regarded as a move to reopen the abortion debate.
 
The motion seeks to create a House of Commons committee to review the Criminal Code section that declares a child becomes a human being "when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother."
 
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has continually said his government will not bring forward abortion legislation. With some top Conservative cabinet ministers saying they will vote against Woodworth's motion, it appears assured a death in the Commons when debate resumes in the fall.
 
"This attempt to modify the definition of a human being could legally recognize the fetus, which would give the fetus rights," said Montreal physician Dr. Genevieve Desbiens. "This constitutes a recriminalization, not only of abortion, but any form of contraception.
 
"We must ensure women seeking to terminate pregnancy and the doctors who support them and want to help them are not criminalized."
 
She said it's urgent for doctors to exert pressure on the government "so this motion has no chance of being passed and the debate is not reopened.
 
"I'm not asking if you are for or against abortion. I'm asking for you to recognize that women must retain their full and complete rights," she said to applause.
 
Ontario physician Dr. John Ludwig warned the group against "unintended consequences." He said the criminal code is "ancient and needs to be revised."
 
"If an assailant plunged a knife in the 38-week gestational belly of your spouse, we would all consider that murder. But the Criminal Code says that, because that fetus did not leave the body alive, it doesn't have any rights.
 
"We need a new policy that somewhat more balances the rights for women to have a therapeutic abortion when they wish, up to 20 weeks, and then protects the life of that child from 20 weeks on, once it's able to live on its own upon delivery from the womb."
 
Dr. Carole Williams, of Victoria, said the private member's motion "is a back door way for government to reopen Roe versus Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion in the United States.
 
"It's inappropriate to have government intervention into control of our-selves, our bodies and our children."
 
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

==================================================
ZENIT, The world seen from Rome
News Agency
==================================================

Abortion does not improve women's reproductive health
Guttmacher Institute study grossly misrepresents data

By Denise Hunnell, MD


When the United States House of Representatives debated the Protect Life Act, a bill meant to ensure that no taxpayer money would fund abortions, former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, proclaimed that passage of the bill would leave American women “dying on the floor” of American hospitals. Similarly expressing a concern for “women's health”, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, recently called on the United Nations Commission on Population and Development to endorse unfettered access to abortion for teenagers and even younger adolescents. In Trinidad, Minister of Gender, Youth, and Child Development Verna St. Rose Greaves, called for the legalization of abortion in Trinidad because of public health concerns.


Clearly, there is a widespread perception that optimal reproductive health for women includes access to abortion. Yet, where is the data that supports this view? Is this just another manufactured claim by the abortion industry to justify the inclusion of abortion in health care?


The Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion research organization founded by Planned Parenthood, tried to bolster this position with a report on abortions in Colombia. This publication claimed that there were over 400,000 clandestine abortions annually in Colombia and at least one-third of these cases had significant medical complications. Their conclusions called for increased abortion 'services' in Colombia:


The study's findings make clear the need to remove institutional and bureaucratic obstacles for women seeking a legal procedure and ensure that health facilities with the capacity and mandate to provide safe and legal procedures do so,” says Cristina Villareal, director of Fundación Oriéntame and a coauthor of the report. “Six out of 10 health facilities in Colombia that have the capacity to provide postabortion care do not provide it, and about nine out of every 10 of these facilities do not offer legal abortion services.


While this study appears and claims to support the view that ready access to legal abortion improves women's health, a just released study by Dr. Elard Koch of Chile refutes this Guttmacher Institute report. Review of the methods for the calculation of clandestine abortions in Colombia reveal that the Guttmacher Institute relied on the opinions of health care workers to estimate the number of abortion procedures and complication rates.


In other words, there was no objective data. The translated abstract of Dr. Koch's article published in Ginecologia y Obstetricia de Mexico states:


There is no objective data based on real vital events, the whole estimate is based on imaginary numbers underlying mere opinions. Even as a public opinion survey, the sampling technique introduced serious selection bias in the gathering of information. Valid epidemiological methods using standardized rates, choosing the paradigmatic cases of Chile and Spain as standard populations, it was observed that Guttmacher Institute methodology overestimates more than 9 times the complications due to induced abortion in hospital discharges and more than 18 times the total number of induced abortions. In other Latin American countries where the same methodology was applied including Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Peru, Guatemala, and Dominican Republic, the number of induced abortions was also largely overestimated. These results call for caution with this type of reports that alarm public opinion.


Instead of relying on guesses and subjective opinions, one can actually assess the effect of abortion on women's reproductive health by analyzing the maternal mortality ratio (MMR), a widely accepted indicator of women's health. If abortion were truly critical for the well-being of mothers, one would expect the maternal mortality rate to decrease with increased abortion availability and to increase as abortion is restricted.


Chile provides a natural laboratory for such an analysis. The country has kept extensive and detailed records of maternal morbidity and mortality for over fifty years. In addition, the country has implemented several distinct interventions including increasing skilled medical attendants for births, increasing the education of women, increasing the sanitation and overall level of care at medical facilities, and perhaps most significant for this discussion, the prohibition of abortion. The trends of the maternal mortality ratio can be evaluated both before and after each of these initiatives.


A recently published collaborative study by scientists from both the United States and Chile have used this objective data to demonstrate the effects of improved medical care, increased education of women, and abortion on maternal mortality. Their findings should provide the scientifically-based guidance needed to reduce maternal mortality in all developing countries.


The overall maternal mortality ratio in Chile from 1957 through 2007 decreased from 270 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births to 18.7 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births -. This is a decrease of 93.7%. The steepest declines were between the years 1965 and 1981. In 1965 Chile mandated a minimum of eight years of free education for all children. This resulted in the increase in the average years of schooling for women from 3.1 years in 1957 to 12 years in 2007. In addition, Chile markedly increased the percentage of deliveries that were aided by skilled medical attendants from 60.8% in 1957 to over 90% by 1980. By 1999, over 99% of births occurred in hospitals or maternity centers.


After 1981, the downward trend in maternal mortality continued, but the rate of decrease slowed. This is accounted for by the increasing number of women who delivered their first child over the age of 29. As Chilean women became more educated they delayed child bearing. This increased the number of maternal deaths due to underlying medical conditions such as diabetes and hypertension.


What happened to the maternal mortality trend after 1989 when Chile outlawed abortion? The Guttmacher Institute, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, and Nancy Pelosi would like us to believe that this move sent the rate of maternal deaths soaring. Instead, we saw the opposite: The truth is there was absolutely no such effect.  In fact, the downward trend in maternal mortality continued with a decrease from 41.3 to 12.7 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. That is a 69% decrease in maternal mortality after the ban on abortion took effect.


The Guttmacher Institute calls into question the validity of the Chilean study by speculating that there is underreporting of abortion-related morbidity and mortality, but provide no evidence of such reporting errors. The authors of the Chilean study, however, have already addressed these concerns in their published article:


Considering the strict protocol for active epidemiological surveillance on maternal and infant mortality registry implemented in the early 1930s, it is unlikely that the observed reduction could be explained by unobserved illegal abortion deaths or misclassification for other causes. Currently any maternal death occurring in Chile is audited by the sanitary authority revising the clinical registries, interviewing the relatives, and the medical personnel under strict confidentiality rules for determining the primary cause of death.


This analysis of the Chilean experience provides persuasive evidence that the key to improving women's reproductive health begins with improved education. Women must also have access to skilled birth attendants and well-equipped and sanitary birthing centers. The Chilean study raises serious questions about the claims by government officials and other abortion advocates who say that abortion is a critical component of quality medical care for women. Initiatives that promote abortion for the health and well-being of women increasingly appear to be motivated by ideology and based on something other than science.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

==================================================
ZENIT, The world seen from Rome
News Agency
==================================================

Religious Rights and Freedom
Author: Pursuing Equality Can Result in Denying Equality

By Father John Flynn, LC


ROME, MAY 25, 2012 (Zenit.org).- In the light of the ongoing debate in the United States over religious freedom due to the health regulations obliging religious organizations to pay for contraceptives and abortifacients, a book published earlier this year provides some interesting reflections.


Roger Trigg, emeritus professor of philosophy at the University of Warwick, England, authored a book titled, “Equality, Freedom, and Religion,” (Oxford University Press).


There is, he said, an ongoing tug of war between demands for equality, the struggle for individual freedom, and religious freedom. Should beliefs important to individuals be protected if they challenge basic assumptions about equality? Why does religious freedom matter? How important is the right to freedom of religion compared with other rights and freedoms?


The drive to equality has sometimes led people to believe that any judgement by the state must never imply that some views are preferable to others, Trigg explained. Yet, he argued, state neutrality is impossible.


“In the context of religious freedom, no state can abdicate all responsibility to the extent of refusing to make judgements about the character of any religious belief,” he argued. For example, simply because human sacrifice is religiously motivated does not make it acceptable.


The demand for state neutrality can also lead to the view that there is no place for religion in the public sphere, he continued.


Secularism, he observed, is never neutral, but always takes a view about the proper place of religion and which principles are to guide the state. Compare, he commented, the secular states of France and Turkey, and the separation of church and state in the United States.


On the topic of freedom of conscience Trigg explained that conflicts arise when religion is pitted against rights, with religion often being sidelined. When apparent rights clash, he noted, there is often no middle ground and one side wins at the cost of the other.


Integral part


This is the wrong way to deal with such conflicts and Trigg maintained that: “Religious liberty is not contrary to human rights, but an integral part of our understanding of what human rights are.” Many, he observed, consider that religious liberty is crucial for all freedom.


Religion, Trigg commented, points to an alternative, and higher, source of authority than the state. While this makes if vulnerable, it also means it is all the more worthy of protection.


“The exaltation of the state, even if it is made to appear ‘the will of the people’, can crush the individual conscience. Thus public policy, in the name of eliminating discrimination and ensuring equality can result in a secular orthodoxy.”


British courts, Trigg said, have consistently refused to accommodate religious belief when faced with the demands of equality. Such a position, he accused, is based on a mistaken view about a hierarchy of rights and the epistemological status of religion.


Too often today, he noted, religious views are denigrated as being subjective and freedom of religion becomes reduced to freedom of worship. Why then, should religious views be protected, Trigg asked.


Religion is deeply rooted in human nature. This does not prove their truthfulness, but it does explain their centrality in human life. Religion is an integral part of what it is to be human, Trigg affirmed, and to ignore it or treat it as an individual choice of no social significance is a major underestimation of its power and significance.


Basic human good


Arbitrary restrictions on people’s religious freedom is like starving people or refusing them shelter, as religion is a basic human good. Some may wish the world were free of religion, and they should be allowed to make their case, Trigg said. They should not, however, impose this view on others or pretend that religion is of no concern in the public sphere.


Discounting religious principles in pursuit of equality treats some citizens and their interests as more important than others. “The pursuit of equality can itself produce a denial of that equality,” Trigg warned.


Therefore, when the priorities of a democratic country appear to run counter to the policies of religious institutions or to the conscience of individuals, every effort should be made to accommodate both, Trigg argued.


This applies not only to individuals but also to institutions. Religion needs institutions, which are seen by believers as repositories of truth and a means to pass on beliefs to future generations.


In the end, he concluded, public policy is always based on assumptions about what is important. Moreover, at root, such judgements will be implicitly philosophical, and even religious.


If we believe human rights matter then we must have a conception of human nature and in the West this has long been bound up with Christian principles. The challenge we now face, he explained, “is whether a strong conception of human dignity can survive long without the Christian roots that have undoubtedly nurtured it.”

<>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

SUE THE BASTARDS!!

Let's see if the Church, the only Catholic organization with Standing to sue, does the right thing this time.  GS

==================================================
ZENIT, The world seen from Rome
News Agency
==================================================

US Bishops Decry Ruling on Abortifacients in Health Plans

Say Obama Decision Is 'Literally Unconscionable'

WASHINGTON, D.C., JAN. 20, 2011 (Zenit.org).- The president of the U.S. episcopal conference says that a decision made by Barack Obama today is effectively a message that we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences.


This was Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan's response to a decision to continue to demand that sterilization, abortifacients and contraception be included in virtually all health plans. Today's announcement means that this mandate and its very narrow exemption will not change at all; instead there will only be a delay in enforcement against some employers.


In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences, said Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, in a statement.


The cardinal-designate continued, To force American citizens to choose between violating their consciences and forgoing their health care is literally unconscionable. It is as much an attack on access to health care as on religious freedom. Historically this represents a challenge and a compromise of our religious liberty.


The Health and Human Services (HHS) rule requires that sterilization and contraception -- including controversial abortifacients -- be included among preventive services coverage in almost every health care plan available to Americans.
The government should not force Americans to act as if pregnancy is a disease to be prevented at all costs, added Cardinal-designate Dolan.


At issue, the U.S. bishops and other religious leaders insist, is the survival of a cornerstone freedom that ensures respect for the conscience of Catholics and all other Americans.


This is nothing less than a direct attack on religion and First Amendment rights, said Franciscan Sister Jane Marie Klein, chairperson of the board at Franciscan Alliance, Inc., a system of 13 Catholic hospitals. I have hundreds of employees who will be upset and confused by this edict. I cannot understand it at all.


Daughter of Charity Sister Carol Keehan, president and chief executive officer of the Catholic Health Association of the United States, voiced disappointment with the decision. Catholic hospitals serve one out of six people who seek hospital care annually.


This was a missed opportunity to be clear on appropriate conscience protection, Sister Keehan said.


Cardinal-designate Dolan urged that the HHS mandate be overturned.


The Obama administration has now drawn an unprecedented line in the sand, he said. The Catholic bishops are committed to working with our fellow Americans to reform the law and change this unjust regulation. We will continue to study all the implications of this troubling decision.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Rapid Response for WEDNESDAY through FRIDAY, April 27 through 29, 2011

THE LAST SIX WORDS THAT CROSS AN ATHEIST'S MIND OR LIPS AT THE MOMENT OF DEATH: THANK GOD I DIED AN ATHEIST".

GS

A must read and great analogy of God vs Science.  Enjoy
 
'Let me explain the problem science has with religion.'The atheist professor of
philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to
stand.

'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'
'Yes sir, 'the student says.
 
'So you believe in God?'
'Absolutely.

Is God good?'

'Sure! God's good.'

'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'

'Yes'

'Are you good or evil?'

'The Bible says I'm evil.'
 
The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible!  He considers for a moment.
'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure
him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?'
 
'Yes sir, I would.'
 
'So you're good...!'
 
'I wouldn't say that.'
 
'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of
us would if we could. But God doesn't.'
 
The student does not answer, so the professor continues. 'He doesn't, does he?
My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to
heal him.. How is this Jesus good? Can you answer that one?'
 
The student remains silent.. 'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says. He
takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.
'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?'
 
'Er..yes,' the student says.
 
'Is Satan good?'
 
The student doesn't hesitate on this one. 'No.'
 
'Then where does Satan come from?'
The student falters. 'From God'
 
'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this
world?'
 
'Yes, sir..'
 
'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?'
 
'Yes'
 
'So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created everything, then
God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our
works define who we are, then God is evil.'
 
Again, the student has no answer. 'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred?
Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?'
 
The student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.'
 
'So who created them?'
 
The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. 'Who
created them?' There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to
pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. 'Tell me,' he continues
onto another student. 'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?'
The student's voice betrays him and cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do.'

The old man stops pacing. 'Science says you have five senses you use to identify
and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?'
 
'No sir. I've never seen Him.'
 
'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?'
 
'No, sir, I have not..'
 
'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you
ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?'
 
'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'
 
'Yet you still believe in him?'
 
'Yes'
'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science
says your God doesn't exist... What do you say to that, son?'
 
'Nothing,' the student replies.. 'I only have my faith.'
 
'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science has with
God. There is no evidence, only faith.'
 
The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own.
'Professor, is there such thing as heat?'
 
'Yes.
 
'And is there such a thing as cold?'
'Yes, son, there's cold too.'
'No sir, there isn't.'
 
The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly
becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. 'You can have lots of heat,
even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat
or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit down to 458
degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that.
There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the
lowest -458 degrees. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or
transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit
energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold
is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold.
Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the
opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'
 
Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a
hammer.
 
'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'
 
'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation.. 'What is night if it isn't
darkness?'
 
'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of
something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light,
but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness,
isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, darkness
isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?'
 
The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a
good semester. 'So what point are you making, young man?'
 
'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start
with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.'
 
The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. 'Flawed? Can you
explain how?'
 
'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains... 'You argue
that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are
viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir,
science can't even explain a thought.' 'It uses electricity and magnetism, but
has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the
opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a
substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.'
'Now tell me, professor.. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a
monkey?'
 
'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of
course I do.'
 
'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'
 
The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the
argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.
 
'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even
prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your
opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'
 
The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has
subsided. 'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student,
let me give you an example of what I mean..' The student looks around the room.
'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?' The
class breaks out into laughter. 'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the
professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's
brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of
empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain,
with all due respect, sir.' 'So if science says you have no brain, how can we
trust your lectures, sir?'
 
Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face
unreadable. Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. 'I Guess
you'll have to take them on faith.'
 
'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the
student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?' Now uncertain, the
professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it Everyday. It is in the daily
example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in The multitude of crime and violence
everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.'
 
To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not
exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness
and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did
not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's
love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat
or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'
 
The professor sat down.
 
If you read it all the way through and had a smile on your face when you
finished, mail to your friends and family with the title 'God vs. Science'

PS: the student was Albert Einstein.
Albert Einstein wrote a book titled God vs. Science in 1921.

Rapid Response for SATURDAY, March 26, 2011


AND NOW...THE MODERN HOLOCAUST

What else can we call a nation-wide, systematic and intentional destruction of individuals for the sole reason that they exist and are "inconvenient" to the majority of their fellow human beings?  Now add to that scenario the fact that the majority of those victims are of one ethnic group.  What do you have?  The abomination of ABORTION is what you have, where over 90,000 individuals were killed in New York City alone in 2010 - and where the large majority of those were Black babies.  As has been pointed out elsewhere, the most dangerous place for a Black person to be is in the womb.  And if those persons were as visible as Blacks were during the hundreds of years of slavery in this country, we would already have had a second Civil War. 

Of all the most serious and divisive problems facing this country at this time, the most corrosive one, and the one most responsible for the seeming intractability of those problems is societal division over Abortion.  Because it is the one most likely to engender contempt and even hatred between and among citizens on both sides of that issue - and of many other issues by extension. 

That need not be.  What is needed, besides a new realization of the primacy of Natural Law and a return to prayer, is elimination of the illegal involvement of the Federal government in the question via Roe v Wade and its progeny, and a return of the question to the States in this Republic.  Barring that action, this country has entered a permanent period of Decline and Fall.  It need not be.

GS

==================================================
ZENIT, The world seen from Rome
News Agency
==================================================

Expendable Babies
Human Life as a Consumer Product

By Father John Flynn, LC

ROME, DEC. 19, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Abortion advocates have long argued for a woman's right to control her body and to be able to dispose of the unborn child if she wishes. In a bizarre decision, a Belgian court has extended that reasoning to say that a child has a right to be aborted.

A Belgian journal, "Revue Générale des Assurances et Responsabilités," has just published the decision handed down by the Brussels Court of Appeal on Sept. 21 regarding the case of a child born disabled after an erroneous prenatal diagnosis, according to the Gènéthique press review for Nov. 29-Dec. 3.

The court ruled that the child's parents could claim damages from the doctors who failed to detect the disability. They said that by making therapeutic abortion legal, the legislators intended to allow women to avoid giving birth to seriously handicapped children, "having regard not only to the interests of the mother, but also to those of the unborn child itself."

Thus, the judges considered that the child would have had the "right" to an abortion if his disability had been correctly diagnosed.
 
The report on the decision did not explain how the court could consider an unborn child to be able to be the subject of rights, and why that right was only one to be killed and not to live.

Good mother?
 
The increasingly common acceptance of the view that it is better to abort handicapped babies was taken a step further by British writer Virginia Ironside when she declared that she would be prepared to suffocate a child to end its suffering, the Daily Mail newspaper reported Oct. 5.
 
Her comments came during a BBC1 radio program "Sunday Morning Live." Ironside also said that aborting an unwanted or disabled baby, "is the act of a loving mother."
 
Her statements provoked widespread criticism. Peter Evans, speaking on behalf of the Christian Medical Fellowship, said: "For us to make judgments that people are not worth life, not worth the opportunity to live, is a very dangerous thing," the Daily Mail reported.

An accompanying article authored by Ian Birrell, the father of a disabled 16-year-old daughter, acknowledged the difficulties of caring for a handicapped child but also said that it was an intensely rewarding experience. He accused Ironside of revealing a mind-set all too common, namely that people with disabilities are inferior to others.

"Imagine the outcry if Ms Ironside had said black children or gay teenagers should be exterminated," Birrell commented. 

Others, however, defended her. Guardian newspaper columnist Zoe Williams argued that she had a "valid point and was brave to make it," in an Oct. 5 article.

Williams declared that Ironside's argument was a crucial move because she had asserted the moral dimension of being pro-choice. This was a blow to what Williams describes as "the self-proclaimed moral superiority of the anti-abortionists." 

The Sunday Times gave Virginia Ironside a chance to further explain her reasoning in an opinion piece published Oct. 10. She argued that mercy killings of elderly and sick people do occur and that judges usually take a lenient view of this. Extending this practice to the unborn or newly born is simply what a good mother would do, she said.

New test

The attitude of eliminating those considered unfit will be aided by new tests that make it easier to detect abnormalities. A blood test for pregnant women capable of detecting almost all genetic disorders has been developed, London's Time newspaper reported Dec. 9. 

If more extensive trials confirm the preliminary results, the test could eventually replace more invasive and riskier techniques such as amniocentesis, that involves inserting a needle in the womb to take a sample of fetal tissue.

As well, the test can be used as early as the eighth week of pregnancy, well before procedures currently used, giving women longer to decide whether to have an abortion, the Times added.

Alasdair Palmer, commenting on the news in the Dec. 11 edition of the London-based Telegraph newspaper, said that tests such as this could have prevented people like him being born. Palmer, who suffers from multiple sclerosis, raised the concern of a possible increase in abortions of babies with genetic defects, including minor ones such as a cleft palate.

Down Syndrome babies are routinely aborted, he noted, and once you accept the mentality of this being an acceptable practice, it becomes difficult to draw a line. Should we abort those suffering from dyslexia, autism, or being exceptionally short, he asked.

"I cannot see any basis that would enable the law to specify, never mind enforce, a principle which says: this genetic defect is bad enough to mean that it would be better if the foetus was never born -- but this one isn't," Palmer reflected.

Even without the new test there has been a significant decline in the birth of children with genetic disorders, due to selective abortion. A lengthy report by the Associated Press, published Feb. 17, quoted Dr. Wendy Chung, clinical genetics chief at Columbia University, as saying that due to screening there are decreased rates of disorders such as Tay-sachs.

In recent years, testing for cystic fibrosis has increased, and in Massachusetts, for example, births of babies with the condition dropped from 29 in 2000 to only 10 in 2003.

In California, the Associated Press reported, Kaiser Permanente, a large health organization, offered prenatal screening. From 2006 to 2008, 87 couples with cystic fibrosis mutations agreed to have fetuses tested, and 23 were found to have the disease. Sixteen of the 17 fetuses projected to have the severest type of disease were aborted, as were four of the six fetuses projected to have less severe disease.

Sometimes couples opt for abortion even when there is no genetic problem, as the Canadian National Post newspaper reported Dec. 10.  

When the wife of an un-named couple in Toronto was found to be expecting twins, they felt they could not cope with an extra two children in addition to the young child they already had. So they decided upon what is termed "selective reduction," and one of the twins was aborted.

The article quoted a New York obstetrician, Mark Evans, who is a specialist in this technique, and he said that many cases involve a couple on their second marriage who already have children and want just one more additional child. 

Unique

"God loves each human being uniquely and profoundly," Benedict XVI declared in Feb. 13 speech to members of the Pontifical Academy For Life.

The Pope observed that bioethics is a crucial battleground in the struggle between the supremacy of technology and human moral responsibility. In this conflict it is vital to maintain the principle of human dignity as a source for the rights of persons.

"When respect for the dignity of the person is invoked, it is fundamental that it should be full, total and without restrictions other than those entailed in the recognition that it is always human life that is involved," he affirmed.

The Pontiff warned that history shows how dangerous the state can be when it claims to be the source and principle of ethics and legislates on matters affecting the person and society.

The slide from a right to abortion to the right to be aborted amply demonstrates the perils of abandoning fundamental ethical principles.

Billy Graham's Prayer [reportedly] For Our Nation
'Heavenly Father, we come before you  today to ask your forgiveness and to seek your  direction and guidance.  We know Your Word  says, 'Woe to those who call evil good,' but  that is exactly what we have done.  We have  lost our spiritual equilibrium and reversed our  values.. We have exploited the poor and  called it the lottery. We have rewarded  laziness and called it welfare. We have  killed our unborn and called it choice.  We have shot abortionists and called it  justifiable.  We have neglected to  discipline our children and called it building  self esteem.  We have abused power  and called it politics. We have coveted  our neighbor's possessions and called it  ambition.  We have polluted the air  with profanity and pornography and called it  freedom of expression.  We have  ridiculed the time-honored values of our  forefathers and called it enlightenment.   Search us, Oh God, and know our hearts  today; cleanse us from every sin and Set us  free. Amen!'

Persistent Myths About Abortion, ZENIT News Agency

An important statement by one of the Church's clearest spokesmen.  GS
==================================================
ZENIT, The world seen from Rome
News Agency
==================================================

Archbishop Chaput Revisits Notre Dame Controversy
Says Cardinal Cottier May Have Underestimated Gravity

ROME, OCT. 7, 2009 (Zenit.org).- An article written by a top Vatican theologian may have missed the mark and underestimated the "gravity" of the decision made by the University of Notre Dame last spring to invite President Barack Obama to speak at commencement, says the archbishop of Denver.

Archbishop Charles Chaput said this in an article appearing Tuesday in the Italian daily Il Foglio.

The article, published in full by the Catholic News Agency, directly addressed an essay written by Cardinal Georges Cottier, a retired theologian of the Pontifical Household, and published in July by the Catholic magazine 30 Days.

Cardinal Cottier's article downplayed the disagreement voiced publicly by more than 80 bishops and 300,000 laypeople in the weeks leading up to the president's scheduled address, and praised Obama for what he termed his "humble realism."

"Regrettably and unintentionally, Cardinal Cottier's articulate essay undervalues the gravity of what happened at Notre Dame," Archbishop Chaput affirmed. "It also overvalues the consonance of President Obama's thinking with Catholic teaching."

The archbishop, noting that he speaks for himself, and not for all U.S. bishops, acknowledged that Cardinal Cottier's essay "made a valuable contribution to Catholic discussion of the new American president."

"Our faith connects us across borders," he added. "What happens in one nation may have an impact on many others. World opinion about America's leaders is not only appropriate; it should be welcomed."

Point of departure

The archbishop explained that the outcry against Obama's appearance at Notre Dame had less to do with a personal attack than a very real and fundamental disagreement with the president's "views on vital bioethical issues, including but not limited to abortion, differ sharply from Catholic teaching."

"Much is made, in some religious circles, of the President's sympathy for Catholic social teaching," the prelate explained. "But defense of the unborn child is a demand of social justice. There is no 'social justice' if the youngest and weakest among us can be legally killed. Good programs for the poor are vital, but they can never excuse this fundamental violation of human rights."

Archbishop Chaput also explained that the timing and nature of the invitation caused the conflict: "At a time when the American bishops as a body had already voiced strong concern about the new administration's abortion policies, Notre Dame not only made the president the centerpiece of its graduation events, but also granted him an honorary doctorate of laws -- this, despite his deeply troubling views on abortion law and related social issues."

But the "real source of Catholic frustration," said Archbishop Chaput, was that Notre Dame "ignored and violated the guidance of America's bishops" in a 2004 document that "urged Catholic institutions to refrain from honoring public officials who disagreed with Church teaching on grave matters."

"Thus, the fierce debate in American Catholic circles this spring over the Notre Dame honor for Mr. Obama was not finally about partisan politics," he explained. "It was about serious issues of Catholic belief, identity and witness -- triggered by Mr. Obama's views -- which Cardinal Cottier, writing from outside the American context, may have misunderstood."

Common connection

Archbishop Chaput also commented on the connection Cardinal Cottier made in his article between "President Obama's frequently stated search for political 'common ground' and the Catholic emphasis on pursing the 'common good.'"

"These goals -- seeking common ground and pursuing the common good -- can often coincide," the archbishop noted. "But they are not the same thing. They can sharply diverge in practice.

"So-called common ground abortion policies may actually attack the common good because they imply a false unity; they create a ledge of shared public agreement too narrow and too weak to sustain the weight of a real moral consensus. The common good is never served by tolerance for killing the weak -- beginning with the unborn."

Finally, the archbishop praised Cardinal Cottier for reminding "his readers of the mutual respect and cooperative spirit required by citizenship in a pluralist democracy."

"But pluralism is never an end in itself," Archbishop Chaput noted. "It is never an excuse for inaction.

"As President Obama himself acknowledged at Notre Dame, democracy depends for its health on people of conviction fighting hard in the public square for what they believe -- peacefully, legally but vigorously and without apologies."

Offerings by George A. Sprecace M.D., J.D.:


See also the
What's Wrong and Right with the Catholic Church section
in The Catholic Church page of the Involved Citizen.


Rapid Response Posting for April 12, 2009, GS

Rapid Response Posting for January 11, 2009, GS

"The Stem Cell Research Issue"

by George A. Sprecace, M.D., J.D., The Day, TBD

"Stem Cell Issues Need More Debate: It's Abortion Wearing A Pretty Face"
by George A. Sprecace, M.D., J.D., The Day, Sunday, July 29, 2001

"Science Refutes Legal  'Roe v. Wade'  Ruling"
by George A. Sprecace, M.D., J.D., The Day, Wednesday, February 5, 2003

Human Clones?  Although the writer of the following article sounds like he may have no problem with abortion ("Stem-cell research, or therapeutic cloning, does not create a human life, does not create a sentient creature at all."), he provides vital information and insight into the latest  - and most serious - deviant scientific activity that society will have to deal with
GS

Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Abortion with a Friendly Face, GS

The Reality of the Child in the Womb, GS


The following is a good recently published resource regarding one of the most thorny issues of them all: the ethical care of the permanently unconcious patient (ie. "persistent vegetative state").  GS

Point and Counterpoint: Abortion and Alternatives

Article 1, for Sunday, March 18, 2006
Abortion and Alternatives
Article 2, for Sunday, April 2, 2006
What Abortion Is Not
Article 3, for Sunday, April 9, 2006
Alternatives To Abortion: Abstinence
Article 4, for Sunday, April 23, 2006
Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Article 5, for Sunday, April 30, 2006
Abortion And Alternatives: The Good, The Bad And The Ugly
Article 6, for Sunday, May 7, 2006
Some Background For End Of Life Discussions
Article 7, for Sunday, May 14, 2006
“After The Fact”: Post-Abortion Assistance to Women And Men
Article 8, for Sunday, May 21, 2006
Food And Hydration
Article 9, for Sunday, June 4, 2006
End Of Life Issues…So, What Do We Do?
Article 10, for Sunday, June 11, 2006
Of This And That…Here And Abroad
Article 11, for Sunday, June 18, 2006
Alternatives To Abortion: Adoption
Article 12, for Sunday, June 25, 2006
Euthanasia – Physician Assisted Suicide
Article 13, for Sunday, July 2, 2006
The Good, The Bad And The Ugly…A Sequel
Article 14, for Sunday, July 9, 2006
Palliative Sedation
Article 15, for Sunday, July 16, 2006
A Review…And Questions About Grey Areas
Article 16, for Sunday, August 20, 2006
Stem Cells – The Focus Of Much Research and “Hype”
Article 17, for Sunday, August 27, 2006
The Good, The Bad And The Ugly
Article 18, for Sunday, September 3, 2006
Politics And Stem Cells
Article 19, for Sunday, October 1, 2006
Respect For Life
Article 20, for Sunday, October 29, 2006
Respect For Life Issues
Article 21, for Sunday, November 26, 2006
The Election, And The U.S. Catholic Bishops’ Conference
Article 22, for Sunday, December 31, 2006
The Past – And The Future
Article 23, for Sunday, January 28, 2007
Faith…And Religions
Article 24, for Sunday, February 25, 2007
A Brief Summary Of Jewish Medical Ethics: Rabbi Carl Astor
Article 25, for Sunday, March 25, 2007
Protestantism: Dr. Robert H. Bartlett
Article 26, for Sunday, May 20, 2007
Islam: Altaf Rasool, M.D.
Article 27, for Sunday, June 3, 2007
Islam: Mahmoud N. Mansour, Imam of New London Islamic Center
Article 28, for Sunday, June 24, 2007
Capital Punishment – The Death Penalty
Article 29, for Sunday, July 29, 2007
Clarification Of The Doctrine Of The Church Regarding Other Religions
Article 30, for Sunday, October 14, 2007
The Death Penalty: Politics, Economics and Morality
Article 31, for Sunday, November 25, 2007
Immigration: A Crisis All Immigrants And Citizens Share
Article 32, for Sunday, January 6, 2008
New Advances In Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Article 33, for Sunday, February 2, 2008
Sexual Orientation: Religion And Science
Article 34, for Sunday, March 9, 2008
Gay Marriage, or Civil Union, or What?
Article 35, for Sunday, May 25, 2008
Human Reproduction, Catholic Morality, and The “Plan B” Morass
Article 36, for Sunday, July 13, 2008
Catholics, Church, and Communication: "What we have here is a failure to communicate"
Article 37, for Sunday, August 31, 2008
Cross Not Optional, Says Benedict XVI - ZENIT News Agency
Article 38, for Sunday, September 7, 2008
History of Church Teaching on Abortion;
US Bishops Issue Fact Sheet - ZENIT News Agency
Article 39, for Sunday, September 21, 2008
When Human Life Begins: Science, not politics or
religion
Article 40, for Sunday, October 26, 2008





More Relevant Offerings:

"Cardinal: Let's At Least Make Abortion Rarer", ZENIT News Agency

"Intolerable Secularists", ZENIT News Agency


"The Hopeful Future in Bioethics", ZENIT News Agency


"Bioethicist Warns of Overreach...", ZENIT News Agency

"Human Embryos Not Objects, Say Europe's Bishops", ZENIT News Agency

"Biology's Chernobyl,"
        by Matt Ridley, WSJ Tuesday December 31, 2002, Opinion, p A14."

The "National Organization of Women (NOW)" recently announced that the election cycle for 2004 will prominently include a pitched battle to preserve abortion rights for women (i.e., killing their offspring) under the continuing cynical rubric "choice".  Whose Choice?  As in many other spheres of public interest, these "liberals" continue their articulate, arrogant and asinine assault on a moral nation.  The editorial  listed below is a further call to battle.  OK, let's have at it!
GS

"The War Against Women,"
        New York Times, Jan. 12, 2003, Editorial, p.14

"Bush Declares Sanctity of Human Life Day,"
        Yahoo News, January 15, 2003

"Vatican Urges Catholic Politicians To Vote With Church,"
        by Victor L. Simpson, The Day, Jan 17, 2003

"VaticanCalls Catholic Politicians Into Line,"
        by Philip Pullella, Reuters, January 16, 2003

"Baby-Saving Made Easy,"
        by John Leo

Partial Birth Abortion...Infanticide -
"Partial-Sense Decision,"
        by John Leo


Copyright Notice (c) Copyright 1999-2017, Allergy Associates of New London, PC