Planned Parenthood Director Resigns After Viewing Ultrasound Abortion

Monday, November 2, AD 2009

Just received breaking news from Katerina Ivanovna, M.J. Andrew, and an email from Coalition for Life concerning a major defection from Planned Parenthood to the Culture of Life movement.

Abby Johnson worked at Planned Parenthood abortion mill in Bryan, Texas for eight years, the last two as its director.  After viewing an ultrasound of an abortion she had a spiritual conversion.  Last month she submitted her resignation to the abortion mill and like clockwork Planned Parenthood has placed a restraining order on her and the local chapter of Coalition for Life, where she had been spending more and more time at.

Continue reading...

16 Responses to Planned Parenthood Director Resigns After Viewing Ultrasound Abortion

  • People who blindly love PP never realize (or if they even do acknowledge it — even if silently, they play the blind fool) the kind of malicious activities it is actually involved with.

    The murdering of innocent children rarely even enters their minds, and should it invade their thoughts; they avail themselves such euphemisms in order to tidy up the dirt in their consciences (e.g., the “Pro-Choice” stance on behalf of women everywhere).

    That’s what happens when all you have is PP for brains.

  • I’ve heard that one of them even refers to the innocent unborn children as an “un-dividual”.

  • Interesting how PP seeks to market abortion. They are all about driving up their market share of the blood money produced by the abortion industry.

  • Of course —

    Think about it: their commission is based on how many children they murder.

    Besides, imagine the good they’re doing not only for women everywhere, but also for the whole of humanity?

    Overpopulation would undoubtedly result if we allowed these repulsive things (otherwise infamously known as “children”) to exist in the first place!

  • So much for “pro-choice.” They don’t want mothers to choose life, it cuts into their market share.

    Thank God Abby Johnson has seen the light. She will be a powerful witness.

    BTW, Obama admin: what Abby Johnson now is doing is really “speaking truth to power.” Power doesn’t like it too much.

  • Where has the intellect of this woman been for all her years? While this is good to hear it is pathetic, to put it mildly.

    I am glad, however, for her change of heart and wish her peace as she comes to terms with her previous life.

  • Karl, well, look at all the abortions Bernard Nathanson performed before he came to his senses. The man aborted his own child, God help us, and yet he woke up, made “The Silent Scream” and eventually was received into the Church.

    I always thought that if he could repent and change his life there is hope for the worst among us.

  • Not to mention “Jane Roe” herself, Norma McCorvey, another famous convert to the pro-life cause and the Catholic faith as well. Another example of “if they can be converted anyone can.”

  • Karl, the exact same thing could be said about St. Paul (substituting “man” for “woman” of course).

  • Is my impression false that the first thing that “liberal” organizations [Planned Unparenthood, ACORN, ACLU] do when confronted about their activities is to reach for a lawsuit?

    No honest discussion, no back and forth – just sue. It puts me in mind of Our Lord’s strictures on lawyers.

  • Well, after reviewing the TRO and related pleadings, apparently PP is pissed of that Ms. Johnson allegedly copied several files (employment, I am assuming) and allegedly shared info w/ Coalition on who works at the facility. Her employment contract did have confidentiality provisions. I hope she did not do anything she will regret.

  • Technically, Texas A&M is located in College Station, Tx. Bryan is about 7 miles away.

  • Actually, the two cities border each other. The distance between downtown districts may be 7 miles.

  • When talking megalopolises like College Station and Bryan, I don’t count their ‘burbs.

  • Spent 6 years out there… ‘burbs are nonexistent. 🙂

  • A special thanks to Abby Johnson, the ex-director of the Bryan Texas Planned Parenthood office on 29th Street:

    Abby Johnson now encourages thinking and loving individuals to place a special value on others who are (also humans made in the image of God) and in the same stage of development that “They were”!

    The thoughts that dance in the mind of humans, is conceived in their heart and hinges on the pivotal question that ushers in the undeserved “Death penalty” for the unborn; or the joyous excitement, anticipating the soon coming birth of a child.

    The question that answers the complex motive for a person’s actions after conception is “Is the pregnancy and baby wanted or rejected by one or both parents (or families) of the child”?!!!

    And if most women-with-child was loved by the child’s father,
    she would smile and happily say “No abortion” why bother.

    Ask God and the person you mated with to forgive you,
    forgive yourself and live the abundant life.

    Sincerely ProBaby,

    Arthur Trafford

Susan G. Komen Supports Abortion Still

Wednesday, September 30, AD 2009

[Updates at the bottom of this article as of 8:31pm CDT AD 9-30-2009 shows alternatives  –other than Komen– for fundraising activities related to Breast Cancer research that are Pro-Life in their outlook]

The Susan G. Komen for the Cure (Komen) is an organization that funds breast cancer research.  This noble effort by Komen to save the lives of both women and men who are afflicted with breast cancer is tainted by their funding of abortion via Planned Parenthood.

Each year Catholics and most other Christians raise their concerns about supporting Komen specifically because Komen donates money to Planned Parenthood.  Catholics and most other Christians unknowingly assist Komen in their fundraising efforts which goes against the teachings of Jesus as stated in the Fifth Commandment of “You shall not kill”.

Due to this criticism attributed to Komen in funding abortion, Komen released an open letter in March 2009 concerning their relationship with Planned Parenthood.  In this open letter they defended their donations to Planned Parenthood raising three (3) reasons why it is acceptable to continue to donate money to Komen even though they provide funding to abort innocent unborn children.

I will address their open letter with their three (3) reasons here:

Continue reading...

39 Responses to Susan G. Komen Supports Abortion Still

  • It might be worth pointing out that their argument you summarize in 1) seems to be not that they do other good things and so funding abortion is okay, but rather that the funds they are giving to Planned Parenthood are specifically and only for cancer screenings, not for abortions or “family planning services”. Their claim is that only Planned Parenthood has a large enough network of locations in rural and low income areas for their screenings to be available to everyone.

    Now, I think there are two legitimate questions in regards to this:

    1) Does Komen’s funding of these programs free up other funds at PP for use on abortions and birth control?

    2) Is it simply unacceptable to work with PP for any cause, given how morally reprehensible their primary line of work is?

    I’m not sure if 1) is a problem in this case or not, but I do think that 2) is a problem, and it strikes me as a good reason not to support the Komen foundation. If we’re serious about how bad we think Planned Parenthood’s main business is, using them as a handy provider network for some other service is kind of like using the mafia to deliver packages — the fact that your particular activity is innocent doesn’t excuse providing business to such a reprehensible organization.

  • Even the World Health Organization and the Mayo Clinic (hardly pro-life institutions) recognize the synthetic hormones used in the Pill and hormone replacement therapies as human carcinogens.

  • Darwin,

    Excellent points.

    Komen uses PP because of their network, but nowhere do they (or PP) say how those funds are used. Though any support to PP is wrong to begin with.

    I think your two point are intertwined to the threshold that regardless of how you argue point 1, it is negated by the simple fact that they are PP, ipso facto, provide abortions is never a good thing.

    I like your analogy about the mafia, no matter how effective they are, using the mafia is never a good thing.


    Thank you for your points.

    I wanted to post this as soon as possible. The more I researched on my post the more links I was able to find so I had to stop somewhere or I would be posting a dissertation paper in the end! 😉

  • I’m glad you mentioned #3. While many doctors unfortunately seem to still cling to the “there’s no evidence” reasoning, there is much reason to suspect otherwise.

    The clinical upshot is that the Komen foundation may be shooting themselves in the foot through these contributions. And there are other organizations that support breast cancer research that do not make such contributions. Why the rush to promote this organization when others exist that do the same good work without the baggage?

    A side note: My youngest child was born in Germany. When I made contact with the doctor who provided my care for that birth, I observed that during my initial health questionnaire I was asked if I had ever terminated a pregnancy. The question, which was subsequently repeated over the next three years each time I visited for well care, intrigued me as no health care practitioner in the U. S. had ever asked me that question (or has, since.) I’m sure it wasn’t an idle question; had I answered yes it might have made a difference in my treatment (more or earlier testing, maybe?) Unfortunately, I never got up the nerve to ask why it was a concern.

  • DarwinCatholic,
    It might be worth pointing out that their argument you summarize in 1) seems to be not that they do other good things and so funding abortion is okay, but rather that the funds they are giving to Planned Parenthood are specifically and only for cancer screenings, not for abortions or “family planning services”. Their claim is that only Planned Parenthood has a large enough network of locations in rural and low income areas for their screenings to be available to everyone.

    We’re actually responding to the “Catholic ethicist” claim here, not their defense of using PP:
    “The good that Komen does and the harm that would come to so many women if Komen ceased to exist
    or ceased to be funded would seem to be a sufficiently proportionate reason”

  • This is a timely post for me.

    The principal of my children’s parochial school asked my wife and I to come with an alternative to Komen when we informed her about the link between Komen and PP. The children have had fundraisers in the past with proceeds going to Komen. I have not had any luck so far finding a suitable pro-life breast cancer research charity that I can recommend. Any ideas?

  • Nick,
    While not a perfect substitute, you might consider researching this option:

  • Nick,

    I just got off the phone with the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer and they recommended the following:

    Breast Cancer Prevention Institute:

    The Polycarp Research Institute:

    Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer:

    The first two actually do research to prevent breast cancer and the last one analyzes and dissects the information of all research done on breast cancer and disseminates the information (even the information suppressed by Komen and Planned Parenthood).

    I’ve also updated the article to show these links.


    Excellent link!

  • Thanks for drawing attention to this.

    The absurdity of the argument is glaring. I saved 10 men from drowning last week, so it must be OK for me to drown one this week.

    I feed hundreds of poor people out of my own stores so it must be OK if I want to starve one child to death in my basement for amusement.

    What kind of warped thinking makes this irrationality seem plausible?

    I notice the Shirner’s (freemasons) have hospitals for children, while they promote a Luciferian agenda. So is it OK for them promote Satan becuase they have hospitals for kids?

    Is it OK for me to support the Shriner hospitals knowing that frees-up resources to promote Satan’s agenda?

    I guess there’s nothing wrong with a teeny, little compromise with evil along as everything else I do is good right?

    No wonder Glenn Beck has blood shooting out of his eyes!

  • No wonder Glenn Beck has blood shooting out of his eyes!


  • I am so glad you mentioned the link to breast cancer. You said, “note that hormone therapy for the treatment of menopause has been banned because of the breast cancer link, it seems a short leap to birth control pills…” It is a very short leap. Research on synthetic hormones, specifically progestin, is directly related to an increase of breast cancer. Planned Parenthood and even the Mayo Clinic do not share any of the research findings on this subject. If I were a researcher, I’d search for statistical data linking the increase of breast cancer to the advent of the birth control pill.

  • Excosrcism?


  • The letter itself only says the studies have not shown there is a conlcusive link between abortion and breast cancer – typical weasel words. Very few, if any, studies show a conclusive link between anything. In fact, even lung cancer studies don’t claim a “conclusive” link between smoking and lung cancer. That is such BS.

    Anyway, I am glad they came up front about their involvement with PP. I was always suspicious of a link, and now we know.

    As for the mafia analogy, I suppose it would be like donating to a “feed the hungry” organization that pays rent to mafia owned/run brothel network to use as a soup kitchen during the day. And every dollar of rent from the hunger organization frees up a dollar for running the brothel.

  • and the Catholic ethicist argument is a joke.

  • Tito:

    At least as I read it, argument 3 is not that there is no evidence of link, but that there is no conclusive evidence. In fact, they concede there is some evidence since they refer to the “bulk” of studies, though not clearly defining what a “bulk” is – 55%, 60%, 70%? Even if it was 80%, that means 20% of the studies showed a link, hardly a factor any prudent person would ignore. Do you think if 20% of studies showed high caffeine intake was linked to breast cancer, that the Foundation wouldn’t be screaming it from every corner?

    So while their claim may be literally true (bulk of studies show no conclusive link) it is completely misleading when talking about risks. It just shows they are more concerned about maintaining ties to PP than to actually exploring ways to reduce breast cancer.

  • Great article and thanks especially for the links to organizations that Catholics can donate to…

    When you get a chance, see if you can figure out where to donate money to fight Parkinson’s disease that doesn’t fund ESCR.

  • Based on what I’ve read, interpretation of some of those study results is kinda subjective. In any case, there’s often a disconnect between what the paper reports and what the press says about it. If you recall that far back, C. Everett Koop’s public remarks about why he didn’t think a new study on post-abortion syndrome would be useful was widely interpreted by the media as “Koop says there ain’t no such!”

  • CMinor, C Matt, et al,

    Thank you for vetting my article.

    I believe we can all agree that organizations such as Komen and Planned Parenthood have done for more to hurt women than to help (if any).

    They continue to block most research that shows connections between abortion and breast cancer (as well as birth control pills).

    What they do reeks of impropriety when they stonewall this research (and petty to say the least).

  • Thanks to everyone for the various leads!

  • You exposed the Komen Hypocrisy. They LOVE abortion, and they fund it PERIOD! There has been a new film about Planned Parenthood, called Maafa21. You need to see it

  • Its okay if they support Abortion. Really, Its the choice of the person who gets the abortion. Not everyone else. Abortion can be a good thing. Because if the person doesn’t have any money to support the baby then the baby will die of a diease due to lack of healthcare. Cause now a days doctors could careless about you if you don’t have healthcare. So why not support abortion??? Let it be done right instead of being done half assed. Donate money into doing an abortion the right way.

  • There is so much one could say here, but I will restrain myself. The handle ‘the one who knows’ could not be more ironic. I think it requires great intellectual confusion to think that abortion can ever be done “right.”

  • The Komen letter points out that some affiliates grant money to PP (not all affiliates). Do you know which ones? I’ve reveiwed the grants that my local Komen affiliate has donated and none of it goes to any organization associated with abortion.

    The national organization only funds research. It’s the local affiliates that fund breast health and screening programs. If you want to stop Komen from funding PP then identify the affiliates fund Planned Parenthood and put pressure on them.

    I will support my local Komen affiliate because I know where their funds are spent.

  • Dave,

    so you would fund your local KKK as long as none of the money went specifically to fund lynchings?

    Beyond the specific funding aspect, this is a matter of not affiliating with organizations which support evil. Komen supports evil (fetal stem cell research, and abortion), they also suppress information which would save women from breast cancer (abortion and contraceptive links) in order to appease their evil associates at PP.

  • This month I was inital taken aback by seeing my favorite NFL players decked in pink! I understand that this was support in breast cancer awareness month. Actually after the NFL unofficially told Rush Limbuagh to take a hike this week I think they should adopt pink as the official color of the NFL. Apparently welcoming the Susan Komen foundation is OK. Giving international recognition to this organization that lies to women about the logical risk relationship between terminated pregnancies through abortion and breat cancer is OK but welcoming a conservative businessman whose character was lied about in the media is not OK. But I am sure that the $805,000 given to Planned Parenthood by SBK affiliates will only be used for breast screening.

  • Somehow, I managed to miss this article and only found it via google…. Very timely, since they also just disinvited all Israeli doctors from the international conference SGK is having in Egypt.

    I think you might appreciate my mom’s response: “There is no disease I could possibly have that would make it alright to chop up babies.”
    (She ends up using many variations on it, since folks folks tend to make set assumptions. Bonus, she’s got a BS in animal husbandry, so generally knows more about fetal development than the ESCR supporters.)

  • Hey Foxfier,
    Ever watched your mom suffer in intensive care for three months and die a horrible death from breast cancer ? Very insensitive comment. I have and until you live threw this stop pissing on Komen people. What is the Catholic church doing to help out? Hopefully one day one of your family members will be cured due to research from the Komen foundation. I bet you will not refuse treatment.

  • Hey, Unbelievable, you have a child?

    You want insensitive?
    Try insisting that chopping up babies is a valid cure for suffering to someone holding their baby…which is what you just did.

    Apparently, you flunk at basic reading comprehension, too, because you failed to realize: I quoted my mother. Who has breast cancer.

    All that aside, “insensitive” is no reason for someone to fail to state a needful truth: embryonic stem cell research requires the deaths of thousand upon thousands of children, on the off chance that there may, some day, be some sort of a cure.

    As a bonus, those pushing for ESCR routinely attack adult stem cell research, which is not only a proven science that dodges the killing people issue, but which can be done with body fat in some cases.

  • Unbelievable I watched my mom die a painful death from breast cancer. She would have preferred a thousand such deaths rather than have an innocent child sacrificed to save her life.

  • I am very pro-life, and I send an angry e-mail asking what exactly they do to support abortion. Somebody e-mailed me back saying they gave money to abortion centers that gave cheap mammograms for poor women who couldn’t get proper check-ups. I think that they can tell them to not put any of the money they donate to abortions, but Susan G. Komen decides not to do that. The money goes to the abortion centers in general.

  • I have no idea what SGK does or does not do vis-a-vis PP. But I do know that Sierra is correct that SGK certainly can make earmarked contributions if it wishes. Whether such earmarked gifts would actually solve the moral question is less clear to me given the fungibility of money. While I would probably refrain from making contributions even under this scenario, I would not be confident in asserting the existence of a moral problem. Moral rules must be applied to facts, and often the rules are easier to come by.

  • Mike & Sierra,

    It’s called compromising with evil.

  • Darkly amusing: a run for SGK this week in the Tacoma area is using a tagline something like “because everyone deserves a life.”

  • Please don’t speak for “most other Christians” without citing references. I can’t speak for “most other Christians,” but I can speak for myself as a Christian and tell you that I appreciate discussions that are both moral and factual at the same time rather than opinions through a megaphone. Saying something louder or attributing an opinion to a larger group doesn’t make it right.

  • Just found out no PP has any breast imaging equipment. The vans are scheduled and it cost $220.00. It’s $60.00 for a manual exam and that is not by a Dr. There might be a sliding scale but like was written earlier, do you have to be without anything? I don’t know.
    A few years ago $475,000.00 was given to one of the Dallas PP facilities so that it would not close down. That is just one of many donations…there are many in each state. So, with no imaging equipment…it makes no sense.
    Nancy Brinker (Brinker International—Chili’s, Macaroni Grill, On the Border etc.) started SGK when her sister Susan G. Komen died of breast cancer. I am sure this was very tragic for her. Her husband Norman Brinker helped fund the start-up of Komen. Nancy Brinker was and maybe still on the PP board. She is a card carrying member of PP. She is a believer in PP and all that it stands for. The monies will continue to flow from this cash cow for contraception, Embryonic stem research and PP.
    There is a reason Komen exists…watch Maafa 21.
    Ever wonder why so many Proctor and Gamble products have the “pink”? Dr. Gamble worked with Sanger in the early 1900’s is what my search revealed.
    Folks walk, feel good and think they are doing good. The PP part does not matter—-what matters is how I feel right???
    As far as I am concerned Nancy Brinker and her organization Susan Komen has made pink a very ugly color.
    My mother had breast cancer.

  • Just found out no PP has any breast imaging equipment. The vans are scheduled and it cost $220.00. It’s $60.00 for a manual exam and that is not by a Dr. There might be a sliding scale but like was written earlier, do you have to be without anything? I don’t know.
    A few years ago Komen org. gave $475,000.00 to one of the Dallas PP facilities so that it would not close down. That is just one of many donations. There are many in each state. So, with no imaging equipment at the PP facilities for the Komen org. to say their donations to PP are for breast exams, it really makes no sense.
    Nancy Brinker (Brinker International—Chili’s, Macaroni Grill, On the Border etc.) started SGK when her sister Susan G. Komen died of breast cancer. I am sure this was very tragic for her. Her husband Norman Brinker helped fund the start-up of Komen. Nancy Brinker was and maybe still be on the PP board. She is a card carrying member of PP. She is a believer in PP and all that it stands for. The monies will continue to flow from this cash cow for contraception, Embryonic stem research and PP.
    After watching Maafa 21 I realized the reason Komen exists. I firmly believe that if Komen was legit it would not be as big.
    Ever wonder why so many Proctor and Gamble products have the “pink”? Dr. Gamble worked with Sanger way back when is what my search revealed.
    Folks walk, feel good and think they are doing good for breast cancer via the Komen org. The PP part does not matter—-what matters is how I feel right???
    As far as I am concerned Nancy Brinker and her organization Susan Komen has made pink a very ugly color.
    By the way my mother had breast cancer.

    Oh and the European interest in terminated abortions. They acknowledge the link and tie abortions to insurance rates. The more abortions the higher the premium. You can do a search of Great Britain/abortion/breast cancer. An actuary figured all of this out around 1967.

  • “Oh and the European interest…They acknowledge the link and tie abortions to insurance rates.”
    Thanks for the info, RLDP. I’ve read that some countries with longer histories of legal abortion than ours have data to that effect. Wonder if women going in for legal abortions in those countries are told their decision will result in their premiums being jacked up? Or if taxpayers there realize how those abortions raise their tax burden?

  • PB, if it’s the original post you’re referring to, please reread. It’s pretty clear that the statement refers to that group of Catholics and Christians whose concerns about SGK’s relationship with PP is leading them to drop support; it’s not a reference to everybody on earth who self-identifies as a Christian. Oh, and another good reason to reread is that there are actually a number of facts there (complete with linked references) that you seem to suggest were not. Might learn something.

Pro-Abort Catholic Politicians and the Church

Wednesday, September 9, AD 2009

Pro-abort Catholic PolsFather Roger J. Landry concludes here that the strategy of the Church to privately persuade Catholic pro-abort pols of the errors of their ways has been a flat failure.

“Let us take an honest look at the numbers. When we survey the long list of pro-choice Catholic politicians from both parties — Kennedy, Kerry, Giuliani, Schwarzenegger, Daschle, Dodd, Durbin, Leahy, Mikulski, Pelosi, Delahunt, Capuano, Markey, McGovern, Meehan, Granholm, Sebelius, Pataki, Richardson, Cellucci, Cuomo, and Biden to name just a handful — is it possible to say that the strategy has worked with any of them? Over the last three and a half decades, can we point to even one success story?

Another way to assess the results of the education-alone strategy is to measure the direction that pro-choice Catholic politicians have moved over the years. Even if they haven’t experienced a total conversion, have they moved closer toward limiting abortions or toward making abortions easier to access? The facts show that the vast majority of personally opposed, publicly pro-choice Catholic legislators have become far less personally opposed and far more publicly in favor over the duration of the strategy.

In the initial years after Roe versus Wade, publicly pro-choice Catholic legislators generally whispered their support for abortion. They displayed a palpable sense of shame, letting their abortion position out just enough so that it wouldn’t cost them the votes of abortion supporters. That discomfort began to dissipate after Governor Mario Cuomo’s 1984 pro-choice defense at Notre Dame. We’ve now come to a situation when pro-choice Catholic legislators vigorously curry the favor of Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America and Emily’s List;  scores of Catholics in Congress have the chutzpah to co-sponsor the Freedom of Choice Act, which would eliminate almost every abortion restriction ever passed at the federal or state level; and 16 out of 25 Catholic Senators vote against conscience protections to prevent their fellow Catholics in the medical field from being forced to participate in abortions and sterilizations.”

Father Landry ends by suggesting a new approach, perhaps we might call it the “more than hot air” approach:

“Jesus spoke of a different way in the Gospel (Mt 18:15-18). It involves not merely general educational statements that we hope offenders will apply to themselves in conscience, but the type of one-on-one instruction traditionally called fraternal correction. If that fails, and fails repeatedly, Jesus enjoined us to regard the offender as someone who no longer belongs to the community, who is no longer a member in good standing. This may seem harsh, but we should remember that Jesus always seeks nothing but the best for his Church and for individual sinners, even obstinate sinners. Implied in Jesus’ strategy is that education involves not just information, but formation, and that you can’t form disciples without discipline. This is a lesson that, after four decades of the undeniable failure of another approach, we need to consider anew.”

Hattip to my friend the ever vigilant Jay Anderson at Pro Ecclesia,  and please go here to read his comments on Father Landry’s argument.

Continue reading...

17 Responses to Pro-Abort Catholic Politicians and the Church

  • Finally, someone has the courage to state what must be done.


  • Yes, I agree with the idea of not considering them part of the community anymore but I think we need to voice that more. We need to let our congregation, the nation and the world know that we do not tolerate abortion support….and that Catholics who support and advocate it are excommunicated. We need to literally stand up and state what our Catechism says:

    “Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,” “by the very commission of the offense,” and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.”

  • Well stated Simon. I was disappointed that Caroline Kennedy was pro-choice, repulsive, it’s incompatible with Catholic beliefs. Isn’t their someone in the Kennedy clan who bolts from this philosophy and ideology? Isn’t it good to know, of course, that Alveda King, Martin Luther King’s niece is pro-life.

    I have never wavered being pro-life though I have considered the question in full when younger, I respect an argument. Now, I consider how central and pivotal of an idea is it for the Church to be pushing.

    It was an interesting editorial in the UK, by a spokesman for the Tories I believe in the Daily Telegraph that grilled Ted Kennedy for voting for the partial birth abortions. England, can’t speak for the total UK because abortion is still illegal in Northern Ireland like the Republic of Ireland, but one would think England is a bit like the USA in this regard. However, many in England find our “partial birth” abortions very evil. Okay, I would find fault with all abortions but I have met others from England who do not accept the late terms abortions that occur in the USA even though they are pro-choice. The Tories by the way in the above articles did not want Ted Kennedy to get Knighthood since basically, he’s had long term ties to supporting the IRA or something of this nature. I apologize for any of this being offtopic.

  • Don:

    Totally agree with your post and the comments of Jay Anderson and the good Father. People forget that there were even limits to Christ’s spirit of charity and inclusiveness such as when he tossed the money changers out of the temple.

    That being said how can one justify actions by other “Catholic” laity and politicians in promoting other activity that runs contrary to Catholic teaching, i.e. torture, pre-emptive war, the death penalty, divorce? How can one be a “Catholic” divorce lawyer? How can one be a “Catholic” judge or prosecutor that encourages or enforces the death penalty? How can one be a “Catholic” public official that allows or attempts to justify torture and pre-emptive war?

  • Like most things in life awakaman you deal with each issue on its own merits. The Church has spoken with one voice on abortion since the time of Christ.

    On the issue of preemptive war on the other hand, well, I assume some of the popes have had interesting discussions on that topic in the next life. For example John Paul II and Urban II on the First Crusade. I would love, and I mean that sincerely, to listen to that discussion.

    On divorce John Paul II seemed at one point not to want Catholic attorneys involved in them, but then in a clarification said that Catholic attorneys could be involved if their aim was to secure a good custody outcome for any minor children involved. That is one area where I personally would like some clarification since, although it makes up a miniscule portion of my practice, like most small town attorneys I am confronted with these cases from time to time.

    In regard to the death penalty we have the problem of Church teaching basically being reversed on that question under John Paul II, with a great deal of confusion now as to when the death penalty is licit and when it is not.

    I have no problem with holding the feet of Catholic pols to the fire on any number of issues, but I believe that Church teaching is the clearest on abortion, it is the issue that involves the greatest death toll each year for the innocent, and for me, as it has been since 1973, abortion will always be the overriding moral issue of our time.

  • Don:

    In regards to the 1st Crusade it is debatable as to whether it truly was pre-emptive war. First, it went beyond its initial objective of defending the Byzantine Empire and the West from the expansion of Islam and became more of a war of aggression with the reconquest of Jerusalem. Secondly, saying the 1st Crusade was fought by those exclusinvely seeking to protect Christainity is like saying the Civil War was fought exclusively over the issue of Slavery – total nonsense. It was extremely interesting that Jerusalem was a major trading center as well as an important city to Christians – just as it was an amazing coincidence that Iraq happened to have a lot of oil as well as a nasty dictator. Finally, even if we regard it as a pre-emptive war to prevent the spread of Islam given the current status of Islam in the middle east (and Europe) I would hardly say that it speaks well for pre-emptive war.

    In regard to the Death penalty did church teaching on the death penalty reverse or did it develop as a result of the growth or evolution of the modern prison system? Your argument reminds me of those offered by the Church of Christ as to why they do not have instrumental music at their services – because the early Christians did not – of course they didn’t have air conditioning or heating either. As prisons have become relatively “escape proof” and we have developed systems of rehabilitation (as I assume you agree that it is our Christian duty to do) the death penalty has become less necessary unless you want to engage in pure retribution. I know, I know . . . the deterance argument . . . but given that countries and states without the death penalty generally have less crime then those with the death penalty this is not a very good argument.

    Finally, given that JPII was rather adament in his denunciation of Catholic lawyers being involved in divorces “Roman Catholic lawyers should refuse to handle divorce cases, Pope John Paul has said.
    He said divorce was ‘spreading like a plague’ through society, and lawyers should refuse to be part of the ‘evil’.”

    Yes, one can engage in some self rationalization such as one is doing some good such as getting children into a good custody situation, but isn’t that the type of rationalization used by pro-choice politicians and those who vote for them, i.e. ignoring the great evil you are doing by pointing ut the small amount of good that may result.

  • well, we as catholics are so stupid. If you work, for example for Pepsi, but you don’t like Pepsi, and talk the whole day about the wonders of Coke, and try to sell Coke at every chance you have … what would your boss do? Fire you!!

    Off course, if you were coherent and a normal and rational person, you would leave Pepsi and move to Coke asap.

    This is how ratio works, this how the world is, this is how everybody in this planet feels. And what does the hierarchy do, not only in the States but anywhere else, without some honorable exceptions? They are SCARED, because the sheeps will leave the flock.. so WHAT?

    It is better to be fewer but real,rather than have many who disturb, who don’t leave us do the work of our Heavenly Father!

  • I believe the Catechism [2383] expresses well the Church’s position. Separation [divorce] is not immoral. Indeed it may be for the benefit of both parties.

    It is remarriage which is wrong.

  • Exactly, Gabriel. No off the cuff statement, even by a pope, even by a saint, can change that.

  • TomSVDP,
    The late Eunice Kennedy Shriver was notable for her pro-life advocacy within the Democratic party and her activism outside it. Her passing several weeks ago was noted on this blog and elsewhere, though there was little mention of her pro-life associations outside pro-life sources.

  • Awakaman in regard to divorce cases and Catholic lawyers this is where the ambiguity enters in:

    “Lawyers, as independent professionals, should always decline the use of their profession for an end that is contrary to justice, as is divorce. They can only cooperate in this kind of activity when, in the intention of the client, it is not directed to the break-up of the marriage, but to the securing of other legitimate effects that can only be obtained through such a judicial process in the established legal order (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2383). In this way, with their work of assisting and reconciling persons who are going through a marital crises, lawyers truly serve the rights of the person and avoid becoming mere technicians at the service of any interest whatever.”

    In this area I wouldn’t mind at all if the Pope told me that I could never take such a case again as it would give me an excellent reason not to do so when clients press me for my services in these types of matters. These cases are time consuming, emotionally draining, and, as I noted in my earlier comment a miniscule portion of my practice, and the only reason I get involved with them now is when a client convinces me that the kids would be better off with them, or they are being denied visitation, or they want an increase in child support, or they wish to attempt to change custody because the kids are begging to live with the client, etc. I would cheer a papal ban as giving me a good conscience deafness to their pleas, but I do not think the Pope has done that yet.

    More on your other points in a day or so when I am no longer shackled to my desk in my law office.

  • But how can civil divorce really be “contrary to justice” in cases where an innocent spouse is merely trying to remove herself or himself and any children from a situation that gravely endangers their physical, mental, or spiritual health or safety?

    I don’t think even JPII would have argued that it was “evil” for a woman to divorce a husband who was beating her or molesting their children, or a man to divorce a wife who was shooting up drugs and prostituting herself to get the money for them, or had taken up witchcraft or Satan worship, etc.

  • On the other hand, if it’s just a case of a man or woman having fallen in “love” with someone else and wanting to divorce their spouse to marry their partner in adultery, that’s another story, and a case in which I would think no observant Catholic lawyer would want to get involved.

  • You can also add into the complexity mix Elaine that clients are often less than forthcoming in this area of the law, and will frequently tell their attorney all about the misdeeds, real or imagined, of their spouse while not mentioning their own. Not infrequently this is being done in a high state of emotion, especially when the custody of children is at stake, and quick decisions often have to be made by the attorney. In hotly contested custody cases sex abuse allegations regarding the kids not infrequently enter into the case, and often the attorney has no way of knowing if the allegations are true. This is a difficult area of the law for an attorney concerned about following a moral path, and, unfortunately, not difficult at all for an attorney completely unconcerned with the morality of what is going on.

  • Pingback: digg » Blog Archive » Roundup: Obama’s Speech on Health Reform
  • Elaine,

    I don’t think even JPII would have argued that it was “evil” for a woman to divorce a husband who was beating her or molesting their children, or a man to divorce a wife who was shooting up drugs and prostituting herself to get the money for them, or had taken up witchcraft or Satan worship, etc.

    divorce is still an “evil”, but it is the guilty party who is culpable. In the same sense, war is an “evil”, and the unjust aggressor is culpable.

  • And what of Catholic priests and bishops who encourage divorces when they know that one of the parties is opposed to the divorce and they, the Catholic priests and bishops, flatly refuse to listen to them as they plead for action to support their marriage? What when this goes on for twenty years and the Holy see has completely ignored the same please?

    Some of us have seen this and have chosen to leave the Catholic Church over this. Why is there no support among “rank and file” Catholics for the plight of abandoned spouses who have to defend their marriage against both civil courts and marriage tribunals? And why, when one has defended one’s marriage before the highest courts in the Catholic Church, and watched those courts uphold that marriage, is their no action on the part of priests, bishops and the Roman Curia to canonically hold to account a spouse who has abandoned, wrongly, a faithful spouse, when the evidence is clear and in the possession of the Catholic Church(and has been for twenty years) that the marriage was usurped with the full cooperation of priests(to this day) and bishops(to this day)with mostly complete disregard for the valid, sacramental marriage?

    I think the politicians should receive a bye on this divorce/annulment issue while the Catholic Church tends to the clergy whose actions are far more harmful in this regard. Only after the Catholic Church has tended to its own, in house, facilitators of adultery and all the crimes that unjust divorce entails should it take the time to attempt to call to order catholic politicians. the house should be in order before that house attempts to call others to order.

    Just my two cents.

Grassroots Push for Democrats for Life

Sunday, June 21, AD 2009

Here is a blog I wrote for this is the website for Florida Democrats for Life organization- If you are a Democrat and pro-life you should seriously consider joining the National and State chapters for Democrats for Life. There is a lot of freedom for you to bring your ideals and ideas into these growing organizations. I believe it is mostly a waste of time trying to turn Democrats into Republicans or vice versa- there is a philosophy of governance that pulls deeper than individual issues- even big issues like abortion.

Continue reading...

30 Responses to Grassroots Push for Democrats for Life

  • Tim,

    As always, we are in agreement. Though lately I have been wondering if perhpas, as well, conservatives might be won over to the Catholic economic and political perspective.

    Perhaps we need a movement on both sides of the spectrum – one which encourages Democrats to accept pro-life, pro-family values, and one which encourages Republicans to embrace new and better economic ideas. Then we might meet in the middle and shift the whole center of gravity, away from liberalism in its economic and cultural forms, and towards a truly communitarian vision in which the state plays a supporting role (as opposed to no role at all, or too great a role).

  • I somehow found my way here after reading an article about another Christian pro-test about something irrelevant to the mainstream. My instinct is to not waste my time on this, but here it is…STOP MAKING DEMOCRATS OUT TO BE ANTI-FAMILY…just some of us believe that government has NO PLACE IN A WOMAN’S UTERUS…and certainly some middle aged, middle income white MAN has no business pushing for legislation that effect women…pro-choice is not the same thing as pro-abortion. Everyone wants less abortions happening. Only the Catholics also want no birth control, no sex education…gosh, that will work well for preventing unwanted pregnancies…and “family values?”…look at the personal lives of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Riley, Gingrich, the list goes on…hypocrites on ‘family values.’ I teach Sunday school, I pray and I am curious about my faith…but I will be damned to allow the religious right to continue to make abortion a political issue. Keep the church out of my government and I will keep the government out of my church. The Catholic church (and many Catholics) scare me more then any other religious group. So please, do not try to patronize Democrats with this issue. We know the truth…Republicans use it to get single issue voters…it is highly effective. Let the Democrats keep fighting for urgent things that effect the already living…things like energy efficiency, global warming, poverty, urban plight, labor, and health care…

  • Pro-Family Democrat,

    You have no right to tell us what we can and cannot do as Catholics we have freedom of speech.

    You confuse establishing the Church as the official church of the United States to Catholics speaking up about their values. Just as you speak up about your right to kill children in the womb.

  • Tito…

    Again, this time slower for you…no one here is pro “killing children in the womb”….(but those are choice emotional words, well done)…I am not pro-abortion…a concept that seems to be void to most ‘pro-lifers’…if you all would slightly bend to include PREVENTION into your cause we could probably work for a common good…but you are limited in your fight.

    Again…keep your church out of my government and I will keep the government out of your church…you can’t have to both ways. You should be very scared to continue to blur the lines…church-led government like Iran…or Government led church, like Hitler’s Germany and cold war Eastern Europe…are you really wanting to be like that?

  • Joe,

    Yea- it’s strange fighting against sexual liberalism and economic neo-liberalism simultaneously- it puts you on the ‘outs’ with both major political forces in this country anyway. I was being a little polemical about how it is easier to convert to pro-life than to change party affiliation- it did work that way for me though. Even though I hold firm to being a Democrat and working within that party, I don’t vote for the party so much as the candidate- though there are times when I haven’t done the necessary homework and all I have facing me in the ballot box is a name and a party affiliation- for local elections the abortion issue is pretty moot. But philosophically, I can see the Democratic Party taking abortion out at the national level if it gets it’s act together, and combine that natural law legal move with the necessary social program and safety net investments to make sure women are not going to face undue hardships in seeing their children through to birth at minimum.

    One other side note- I agree with Ralph Nadar about how the Dems have in many ways embraced the Republican neo-liberal economics- though both parties have gone in for dubious massive bail-outs for the large investor class- see Jeff Faux’s book The Global Class War- for info on how Clinton began the sell-out of prior Democratic party inclinations on economics. Just because I see a major role for government in such things as directing economic outcomes- I don’t go in for all of the Greenspan/Bush/Obama bail-outs of dubious banking and investment interests- economics is not a zero-sum game, you don’t just print money up to bail out the big boys- you do have to get resources moving with fixed currency exchanges and investments like the Marshall plan and/or Manhattan Projects for morally positive outcomes. I will post my campaign column on “Common good, Common-sense Economics” at a later time.

  • Baby Killing Democrat,

    Your argument sounds like I’m against slavery but I don’t want to push my views of being anti-slavery on others.

    Also I have a right to speak my values, so keep your anti-Catholic views out of the public forum.

    Islam and Catholicism are different. It’s also a straw man argument. You, like many democrats, dwell in relativism and think all religions are the same.

    Just as Hitler came to power pushing socialism, Obama is very similar. Just as Hitler, Obama is a great public speaker. Just like Hitler’s thugs, ACORN rigged the votes in strategic states. Just like the Brownshirts (who were militant homosexuals) the Black Panthers intimidated voterr. (two can play the “Hitler-card”).

    When you start drawing analogies such as you have, you know you’re losing the argument.

    If you want to prevent the killing of innocent children in the womb, then outlaw it.

  • Tito,

    your last rant is what makes me think you all are loony…just more proof…so cool, thanks…

    and when you put Acorn, Obama, Hitler and what have into your analogy…your not just losing an argument…your losing your mind.

    My guess’s been awhile since you have been laid…homophobic AND a conspiracy theorist…mix in neo-nazi pro-lifer…been awhile since you had a date I bet.

    You keep on that crusade of yours…good luck. hahaha…

    I need to go wake my baby from his nap…and go meet my family at the pool for some family time…that crazy thing that us anti family Democrats writhe from…hahahaha

    you see, freak? I didn’t “kill my babies”….I just waited to have them when I was ready…thanks to being educated and informed about how babies are made…

    may the Dear Lord forgive you for being such an intolerant and bigoted ass…

  • oh one more thing Tito

    “If you want to prevent the killing of innocent children in the womb, then outlaw it”

    you are so sadly misinformed and ignorant…wow.

    We should do this with so many things…let’s start with murder. That should be illegal…then it would finally not be a problem…drunk driving, that’s another one…mmmm….we are on to something here, Tito!…how about drug use? Excellent…that IS a pesky problem. And while we are at it, how about robbery, home invasion…man, if we just made them illegal…gosh, we should have done this years ago!!!

    Excellent thought process Einstein…

  • While I may not agree with precisely the way Tito addressed you, you did say…

    “just some of us believe that government has NO PLACE IN A WOMAN’S UTERUS”

    And some of us believe that every human being, regardless of his or her location, has a right to exist. It is that simple.

    If I believed that it wasn’t a human life inside a woman’s uterus, I wouldn’t care about it. If the unborn human being has no value, then abortion should be legal.

    If the unborn human being does have value, then nothing can justify abortion. It is really that simple. The government has every right to protect human life. Seeing as how 99% of pro-lifers don’t care about the 99% of medical procedures that don’t involve killing a human being, it is simply false to make this a women’s issue.

    Even moreso in that I think men should be held accountable as well. Please don’t make us out to be misogynistic. This is about parental obligation, not women’s rights. No one has a right to neglect, abuse, or murder their child, man or woman.

  • Baby Killing Democrat,

    Odd that you bring up Hitler then mock me for mocking you.

    Again, it is God that you are angry at, you’re just a troll throwing vitriol at anyone that doesn’t adhere to your disordered view on life.

    I’ll pray for you.

  • I have found myself in the Lion’s Den…so I ask you. You middle aged men who fight for the unborn…what have you done to help the BORN? Have you adopted an unwanted child? Do you want to raise a minority child born to a drug addicted mother? Please do, it would make your argument credible. Do you volunteer at county hospitals to rock the newborn, who has been abandoned while it detoxes from meth? Do you work in the foster care system to give those children an equal chance in the world? Do you support social systems that provide a family with the LIFE LONG support they will need? Not short term…”here are some bottles, diapers and a winter coat…good luck.” WHAT DO YOU DO to help those children? Those children born, here and now…breathing, living, suffering, hurting, hungry and unwanted. Do you help them? I’m betting on ‘NO’

    And again I say to you…prevention is the key. Stop thinking abstinence. Get out of the box. I am NOT a sexual libertarian…or whatever you called Democrats…the most offensive, sexually degrading shows I have seen are on FOX…the “values channel.” Republicans, Catholics, Christians, pro-lifers…you do not have the moral authority. I am not a “baby killer” because I want to see prevented pregnancies for women that do not want to yet be mothers.

    You must separate the radical pro-life movement and include prevention and education.

    But if abortion were to be illegal…the Republicans will lose too much of their base…they know it. It will never change. Bush didn’t change a thing…why? Because you all came back and voted for him again.

    Patronizing your vote.

    good luck in your fight to get Dems on board. Single issue voters are pathetic. If they would give up all the important issues we are working on, so they can go hold up a sign and shout at young girls…good riddance…

    I hear the pitter patter of my son’s feet…he wants to join his siblings at the pool…


  • Does pro family include the prenatal?

  • Pro-abort Troll, I have three kids, including an autistic son, so don’t rant to me about the demands of parenthood, my wife and I have lived them. I have been active in the pro-life movement since 1973. For the last decade I have been on the board of the crisis pregnancy center in my county that gives assistance to women dealing with problem pregnancies. I am currently president of the board. Many of these women we help eventually come back to volunteer with our organization to help other women. We also have an outreach to post-abortive women to help them heal from the bitter despair often engendered from a “safe, legal abortion.” In short I have done what I can to help women in bad situations as a result of pregnancy and abortion. Do I have all the answers to the complex social problem of unwanted pregnancies? I do not. But I do know that killing the child is not a solution, and that the law must protect unborn children as it does born children, if we are to have any pretense of being a civilized society that values human life.

  • Pro-Death Democrat,

    No one here made any claims to “Fox” being the values channel. Most of us don’t even watch tv for that matter. We like to read books mostly.

    I am a board member and a volunteer to a crisis pregnancy center and many more other post-natal care facilities. In addition I pray every day for the end of killing babies as well as praying in front of baby killing facilities such as Planned Parenthood.

    I am a young man in my thirties, but I am old relative to the movement since most of my colleagues are toddlers all the way up to college students who pray with me in front of abortion mills, volunteer with many pro-life organizations that helps pregnant moms and abstinence programs.

    I don’t believe in killing innocent unborn babies and will work until my dying days for the end to the mass slaughter of babies, which is the greatest civil rights challenge in our nations history.

  • Wow- I go out for ice cream and the playground with the family and look what happens to my father’s day blog entry!!

    Well all I can say is that while I am a middle-aged man, my chief pro-life teachers in life have been women. I didn’t just become Catholic and then receive my marching orders from the Pope to become anti-abortion. I had enough life experiences to teach me the true nature of abortion to lead me to oppose abortion with or without a religious conversion. As an update, my wife was one who helped me clear the final hurdles about abortion- she is the one who told me that the only women she can understand would still be pro-choice on abortion are women who have not had children. She is the one who has told me before the births of our children, she is the one who made me promise that no matter what goes down, if there comes a point where there is a choice to be made between her life or the baby she has only seen on ultrasound- go with the baby always! Now I know I am only a middle-aged male, but these kind of witnesses from my female wife have made a deep impact. Maybe the claim will be made that my wife is a self-loathing female- well that logic would follow anyone who opposes a U.S. war and speaks out negatively. Maybe only active duty service men and women should be able to participate in the political debates concerning whether the country should go to war or not.

    I’m not buying it. Now I agree with the need for investments in all kinds of pregnant women/children/family social helps, which is why I am pushing for the Pregnant Women Support Act, it deals with a lot of the root causes of abortion- so don’t paint the pro-lifers with too broad of a brush as being insensitive to women and children already born. We may have strong disagreements on the value of contraception, but there are a host of other ways to address many of the same root causes- shall we work together on those, or just continue to issue angry emails and look upon our opposites as pure bad guys. I personally disagree with many things that mainstream liberals and conservatives put forth, but I also find room for common ground, and I am willing to work on that, even as I keep on trucking with my full list of ideals, pushing the system as is my right to do in a free society.

    I’m not sure that non-religious persons would embrace my way of loving the women in my life- but I have a facebook cause entitled “Dads Protecting Daughters” which shows more of the politics of my heartfelt love and devotion to my female children- girls I would die a thousand painful deaths over to save- the content of my love may be in some ways mistaken, but do not mistake my intent- I love the women in my life, and I do not believe that supporting abortion rights is any way to say I love you to any woman. That’s my humble but strong opinion.

  • This guy gives us yet another opportunity to look at how the pro-choice movement makes a complete mockery out of logic.

    “You middle aged men who fight for the unborn…what have you done to help the BORN?”

    Why would this have any bearing on the argument? Something is either true or it is not. What the person proclaiming that truth does on their spare time has no relevance. The answer to the question may well be, ‘absolutely nothing’. So what? Go back to logic 101. 1+1 = 2 even if Hitler says so. The sky is blue even if Stalin says so. Truth claims have to be evaluated independently of the person making the claim.

    “Do you support social systems that provide a family with the LIFE LONG support they will need?”

    I can’t speak for the others, but I do, as a good in itself. But again it is irrelevant. With or without those systems, either abortion is murder or it isn’t. If it is, it is unjustifiable. If it isn’t, then who cares if there is a system in place?

    “And again I say to you…prevention is the key. Stop thinking abstinence. Get out of the box.”

    This is simply not about abstinence. There are plenty of married people having morally licit sexual relations who nonetheless seek out the services of the abortionist. This is about parental obligation. To make it all about sex reduces the unborn child to nothing else but a consequence of sex. It is that, but it is also more. It is a child of two parents and an independent human being.

    That said, birth control does not prevent abortion. It encourages abortion. It creates a mentality and a lifestyle of sex without consequences, but it only has to fail ONCE, people only have to forget to use it ONCE for that false reality to implode. Then people are left completely unprepared for the consequences, and the less prepared people are, the more likely they are to abort.

    “the most offensive, sexually degrading shows I have seen are on FOX…the “values channel.”

    True, but again, irrelevant.

    “I am not a “baby killer” because I want to see prevented pregnancies for women that do not want to yet be mothers.”

    We all know what a pregnancy is, and what you mean by ‘prevented’.

    A woman isn’t pregnant with a kidney or a spleen, but an unborn child, a unique individual with its own genetic code and potential in life. The only way to ‘prevent’ it from being born is to kill it. So, we have a child, and we have killing. Making it sound political or clinical doesn’t change what it is.

  • Tim, as a pro-life Democrat, I obviously agree.

    If I lived in Florida, I would strongly urge you to run for re-election and I would work for your campaign.

    Joe, this is yet another reason as to why we should run on the same ticket. I’d be willing to be the Vice President for 8 years. So that I can succeed you for another 8 and be in the White House for 16 years (diabolical laughter).

  • Normally liberal Democrats are all in favor of protecting groups of people who are seen as vulnerable, powerless, or discriminated against, particularly women and racial minorities. Wouldn’t it be perfectly logical for them to regard the unborn as an oppressed class deserving of protection as well?

    I realize, of course, that the main reason liberals seem to have a blind spot with regard to the unborn is their insistence upon absolute sexual freedom. However, most liberals don’t seem to have a problem restricting the “freedom” of an employer to sexually harass or intimidate workers, or the “freedom” of pedophiles to access child porn, so even they acknowledge that there are SOME limits on sexual freedom.

  • I think “Pro-family Democrat” is the reason many of us see making the Democratic party pro-life as a practical impossibility.

  • Phillip raises an excellent point. I have paid dues to Dems for Life, but even on the local level, pro-life voices are made VERY unwelcome at Democratic Party gatherings. The (God help us) “Pro-family Democrat” types treat respect for life as hate speech; it’s hard to imagine any common ground with them.

  • I am registered as an independent, but I would not have any qualms voting for a pro-life Democrat. I would even volunteer for a pro-life Democrat and actively participate for Democrats for Life.

    In fact I have done those three things in the past, but only at the local level.

    This is only the beginning, but we shouldn’t lose faith. Continue working within the Democratic Party to begin a dialogue and eventually a change from their pro-abortion platform.

    With God all things are possible.

  • Here’s the plan guys- I know that strong Republicans are pretty biased against the idea that Democrats can pull themselves together on Life issues because of the current establishment/activist hostility to traditionally religious worldviews- it is natural to suppose that an organization that you disagree with to the core could ever change on something that is nearest to your heart. But, I think that there is much more positive in the classic Democratic model as Elaine describes above- and also I don’t think that “Pro-Family Democrat” represents the mass of Democratic voters. This is KEY.

    I recommend Mark Stricherz’ book – Why The Democrats Are Blue- I plan on doing a brief sketch of the book for a blog entry in the future. The book depicts how secular liberalism came to dominate the upper reaches of the Party by way of legal strategies internal to the Party as the Party Boss system was challenged- there was enough to justify reform on the old boy network, but of course, the wrong type of folks took advantage and led the Party down the drain.

    I take it as a given that there is a very large untapped “market” among rank and file Dems- the type of people who vote Democratic for economic and other meat and potato reasons, but disagree with varying intensities to the social liberalism that comes with that package. As evidence, look at how many states voted as a majority for Obama but then also voted down gay marriage or voted for trad marriage definitions. And even though african-americans and hispanics voted strongly for obama, there are probable majorities among these folks who would love to support traditional morality candidates- but they haven’t had many opportunities.

    I would say that the strategy of Republican Catholics to just continue casting aspertions on minorities for voting Democratic- as if everyone should just fall in line and become overnight Republicans- that is beyond wishful thinking. The fact that many of us feel that the establishment Republican strategy of having an end game of sending abortion back to state legislatures- is not even a worthy pro-life strategy in the first place, is another point to consider.

    Instead of focusing a lot of energy trying to convert Dems over to Repubs, or Repubs over to Dems, I would rather spend time now building up a network of traditional religious voters within the Democratic fold- among those who are Democratic already for reasons I have spoken of many times before. This is why I am addressing myself primarily to fellow Democrats- it is not very helpful for Republicans to jump in with more negativism about how “hopeless” the Democratic Party is- I get it- but I think both major parties are “hopeless” on paper, but God trumps the paper, and I believe that there is a numbers game that is to the favor of transforming the Democratic and Republican parties to be much much more pro-life if only the sleeping giants of traditional religious folks awaken and assert themselves. My role is to try to help organize that within the Democratic fold. I would suggest that religious Republicans focus more on getting the Republican party to put abortion on a much higher shelf than it has in the past. For example if Bush/Cheney had spent half the energy they devoted to the case for invading Iraq on bully pulpiting and pushing the Republican Congress to educate the American people to the facts of Life beginning at Conception, with legislation being passed saying the same, putting the issue in front of the Supreme Court repeatedly- then I don’t think we would be sitting here looking at a very diminished Republican party today.

    But my job here is not to keep beating up on Republicans, I need to focus on my party, and since I believe only a strong two major party strategy against abortion will do the trick- I believe my mission is good, and not self-delusional. If or when I come to see that I am wrong, I would probably go with trying to form a Natural Law/Common Good Party rather than join a Republican Party where I disagree with their core assumptions about the nature of the role of the political community, which results in my even finding too many serious flaws in their approach to abortion that I couldn’t find any true enthusiasm- even though I do vote Republican sometimes- mostly at the national level where I have to admit that while establishment Republicans are lukewarm on abortion, Democrats have bacome ice cold. If we use an analogy from Scripture where the unborn are unconcerned- I see establishment Republicans as the Pontius Pilates’ trying to wash their hands of abortion by sounding like impartial, unemotional originalist judges, while the establishment Dems are more like the Chief Priests who are very actively stirring up the people against the rights of the unborn. Not a pretty choice to make- with few heroes out there in the mainstream.

  • I notice that Elaine Krewer is the only lady who’s commented here, so I figured I’d put my oar in just so PFD doesn’t get the notion this is entirely a hangout for middle-aged men.

    Middle-aged woman, here. Mom of four. Doctrinally conservative Catholic with liturgically eclectic tendencies. Pro-life feminist in the tradition of the nineteenth-century suffragists. Have had a crisis pregnancy. Have volunteered with a Birthright center. Been volunteering with kids for a couple of decades. Make regular contributions to those less fortunate.

    I bear you no ill-will, PFD, but if you’re going to sashay into a combox and post a bunch of inflammatory accusations and rambling rants, you shouldn’t be too surprised if some of the gentlemen reading forget they’re gentlemen.

  • Dear readers-

    Good for you! We need to work hard to end abortion by election of more Pro-Life Democrats who will pass laws in this respect and Pray for those who want abortion and have back alley shops they call offices! God will do his thing!


    Robert L. Jones
    A Blue Dog Democrat

  • Is abortion wrong because abortion is anti family, against God’s law, and/or coercive?

  • Student,

    That is part of it. But mostly because it violates the Fifth Commandment of “You shall not kill”, ie, killing innocent babies.

  • This blog post and the comments are an excellent witness to both the Catholic faith and the “pro-life, whole life” doctrine it teaches. Pro-family Democrat, you are in my prayers. Kudos to everyone here who will doubtlessly be called “good and faithful servants” by our heavenly Father some day!

  • Thank you so much for this very interesting post. I am pro-life, but disagree with the Republican party about just about everything else. If anything, I am probably a bit more liberal than the Democratic party on many issues. I feel in such a crisis about this. I like what you wrote about “limited government” verses “limited responsibility” and the importance of the common good.

    I was just talking with my husband–actually in tears–because I have always been political and civic minded and voted since age 18, and yet I feel like I have no one to vote for.

    For the record, I am not Catholic, although I am Christian. And also for the record, I am a woman and a feminist and have been pro-life almost all of my life. But that is not what matters. Sadly, I do think that a lot of liberal men who otherwise might be pro-life are bullied by the more radical elements in the pro-choice movement–are told that they have no right to have an opinion about abortion because they are men, which is irrelevant if abortion is murder.

    Anyway. Sorry to crash your party, but I wanted to say that what you are doing is inspiring.

  • Should God’s laws influence (if not control) government’s laws?

  • From: Lila Cuajunco
    Date: Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 7:03 AM
    Subject: Fwd: FW: Fwd: Fw: OPEN LETTER TO OBAMA
    To: [email protected]

    On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 1:38 AM, Lila Cuajunco wrote:
    Hi Georgia – Thanks for the Open Letter to Obama. I will send it to my

    ———- Forwarded message ———-
    From: Georgia Froncek
    Date: Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 1:47 PM
    Subject: Fwd: FW: Fwd: Fw: OPEN LETTER TO OBAMA

    This letter you are about to read was written by a 4th grade teacher
    recently. She even gave the world her telephone and fax numbers. She
    is a brave, bright, PATRIOT! We are in dire need of more true American
    citizens who are proud of OUR United States of America . WAKE UP
    AMERICA . . . Please . . . Before it is too late!

    April 27, 2009

    The White House
    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
    Washington , DC 20500

    Mr. Obama:

    I have had it with you and your administration, sir. Your conduct on
    your recent trip overseas has convinced me that you are not an
    adequate representative of the United States of America collectively
    or of me personally.

    You are so obsessed with appeasing the Europeans and the Muslim world
    that you have abdicated the responsibilities of the President of the
    United States of America. You are responsible to the citizens of the
    United States.

    You are not responsible to the peoples of any other country on earth.
    I personally resent that you go around the world apologizing for the
    United States telling Europeans that we are arrogant and do not care
    about their status in the world. Sir, what do you think the First
    World War and the Second World War were all about if not the
    consideration of the peoples of Europe ? Are you brain dead ? What do
    you think the Marshall Plan was all about?

    Do you not understand or know the history of the 20th century? Where
    do you get off telling a Muslim country that the United States does
    not consider itself a Christian country? Have you not read the
    Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States ?
    This country was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics and the principles
    governing this country, at least until you came along, come directly
    from this heritage. Do you not understand this?

    Your bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia is an affront to all
    Americans. Our President does not bow down to anyone, let alone the
    king of S Audi Arabia. You don’t show Great Britain , our best and one
    of our oldest allies, the respect they deserve yet you bow down to the
    king of Saudi Arabia. How dare you, sir! How dare you!

    You can’t find the time to visit the graves of our greatest
    generation because you don’t want to offend the Germans but make time
    to visit a mosque in Turkey . You offended our dead and every veteran
    when you give the Germans more respect than the people who saved the
    German people from themselves. What’s the matter with you?

    I am convinced that you and the members of your administration have
    the historical and intellectual depth of a mud puddle and should be
    ashamed of yourselves, all of you. You are so self-righteously
    offended by the big bankers and the American automobile manufacturers
    yet do nothing about the real thieves in this situation, Mr. Dodd, Mr.
    Frank, Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelic, the Fannie Mae bonuses, and the
    Freddie Mac bonuses. What do you intend to do about them? Anything? I
    seriously doubt it.

    What about the US . House members passing out $9.1 million in bonuses
    to their staff members – on top of the $2.5 million in automatic pay
    raises that lawmakers gave themselves? I understand the average House
    aide got a 17% bonus. I took a 5% cut in my pay to save jobs with my

    You haven’t said anything about that. Who authorized that? I surely
    didn’t! Executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be receiving
    $210 million in bonuses over an eighteen-month period, that’s $45
    million more than the AIG bonuses. In fact, Fannie and Freddie
    executives have already been awarded $51 million – not a bad take. Who
    authorized that and why haven’t you expressed your outrage at this
    group who are largely responsible for the economic mess we have right

    You can’t blame ANY of the above on George W. Bush. WHY are you so
    determined to give this country’s dwindling wealth to corrupt
    politicians and your corrupt friends?

    I resent that you take me and my fellow citizens as brain-dead and
    not caring about what you idiots do. We are watching what you are
    doing and we are getting increasingly fed up with all of you. I also
    want you to know that I personally find just about everything you do
    and say to be offensive to every one of my sensibilities. I promise
    you that I will work tirelessly to see that you do not get a chance to
    spend two terms destroying my beautiful country.

    Every Real American

    P.S. I rarely ask that e-mails be ‘passed around’…………
    PLEASE SEND THIS TO YOUR EMAIL LIST……it’s past time for all
    Americans to wake up!

    Ms Kathleen Lyday
    Fourth Grade Teacher
    Grandview Elementary School
    11470 Hwy. C Hillsboro,
    MO 63050
    (636) 944-3291 Phone
    (636) 944-3870 Fax

58 Responses to An Apology

  • While I having ocassionally refered to PP as Murder Inc, I have also often said that PP makes them seem like amateurs. Basicly, this post backs up my claim that PP is worse.

    As someone of Italiano heritage, but no Mafia ties, I think that I am able to speak on behalf of Murder Inc., accept you apology & say you are forgiven for trying to lower them down to the level of PP.

  • Thank you Al. I feel better now!

  • Thanks for the good laugh. The scary thing is every thing you say is true and that is not funny. PP make the members of Murder Inc look like a bunch of retired boy scouts. Of course our fearless leader BOH loves this group and is giving them all kinds of money to help fix the economy, not sure how that works but I dare not criticize I don’t want to end up on a list somewhere.

  • The total of all Americans killed in all of our wars is about one million.

    The total number of slaves brought into this country, against their will, was about one million.

    The total number of Jews killed in the holocaust was about six million.

    The total number of babies killed by abortion in this country since Roe v. Wade passed in 1973 is about 50 million.

    Planned Parenthood is clearly the leading provider of abortions and is clearly supported by BHO and the Democratic Party.

    When the time comes, I am sure that God will understand these facts and hold us accountable.

  • Would it not be simpler to refer to the organization as Planned Unparenthood?

    Can anyone cite statistics about the number of parents who became parents because of the organization?

  • I am confused. Isn’t Planned Parenthood worse than Murder Incorporated ever was? Why not call it what it is? Isn’t president Obama about to join the mass murderers club with FOCA? And I’m not at all sorry to say it.

  • What about “Murder Ltd” or “Murder LLC”?

  • For all those against access to abortion, just once I would like to see you volunteer to pay much higher taxes to fund the increases in welfare, TANF, food stamps, WIC, medicaid, school enrollment increases, extra police forces needed to enforce the measure, greater legal costs from abortion related prosecutions, more money for jails for abortion related imprisonment, etc, etc, etc if abortion were to be criminalized.

    And don’t get around the issue telling me about charity and adoption. Study after study shows, when a woman chooses to keep a baby, she chooses not to give it up for adoption. The choice is abortion or raising the child. Studies overwhelmingly show that.

    So we’re talking tens of billions per year minimum, if not hundreds of billions, of more government money and that’s every year.

    I’m not saying abortion is right. I’m just asking for some consistency among so called conservatives.

    Step right up. Pay your taxes. Stop arguing against the increases in the social welfare safety net that you have been doing concerning President Obama’s budget.

    Because if you truly oppose abortion, you must be prepared to fund those same things on a much greater scale than we’ve ever seen. You have to choose MORE government or LESS government. If you choose criminalizing abortion, you are telling us that you believe in MORE government. There’s no two ways about it. So be consistent and stop chiding Obama when at heart you feel the same way as he does about our social welfare system.

  • Albert, considering the fact that Obama has all those funds from the Bankrupt the Nation Act of 2009, sometimes called a Stimulus bill, perhaps he can now call a halt to the killing of almost a million unborn children in this country a year. When pigs fly! Cost of raising the children has nothing to do with it. Obama and the other pro-aborts in this country support the slaying of the unborn, erroneously, as a matter of women’s rights and not because of the cost to raise the children. It is interesting that abortion became legal in our country just as the welfare state was becoming the huge enterprise it is today. If your argument had any validity, then the welfare state would have prevented the massive number of abortions since 1973, some 50,000,000 lives lost. The fact that it did not, clearly indicates that there are other factors than government largesse to unwed mothers or poor families at work. On a personal note I have been on the board of directors of a crisis pregnancy center, currently I am president of the board, assisting poor mothers for 10 years. What have you done?

  • Albert,

    Given that statistics show that a very large percentage of the unplanned pregnancies that end up being aborted are the result of abortion being legal (as in, if you look at the historical record, the number of unplanned pregnancies skyrocketed after Roe, because the effective cost of behavior resulting in unplanned pregnancy had been reduced) this argument is basically illusory.

    While even as a conservative I have no objection to funding a limited and highly means tested welfare state (as being conducive to peace and the common good) it is at the same time clear that in any functional society the primary responsibility for providing financial support for all children conceived is that of their parents. It is no more necessary to have abortion as an “out” for parents who did not intend to become such than it is to allow euthanasia as an “out” for the children of parents who failed to save for retirement.

  • …or maybe ‘The Man of Perdition’

    I jest at the argument “oh it’s just a fetus”

    ….five minutes later it’s suddenly a REAL human with hands, feet, eyes and yes able to feel evey single PAIN imaginable!

    Poor America, so civilized, so intellectual, so powerful, yet with insatiable Necrophilia.

  • I’ve never understand the whole it’s not human, while in the womb. I mean let’s for the sake of argument admit it is a foetus in the womb.. and remove the whole it’s not a baby, for themoment. what kind of foetus is it. It is a human foetus.

    I mean really, a pregnat can’t will carry a feline foetus. preganat female dogs will be pregnant with a canine foetus. A pregnant woman is pregnant with a human foetus.

    So if this kind of HUMAN can be denied the right to live according tot he law, what other HUMAN will the law deem to not have the right to life.

  • Don- you only missed that Albert Anastasia met an unfortunate end in 1957. Safely nestled in Manhattan barber chair when met with large flurry of shots fired by person or persons unknown. Sad end indeed.

  • Albert et al,

    A nation cannot kill its own and be prosperous. Killing children kills the tax and consumer base. Killing children kills off producers and ideas and vision for a better world. All economic booms are in tandem with increased birth rates. If you can’t seek the truth of divine revelation then at least be a good economist. Go to

    I have seen numerous young women become pregnant. Often they will tell me, “I either keep the baby (no adoption) or I have an abortion.” What they are expressing is power, not nurturing love. Because of our contraceptive and abortive society, children are now property. Abortion is nothing more than a contraceptive measure. Out of wedlock births continue to climb for all races, with blacks near 70%. hispanics around 60% and whites approaching 50%. Roe v Wade continued this.

    So, no more grace, no more companionship rooted in sacrificial love, no more marriages; only power plays: penetrators vs penetrated.

  • I am looking for a copy of FOCA. I can not find it. Would zome one help me? I have written to my local Catolic paper and they will not answer.
    I do need a copy because I hate to contact my congress man without knowing what I am talking about.

  • As thought, no one had the balls to be honest.

    Weldon, you did at least admit the truth that the choice is either abortion or keeping the baby. I give you credit for not going into the ridiculous argument of “we’ll have pregnancy crisis centers and lots of adoption and that will make everything ok.”

    Um, no. It won’t. We’ll just have lots more welfare, tanf, food stamps, medicaid, wic, etc, etc, etc. It will make Obama’s current spending look trivial by comparison. But you guys just can’t stop wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

    If you favor criminalizing abortion, you must accept the enormous empowerment that it would give to the federal and state government. Trillions of dollars of new government spending on social programs and billions more on police powers. Some conservative cause that is!

  • Albert,

    The fact that you can write hooey does not mean that other people need to accept your assumptions as gospel.

    Trillions of spending on social programs and billions on police powers?

    Let’s see, there are 1.2 million abortions per year. If you say “trillions” I assume we shall have to assume that you mean at least two trillion dollars. Divide that two trillion dollars between the 1.2 million people not aborted that year. You apparently imagine that every single un-aborted person will require $1.6 million in welfare spending. I don’t think that it’s a stretch to point out to you that this is rather more generous than welfare benefits in any state at this time.

    If you want people to take your comments seriously, try saying something worthy of thought.

  • “Trillions of dollars of new government spending on social programs and billions more on police powers. Some conservative cause that is!”

    Just like we did prior to Roe in 1973? Really, if you are going to be a pro-abort troll on a pro-life Catholic website you need to do better than that. One thing I will grant you however, it is cheaper to kill them short term, Of course that is true of all children and I think it is a crime beyond imagining to kill a child even if it does improve one’s bottom line individually or as a nation. Of course if we did have those 50,000,000 kids who have been slain over the years through abortion since 1973, a fair number of them now would be taxpayers and making financial and other contributions to society, so your argument really flies out the reality window when that is taken into account.

    Oh, and you didn’t answer this question:

    “On a personal note I have been on the board of directors of a crisis pregnancy center, currently I am president of the board, assisting poor mothers for 10 years. What have you done?” Other than shill for abortion of course.

  • Pingback: Top Posts «
  • Donald and other AC bloggers:

    Perhaps you’d mention the red envelope project, which launches tomorrow?

    Send red envelopes to the White House as a witness against abortion!

  • Darwin, Your assumptions about my math are wrong because it’s not simply 1.2 million per year. It compounds. Each of those children would often have to be provided for until age 18. Studies show a great majority of the non-abortions and non-adoptions would be on public assistance throughout their childhood. And the mothers in such scenarios are provided for under our safety net as well. We could be talking, therefore, about adding 10-20 million people to the government rolls down the road (and that’s merely using current numbers). Given our current population rate of increase, and rampant legal and illegal immigration, the number could easily be double that in a couple of decades. So I stand behind those numbers completely. That’s Trillion with a T, as we’ve been recently reminding President Obama.

    Like I stated earlier, I am not necessarily in favor of abortion.

    I simply think it’s disingenuous for people to favor the criminalization of abortion AND yet claim to be fiscal conservatives who oppose President Obama’s current expansion of the social welfare safety net. One can’t have it both ways. If abortion is your priority, then make it your priority. Stop opposing expansions of the very programs which will become relied on more than ever were abortion to be criminalized.

    And, Donald, kudos to you for your charity work. That’s great and if you need for me to tell you that you are a good person, well, then you seem to be a good person. You won’t get an argument from me on that. I could list my but I generally prefer to let intellectual arguments rest on their own merit. I happen to believe our charitable works and gifts are best left to the eyes of our own conscience and God.

  • One does not need to swear allegiance to the welfare state in order to oppose killing children in the womb. I may not wish to raise my neighbor’s kids, but that does not mean I would sit by while he kills them. Somehow this country did just fine in providing for kids throughout most of our history without resorting to abortion or crushing the economy by a vastly expanded welfare state. You present a false dichotomy. I do find it interesting to note however that in my experience those who want a vast expanision of the welfare state usually, not always but usually, are also the most ardent pro-aborts.

  • I am not ardently pro-abortion at all.

    I just realize where we are in the big picture of our nation’s history. The fact that individuals were able to provide for their children with little to no government assistance for 150-200 years is irrelevant to where we are today.

    We are on the verge of having a full-scale socialist state. I hate it. And you’re talking about giving the government power to criminalize something that is widespread. And the government power to police it. And then the government has to greatly expand an already massive social safety net to provide for all those extra people.

    My point is – we are so close to socialism – the irony is that the cause of social conservatives (were it to ever come to fruition) would be the final measure that truly kills fiscal conservatism and expands our government and its powers like never before.

    Donald, what happened in 1820 or 1920 or even 1980 simply isn’t relevant to 2009 in this regard.

    This is simply not the time to push this issue.

    If you disagree and feel it is, well, like I originally said, it’s obviously your priority. It trumps your conservatism. Be consistent. Get off Obama’s back because your coming from the same angle of believing in the power of government to make wrongs right, ie abortion.

  • Well, the power to ban abortion was something exercised by the states during their entire existence up to 1973. I see no need for a radical expansion of the police power in order for the states to do what they did only 36 years ago.

    “We are on the verge of having a full-scale socialist state.”

    I have more faith in the essential good sense of the American people. We shall see after the elections of 2010.

    “My point is – we are so close to socialism – the irony is that the cause of social conservatives (were it to ever come to fruition) would be the final measure that truly kills fiscal conservatism and expands our government and its powers like never before.”

    Disagree. I do not think the economics of the issue are at all that clear, especially if one factors in the ultimate economic contribution of those children spared from the abortionist’s knife. The idea that because a mother can’t get an abortion she and the child will remain on welfare until the child is 18 understates other factors: marriage, family support, mom becoming employed, which could well lead to a non-welfare life for both mom and child.

    “Donald, what happened in 1820 or 1920 or even 1980 simply isn’t relevant to 2009 in this regard.”

    Actually history is always relevant, especially when it teaches us that straight line progressions rarely work out in reality. More kids being born would have a big impact on our society and I would argue that most of them would be positive. People ultimately are a resource for society. How many of our fiscal problems in regard to social security for example, are due to the missing 50,000,000 and the offspring that many of them would have by now? I of course would be opposed to abortion even if you could prove that ending it would be a fiscal disaster, but I think that is far, far from the case.

    “Get off Obama’s back because your coming from the same angle of believing in the power of government to make wrongs right, ie abortion.”

    That is your weakest argument. The main function of government is to protect its people from physical violence. Banning abortion is something that has often been done by governments throughout the ages. The idea that courts prevent legislation in this area is the novelty. I cannot understand how any conservative can be opposed to legislators, and not judges, determining the law in this area.

    You are correct however, that my priority is to end legal abortion. It has been since 1973 and that will always be my goal. I may not live to see the goal reached, but I am confident that one day abortion will be viewed with the same abhorrence that we have for slavery as practised in America’s past.

  • Albert Julius’s argument seems to me to rest on the fallacy that all 1.2 million children aborted would have been conceived in an abortion-free nation.

    Given that a sizeable number of aborting women are repeat aborters and that some conceive and abort more than once within the year to eighteen months during which they would be either pregnant or in a state of postpartum infertility, this would be unlikely.

    Mothers have a greater incentive to be sexually responsible than women with no young children. And “redemptive pregnancies” are not unusual in postabortion women.

  • Trillion with a T in what timeframe? Per year? Per ten years?

    Honestly, it just doesn’t add up no matter how you cut it. Indeed, your analysis is so simplistic as to be borderline embarrassing.

    The countries in Europe, which have significantly more restrictions on abortion than we do, significantly lower abortion rather, and much lower birth rates than we. (Yes, they’re comparatively more socialist, but not because of population pressures.)

    There is absolutely no reason why we could not both ban abortion and reduce the welfare state. To assume otherwise is to buy into a number of eugenicist myths which have little grounding in modern science.

    And keep in mind, one of the reasons that we’re heading for a nasty fiscal mess in the next 10-20 years (and are likely to try to socialize our way out of it) is precisely because our population growth is barely above the replacement rate — and more key, because it’s well below the replacement rate among middle class and native born populations, while above replacement rate only among the poorest and most recent immigrants.

    Plus as I pointed out, the research is pretty clear that one of the reasons why there are so many unplanned pregnancies is because the availability of abortion makes the potential cost of promiscuous behavior lower. (This isn’t just a Catholic or pro-life point, check out pro-choice agnostic economist Megan McArdle’s posts on the topic over at the Atlantic.) It’s entirely possible that a 70-80% drop in the abortion rate would translate to only a very small blip in the birth rate.

  • Pingback: Send Him Some Mail « The American Catholic
  • I would like to raise a different but equally significant point here. I agree that Roe was a horrendous decision, ranking right up there with Dred Scott, that ought to be reversed some day. However, I think its overall effects have been overrated to a certain extent, mainly by pro-lifers but also by pro-abortion rights people.

    Pro-lifers often talk as if 1) legal abortion didn’t exist before Roe and 2) every single one of the 50 million children aborted since Roe would be alive today had Roe never happened.

    Actually, 19 states had already legalized abortion before Roe; at least 5 had in effect legalized abortion on demand. Had Roe been decided “correctly” it would simply have affirmed the right of states to continue making their own abortion laws. However, the trend at the time was toward liberalization, and that trend would likely have continued.

    We would have ended up with a patchwork of different levels of state regulation of abortion; a few states might still ban it outright, others would allow it only for “health” reasons (which would still probably be relatively easy to circumvent) and still others would have abortion on demand. Some states also would have parental consent or notification provisions and bans on partial-birth, while others would not.

    So chances are that at least some of the 50 million legal abortions since Roe would have still occurred without it. How many is impossible to say, but my gut feeling is that at least 25 to 30 million abortions would still have occurred legally in states that allowed it. Of course that’s not as bad as 50 million, but it’s still bad enough.

    Also, can we really assume that if Roe never happened, every single one of the 50 million aborted children WOULD be alive today? Not necessarily. A good number of them might never have been concieved because their mothers had other children earlier whom they did NOT abort, and therefore did not feel the need to “replace.” (I have heard it said that something like 30 to 40 percent of all abortions are performed on repeat “customers” who have had abortions before)

    Others would have since died of other causes; some by natural causes, some via accidents, others, sadly, by suicide, violence or drug abuse, particularly if they had been born into extremely dysfunctional families (which is NOT to say they would have been “better off” being killed in the womb, but you get my point)

    My point is twofold: legalized abortion has obviously had some demographic effect, but how much it has had in comparision to the alternative scenario of Roe having been decided the other way or not decided at all is impossible to determine fully. And, there would still have been a need for an active pro-life movement even without Roe.

  • There certainly would have been a fight over abortion in each state without Roe. However, I think it is a fight that pro-lifers would have won. Laws legalizing some abortions were usually far more restrictive than Roe. I believe the New York law was up to 24 weeks, and that was the most “liberal” law. Most states who had “liberalized” their abortion laws dealt with the cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother. These laws were passed as part of a general movement towards the left in the sixties. Roe, by taking abortion out of the hands of legislators, prevented the repeal of many of these laws as a natural political reaction when conservatives came into their own with Reagan in 80. A see-saw battle would have been fought since then, but without the protection of a constitutional right, abortion would be increasingly hemmed in with a maze of state laws restricting it if not outright banning it. I have no fear for ultimate pro-life victory when Roe is ultimately overturned.

  • I think you make some good points Elaine; pro-lifers, like most passionate advocates, can frequently overstate their case. And there certainly will still be abortion in most states even if/when Roe is overturned. It is worth bearing in mind, though, that Roe overturned the abortion restrictions (in one form or another) of 46 states. With increases in sonogram technology etc., it’s not clear how much of the liberalization of abortion restrictions in the late 1960’s might have been turned back in the mid-to-late 1980’s as people better understood fetal development had Roe not prevented it.

  • “pro-lifers, like most passionate advocates, can frequently overstate their case.”

    Truer words were never spoken. What you all fail to realize is that though you may be passionate about the cause of abortion, the issue of choice is actually a settled issue. It’s now a firmly established privacy right. Even many pro-lifers are often forced to admit that in moments of reflection as Michael Steele did recently. You simply cannot put the toothpaste back in the tube. Move on and work to make abortion a less attractive choice to women. By sending the message that you think it’s sinful or that it should be illegal, you actually only make it more appealing. Put down bible for just a few minutes and study human nature people.

  • Albert,

    we’ll pray for you.


    Others would have since died of other causes; some by natural causes, some via accidents, others, sadly, by suicide, violence or drug abuse, particularly if they had been born into extremely dysfunctional families (which is NOT to say they would have been “better off” being killed in the womb, but you get my point)

    My point is twofold: legalized abortion has obviously had some demographic effect, but how much it has had in comparision to the alternative scenario of Roe having been decided the other way or not decided at all is impossible to determine fully. And, there would still have been a need for an active pro-life movement even without Roe.

    You act as if pro-lifers actually believe that Roe vs. Wade was and is the only problem, but we don’t. It is obviously the first big hurdle in banning baby murder EVERYWHERE to actually make it legal to ban in at least ONE place. There was a pro-life movement before Roe vs. Wade and there will be one when this unconstitutional and evil decision is overturned.

    Your claim that 70% of abortions would have occurred without Roe vs. Wade is absurd. Remember, even in states that had legal abortion it was with significant restrictions which Roe vs. Wade (and companion rulings) eliminated, and it was always considered wrong. When the government says something is a “right” then it has legitimacy. Without Roe vs. Wade groups like PP would not be able to get funding from the federal government and would be much more restricted in their ability to further their cause.

    Having said that… what’s your point?

  • Albert, the killing of innocents is never a “settled issue”. You may not be fortunate enough to live to see it but there will come a day when the right to life of the unborn is once again respected in law in every state in this country.

  • Matt, my point is that pro-lifers should be careful not to overstate their case or make arguments that could easily be shot down, lest it undermine their credibility and make it harder to win people over to their cause. We are supposed to be proclaiming the truth and that means not resorting to exaggeration, distortion, or any of the other tricks the opposition uses.

    Yes, I am quite aware that a pro-life movement existed before Roe and will continue exist after it is gone. And I do not deny that Roe made the problem of abortion significantly worse and gave it a “legitimacy” that it did not have previously. I fear the same is likely to happen with same-sex “marriage.”

    However, the federal government is not the only government there is. If a number of states approve something (be it same-sex “marriage,” the death penalty, concealed carry permits, etc.) that likewise gives legitimacy to other states to do it. I do agree that Planned Parenthood would not be nearly as powerful as it is today without federal support.

    However, my main concern as always is to insure that pro-life perspectives and arguments are as accurate and factually based as possible.

  • Donald, the only way I see it happening, even if in the distant future, is if we have some form of totalitarian government in response to our current government’s socialist experimentation. Sadly that pattern has affected many other governments. Hard left, bad failure, then hard right. That form of government would seek to control all measures of a person’s life and the right to choose abortion could very well be one of them.

    Let me ask you this then, rhetorically. Let’s say my scenario does happen – humor me, ok. 50 years down the road. Our socialism has all but ruined our democracy and the faith people have in government. A political leader or leaders come along promising resurrection of American greatness but that our constitution no longer works. Power needs to be centralized for the rebuilding to work.

    Here’s the catch. One of their promises is that in this new state, abortion would be criminalized. And they tell us the Supreme Court or any other court will not matter in it. It will be enforced via executive order and federal enforcement.

    Humor me, accept this possibility for just a moment. It has happened to other democracies in history (something I know you value) afterall.

    Question: would you give that person or persons your support?

    I anticipate you’re gonna tell me you don’t accept my scenario. Fine. Maybe I’m way wrong. But just ask yourself this one time. Abortion is your issue. The choice is abortion or American democracy?
    What would you choose???

  • Albert,

    are you at all familiar with the the Dred Scott decision, the 13th, 15th, 18th, and 19th amendments of the Constitution?

    Do you think the founders ever envisioned slavery would be abolished, blacks and women would vote or liquor would be banned???

    The idea that any of those could be enacted would be incredible to the founders, and yet they were.

    As to your little “trap” question, it’s ridiculous, and intellectually dishonest.

  • Albert, I would choose (c), the second American Revolution. I reject both socialism and killing kids in the womb. Additionally, after 27 years at the bar, I know that questions in life, as opposed to in court, are ever just a and b. There are usually many different courses open to us as we make our way through life.

  • Matt, actually many of the Founders did envision slavery being abolished. Some wanted it to happen in 1787 no less. And I’m quite sure John Adams envisioned the need to give the vote to his wife Abagail. You might want to brush up on history before making that claim.

    However, as I have said before, I feel history only has so much power in the wake of monumental changes. The Unites States of America is about to become a socialist country under President Obama. Do you even understand that? Our government is soon to own or control directly our banking industry, large segments of our manufacturing industries, and no single segment of the economy has become more important than government spending. Don’t tell me about 1787. Or 1887. Or even 1987. The history books are sadly being erased and the Democrats and Republicans too are chartering us a new history.

    Donald, that’s a lot of drinking man. If it gives you clarity, more power to you. But step away sometime. Consider diet sodas or spring water. They do a world of good. Trust me, I know from experience. Moving on, yes, you’re right, as individuals we usually do have many courses open to us. As individuals we do have options. One could have voted protest voted in 2008 for Bob Barr or Newt Gingrich or numerous other more worthy natural born American citizens older than 35 years of age who have lived in the country more than 14 years.

    But realistically, as a whole, we know that options A and B were the only legitimate options. In looking back I see your use of similar arguments in your steadfast support for John McCain. So flatter me. You well know that as a people, we sometimes do come to forks in the road. As a whole, we sometimes do have to go one way or the other. You can ignore this as a trap if you must. But I envision the American people facing this very question (whether over abortion, perhaps gun rights, perhaps even direct voting, etc) in the future with the way we are presently heading. So where stand you?

  • “C” Albert. By the way you have made clear that you are against socialism. What is your position on abortion? Once you view it as the taking of innocent human life as I do, any such thought experiments as you propose are nonsensical. You might as well ask a parent which child they would prefer to have killed. I love both freedom and unborn kids.

  • The Unites States of America is about to become a socialist country under President Obama. Do you even understand that? Our government is soon to own or control directly our banking industry, large segments of our manufacturing industries, and no single segment of the economy has become more important than government spending.

    Of course I stand and act against these ills. The worst thing that Obama will do is expand the murder of innocent unborn babies.

    What is YOUR position on abortion?

  • Donald, you may say C, but your words reveal B. And that’s good. You will not sacrifice freedom to stop abortion. You want both and will settle for no less, even if you have to wait for all eternity to see it.

    If only your all colleagues in the extreme anti-abortion movement felt the same. I sadly believe a small percentage (some whom it looks like they may write or comment on this site too) would sacrifice all principles in the name of their cause. I’m glad you don’t.

    And this is why I also say, in moments of reflection, most pro-life people are not as ardent in their cause as they believe they are. That’s not to say you don’t believe in it. I know in your heart you do. But you realize there are limits on how hard you will fight for it. And thank god for that. If pro-lifers had the fervor of the environmental movement, for example, abortion may very well be illegal but this country would also be a very scary place.

    As to abortion, I’ve made my position known. I’m against abortion. Judge me by those words, please. I repeat, I am against having abortions. And I’m also against lots of bad things. But I will not advocate giving the state the control over a person’s body almost ever. That right may only be given in the name of reasonable law and order, such as incarceration or punishment for crime after trial or pending one.

    You may think a fetus in human life. I may even think a fetus is human life. But the fact is that it is also a life trapped inside another person’s body. I will not allow the state to get so powerful that it does not respect that limit. And that is why I feel opposition to abortion IS consistent with being a conservative, but opposition to choice IS NOT consistent with being a conservative.

  • Albert,

    you may think a fetus in human life. I may even think a fetus is human life. But the fact is that it is also a life trapped inside another person’s body. I will not allow the state to get so powerful that it does not respect that limit. And that is why I feel opposition to abortion IS consistent with being a conservative, but opposition to choice IS NOT consistent with being a conservative.

    you may say you are against abortion but your word’s belie the fact that you are in favor of abortion to be legal.

    As a conservative, why do you believe murder should be illegal? A conservative believes that because a human life has intrinsic value, regardless of it’s state, it’s utilitarian value, it’s potential, or it’s dependence on another. That’s why true conservatives believe murdering an unborn child ought to be illegal.

    Some so called conservatives argued against forcing the freeing of slaves on exactly the same lines as you… that is NOT conservative, and it’s not principled.

  • ps. the fact that someone would not abandon their principles to accomplish a good in now way dimishes their devotion to accomplishing the good. The Church has always taught that one may not do evil that good may come. Period.

  • Abortion is the slaying of the innocent Albert, it is as simple as that. No one has a right to choose to do that. I, and many more people like me, will never stop fighting it. The protection of innocent human life is a key component of any conservatism worthy of that honorable title.

  • Hail:

    As a clear conquering hero to the pro-life folk, and with a lovely sense of humor, Hail is the proper greeting.

    Hail! proud Hero, Hail!

    And as for a new term, commenter Paul recommends,

    “Murder Ltd” or “Murder LLC”?

    Methinks that, “Murder uLtd” – meaning “Murder unlimited” is far better and more accurate – as the bloody grasp of Moloch is seemingly without bound.

    God Bless,

  • Conquering hero Rich? At most I aspire to comedy relief for the pro-life movement! I do appreciate your kind words. Perhaps some day I will run a contest for a new name for Planned Parenthood although I do like your Murder Unlimited. Murder Extreme also seems to fit in, sadly, with the spirit of the times.

  • Pingback: The Real Sermon on the Waterfront « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Watch This Video Only If You Have A Strong Stomach « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: It’s not a baby at this stage or anything like that. « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Lila Rose and Worse Than Murder Inc. « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Planned Parenthood: Executive Order A “Symbolic Gesture” « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Planned Parenthood Gives Thanks To Nuns « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Planned Parenthood Funds Axed in New Jersey « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Sex, Lies and Planned Parenthood « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Planned Parenthood, What Happened to the Money? « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Worse Than Murder Inc. Meets its Match In Governor Chris Christie « The American Catholic

13 Responses to Margaret Sanger and the Klan

  • Margaret Sanger is a sick human being. Unfortunately, her legacy lives on with Planned Parenthood.

  • As a fledgling investor- with actual hundreds of dollars invested- I have come to an irrevocable conclusion: never will I invest dime one in any stock whose executives came to Capitol Hill, tin cups in hands, between September 15 and December 24. In retrospect, largely an effort to cover over years of negligence and/or incompetence with federal dollars. So PP finds itself in similar bind. Along with the entire adult entertain- make that, filth peddler industry, as Larry Flynt has requested a $5 billion donation. PP has laid off 30 employees, cut back businesses. In part because a major donor, some Florida joint big in subsidizing pro-death projects, allowed House of Madoff to manage its funds. Poof there went House of Madoff following financial sector meltdown. Funny how the skeletons of the past show up when the dirt which buried it is washed away. Thus the saga of the Klanswomen and La Singer. May stick in minds of certain Congresspersons when their current acolytes arrive, tin cups in hands.

  • We can never remind people enough of this connection.

  • Mark,

    I guess you think extending this connection to Planned Parenthood sponsored politicians is a stretch?

    God Bless,


  • Mr. DeFrancisis, I think it only fair to allow you to respond to Matt’s comment if you wish. After that I would prefer it if both you and Matt could comment without attacking each other. The comboxes of many other blogs tend to get bogged down in combox feuds. I am not going to allow that to happen in my threads. This is a place to debate ideas not to attack personalities.

  • Donald,

    I’ll respectfully pass…

  • I can not believe people here are going now this rabbit hole. DOn’t you know the real crime is how Bush and others wanted to purify New Orleans in a ethnic way after Katrina and how this is all part of the Reagan famous Southenn game plan!!!

    We should be discussing the racist dresses that will be in Obama’s parade not this!!! (SARC)

  • Thank you Mr. DeFrancisis. Sanger’s connection with outright racists and the eugenics movement is completely unknown to most people and you are correct that we cannot raise this enough.

  • I do wish this was examined more. Most Black Ministers I know are not pro-abortion but there is has been a curious lack of poltical action on this.

    There is much attention given to have the Pro-life Catholic voice lost the battle in the 70’s in the machine of Democrat politics. Little to no attention is given what the African American clergy and activist were doing.

    I know that evangelicals had sort of odd attitude toward abortion. For instance the SOuthern Baptist Convention passed a vote basically supporting the right to privacy I believe as to abortion. It was not till ROE they got activated in a huge way and it took the Carter years to do that.. Is this a matter of perhaps African Americans Protestant Christians sort of sharing in the same Pre-Roe mindset?

  • – One black minister who’s putting up a fight.

  • Thank you Catholic Anarchist and Christopher for the book cites. I think we just have scratched the surface here of a very dirty story, and it needs more research. Sanger and Planned Parenthood did their best to sanatize her pre-war activities after World War II and I think there is still much documentation, especially in private correspondence, yet to come to light.

  • Pingback: Clinton and Our Lady « The American Catholic

4 Responses to Shall We Pass the Hat?

Planned Parenthood Indiana – Oops!

Wednesday, December 17, AD 2008

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air has a good article regarding the investigation launched by the Indiana Attorney General of Planned Parenthood of Indiana.  Thanks to the intrepid Lila Rose, and her colleague Jackie Stollar, the long standing flouting by Planned Parenthood of mandatory reporting laws regarding sexual abuse is now coming to the surface.  Ms. Rose and her associates are to be congratulated for coming up with a clever tactic, and having the courage and initiative to implement it, to combat Murder, Inc.  Bravo!  It is precisely this type of energy and novel thinking that the pro-life cause needs.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Planned Parenthood Indiana – Oops!

Trust Us, We Were Lying!

Wednesday, December 3, AD 2008

One of the arguments I’m starting to get very tired of is that when Senator Obama addressed Planned Parenthood and promised that the first thing he would do as President would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (thus cementing a more drastic pro-abortion regime than has ever existed in the US to day) he was obviously just scoring partisan political points, and that Catholics are not only ill advised to worry about FOCA passing and being signed but that if they do so they are actively behaving in bad faith by accusing Obama of supporting something he never really meant to do.

I don’t think it’s news to anyone that politicians often pander, and to anyone who doubted it in the first place it’s increasingly clear that the only difference between Obama’s “new politics” and the old kind of politics is that the “new politics” involves Obama being president. But even if it’s common knowledge that one of the good ways of knowing that a politician is lying is to see if his mouth is moving, I don’t see how we can even discuss politics if we don’t assume that the promises which a politician expressly makes on the campaign trial represent something which the politician at least thinks would be a good idea.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Trust Us, We Were Lying!

  • It is an odd phenomena. A candidate makes a campaign promise, the promise is cited, and then the people citing the promise are accused of dishonesty for repeating the promise.

    At the same time, I would say there is a hierarchy of plausibility in campaign promises, and the promise to sign FOCA is on the lower end of that spectrum. It was made 1) To a particular interest group once (rather than repeatedly), 2) When Obama still was scrambling for the nomination by running to Hillary’s left. Additionally, Obama, as far as I can tell, is a pragmatist. He wants to be re-elected, and knows that whatever marginal increased appreciation from his base he received from signing FOCA would more than likely be outweighed by a backlash among moderates.

    BTW nice turn of phrase about the ‘new politics’. I’ve thought the same thing but hadn’t seen it phrased that way.

  • I agree that FOCA is probably fairly unlikely to pass. Now that Obama is out of the left-wing bubble, he’s having to find ways to please more than just the sort of activists one runs into in Chicago politics.

    I’d see the most likely situation for it doing so being a situation in which flagship administration priorities are going down and it finds itself in need of shoring up its base. Then we could potentially see a certain amount of cultural left stuff rammed through.

    But it was a massively stupid promise to make in the first place. (I have difficulty thinking of a GOP example extreme enough to give a comparison, but I think the “Pure America Act” suggestion comes close.) I suppose now that we’re stuck with him as president we must hope that he’s gaining wisdom, but color me unimpressed.

  • Start the betting line in Vegas- which bishop is first to close the Catholic health care institutions in his see. Chaput is always a favorite. Brusky of Nebraska, natch. I could even nominate our Cardinal Rigali of Philly- got on phone with City Council in a flash over some meaningless Pro-Choice City Proclamation, removed next session. Been reading that our hospitals constitute one-third of U. S. of A. health care institutions. Would not be a good idea to institute nationalized health care with swamped public and other E.R.’s. Ball’s in your court, Mr. Obama. FOCA or hospitals- choose.

    (Also- can’t wait for first video of bishop dragged off to jail on FOCA protest charges- at hospital, abortuary, etc. Can cut to sound of air flying from balloon, signaling end of Obama Presidency if it occurs.)

  • I’d say the election in Georgia makes passage of FOCA much less likely, and not just because there is one more vote to sustain a filibuster. A President is never stronger than after he is first elected, and the defeat by a wide margin of Martin in the Senate runoff makes the election of Obama seem a bit less like a realigning election and a bit more like a fairly natural party switch after a two term presidency, especially with the economy in the tank. As a President is perceived more as a conventional politician and less like a political tidal wave, his influence diminishes. However, I do think there will be an attempt to pass FOCA, even if it appears unlikely to prevail, and I do anticipate that the Obama administration will always be a staunch foe of the pro-life movement, as they will amply demonstrate by Obama’s judicial picks. The election of Obama was a disaster of the first magnitude for the pro-life movement, and pro-lifers who voted for Obama obviously have, for them, much higher priorities than seeking to stop the legal slaughter of children within the womb.

  • The promises we make speak of who we are.

  • Appointments matter – to the S. Court and lower courts obviously, but also throughout the federal branch. There are a whole host of policies that need advancement and protection…notification, military bases, wait periods, federal funding, forcing clinics/professionals to do or provide x or y……

  • You cite a blog I write for, I would hope you would honest about us.

    I have always admitted that Barack Obama is pro-choice and that I disagree with him and consider it a legitimate reason not to vote for him.

    I am all in favor of opposing pro-abortion legislation and supporting pro-life legislation.

    You make the statement “FOCA is probably fairly unlikely to pass.”

    That is all I have said as well. And certainly there have been others who do not agree with us and make claims that passage is days away.

    Equally there is no right to lie about what FOCA would do. The great bluster was by the bishop of Arlington suggesting civil disobedience. To do so would first require his diocese to actually open a Catholic hospital, a ministry he has heretofore not maintained in his jurisdiction. Second, using the most extreme possible understanding of FOCA, he would have to file false Medicaid claims. Really, not the TV action that is suggested.

  • Kurt,

    So tell me again why you support Obama (and vote for him)?

  • Obama just signed today a reversal of the abortion policy, now forcing our tax money to fund international abortions. So, the Obamanation has sadly begun. And sure, I’ll bet Hillary will make it a pre-condition that countries seeking aid be willing to provide this murder service. God have mercy.