Deal, thanks for clearing the smoke regarding this issue. Unfortuantely too many Catholics still have the Obama smoke in their eyes. We do not need to be taken "down the primrose path" again. Be on guard, the devil is walking around seeking to devour us.

Just how much more blatant does Obama have to be before Kmiec and his ilk realize they were lied to, cheated and led by the nose to the slaughter of the innocents??? There is blood on all of their hands! The blood of children! I fear our nation will be punished severely for this massacre.

In light of the new President’s reversal of the Mexico City policy, it is no longer possible to ignore the fact that Obama is absolutely and unapologetically pro-abortion. What is sad is that so many Catholic voters either didn’t care about this, or simply bought the notion that Obama was a post-partisan politician who would end bickering between the parties by governing from the center.

It has taken less than one week on the job for that illusion to dissipate, and reality to set in. FOCA is next.

I would like for someone in the Catholic press to contact Doug Kmiec and see his latest spin on Obama's pro-abortion actions. I wonder how he will spin it.

If one is willing to accept an incremental strategy to the elimination of abortion, I don't understand what the problem is with abortion reduction plans. Is this simply a partisan thing?

Why can't the pro-life community work with anyone they can to reduce abortions, while still making it clear this is not the final destination?

Zoe, I don't know if it's a partisan issue as much as a philosophical approach to the scourge of abortion. I think this dichotomy is epitomized by the positions held by the American Life League (ALL) and the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC). While both are strongly and unequivocally pro-life, the NRLC accepts incremental approaches to reducing abortion and ultimately eliminating it altogether. If this means compromise or small legal victories (e.g., the Partial Birth Abortion Ban) to reduce on the way to elimination, then the NRLC sees it as a step in the right direction. The ALL, on the other hand, rejects incremental steps to reduce abortion in favor of its outright elimination, with the view that a crime against humanity like abortion is not something to be compromised on.

I think there is a conservative vs. liberal (i.e., speaking purely in terms of the modern-day American political idea of those adjectives) divide that is also being brought into clearer focus as we see more vocal Democratic pro-lifers speak up regarding their stance. Liberals see and encourage a role for Federal, state and local governments in reducing the societal factors that contribute to abortion (e.g., public financing of social programs for single mothers, greater government support of adoption programs, etc.) Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to be wary of (or even downright hostile to) government involvement in this moral area, mostly because they view it as an issue that private citizens and religious charities should help people deal with, and because they tend to distrust government assistance as coming with "strings attached." I definitely lean to the more conservative side politically, but I also believe strongly that our Christian duty and mandate is to save lives. In that vein, I believe that even incremental steps towards reducing abortion are to be worked towards and applauded when they pass. This in no way makes me "wishy-washy" in my view of abortion, one of the most heinous evils mankind has ever created, but I suppose some people feel that there's a danger in sanctioning evil unless we as Christians push for absolute elimination of all abortions immediately.

Lord knows I don't have the answer, but I do have the weapon of prayer, and I do know I can contribute my meager efforts to fight for children's lives, so I will do exactly that. The rest I'll leave up to those more dedicated to legal intricacies than I am...

It seems to me that dickering with the devil is what got us into the position of accepting the "incremental change" modality in the first place. We all should have been storming the gates of every level of government on this issue the day after Roe v. Wade was decided by the Supreme Court! Deal is right: Anyone who thinks the pro-life cause will be aided by those who profess "abortion reduction" are not discerning the spirits. The new rhetoric of the abortionists is the most Orwellian stuff I've ever seen!!!

How many times does one need to be whacked on the head before they duck? Three times this week; Mexico City Policy, Embryonic stem cell research, UN Funding of abortions, contraception funding in stimulus bill. I guess next it will be the FOCA and we will all be surprised! Get real!

Would the Eric McFadden that interviewed Kmiec be THAT Eric McFadden, the one from "Catholics for Kerry" who was just arrested for being a pimp?

Here it goes:

"By aborting now, we are preventing the abortions that the offspring of the now aborted babies might have had".

In the case of Obama, Zoe, the answer to your question is very easy: There will be no abortion reduction during his administration -- it will be grow into the hundred of thousands of additional abortion, internationally and domestically. Whatever abortion reduction may be reasonable expected from providing more help to mothers in poverty cannot possible offset the lifting of Mexico City and all the pro-abortion measures that will be enacted under Obama.

When someone shows you who they are, believe them.

BO sat on a Planned Parenthood stage and told us all of this. But people choose not to believe them.

"Abortion reduction" is a joke. Whether or not we agree with them or not, we have condoms on every corner of America. And thousands of abortions everyday.

Mexico City is a political football. No surprises there. Any Democrat would have done that.

As for FOCA, my prediction is it won't happen until Term 2.

Deal,

I'm not sure your reasoning follows here. There will surely be a net increase in abortions under Obama, but without pregnancy reduction plans (like the Pregnant Women Support Act), the number of abortions will be even higher. Why wouldn't we want to save the lives that can be saved? Saving as many unborn lives as we can (and helping women) should be our first priority, even if it means putting politics aside.

Do the Catholics in the Obama Administration have to speak out against the new Mexico City Policy or risk censure by their bishops? Don't Catholics have a responsibility to speak out against racism in addition to speaking out against abortion? I haven't heard anything from the Catholics in the Obama Administration, nor have I heard of any action by their shepherds. Are the bishops obliged to do something more than write essays, articles, and books? Or are there canonical restrictions?
A long time ago, when the St. Louis Catholic schools were integrated, some Catholics formed a group to oppose this. Cardinal Ritter threatened them with excommunication. The group dissolved and now St. Louis has a fine high school named after Cardinal Ritter. In regard to censure, how does integration differ from abortion?

On Nov. 4, 2008, only 6% of the general electorate (and only 11% of Republicans) ranked abortion as the most pressing issue facing the country.

WHEN is the Pro-Life Movement going to become effective in building support to eliminate legal abortion? The movement has had decades to achieve this. WHY can't it close the deal?

President Obama is NOT the problem. NOTHING President Obama has or hasn't done is the problem.

The problem is the TOTAL INEFFECTIVENESS of the Pro-Life Movement in communicating with and gaining the support of the American people. WHY can't the Pro-Life Movement sell the idea that abortion is murder to enough American voters.

The movement has been using the same failed tactics for decades. The movement needs to stop pointing fingers and start asking itself the tough questions about its ineffectiveness.

It will be super dumb for the movement to continue its failed all-or-nothing stance by not embracing any and all efforts to decrease the number of abortions just to spite those who don't agree 100% with the movement.

The Pro-Life Movement needs to stop acting like the GOP.

I am not surprised at Obama at all: he is just doing what he said he was going to do. He may be dead wrong, but he did not try to deceive us. The Democrats now have the White House and both houses of Congress. Yes, there are a few Pro Life Democrats, but very few to be sure. We had the GOP adopting some fairly solid Pro Life positions, but they are now in the wilderness and will be so for a long time. Do we a) try to "reform" the Democratic party or b) work to get the GOP back in power? Given that the Democratic party is bought and paid for by race pimps and militant feminists, reform will be difficult to impossible. THis leaves Option b. Unfortunately, George W Bush just about destroyed the GOP with the Iraqi war and failed economic policies. We are not going to get any traction with Obama, so forget it. Continue to work with the GOP and hope that they can make some progress. I fear that we are in for some serious bumps in the road over the next few years. Perhaps if the Bishops could pressure the so called "Catholics" in Congress who are pro abortion? I'm not sure what else to do?

Thank you for your contribution, Brad. Okay, what are some of the tough questions and what are some of the answers to these questions?

It is very simple. If the government funds Planned Parenthood, then Planned Parenthood can kill more babies, upset more state and national laws both here and abroad, and commit those acts which lead to the loss of souls.

Anyone who supports Planned Parenthood is materially cooperating with evil. The Obama administration supports Planned Parenthood.

Any Catholic supporting his policies is by definition supporting acts which promote evil.

Thank you for showing how a few clear, simple facts can tear down the fancy facade.

I had the privilege of being at the ENDOW conference in Denver this past fall when Abp Chaput gave his address, "Little Murders". It still astonished me that Catholics and other Christians can sleep at night, having voted for the current president.

Kamilla

Deal,

In economic terms, there's a supply of abortions: doctors ready to perform them, clinics open, etc. The pro-life strategy of the past 33 years has been to address the supply by voting for Republicans who will name pro-life judges & justices, by supporting incremental restrictions on abortion, etc.

However, there's also a demand. The Pregnant Women's Support Act is aimed at reducing the demand side of the equation. If pregnant women's needs are met, they will have fewer abortions. For example, I'm sure you know that the leading cause of death for pregnant women is murder, and the murderer is, most frequently, the baby's father. Women are coerced into abortions they don't want by violent men. PWSA has provisions that specifically help pregnant women who are being abused by their partners. What about that do you object to?

Please understand, if Roe V. Wade were to be overturned tomorrow, I'd cheer and have a party (you're invited, Deal), but until then, we need to have something solid in place for those women who feel that they have "no choice" but to have an abortion.

Does that make sense?

--Eric

If Mr. Kmiec wants to drop a name, he should drop the right one. Father Neuhaus was sometimes called Father Richard, but to my knowledge no friend called him Father John. Kmiec's apophastic "tribute" to Father Neuhaus was tasteless. In an essay on Mr. Kmiec in the National Catholic Register (July 13-19, 2008), Father Neuhaus wrote: "... to say that (Obama’s) position is closer to a Catholic understanding of subsidiarity is, I am sorry to say, risible." He also wrote: " Mr. Kmiec claims his candidate wants to reduce the number of abortions by reducing the incidence of unwanted pregnancy, and he will do that by encouraging 'responsible sexual behavior.' One may be permitted to point out that four decades of sex education, including the massive promotion of contraception, has not been a great success in reducing unwanted pregnancies or abortions." Kmiec is not the only man who lost an argument with Father Neuhaus. Now that his opponent has died, Mr Kmiec should not try to win a second match through a seance of his own imagining.

"The problem is the TOTAL INEFFECTIVENESS of the Pro-Life Movement in communicating with and gaining the support of the American people. WHY can't the Pro-Life Movement sell the idea that abortion is murder to enough American voters." - Brad

I think Fr. Frank Pavone (Prists for Life) hits the nail on the head when he says "America won't reject abortion until America sees abortion."

The pro-life movement needs to shift its focus from the verbal to the visual. If freedom of speech won't allow us to show the reality in a commercial, then maybe a movie needs to be made.

Oh, and as someone who has engaged in hundreds of abortion discussions ....... I really appreciate your passion.

Eric, I have nothing against the legislation per se. I object to some of the tacit assumptions contained it, as well as the claims, made by some, that it is a "new" pro-life strategy, which some say will replace the "old" one. Has anyone noticed that the old strategy has succeeded in lowering the level of abortions in the US to the 1974 level. How is that a failure?

So here we have a long list of sponsors for the "Pregnant Woman's Support Act," most of whom supported Obama and who have not uttered a word of protest against the end of the Mexico City Policy or the likelihood of FOCA being made law. It makes no sense to my that anyone who really wanted abortion reduction would not support a strategy that has worked.

It's fine and good that they want to decrease demand, but demand is not simply economically-driven, it's driven by ideology, by the widespread misunderstanding of choice as unfettered by human dignity. This legislation deliberately avoids challenging the ideology, which some view as its virtue. Some see it as a-political, when, in fact, it is the most political legislation in recent history, designed to win over social conservatives to the Democratic Party.

Again, it may have programs worth supporting, but it in no way gets to the heart of the problem in the way the "old" strategy successfully did.

Deal- please reconsider what Zoe and Eric are saying- separate out this excellent piece of legislation- The Pregnant Womens Support Act, which does not promote contraceptives and is endorsed by the USCCB- from those Catholic Democrats who openly and aggressively supported Obama and who do not wish to see abortions made illegal, and are in favor of promoting contraception as the best way to reduce abortions.

This Pregnant Womens Support Act is not a product of Catholic Democrats who favor contraception and legal abortion- the Democrats for Life organization, of which I am an official advisor to here in Florida, has a range of individuals, not all Catholic, and not all opposed to contraception, but the USCCB would not support this Act if it was promoting contraception, and if it was presented as the end game for the fight against Abortion. It is just one big tool in our tool kit- You know me Deal, I am not a deceptive pro-lifer, I am willing to take on any pro-life challenge- legal, cultural, and economic- bottom-line- I want to save lives of the unborn- I don't believe that the Republican legal strategy of sending the issue back to the states is the right one- it does not go far enough- but this is not the time to cloud the issue of whether to support the Pregnant Womens Support Act or not. Consider this bill on its own merits- look at it carefully- this is a perfect opportunity for Republican pro-lifers to support some bipartisan legislation and really make a push at Obama and the Catholic Democratic Party politicians- this is a true litmus test for these leaders to prove that they are more pro-choice than pro-abortion. No one is calling this Act the end game- by pushing and supporting this legislation you don't have to quit the legal challenges- this is a stop-gap measure- the popes have said that it is ok to support stop-gap measures as long as you make clear that you want to stop Abortions period when the opportunity arises- why don't you join in with some bipartisanship right here, right now- if this legislation will save unborn lives why the heck not? This is one of those true colors events in my opinion- both Democrats and Republicans reveal a lot about their deepest intent by how they regard an Act such as this. If Economics/Education is a primary consideration for especially younger women in their choice for an abortion- as the stats would indicate- see Feminists for Life org fact sheets- and if this Bill seriously addresses this root cause- where is the problem if we openly state that this is not our end game, just one step, one way in which we fight for Life?

Deal,

You are running in circles to find a way not to support concrete proposals to reduce abortion and I think Zoe hit it right on the head with her first post....it is partisan.

We can not fight a partisan fight without the interest of women or the unborn as the highest priority. I urge you to examine your conscience on this and support proposals that will prevent abortions.

President Obama and his supporters are engaged in "transcending partisan politics."

He and his supporters call us to join them in "transcending partisan politics."

Of course, it takes two to tango. So he must do his part, and we must do ours.

He knows this, and so he has done us the courtesy of defining our respective roles in this tango of transcendence:

His Role:

To talk about "transcending partisan politics" by meeting with conservative and pro-life leaders and exchanging polite and respectful words with them (and only occasionally saying dismissive or insulting things about them when they aren't present), while executing policy which is unabashedly anti-life and leftist.

Our Role:

To not criticize any policy he executes, no matter how unabashedly anti-life and leftist, in order to preserve this new tone of mutual respect.

The Promise:

President Obama promises that, if we accept our role and play it out faithfully, he will play his part faithfully (no promises about his supporters, naturally), and that, in the end, although the killing of children may have been stepped up a notch or two and further entrenched in American jurisprudence, we shall have enjoyed the blessings of less divisive rhetoric.

And hey, who can doubt that that's worth the cost?

Peace In Our Time

So I think it's only right that we should have peace in our time, even if it is on President Obama's terms. He won the election, after all. And if it seems sometimes that his offers of compromise and reconciliation mean we do all the compromising and reconciling while he, dear leader, magnanimously condescends to acknowledge our doing so, then that's only fitting.

He who sups with the devil must have a long spoon, no?

I should clarify three things:

1. In referring to "transcending..." I was in no way targeting Tim Shipe, though his post uses the same term; it is common enough in the mouths of the political left nowadays.

2. I am uncertain whether to accept the legislation being proposed, provided it's not too costly.

Since it will have, I am fully confident, no measurable impact on abortions in the long-term, it isn't worth a lot of money.

But it might be worth a little money, if doing so has either a neutral impact, or a pro-life impact, on the debate overall. If only as a good-natured gesture, it might be worth, well, tuppence. (Which, translated from government-sized budgets, means a few millions of dollars.)

If, however, it serves only to give President Obama political cover behind which he can say, "You see, I tried to compromise with the pro-lifers, but they just couldn't, wouldn't be satisfied!" ...then it's worth less than nothing.

3. Pro-Lifers have no voice in the government now; this means we may, in fact, have to fight a losing battle.

Now if there is a way to win, then of course we should seek it. And we know that when history is ended, the battle is the Lord's, period. That fact alone makes despair not only a sin, but unrealistic.

But in this life, if we do have to fight a losing battle, it must be remembered that one is no less a hero for doing so, unless they desert their post for the sake of expediency.

Does anyone recall Atticus, the hero of To Kill A Mockingbird, and his greatest heroic act?



Let us by all means try to win. And let us not stoop to hating the devil's tools, like the devil himself does. After all, our war is not with flesh and blood, but with principalities and powers, and as for the tools? They know not what they do.

Still: Death over dishonor. We should support the new President -- I am American and he is my President -- whenever he does something noble and just. And when he does iffy things, my criticism will be proportionate, not excessive.

But we should not give him, by good-natured smiles or discreet silences, political cover for evil deeds.

Especially if the fight is to be lost. For if I'm to lose a fight, it'll not be with a mouth full of polite insincerities.

Too long since we last had a good and hearty difference of opinion!

I only want to mention one thing. You seem to put down the idea of "transcending partisanship", but then you go on to describe an attitude that certainly wasn't advocated by those who used the phrase before you, such as Tim in his post above. Fighting for the passage of the PWSA is hardly the sort of cowardly submission you seem to be criticizing.

I don't know if you had Tim's post in mind when writing your own, though, so I may be way off.

I think John Jakubczyk's contribution is clear and accurate. Why don't the bishops see it that way? I repeat: Cardinal Ritter threatened to excommunicate Catholics who opposed Catholic school integration in St. Louis. Was he bluffing? How is the abortion issue different? I would think it would be more serious since it involves both racism - the Mexico City Policy - and the death of an innocent human being. Why are the bishops having such a problem? Are there canonical issues involved?

Thanks for the post Deal. But I have to ask what is the real scam- fomenting resistance to a piece of legislation that will never pass congress (FOCA) or passing legislation that will actually help women choose life (Pregnant Woman Support Act)? Once again, I'd wish you'd put your faith before your partisan interests. For too long Catholics have been manipulated by your spin. It's time for you to take a time out.

In response to RC- my own call for transcending partisanship goes out to obama et al on the Democratic front, and to Deal et al on the overtly Republican front- and I am calling for this transcendence on this one particular piece of legislation- the Pregnant Womens Support Act- not on a whole range of other things like the Mexico thing or FOCA.

Also RC- take note- this Pregnant Womens Act is not something that Obama or Planned Parenthood created or probably even supports- unless we they are shamed into it or have some kind of conversion of heart. This is the type of legislation that I think will expose if someone is truly and honestly just pro-choice and not blatantly pro-abortion no matter what- this is why I am trying to make inroads in Republican-owned territory and in the general news media- this is an opportunity to save lives- I don't know why RC and Deal are so convinced that this will maybe save only a few unborn lives- how can you know that? Have you read of all the worthy facets to the legislation? This is not a billion dollar program- c'mon look at how much we spend in Iraq in one month- consider Ron Paul's critique of the monetary costs of our global military presence which I hardly hear a peep of complaint about from many in the mainstream Repubs- or Dems for that matter.

I think we should take seriously the women who report the reasons for their abortions- check out feministsforlife.org they have some excellent info, they spend a lot of time on college campuses- why do you and Deal assume that targeting economic/educational incentives on young women who are pursuing their education, and also have fallen into the pits of our mass culture that urges them to be sexually active, and have found themselves in an unwanted pregnancy situation- how do you know that these incentives and extra information campaigns won't make a pretty large impact?

And this is all I, Eric, or Zoe seem to be asking for- who is this straw man you are attacking that wants to trick pro-lifers into supporting this Pregnant Women's Support Act, so they can fall under Obama's spell to keep abortion legal forever? Like I said obama and pro-choice/abortion Democrats are the other big target to get a change of heart on this Act from- I just can't believe that Republican pro-lifers are trash talking this opening given the pro-life movement courtesy of a courageous Democrats for Life organization-

I must be a cynic, for I never thought that those Catholics who voted for Obama were convinced by his 'pro-life' stance. They were seduced by his liberal ideology because they were mostly liberals anyway. The pro-life schtick was just to assuage themselves and their detractors.

Tim, I see you points, all well-said. And, as I said, I am not opposed to the legislation per se. As to the suggestion that I take a "time out," I don't think my posts evince a three-year old petulance, or am I missing something? The only time-out I plan on taking is a 30-minute romp in the snow, our first this year, with Chippy, who is straining at the leash to get outside.

It is interesting to me that the message now is that we only need education and counseling to reduce or stop abourtion but we need legislation to enforce seat belts and reduce or stop people from smoking.

Thanks Deal- I think we can sum up by saying that we have two different conversations taking place here- one being tied to my column in Florida Today drawing attention to the Pregnant Women Support Act, which Zoe blogged about- and the other which is more your point in this article- that the obama/cat.dem approach to abortion reduction is smoke and mirrors, relying on immoral contraception promotion and little else, all the while providing cover for the sacrament of abortion.

Now, if we can split these two separate conversations and deal with the merits of one and then the other, I think we'll do better service to the Truth.

I would ask you to look more closely at Pregnant Women Support Act and consider publicly endorsing it- this would put the heat on the pro-choice/pro-abortion Democrats who would be exposed if they dont support this Act- given that they tend to be supportive of social programs on general principle- if so, why not support this Act? Maybe because they are married to the idea that only contraceptive promotion will work to reduce abortions, or they are really very thoughtless when it comes to Abortion, it's all about the politics- special interests and money.

On the other conversation, I know some Cath. Dems personally who are wild obama supporters and buy into the contraceptives promotion strategy- I couldn't disagree with them more on this- but because I know some or these people personally, I sense that they are genuinely convinced of this and not being callously misleading- I just think they are good people who are wrong on this and it is a biggie. I cannot speak of obama and most of the Cath.Dems who openly support him- I don't know them personally, so I can only assume something good or bad in their intentions- it would be guess work on my part. What I can say with certainty is that obama is wrong to be pro-choice on Abortion, and whether or not one voted for him, he is now our President, and so we all have some measure of responsibility for his decisions which go out in our collective name. So, we can sit in the stands and heap verbal abuse on those on the field- or we can try to get as close to the action as we can and try to win hearts and minds of everyone to the good causes-

Remember we can speak the truth but come across as clanging gongs and thus nullifying our witness for Christ. I have started a prayer ritual at my school, immediately after the final bell, a few pro-life students come to my classroom and we pray for a Damascus Road conversion for obama on the issue of abortion, and we pray for more unborn children's lives to be saved. We pray a Hail Mary and ask St. Joseph to intercede as well. I am also trying to put together a group of my freshmen students to follow the Horton Hears a Who example- get out by the street and bang on pots and pans with signs that say "A Person is a Person No Matter How Small"- if you have seen the end of this movie you get the point- the unborn are invisible to the general society- we need to make some noise and offer a positive message that is true- we need to act as if we were the unborn. If we can get something going here, maybe we can get Catholic schools across the country to do something like this- sort of a children's movement to save children.

The most recent followed by the earlier:

Dear Doug,

The President's reversal of the Mexico City Policy is clearly not equivalent to a signing of FOCA. Yet as it comes so early in his administration, I wonder how that timing of so obviously bad a decision, indeed, so deadly a decision for many, comports with your reported comment: "The President is nowhere close to determining such things because of the order of events … everyone's first order of business is economic recovery," Kmiec said, according to The Graphic.

Evidently, not everyone's. Does this "first things" first approach give you pause in your commitment?

Cordially once more,
Bob Mosby


_____________________________________________

Subject: On your Commonweal Piece

Dear Doug,

In your thoughtful Commonweal piece you write: "...blog lies to the contrary, there is no real legislative interest in FOCA." Do you mean to suggest that Mr. Obama would not sign such legislation should Congress, contra your statement, pass it? And if he were to sign it, would that alter your commitment in any way? And why?

You treat all too briefly a number of other intriguing matters that I would like to take you up on, such as that "hurtful expression", "party of death", as well as Mr. Obama's endorsement of the golden rule and its evident non-encompassment of any aborted child whatever, even the partially birthed. But I do understand that you have your hands full and so perhaps on another occasion.

Incidentally, I do not question your sincerity or your Faith and have long admired your work.

Cordially,
Bob Mosby

My comments are on the spiritual side of this discussion. First, abortion is demonic. Google “is abortion demonic” and read. Satan is going to use every trick in his book to keep it legal so expect a very diffucult battle before it goes away. There is no surprise with what President Obama is doing as indicated earlier. He is clearly pro-abortion along with many Catholic politicians. They are all morally blind and deaf so please pray and fast for their conversion.

There are too many Catholics who are picking and choosing what THEY FEEL is right – I know many. Catholics need to be 100% faithful and trust in Jesus.

GOD is not a disinterested spectator in American politics. I assure you that he is not happy with the pro abortion laws. The horrific sin has consequences for Americans and the world. The real battle is on the spiritual side so put on the armor of God!

These attacks on Obama (and Kmiec) all seem so childish - demonizing others, having to have your way. Moderate, thinking people will just ignore you. That's the fate of all extremists, I guess.

Here's an idea: if you don't want abortions, counsel otherwise and provide alternatives (or, horror, preventatives) don't send the woman to prison. Via Media - it's the road to take in a pluralistic, democratic society.

At a time when our nation desperately needed to come together to conquer unprecedented challenges, Mr. Donohue issued a shameful - albeit oblique - pledge to step up a manufactured "culture war" against free-thinking Americans (http://tinyurl.com/cmv3lv). In making good on this promise last week, Mr. Donohue and a handful of others have unfortunately chosen to distort the truth about the Mexico City Policy and the Freedom of Choice Act. Reversing the MCP DOES NOT allow U.S. taxpayers' money to fund abortions (this is currently prohibited by the Helms amendment of 1973), and FOCA has very little chance of making it to a congressional vote - let alone the president's desk (see http://tinyurl.com/alxsfe).

Catholics do not believe that the end justifies the means. As such, our support for the MCP and opposition to FOCA should not excuse false witness about either.

Chris Korzen
Executive Director
Catholics United

I truly believe in my heart that our country and the world will never get rid of this evil called abortion until we get rid of the evil of contriception. There I said it. I'm sure their are many people who believe they are pro life, but I must say, If you are using birth control you are not pro life. What was the argument for the birth control pill?, wasn't it something like this-( If we have the pill, that will aliminate the need for abortion )Well we all know how that turned out, how many millions of babies killed since then? God gave us the beautiful gift of our sexuallity, and when we come together as man and wife we are not to exsclude the Holy Spirit. We are always to be open to the gift of life, and when we say Oh, we want the gift of sexual intercourse but we don't want to be open to life, it is no longer a gift of love but an act of selfish lust. Believe me when I say that I am not condemning anyone, but we must take a good look at ourselves. We need to get back to the way God intended or the blood of the innocent will cry out to Him. I did not vote for President Obama, but I will pray that the Lord will change his heart and the hearts of all those who continue to be closed to His Life-giving Spirit.

Perhaps the saddest thing this past week is not only what our president has unleashed, the demon of abortion coined by Fr. Tom Eutenauer of Human Life International, but the care and feeding of that demon by our clergy. Our pastor was nearly silent about the anniversary of Roe v Wade and did not speak out against the actions taken by our govt. officials. Instead we listened to a speil about the proposed new Catholic school to be built in our community. Shame on us.

Chris Korzen,

Perhaps I'm missing something, but you say:


However, the article you link states:



It sounds to me like even the source you quote indicates foreign aid money (in this case U.S. Money) is eligible to go to "family planning" programs that "promote and offer abortion".

If you have another source that refutes this, by all means provide it. I, for one, would be comforted by it.

One worry I have is that we may have seen aspects of this before. If PWSA is going to pay women to have more children, then all we’re doing is going back to the pre-welfare reform era, which would not be promoting responsible parenthood. It is one thing to help an expectant mother with an unplanned pregnancy find proper pre-natal care, education and employment assistance and/or an adoptive family if she so desires. It is entirely different to start handing out money to women just because they are pregnant; this was tried before and failed miserably. As we have seen in the past, this only promotes more out-of-wedlock births. Obviously we want to discourage single parenthood and unwanted pregnancies without encouraging abortion for those already pregnant.

While I respect those who are pushing PWSA as a positive alternative to abortion, please let’s not be fooled. This is not going to cause the demand for abortion to wither on the vine, and it should not be considered a viable alternative to anti-abortion legislation.

It also does not help that Obama would rather not even acknowledge the existence of Democrats for Life. I still have trouble getting past the fact that this piece of legislation will NEVER see the light of day if it contains any provision restricting access to abortion. The inability of our political leaders to distinguish between good and evil, and choose what is good, while not new, is nonetheless distressing. A nation incapable of distinguishing right from wrong is a nation incapable of self-government.

There was a comment posted here earlier that FOCA stands almost no chance of passing. I hope that's correct, but it is wrong to suggest that FOCA should be ignored by pro-lifers. Obama promised to sign this bill if it gets to his desk. He should be taken at his word.

"Like I said obama and pro-choice/abortion Democrats are the other big target to get a change of heart on this Act from- I just can't believe that Republican pro-lifers are trash talking this opening given the pro-life movement courtesy of a courageous Democrats for Life organization" - Tim Shipe

While I'm sure that many appreciate your energy and optimism, those of us in the Chicago area just shake our heads at your dangerously naive approach.

Jill Stanek was common knowledge around here many years ago when she told of "live birth abortions" at Christ Hospital. That story didn't go national until this past summer when Liberal talking heads lied about it and said Obama would "never" allow such a thing to happen.

Illinois in general and Chicago specifically are in complete Democrat control (and have been for a long time) and our corruption is an international embarrassment. Blago is the rule, not the exception..... that is why they won't let him call witnesses.

Though I hope I am wrong and you are right about Obama and the "party of death" having a change of heart, I put the odds on that happening at about 50,000 : 1 .... or about the same as Lucy actually holding the football for Charlie Brown "this time"


"Moderate, thinking people will just ignore you. That's the fate of all extremists, I guess" - TK

Ah, the fallacy that truth lies "somewhere in the middle" rears its ugly head again. The easiest way to dispell this approach is :

- The Catholic Church believes it contains the fullness of the faith.

- Atheists believe that the Catholic Church is a lie.

- Therefore the truth must be somewhere in the middle.

Everyone can agree that the decade of the 60's changed America dramatically. I will meet my Democrat friends halfway. Let's go back to 1960 and agree to share the very reasonable platform of the Democratic Party. What we will learn is that J.F.K. was more conservative than George W. Bush, his father and John McCain. The spectrum has moved so far to the left that todays "left" would have been considered Godless Socialists in 1960.

I would LOVE it if a third party of Constitutional Christians became a viable option ie. Alan Keyes and Pat Buchanan, but until then I think we should all check our egos at the door and admit the obvious:

Republican ....... it's the new Democrat.

Wake up America. Say it like it is: Pro-abortion. Pro-baby killing. Pro-anti-Christians. Pro-living like you want to.

What is wrong with "reduce the number of abortions" plan? I'll tell you.

Apply the "reduce the number of abortions" strategy to slavery.

Did Abraham Lincoln say "we need to reduce the number of slave through education and counseling for slave owners"? Or did Lincoln say that slavery was a moral evil that could not be tolerated and that "a house divided cannot stand."

The GOP stood up for the moral principle of emancipation. Now it must stand up for the moral principle that human beings have an unalienable right to exist from conception until natural death.

It should be illegal to kill an innocent human being. Replacing the word "abortion" with "killing innocent human beings in the womb" (which is what it is) in professor Kmiec's words on the subject would expose the lie of his argument - "...we have no alternative but to be about the business of helping one woman at a time make a choice 'not to kill an innocent human being in the womb.'"

Mr. Korzen,

The blame the messenger schtick that you and other apologists for the President's anti-life agenda have adopted is getting tiresome.

Let me assure you that when President Obama does things like reversing the Mexico City Policy, it is the President who you supported that should be the object of your ire, not those of us who point out his support of the indefensible.

And Mr. Skojec is correct: the article you cite actually contradicts your claims about what the Mexico City Policy did. What say you?

It's too late to take a "no compromise" approach to abortion. The time to do that, in mass numbers, with unceasing civil disobedience, would have been when abortion laws were first sanctified by judicial decree, and when most of the people would have been on your side.

In a country with a 50% divorce rate, where contraception is widely available and used with no qualms, where every sort of perversion and filth is allowed to reach millions of people in the name of the "free market" (which many conservatives have sold their souls to)) - you can't possibly expect to, now, at this late date, draw a "no compromise" line in the sand at abortion, or gay marriage for that matter.

As horrible as abortion is it is a sign of our times and not its own cause. Until pro-life conservatives recognize, as did Pope Pius XI, the evils of extreme individualism in economic and social life they will be impotent and useless against abortion. If God is truly watching he can be no more pleased at repeated failure to stop the evil than with the evil itself.

Thank you, Father Rutler.

May Father Neuhaus rest in peace (and may calumny, from the likes of Kmiec, cease).

I believe that people who are active in the pro-life movement could benefit by getting as many nurses and other health care professionals on board to teach the NFP method. I know I would gladly teach in my area of Lake Charles, La. and will attempt to become active at our own New Life Counceling office. Recently we had the largest turnout at Our Immaculate Conception Church Cathedral than any other year on the same day as Washington D.C. had their largest turnout ever. People are looking for alternatives! Thanks be to God the young married couples are open to anything new to avoid aborting unwanted pregnancies.

Mr. Skojec and Mr. Anderson:

The CNS article does not say that repealing the MCP allows U.S. foreign aid to fund abortion procedures - for good reason, as this would be illegal.

Despite this, the Catholic League's Jan. 23 press release leads with the headline "Obama to Fund Abortion." So either a) President Obama is funding abortion out of his own pocket, b) President Obama is breaking the law, or c) Bill Donohue is not being completely honest with us.

I'm not saying that repealing the MCP was the right thing to do. I'm saying that it's more important to tell the whole truth than to use falsehood to score political points. I hope you'll agree.

Chris Korzen
Executive Director
Catholics United

My daughter is a senior in a Catholic High School. Her religion teacher showed the class the movie "The Silent Scream" which shows an abortion being performed with an ultrasound. This was a very emotional experience for her class. Many of her classmates were crying, even the boys. Those that though they were pro choice before changed their opinion. If only there was a way to promote this powerful movie.

That movie had an impact on me in high school as well.

What's interesting as well is that I have heard that this movie or something like it was once shown to state legislators (I wish I could remember where and when), and it had an effect on their abortion policies - everyone was ready for more restrictions and for the total banning of any late term abortion, even the Democrats.

Those intent on pursuing a political strategy should perhaps find ways to get local and national politicians to see this movie or one like it.

I felt compelled to make this video prior to the election. It's titled Obama - The Blood Sacrifice and I believe that it supplies both the message and the visual that needs to be presented to the American public on the issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGJ2G9aA1ng

Last week a group of women associated with the Silent No More organization gathered on a college campus to provide their testimonies while they held signs stating that they regret their abortions. A staff member overheard two students converse on the presence of these women and heard one state, "I agree with them, but, I still feel compelled to mock their effort."

I believe that this is a prime example of the challenge that faces the pro-life movement. Even if pro-life supporters are entirely correct on every aspect in the ascertion to the evil of abortion they still are facing a culture that is prideful in its defense of being controlled. You cannot tell this culture what it should think or how it should feel. The culture has evolved into a "pro-choice" society. It has become an adolescent society that is defiant towards authority, especially a moral one.

Given the understanding that we exist in a "pro-choice" society the pro-life movement can longer place it's hope on imposing it's will of changing laws through democratic means. It is simply implausible. Pro-lifers can talk the talk until they are blue in the face and it won't change the status of Roe v. Wade.

This might seem an odd comparison, but, the conflict between Pro-Lifers and Abortion supporters is similar to the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelites. One side is armed with rocks versus another side armed with missiles. And, just as the weaker rival in Jerusalem feels compelled to self sacrifice for the sake of justice the pro-life movement marches on. And, if pro-lifers were to stand in public with a poster featuring the picture of an aborted fetus they too would be considered a terrorist. The point is that this conflict which faces the pro-life movement is a war. And, the stakes could very well determine the fate of humanity.

Is all lost? I believe that we are at the brink of annihilation, however, there is still hope. Hope exists as long as we trust that all things are possible with God. But, it is going to take more than prayers because faith without works is dead.

To win the war against abortion is going to take work, a great deal of work. It is going to need courage and self sacrifice. It is going to need leadership. It is going to need the Church. The Church must lead the faithful in this war for there to be any hope. And, it must do so immediately.

The Church must recognize that it cannot exist harmoniously, as much as it has tried for 36 years, with laws that support abortion rights. The Church must be prepared to be as Christ and suffer a persecution at the hands of it's objectors. By confronting and condemning abortion and it's supporters publicly and from the pulpit it must be willing to sacrifice it's non-profit status and a percentage of it's congregation. Through this courage of combating abortion and standing firm on the principle of supporting life it will draw others to the fold.

I believe that this is the destiny of the Church. And, if it is to be, then Catholics must begin to prepare to follow her lead.

Please let me explain.

We as Catholics have the greatest gift that God has ever given us - The gift of The Most Holy Eucharist.

The Most Holy Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ who longs to unite His entire Human and Divine Being with us and longs for us to unite ourselves with Him. This is accompanied by unfathomable Divine Graces and Mercies poured out upon those who receive This Most Precious Supernatural Gift in the State of Grace.

Holy Mother Church infallibly teaches this.

The Catholic Church can stop this holocaust by being front and center in it's teaching that performing, procurring, coercing, and supporting abortion is a mortal sin(when's the last time we ever heard this term from the pulpit?). Mortal sin kills the soul and separates it from God. Souls that die in unrepented mortal sin are lost for all eternity due to God's Divine Justice always having to be satisfied. It's impossible for Divine Justice to be any other way. Repentance, Mercy, and Forgiveness is always available from God until the last breath is drawn and the soul is separated from the body for it's judgment. There are no favorites when it comes to judgment. Unrepented and unforgiven mortal sin damns the soul for all of eternity. And even when mortal sin is forgiven the stain of it still remains and must be expiated either in this life or the life to come - Purgatory. Catholics who have been deceived by the intelligence of the evil one who uses even the very members of The Catholic Church, The Mystical Body Of Jesus Christ, to disguise evil and call it good can go a long way towards reducing the severity of their Purgatory by accepting this teaching and being missionaries to others.

The Pope, the Vicar of Christ on earth, must infallibly state this Ex Cathedra and command the shephards of the flock under Papal decree to instruct that performing, procurring, coercing, and supporting abortion is a mortal sin. He must further declare that the soul that receives The Most Holy Eucharist in the state of mortal sin draws condemnation on it rather than unfathomable Divine Graces and Mercies.

So all those so-called arrogant Catholic(in name only) politicians and the compromising Priests, Bishops, and Deacons who disagree with this Divinely-Revealed Truth and who partcipate in this intrinsic evil will know in no uncertain terms that mortal sin will enter their souls. Let them work out their salvation in fear and trembling.

Just think that if Catholics voted according to the Will Of Almighty God that we wouldn't even be having this discussion now and Roe v Wade would have been overturned a long time ago and the intrinsic evil of abortion would have been sent back to the very pits of hell from whence it came.

Greg

Deal,

It's time to show the pictures of the babies here on IC. They need to see the evil they defend when they apologize for Obama. The apologists might not be converted but others will and time is running out.

Mr. Korzen,

You stated:



One of us, I'm afraid, must be struggling with our reading comprehension. I'll admit, it could be me. But having read and highlighted the relevant portion of the CNS article, I don't see how you can say it's not saying what I'm interpreting it to say.

If you're suggesting that the Hyde Amendment, passed in 1976, makes provisions forbidding the allocation of federal funds to international NGOs which provide abortion as part of their "Family Planning" programs redundant, then please explain to me why the MCP was passed in 1984. By your interpretation, MCP would be pointless, because Hyde makes federal funding illegal when it comes to abortions.

To use a quick and dirty (non-religious) source, Wikipedia states that:



So again, I ask you, what is the purpose of MCP? My read is that NGOs found a loophole in the Hyde Amendment which disallowed the direct federal funding of abortion by accepting U.S. federal funds for their overall operations and then offering abortion as one of their services, thus evading a direct link.

One can only conclude that reversing MCP, which prohibits these NGOs from offering abortion if they are in receipt of U.S. federal funds, would thus re-open the door for them to do precisely that, which they clearly must have been doing for MCP to be considered necessary in the first place.

If there's some other logical interpretation, I'm all ears.

Abortion is not a "Catholic problem" only - it is a modern problem, it is an American problem. While it would be great if more priests and bishops said more about the matter at Mass on Sunday, only 25% of Americans identify as Catholic and fewer still attend Mass on even a semi-regular basis. So even if every Catholic opposed abortion, it certainly wouldn't mean that every American would.

America was founded by radical Puritans and Enlightenment thinkers who had nothing but a deep fear and loathing of the Church, of "Popery" and clericalism. That spirit is still very much alive today.

This is not really our country, and these are certainly not our laws. We are in the same position as the early Christians were within the heart of the pagan Roman Empire. And only by following their example in the truest and fullest sense can we possibly hope to fight the culture of death. For many this will mean letting go of false idols and false projects, such as destroying or suppressing the ancient liturgy and moral tradition of the Church, or bowing down before the golden calf of individualism and "the free market".

The legislation in question here is the Helms amendment of 1973, not the Hyde amendment of 1976 - an easy mistake to make (someone else corrected me on it this morning).

As I understand it the essential difference between Helms and the MCP is this: the Helms amendment prevents foreign aid funds from being used to pay for abortion procedures. The MCP, on the other hand, prohibited funding for organizations that also provide abortion services or even just referrals - even though under existing federal law those monies could only be used to fund activities unrelated to abortion procedures.

Chris Korzen
Executive Director
Catholics United

Before this forum I come, submit to your criticism, but tears are in my eyes as I write because I am post abortive. Twenty five years ago, I bought into the lie, accepted the diatribe of the times and have paid for it in many ways. Lest I sound arrogant, I now witness to the power of grace in sacramental confession. I serve daily Mass, I regret what I did but He puts me on the altar as a sign of hope. Please always, reach out your hands to those who have committed this sin, don't reject them but love them. I agree we must use more graphic means with the stubborn and arrogant, but they might not even listen unless hit up the side of the head by a 2 x 4. So, Jon from Charlotte, your video is very good. I would urge folks to send it on. See it and weep. Pray the rosary (all mysteries daily) and ask the unborn in Heaven to pray it with you. Pray as if YOUR life depended upon it. Be a channel for grace to come into this darkened world. Thank you.

To clear all of this up regarding the Mexico City Policy and our tax dollars.....

It is the Helms Amendment that prohibits the use of US foreign aid funds to "pay for the performance of abortions as a method of family planning or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions."

What the Mexico City Policy did was say that even if people were using private money for a number of activities including abortion services, counseling, or referrals, then groups could not receive any U.S. foreign aid.

The Hyde amendment is like Helms but prohibits U.S. tax dollars be used for abortion here in the U.S.

Abortions will not be directly funded by our tax dollars as a result of Mexico City being overturned.

I was at the March for Life and if President Obama is againist abortion, he should have spoken to the crowd and said so. The fact is he is not againist abortion but is abortions biggest proponent. Isn't that obvious? With regards to morality, this is not a matter for the inquisition. Killing is wrong and everyone regardless of faith knows this. Who decided that a fetus is not a baby? The AMA used to state life began at conception, but not anymore. What was the name of the inquisition that brought about this change?

The Silent Scream is on Youtube. I was thinking if enough of the pro-lifers out there view it, it would be listed as "the most recenty viewed video". More people out of curiosity would check it out.

TK wrote: "Via Media - it's the road to take in a pluralistic, democratic society."

****

TK, if the government allowed slavery today, would you say "via media"? The real question is: what issues are so critical to a society that we CANNOT take a via media? The protection of innocent human life is number one. No matter how its proponents try to hide the truth, abortion is the killing of innocent human life. If you think that's fine, then you have no moral ground to object when the government decides that you are too old to live and should be euthanized for the sake of a "pluralistic, democratic society."

There is a larger movement at work here, at the very top ... under the direction and influence of the one, that Jesus called the one who, deceives, kills and destroys. Some have consciously have given themselves over to him, under them are those who may be doing their bidding without knowing directly whom they are serving. Out of their desire for power and greed, part of their universal plan is population reduction and reducing the remaining non-elite to their serfs/slaves. Now, we should respect the earth and our environment and be good stewards of the "garden" that has been placed under our care. That is a good goal. There are other "good" goals being proposed, however these individuals and groups are willing to use evil means to try to reach their goals. The first principle of ethics/morality is that you "cannot do evil that good may come thereof". They ignore this. They believe "man" is the problem and therefore have a goal of population reduction for the sake of environmental protection(Earth's current population is 6 Billion, they believe that their target population of 500 million, is what the earth can ideally sustain) can and should be reached by just about whatever means that can be employed - among them: contraception, abortion, war (aggravate former enemies, exaggerate differences, profit by selling weapons to both sides), famine, disease ... these people are following the father of lies, the dark one, the author of the culture of death). So, is it any wonder that they have employed pseudo Catholics and Evangelicals to try to divide the Catholic and conservative Evangelical community in order to dilute and diffuse their influence? They're not stupid, that's why we must use every spiritual means at our disposal to bring about the victory of the Way, the Truth and the Life over the powers of darkness and death ... "for the weapons of our warfare are not merely of flesh and blood but possess God's power for the destruction of strongholds. We demolish sophistries and every proud pretension that raises itself against the knowledge of God. We likewise take into captivity every thought and make it obedient to Christ."
Pray like you've never prayed before, meditate on Scripture, solid spiritual reading, the Lives of the Saints, frequent the Sacraments, make liberal use of sacramentals, "overcome evil by doing good". Remember how the Saints were victorious ... "They overcame them, by the Blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony, and not loving their lives to the end."

Having read all the posts, I'm in agreement with those who think our recourse should be to end abortion through the legislative process by going all or nothing -- a "Human Life Amendment" or bust (ALL), but I'm also, partially, in agreement with those who believe that it's too late for that and that we must resort to continuing an incremental approach (NRLC).

Someone stated that had we given it all we've got immediately after Roe vs. Wade was decided, we could have stamped out abortion. In other words, if the Church, from the top down, had mustered all its strength vocally, politically, but most of all, spiritually, we wouldn't be having this discussion. By vocally, I mean that the Pope, bishops, priests, and laity should have spoken out strongly against the whole issue of legal abortion on the moral level (that abortion is an abomination from the depths of Hell) and the pragmatic level (that we're destroying our greatest natural resource). (An old song asks, "Where have all the flowers gone?" while Mother Teresa's voice is heard: "To say that there are too many childen is like saying there are too many flowers."

By politically, all possible avenues should have been taken, especially speaking directly to our representatives DAILY (still can be done). By spiritually, there should have been (and still could be)HUGE rosary rallies at all Catholic churches, at all abortion clinics, at the Supreme Court, White House, as well as on the state capitol steps. Like the Battle of Lepanto where Our Lady intervened after many rosaries were said.

Early on, our bishops "were on record as vigorously opposed to abortion and in favor of a constitutional amendment," according to Catholic Replies in The Wanderer. That was Nov. 1973. A few months later, four cardinals testified before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Contitutional Amendments. John Cardinal Krohl gave a lesson on human biology in the womb and said that "each day that pases without such an amendment signals further massive destruction of unborn human beings in this country" and declared "the legalization of abortion is a tragic error. . ."

Support for this postion slipped away in the early 80's according to Law Professor Charles E. Rice, when the bishops endorsed a states' rights approach. According to Rice, this affirmed the holding of Roe vs. Wade "that the unborn child is a nonperson." This has been the situation up through 2008. Dr. Rice suggests that the bishops reconsider their approach and go back to the human life amendment.

Now is the time (it's never too late with God on our side) to pull out all we've got which are individual and communal prayer, rosary rallies, holy hours for life, days of fasting, sacrifices. In other words, as the saying goes, "Let's walk the walk." Talk is not enough, but it's a start.

I agree with the writer who thought the Pope should issue a decree requiring bishops and priests to speak outright from the pulpits. There should also be "Pro-Life Prayers of the Faithful" every week and a pro-life corner in each church bulletin. Children in school should learn what it means to be on the side of life.

Maybe I'm a bit idealistic, but if we really believe that babies are dying, we got to do something about it. Like a poster compared abortion to the issue of slavery, we can't have a little bit of it here and there. The whole cancer must be eradicated.

We just need leaders that are real Shepherds.

Patrick, I agree with the fact that the population controllers and their agenda are not to be ignored, but you surely realize the "conservative" Catholic and Evangelical communities are full of people who support unjust wars, weapons selling and foreign policy that degrades and destroys human life and the environment? The evil one works where ever he can.

I am decidedly not an apologist for pro-choice/pro-abortion advocates, but I am one who tries to find something positive to build upon- this is why I am promoting the Pregnant Women Support Act in both mainstream and Catholic media. But there is something that I keep encountering from those deep into the pro-life cause- it is something that is really hurting the chances of conversions coming the way of the unborn. It is this tendency to just heap abusive words upon people and politicians who are in the pro-choice camp presently- what happened to hate the sin but love the sinner? What happened to love your enemies for that matter?

I realize that love can be tough sometimes, and anger over abortion is perfectly justified as one of those social sins that crys out to heaven. But we have to have compassion in our voices and our words when we confront the real people who are now perpetrating abortion on demand.

I think that more people would be drawn to the pro-life cause if they found a consistently open, good-natured, holy, kind and friendly group of people who were dedicated to the cause of saving unborn children, but treated the enemies of these unborn persons as potential friends, worthy humans who are just blinded by the culture of death, or caught up in the politics or in self-denial- whatever the cause of their reasons for supporting abortion on demand- they need to convert but we are the ones ostensibly who are here on earth who are best placed to assist them on that way. And it isn't always the case that someone who opposes abortion rights is necessarily very sensitized to other social sins which also kill people- be it unjust global economics or unjust war and proliferation of weaponry or the like.

So we are all sinners, we all have blindspots, and most of us don't like having it put into our faces by people who act like they really truly deeply hate us.

Could President Obama convert to pro-life on Abortion? Well I am praying with a few students every day for that St.Paul like conversion- but I think it is a tougher task if the pro-life community he sees and hears is constantly heaping verbal abuse upon him as a person, making it seem like he is simply an evil man, an evil doer, who deserves nothing but our anger and ridicule. I would rather try the approach of speaking out vigorously and truthfully about the nature of Abortion, but combining those truths with a Franciscan like friendliness and openness for dialogue and a welcoming spirit that says- we can be friends, come and join us we can fight and still be peaceable and have peace in our hearts even though we are anguished over the killing of the innocents. We cannot be eaten up by the world's injustices- like the poor they will always be with us- even if abortions disappeared.

I am preaching as much to myself as anyone else- and my comments on the pro-life movement and leaders are general observations, not bearing down on anyone in particular.

I say "DITTO" Mary. Too much talk isn't heard anyway. Talk little and pray much.

Thank you!! I have been thinking the same thing lately and while reading some of the comments. People have their minds changed by other people being patient and kind and not by someone screaming in their faces.

Let me start by dispelling a myth stated in an earlier post. Lincoln and his fellow Republicans were not abolitionist purists. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln tried to assure the southern states that he had no intention of denying them their right to slavery, nor their right to retrieve their runaways. When he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, he only freed the slaves in "rebellious states" - those over which he had no control. Slaves in the border states remained in bondage. Lincoln, ever the lawyer, was more concerned about the constitutional issue than the moral one.

This is analagous to today's Republican leadership which hides behind the "states rights" argument that ignores the God given natural right to life. The Pro-life movement made a terrible error in throwing nearly all it's proverbial eggs into the Republican basket. After thirty years, the Republicans have done little more than sign symbolic legislation like MCP while being too busy or uninterested to push for a Human Life Amendment. And yet somehow supporting the Pregnant Women Support Act under a Democratic president is a betrayal to the cause? Would the naysayers be saying the same thing if McCain or Romney or even Giuliani were in office? I have a feeling many of them would miraculously discover the virtue of pragmatism.

If we are lucky enough to meet the aborted children in heaven, what will we say to them? "Well, we wanted to support legislation that would have saved some of you, but don't you see, that would have played into the hands of the President, who would have used his popularity boost from bipartisanship to promote even more pro-abortion legislation." I think the response will be "Huh?"

In this forum abortion reduction has been called a "scam" and a "joke." I would call it a moral imperative.

Your perspective is appreciated, and I share it totally. Keep up the great posts, my friend :)

I've had a bit longer to think about the conversation going on from comment to comment. I've been trying to put my finger on my discomfort regarding this bill.

Yesterday I spoke the Values Action Team at the Capitol, organized by Josh Lynch for Senator Brownback. I was talking about the petition to Cardinal George regarding campaign contribution to Catholic politicians by pro-abortion organizations, but made a few remarks at the end about the PWSA. I compared it to rearranging the chairs on the Titanic, and I think the comparison is apt. We are watching all the restrictions on abortion and abortion funding removed, one-by-one, and instead of spending all our energy on fighting those actions, we are focused on a bill that will provide only marginal help, at best.

I am not opposed to the bill, per se, as I said, but its gains seem paltry compared to what we are in the process of losing.

My parish priest did everything except jump up and down telling every to vote for Obama. Now he is on the pulpit telling everyone to fight against FOCA. I just do not see how so many people get confused by the obvious. A vote for Obama was a vote for death.

I am also very saddened by Obama's support of the UNFPA and their support of forced abortions. Look up the Population Research Institute for details.

With all due respect, it seems really disingenuous of you to suggest that somehow the taxpayer funding will not go to providing abortion. Before the repeal by Obama, these organizations had x number of dollars to spend and divide between their 'services'. If they are given taxpayer funds, they can then divert the funds they had been using for education or whatever directly to abortion. Our tax dollars go into their coffers, which frees up more funds for them to put toward the killing of unborn persons. They use it to provide funding for abortion, so we are providing funding for abortion.

I'm afraid it seems to me that you are contorting an argument to rationalize your organization's support for the most pro-abortion president ever.

The real “scam” seems to be the “pro-life” scam bought by the 54% of the Catholic vote that swept Obama into the presidential office. In the charnel house created by the Soviet Union, the Russian politicians have changed to become “pro-life,” making it difficult or impossible today to get an abortion. You see, they are running out of proletarians, at lest Russian ones.
Something similar is to be found in the letter addressed to President-elect Obama in the name of the USCC, with its congratulations and pledge to cooperate for the common good, with an “exception” in the matter of FOCA. Among the reasons for this exception was that FOCA would undo the modest “pro-life” gains in reducing abortion by means of parental notification laws. Apparently, our “pro-life” bishops wanted to retain the “gains” secured by the regulation of murder, a means that has a proven record in reducing the number of abortions.
In his encyclical Evangelium vitae, Pope John Paul II called for the courage to look things in their face and call them by name. He called abortion murder. The regulation of abortion is the regulation of murder. In the recent 2008 elections, Proposition 4 in California was presented and defended in the name of parental rights and defense of children and, of course, the reduction of abortions. The California Catholic Conference strongly urged the faithful to vote for it.
The supporters of Proposition 4, clergy and laity alike, ignored or simply missed sight of the fact that, strictly and juridically speaking, Proposition 4 was a proposed “pro-abortion” bill whose legislative intent was to protect the right to abortion against undue restriction by the exercise of another right, namely, the parental right to notification. The legislative intent was not to reduce the number of abortions nor to obstruct the exercise of abortion by the regulations in questions. The subjective intentions of the legislators or framers was entirely different: the reduction and obstruction of abortions. To secure this “good end” they were willing to frame, propose, support and vote for a “pro abortion” and therefore unjust law – the very thing solemnly rejected in the second paragraph of Section 73 of Evangelium vitae.
The “pro life” slogan is invoked to obscure effectively the difference between laws regulating murder by abortion from laws that simply prohibit some abortions without protecting any abort5ions. An example of the latter, would be a law that prohibits abortions in military hospitals. Such a law may not intend the reduction of abortions but it doe not protect any abortions. “Parental notification” laws not only do not intend the reduction of abortions, they protect those that comply with the specified regulations. Because of this they violate the right to life of the victims of these regulated abortions. They are unjust.
In supporting Proposition 4, the Catholic Ordinaries of California taught by example, if not by explicit words, that it is licit to lend support to laws regulating murder as long as one subjectively intends to save lives. The faithful were urged, in effect, to support evil as long as one intended the “greater good.” In doing so, the bishops were “pro life.” But they were silent about the right to life of the victims of the abortions legislatively regulated and protected with their approval and support.
It the number of lives to be saved is dispositive, then we can be united in our “pro-life” intentions even though we may not agree on the schedule and pace in reaching the goal of making all abortions unnecessary. One can be “pro life” in arguing the advisability of working against those conditions that make abortions necessary rather than using legislative coercion to stop the immoral activity. This is the argument of Professor Kmiec and apparently of the 54% of the Catholic vote in their support of candidate and now President Obama.
If, however, the right to life is dispositive, then we are never justified participating in a law that protects one murder by abortion, even if ninety nine (or, indeed all) unborn are saved by our participation in an unjust law. It is not enough to intend saving as many unborn as possible; we must also intend to do this justly. If we ignore justice we make ourselves masters of human life, even as we become its “saviors.”