Sigh...

Archbishop Currie explains how CCCB report on the investigation of Development and Peace partners was written by D & P...

Archbishop Martin Currie of St. John’s Newfoundland has said that a report that exonerated several pro-abortion groups funded by the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace (D&P) and that slammed LifeSiteNews.com (LSN), was actually written by D&P along with the then-General Secretary of the Bishops conference, Mario Paquette...

... Archbishop Currie acknowledged that LifeSiteNews’ investigation may well have been more accurate than that of his delegation. “With LifeSite, perhaps they would dig a lot deeper ... and make connections which perhaps we didn’t make because we don’t have that kind of access or time.”...

I guess nobody is surprised that a document 'investigated' by D & P and ultimately written by D & P , does not censure D & P. I guess noone is surprised that they took the opportunity to make a swipe at LifeSiteNews, the agency that broke the scandal.

Thank God for bishops like Archbishop Prendergast, who felt that the matter of his flock sending 'charity' to abortion promoters was important enough to warrant his time and personal initiative.

And ask God for many more new bishops just like him.

.

Branding: Planned Parenthood Makes Pink Ugly

Kathryn Jean Lopez

"...the nearly billion-dollar organization has been working overtime to protect its “brand.”

Brand is in quotes because it’s a quote from Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards (daughter of the late former Texas governor Ann Richards). She told Politico last month that “going after the strongest brand in women’s health in America is one of the stupidest things the Republican Party could have done.”

Stupid? Or effective? As defunding Planned Parenthood has become a rallying cry of not just pro-life activists but fiscal conservatives like Grover Norquist, its pretty-in-pink media and bipartisanly protected spin as a beacon of “women’s health” is coming undone...

.

"Media Frenzy" - Church Scandal Round-Up

Visit Lifesite News for stories and links....

REAL Catholics Only, Please!!!

American faux catholic group, 'Catholics' For Choice, is lobbying PM Stephen Harper to overturn a vote taken in the House of Commons last week. They say that they are representative of Canadian Catholics, including the Bishops, and that abortion SHOULD be funded by aid designated for maternal care.

Who in HELL do they think they are? (I'm pretty sure that's where they hail from...)

The Canadian branch (which has a whopping 100 members!) is no more than a field office of the anti-Catholic American group.

This statement from the Cdn.co-ordinator, pretty much says it all :

"We dissent from the formal teachings, as do most Canadian Catholics in practice."

REAL Canadian Catholics expect to hear from their REAL Catholic Bishops about this - REAL soon!!

More on 'Anti-Catholics-For Choice'

Filipino Bishop Warns Faithful
.

Stupak Doesn't Lie To EVERYONE, Just To Prolifers

Here is a video of Bart Stupak discussing how he likes everything in the HealthCare Reform bill, except funding for abortion, and how at the end of the day, he would 'probably' vote for the bill.




So Pelosi had every confidence the bill would pass, because she knew Stupak was a supporter of her bill. Are we learning anything folks? Democrats are not prolife 'at the end of the day'. In the end, they are only Democrats.

I won't say that ONLY Democrats have the ability to rationalize to the point of meaning and believing nothing and everything at the same time, but they virtually have no choice. Its really and truly a necessary skill for them. (In my opinion, that same skill would make it very difficult to be Christian, much less Catholic.)

The Audacity of the Dark Soul of Deception

Anyone petitioning Saint Joseph today, best pray for this woman. She needs brains, a heart and a conscience ... before her time expires. It is a particular insult to Saint Joseph, to invoke his name in aid of an evil healthcare bill. Saint Joseph was protector of Jesus in the face of Herod (who shared Obama's disdain for the value of a human life),and he is the Patron Saint of Families. Only a person without a shred of actual faith God could do such a disgustingly cynical thing. Pray God , that American Catholics are not as stupid as she thinks they are.



Dear Ms. Pelosi,
Perhaps you aren't lying, and putting your soul recklessly in danger of eternal damnation. Perhaps you didn't realize, or hadn't read, that many mamy more Catholic Sisters have denounced your life threatening legislation, than have endorsed it. Perhaps you have not heard the voices of reality and truth that have been correcting your scandalous errors and obfuscations every step of the way. Perhaps you are not cynically underestimating the intelligence of the average American voter.
I doubt it, but just in case....

The health care bill you are proposing has been condemned by the Catholic church as being against its social teaching. With all authority, the Catholic Church has condemned your bill. No faithful Catholic can support your bill in good conscience, because the Church has condemned the evil inherent in your bill. No amount of soft soap, dropping names of well known unfaithful Catholics, or calling on the saints, will change the fact that your bill is going to force Americans to pay for abortions. (BTW, that's not the only thing against the bill...seventh commandment impels us to NOT SPEND MONEY BEYOND OUR MEANS...)

Stop your insane spiral towards Hell. Go to confession. Get a heart, a brain and a soul. (follow the yellow brick road...)
-------------

ArchBishop Chaput "The Captivity of 'Catholic' Witness"

Orthodox Net :

"As a Greek Orthodox priest, I am compelled – in the Holy Name of our Lord Jesus – to rebuke and renounce this Bill as being demonic..."

Lord Monckton With The' Money' Quote

Lord Monckton, during an interview with Tom Minchin, explains his motivation and methodology whilst uncovering the 'global warming' fraud. He also explains the IPCC's motivation to pull this 'global scam'.

"Bureaucrats and politicians find the notion of saving us from ourselves at our expense mesmerically attractive".

(h/t Dr. Roy)

Lemming Press : Star Phoenix, Saskatoon

The Lemming Press strikes again. The Saskatoon Star Phoenix prints an editorial void of fact (making it fiction) and gets set straight by my Dad....

To the Editor,
'The Star Phoenix'

Regarding: The Star Phoenix - February 22, 2010

You really should become more familiar with International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) before demanding more government support for its anti-life advocacy and 'ethnic cleansing' abortion policies. Are you aware, for example, that reducing births of certain ethnic groups and religions is central to the 'raison d'etre' of IPPF? Do Star Phoenix editors share such an abhorrent objective? Beware of IPPF lies covering up their bad policies and practices.

Knowing the answers to three questions may help The Star Phoenix editorials be balanced, truthful and fair. How did IPPF come into being? How is IPPF supported? What are IPPF's objectives?

Margaret Sanger, who founded IPPF, was a racially prejudiced socialite. She was instrumental in establishing IPPF as a non-government bureaucracy, with the primary objective of reducing births of certain undesirables, ie. blacks, latinos, immigrants, Catholics and the poor. She railed against these groups, calling them, "irresponsible breeders". IPPF continues to act in many ways against these same groups.

Planned Parenthood is expert at writing grants and lobbying governments for support, obtaining the majority of its funds this way. The public, however, does not support IPPF to any significant degree. Planned Parenthood operates the largest chain of 'for profit' abortuaries in USA, charging $700 to $1800 for an abortion. The larger the child, the more they charge to kill her. They rarely provide support for post-abortive problems, medical or psychological, sending victims off to local public health facilities.

To believe the lie that abortion is less harmful than birthing for women, one must accept Planned Parenthood's version of truth. The Guttmacher Institute claims to do independent research on life issues, but is actually an IPPF affiliate, designed to deceive legislators, judges and the public with their version of IPPF 'truth'. If you believe your role as editor is to perpetuate IPPF lies in support of the Canadian status quo (no protection whatsoever for the lives of unborn children), then, by all means, accept Guttmacher statistics, listen to Planned Parenthood and put aside contemporary medical and psychological research from impartial studies.

In fact, every honestly run study on the effect of abortion on women describes multiple increases in physical and mental risks vs non-abortive women. Risks increase as numbers of abortions per woman increases. The younger abortions begin, the worse are the effects on her future health. Set an objective reporter to do the research.

Where is concern for women, when IPPF fails to report abortions sought by under-aged girls being abused by older men or a relative, or young girls brought in by a pimp? IPPF simply kills the child for cash, keeping parents of under-aged girls and police in the dark. IPPF routinely sends women they damage to hospital emergency for repairs. Increasingly, however, Planned Parenthood's illegal and unethical operating policies are being brought into the light by a new generation of courageous young women. They tape interviews at IPPF and report 'sting' results to authorities, inspiring investigations and charges, ranging from fraud and assault to criminal negligence causing death. Many cases of abuse of women and girls by abortion providers are before the courts but are rarely reported by media. Maybe there's an editorial responsibility, especially for a newspaper purporting to support women, to report on cases of abuse of women by abortion providers?

Lastly, rather than abandoning reason by conceding that "personal choice" supersedes "human life" as highest and best good, you might consider providing a balanced life issues education for your subscribers. You may easily obtain valid life issues information by reporting objectively on interviews with local "Culture of Life" leaders. Subscribe personally to the Lifesite News online daily report. Lifesite News is a Canadian online news service, the world's foremost news source for life issues. As editor, you may find it profitable to offer a column to Maurice Vellacott, MP, thereby providing an Ottawa insider balance to any further "Culture of Death" infomercials.

Kindest regards,

Ed Mullen
Halifax, NS
Catholic, proud parent of ten.

(links added by me)

other relevant posts:
"REAL MAN:Canadian MP Brad Trost"
"REAL DOCTOR" (Dr. Robert Walley of Cdn NGO, Matercare )
"Ignatieff FAIL"

BIG BLUE WAVE: The Pro-Abortion Scandal in the Canadian Catholic Church Continues

Through some investigation, Suzanne proves the connection between the 'feminist ministries' in Quebec dioceses and support for scandalous investment by Development and Peace. As she says, 'the foxes are in the hen house'!

The head of the Diocese, whose Women's ministry works with a hard-core pro-abort group, Msgr Martin Veillette, is President of the Quebec Assembly of Catholic Bishops.

(And the Quebec Assembly of Bishops has its own network of women involved in "la condition feminine. How entrenched is pro-abortionism in the Quebec Church?)

Now if he's letting a pro-abort work under him, do you suppose he is going to be thorough in making sure that no money serves the interests of any pro-abort group?

I have reason to believe this is not the case.

How are we supposed to have an authentically pro-life agenda in this Church when the foxes are in the hen house?

Is it any wonder that Development and Peace, a group rooted in Quebec, has trouble understanding what the fuss is all about?

And of course, the Americans have their own problems with the CCHD...

Please , someone, rout them once and for all! (Anyone in Rome listening?)


For a perspective truly 'pro' women, listen to Andrea Mrozek's talk to the Ottawa Students For Life here.

Our priests and bishops need to start meeting REAL women, instead of the re-cycled plastic replicas from the 70's.

Obama Has 'Misrepresented' The Science

Ten members of the President's Council On Bioethics take the President to task

...researchers have made progress on all of these methods – most strikingly in reprogramming somatic cells in order to restore them to a pluripotent condition. In the last two years, several different groups of scientists have succeeded in producing what are called induced pluripotent stem cells. Because producing them does not require the destruction of embryos, they do not raise what many regard as a grave moral difficulty. Because producing them does not require human ova, and because they are patient-specific stem cells that are less likely to be rejected by their recipients, they also have distinct scientific advantages. Indeed, on the day following President Obama’s announcement, an analysis in the New York Times noted that the embryonic stem cell research the president had touted “has been somewhat eclipsed by new advances.”

It is also worth noting here the position adopted by our predecessor body, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, which did important work during the Clinton administration. NBAC approved stem cell research using (and, of course, destroying) embryos remaining after in vitro fertilization treatments. At the same time, however, NBAC stated that such embryo-destructive research is justifiable “only if no less morally problematic alternatives are available for advancing the research.” Such alternatives are now available, and research on them is advancing.

With respect to the progress that had been made in reconciling the needs of research and the moral concerns of many Americans, we can only judge, therefore, that the president’s action has taken a step backward, and we regret that.

In his remarks on March 9, President Obama promised to “ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction.” While this may seem comforting, it stands in need of clarification.

The president’s announced policy would permit federal funding of research not only on stem cell lines derived from “spare” IVF embryos but also on lines derived from created and/or cloned embryos. In the latter two cases, we would be producing embryos simply in order to use them for our purposes.

What researchers most desire, in fact, are not spare IVF embryos but cloned embryos, produced in order to study disease models. The funding decision announced by the president on March 9 will encourage such cloning. Nor should we be reassured that, at the same time, the president opposed “the use of cloning for human reproduction.” If cloned embryos are produced, they may be implanted and gestated. To prevent that, it will be necessary, as we noted in Human Cloning and Human Dignity, “to prohibit, by law, the implantation of cloned embryos for the purpose of producing children. To do so, however, the government would find itself in the unsavory position of designating a class of embryos that it would be a felony not to destroy.” We cannot believe that this would advance our society’s commitment to equal human dignity.

Yuval Levin at The Corner:

..What’s notable about this statement.... is that rather than just express disagreement with the ethical views underlying Obama’s position on embryonic stem cell research, it criticizes Obama for mischaracterizing the plain facts of the matter, which unfortunately has been his consistent practice ...

Is the President ignorant, or does he lie? There's no third option.

.

Presidential

In contrast to Barack Obama's 'big deal' of a ceremony, signing up to federally fund embryonic stem cell research without limits, George W. Bush carefully explained his considerations in restricting embryonic research to lines that had already been destroyed and giving federal funding to the research of alternative, non-destructive stem cell research. (This funding for alternative research was rescinded by Obama )

President George W. Bush

Good evening. I appreciate you giving me a few minutes of your time tonight so I can discuss with you a complex and difficult issue, an issue that is one of the most profound of our time.

The issue of research involving stem cells derived from human embryos is increasingly the subject of a national debate and dinner table discussions. The issue is confronted every day in laboratories as scientists ponder the ethical ramifications of their work. It is agonized over by parents and many couples as they try to have children or to save children already born. The issue is debated within the church, with people of different faiths - even many of the same faith - coming to different conclusions.

Many people are finding that the more they know about stem cell research, the less certain they are about the right ethical and moral conclusions.

My administration must decide whether to allow federal funds, your tax dollars, to be used for scientific research on stem cells derived from human embryos.

A large number of these embryos already exist. They are the product of a process called in vitro fertilization which helps so many couples conceive children. When doctors match sperm and egg to create life outside the womb, they usually produce more embryos than are implanted in the mother.

Once a couple successfully has children, or if they are unsuccessful, the additional embryos remain frozen in laboratories. Some will not survive during long storage; others are destroyed. A number have been donated to science and used to create privately funded stem cell lines. And a few have been implanted in an adoptive mother, and born, and are today healthy children.

Based on preliminary work that has been privately funded, scientists believe further research using stem cells offers great promise that could help improve the lives of those who suffer from many terrible diseases, from juvenile diabetes to Alzheimer's, from Parkinson's to spinal cord injuries. And while scientists admit they are not yet certain, they believe stem cells derived from embryos have unique potential.

You should also know that stem cells can be derived from sources other than embryos: from adult cells, from umbilical cords that are discarded after babies are born, from human placentas. And many scientists feel research on these types of stem cells is also promising. Many patients suffering from a range of diseases are already being helped with treatments developed from adult stem cells.

However, most scientists, at least today, believe that research on embryonic stem cells offers the most promise because these cells have the potential to develop in all of the tissues in the body.

Scientists further believe that rapid progress in this research will come only with federal funds. Federal dollars help attract the best and brightest scientists. They ensure new discoveries are widely shared at the largest number of research facilities, and that the research is directed toward the greatest public good.

The United States has a long and proud record of leading the world toward advances in science and medicine that improve human life, and the United States has a long and proud record of upholding the highest standards of ethics as we expand the limits of science and knowledge.

Research on embryonic stem cells raises profound ethical questions, because extracting the stem cell destroys the embryo and thus destroys its potential for life.

Like a snowflake, each of these embryos is unique, with the unique genetic potential of an individual human being.

As I thought through this issue I kept returning to two fundamental questions. First, are these frozen embryos human life and therefore something precious to be protected? And second, if they're going to be destroyed anyway, shouldn't they be used for a greater good, for research that has the potential to save and improve other lives?

I've asked those questions and others of scientists, scholars, bioethicists, religious leaders, doctors, researchers, members of Congress, my Cabinet and my friends. I have read heartfelt letters from many Americans. I have given this issue a great deal of thought, prayer, and considerable reflection, and I have found widespread disagreement.

On the first issue, are these embryos human life? Well, one researcher told me he believes this five-day-old cluster of cells is not an embryo, not yet an individual, but a pre-embryo. He argued that it has the potential for life, but it is not a life because it cannot develop on its own.

An ethicist dismissed that as a callous attempt at rationalization. ``Make no mistake,'' he told me, ``that cluster of cells is the same way you and I, and all the rest of us, started our lives. One goes with a heavy heart if we use these,'' he said, ``because we are dealing with the seeds of the next generation.''

And to the other crucial question - If these are going to be destroyed anyway, why not use them for good purpose? - I also found different answers.

Many of these embryos are byproducts of a process that helps create life, and we should allow couples to donate them to science so they can be used for good purpose instead of wasting their potential.

Others will argue there is no such thing as excess life, and the fact that a living being is going to die does not justify experimenting on it or exploiting it as a natural resource.

At its core, this issue forces us to confront fundamental questions about the beginnings of life and the ends of science. It lives at a difficult moral intersection, juxtaposing the need to protect life in all its phases with the prospect of saving and improving life in all its stages.

As the discoveries of modern science create tremendous hope, they also lay vast ethical mine fields.

As the genius of science extends the horizons of what we can do, we increasingly confront complex questions about what we should do. We have arrived at that ``Brave New World'' that seemed so distant in 1932 when Aldous Huxley wrote about human beings created in test tubes in what he called a hatchery.

In recent weeks, we learned that scientists have created human embryos in test tubes solely to experiment on them. This is deeply troubling and a warning sign that should prompt all of us to think through these issues very carefully.

Embryonic stem cell research is at the leading edge of a series of moral hazards. The initial stem cell researcher was at first reluctant to begin his research, fearing it might be used for human cloning. Scientists have already cloned a sheep. Researchers are telling us the next step could be to clone human beings to create individual designer stem cells, essentially to grow another you, to be available in case you need another heart or lung or liver.

I strongly oppose human cloning, as do most Americans. We recoil at the idea of growing human beings for spare body parts or creating life for our convenience.

And while we must devote enormous energy to conquering disease, it is equally important that we pay attention to the moral concerns raised by the new frontier of human embryo stem cell research. Even the most noble ends do not justify any means.

My position on these issues is shaped by deeply held beliefs. I'm a strong supporter of science and technology, and believe they have the potential for incredible good - to improve lives, to save life, to conquer disease. Research offers hope that millions of our loved ones may be cured of a disease and rid of their suffering. I have friends whose children suffer from juvenile diabetes. Nancy Reagan has written me about President Reagan's struggle with Alzheimer's. My own family has confronted the tragedy of childhood leukemia. And like all Americans, I have great hope for cures.

I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our creator. I worry about a culture that devalues life, and believe as your president I have an important obligation to foster and encourage respect for life in America and throughout the world.

And while we're all hopeful about the potential of this research, no one can be certain that the science will live up to the hope it has generated.

Eight years ago, scientists believed fetal tissue research offered great hope for cures and treatments, yet the progress to date has not lived up to its initial expectations. Embryonic stem cell research offers both great promise and great peril, so I have decided we must proceed with great care.

As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist. They were created from embryos that have already been destroyed, and they have the ability to regenerate themselves indefinitely, creating ongoing opportunities for research.

I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life-and-death decision has already been made.

Leading scientists tell me research on these 60 lines has great promise that could lead to breakthrough therapies and cures. This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life.

I also believe that great scientific progress can be made through aggressive federal funding of research on umbilical cord, placenta, adult and animal stem cells, which do not involve the same moral dilemma. This year your government will spend $250 million on this important research.

I will also name a president's council to monitor stem cell research, to recommend appropriate guidelines and regulations and to consider all of the medical and ethical ramifications of biomedical innovation.

This council will consist of leading scientists, doctors, ethicists, lawyers, theologians and others and will be chaired by Dr. Leon Kass, a leading biomedical ethicist from the University of Chicago.

This council will keep us apprised of new developments and give our nation a forum to continue to discuss and evaluate these important issues.

As we go forward, I hope we will always be guided by both intellect and heart, by both our capabilities and our conscience.

I have made this decision with great care, and I pray it is the right one.

Thank you for listening. Good night, and God bless America.

PRESIDENTIAL

.

Obama's Cynicism Astounds

CNS:

On Wednesday, only two days after he lifted President Bush’s executive order banning federal funding of stem cell research that requires the destruction of human embryos, President Barack Obama signed a law that explicilty bans federal funding of any "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death."

The provision was buried in the 465-page omnibus appropriations bill that Obama signed Wednesday. Known as the Dickey-Wicker amendment, it has been included in the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services every fiscal year since 1996.....

.....Thanks to the Dickey-Wicker language in Section 509 of the omnibus bill, the "extent permitted by law" will continue to forbid federal funding of research that even puts embryos at risk.

Close observers on both sides of the embryonic stem cell issue were well aware of the Dickey-Wicker amendment, and understood that it would pose a legal obstacle to federal funding of embryo-killing research even if President Obama issued an executive order reversing President Bush's administrative policy denying federal funding to that research....

.....Douglas Johnson, spokesman for the National Right to Life Committee, said in a press release Monday that President Obama’s executive order lifting the ban on federal funding for embryo-destroying stem cell research “set the stage” for an effort to repeal Dickey-Wicker.

“This sets the stage for an attack on the Dickey-Wicker law, which since 1995 has been a provision of the annual appropriations bills for federal health programs,” said Johnson. “Any member of Congress who votes for legislation to repeal this law is voting to allow federal funding of human embryo farms, created through the use of human cloning.”

So, not only was the lifted ban NOT a ban in the first place, but it also wasn't 'lifted'! Not a bit of science trumped 'ideology'. All the propaganda and publicity were only a 'first step' .

THE AUDACITY OF SMOKE

.

Pelosi And The Pope

Nancy Pelosi, the prominent US Senator, well known by Catholics as a dissident at best, has visited the Pope this week. It couldn't have been too much fun to be publicly rebuked by the Pope, for things she repeatedly tells us are not a contradiction to her claim of being an 'ardent Catholic'.

LifeSiteNews:

...The Vatican Press Office released a note this morning detailing part of the conversation which Pope Benedict XVI had with Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

The note reads: "His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church's consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development."

Vatican insiders stressed to LifeSiteNews.com that such releases are always phrased in diplomatic language and thus the correction of the Speaker who describes herself as a "faithful Catholic," despite her abortion advocacy, should be taken as a firm rebuke....

They also declined to give her a photo opportunity.

Meanwhile, at home the media hacks are falling all over themselves to ignore reality. Practically shedding tears, telling tales of Pelosi's youthful Catholic practices, they present her well known differences with authentic Catholicism as though they were typical of Catholic worship. As though Catholics had a catechetical menu off of which they could CHOOSE from opposing options. As if there were no Truth.

There is Truth.

Nancy Pelosi wouldn't know Truth , if it refused to get its picture taken with her.

Hey Doug #6 - Those Stats Aren't Working!

Michael New:

...An August 2008 study released by the group Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good had Obama supporters (and some editorial boards) swooning. Analyzing state level abortion data from 1982 to 2000, it purportedly found evidence that increased spending on various welfare programs resulted in substantial reductions in state abortion rates. The spin given to the results was that many pro-life laws, such as those requiring parental notification for abortions performed on minor girls, had little effect. So the paradoxical message to pro-life voters was that they could best advance their interests by electing pro-choice Democrats instead of pro-life Republicans.

Not surprisingly, this study had a substantial impact on the debate over sanctity of life issues during the 2008 Presidential election. Self proclaimed pro-lifers who support Democratic Presidential nominees can be found in every election cycle. However, this study gave Doug Kmiec, Nicholas Cafardi, and others intellectual legitimacy in arguing that pro-life voters should vote for liberals, even if they favor abortion-on-demand and its public funding, in order to advance the pro-life cause. At last, there was a methodologically sophisticated study which allegedly demonstrated that the welfare policies favored by Democrats were more effective in preventing abortion than the pro-life laws supported by Republicans. It seemed too good to be true.

It was. In November, with no public announcement, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good removed this study from their website. A replacement version was uploaded shortly thereafter...

...The new version provides evidence that welfare policy has no more than a marginal effect on the incidence of abortion. In fact, the new regression results indicate that none of the three welfare policies which the authors previously argued were effective tools for reducing the incidence of abortion have a substantial abortion reducing effect. Wright clearly states that “WIC payments are not correlated with the abortion rate in the 1990s.” Additionally, the regression results consistently indicate that the presence of family caps has only a marginal effect on state abortion rates. Furthermore, while Wright argues that increased AFDC/TANF spending reduces state abortion rates, his regression results raise serious doubts about the reliability of this finding...

...Unfortunately, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good continues to miss the boat and mislead the public. There exist plenty of peer reviewed studies which find that public funding restrictions and parental involvement laws reduce the incidence of abortion. However, instead of acknowledging the positive impact of pro-life legislation and constructively working with pro-lifers to promote social policies that will further reduce abortion rates, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good seems primarily interested in providing moral, political, and theological cover for supporters of Barack Obama and other Democrats who support “abortion rights.” Unfortunately, their latest study indicates that their original findings have been unable to withstand serious scrutiny.

Sadly, just weeks into his administration, President Obama has already demonstrated considerable disregard for the sanctity of human life. One of Barack Obama’s first acts as President was to revoke the Mexico City Policy. Now non-governmental organizations receiving funds from the U.S. Government can perform and promote abortions overseas. It is unfortunate that the faulty research of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good was used as political cover to help make such a thing possible...

(emphasis added)

Oh My! Doug Kmiec has some s'plainin to do!

.

Hey Doug! #3

LifesiteNews:

Following on the heels of the elimination of the Mexico City Policy, President Obama has confirmed that the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which helped instigate, perpetuate and enforce China's coercive one-child policy, will again receive taxpayer dollars.

Appended to the statement announcing the end of the Mexico City Policy, Obama said: "In addition, I look forward to working with Congress to restore U.S. financial support for the U.N. Population Fund.

"By resuming funding to UNFPA, the U.S. will be joining 180 other donor nations working collaboratively to reduce poverty, improve the health of women and children, prevent HIV/AIDS and provide family planning assistance to women in 154 countries." The move came as no surprise as Obama has spoken out in favor of UNFPA funding in the past....

But surely this is a surprise to 'Catholic Champion of LIFE' and Obama Apologist Doug Kmiec! This can't be the 'reduction of abortions' that Kmiec promised Obama was going to produce!?

Separation of Church and State Allows Blurring of Good and Evil

Meditation on the Credo

Homily January 2009 at St. Hedwig's Catholic Church, Barry's Bay, ON
(Deacon Jean-Nil Chabot)

I’ve been thinking about the Creed, this week. Each day, at the beginning of the Rosary, and each Sunday and solemnities, we pronounce the articles of the Creed; we profess that we believe in God the Father who created the universe and gave it its laws, in God the Son who redeemed us from eternal death, and the Holy Spirit who sanctifies us through the Church. Then, I realized how important the Creed is for the Christian world in “this most critical time” as the prayer says it. There is no chance for renewal, no beneficial social reform in the world without at least a tacit acknowledgement of these truths contained in the Creed.

There is an understanding now, in the western world, that because the end or purpose of the State is different from that of the Church, the two must be completely separated as if there were a chasm between them. There are even some sincere Christians who are led to believe that this is what Christ meant when he said: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” True, Caesar, or the State, has its own purpose, which is to rule over temporal things, but God rules over everything, including Caesar himself. When it comes to moral issues, which relate to God’s law, the Church has the right and duty to judge Caesar’s actions and declare them right or wrong. There is a distinction between Church and State, but in the moral order the Church is the institution chosen by Christ to teach that which belongs to God, who is the ruler over all.

Belief in the radical separation of Church and State allows the powerful to speak out of both sides of their mouths. A leader who has climbed to the top of the political ladder in his country can profess to be Christian and yet produce policy after policy which, in the moral order, is categorically anti-Christian. From one side of his mouth comes the promise to defend the weakest and most defenseless members of society. On the other side comes the promise to give free rein to the murder of those still in the womb. From the one side comes a commitment to the family, on the other the commitment to its destruction by redefining marriage in order to legalize same-sex unions.

The citizens of his country, our own country or any other, should not be deceived into believing that such changes can produce the better world which is promised to them. Jesus foretold that “false messiahs would appear and would perform signs and wonders so great as to deceive, if that were possible, even the elect.” As far as I’m concerned, the kind of enthusiasm that was manifested throughout the world, earlier this week, could qualify as one of these wonders. However, our Lord said we would recognize them by their fruits. Whatever other reasons may attract us to such leaders, their charism in particular, let us not be fooled – let us look at their voting records and see if it indicated good fruit or decaying fruit. Let us see if they are divided within themselves, with one part professing the good and the other professing the evil.

We believe in God the Creator, God the Redeemer and God the sanctifier. Three in one: distinct, but united as one. With God, the only separation is from evil. All good is from God, all evil opposes Him. We cannot trust those leaders who separate Church and State in order to remove the opposition between good and evil and include them both without distinction, in one political agenda. Our hope is not in such men, but in God who rules over all. If we turn back to Him, He will call humble and holy men to lead us. Only then will we deserve that justice and the common good to be established in this world. Already the victory has been obtained for us through the merits of Christ who died for us – what is left to be accomplished, is for the world to claim that victory by returning to God. Then we will be able sing today’s Psalm, Psalm 85, with thankful hearts.

Psalm 85 'A prayer for God's grace to assist us to the end'
1. Incline thine ear O Lord, and hear me: for I am needy and poor.
2. Preserve my soul, for I am holy: save thy servant, O Lord my God, that trusteth in thee.
3. Have mercy on me , O Lord, for I have cried to thee all the day.
4. Give joy to the soul of thy servant, for to thee, O Lord, have I lifted up my soul.
5. For thou, O Lord, art sweet and mild: amd plenteous in mercy to all that call upon thee.
6. Give ear, O Lord, to my prayer: and attend to the voice of my petition.
..................................................................................................................
17. Show me a token for good: that they who hate me may see, and be confounded, because thou, O Lord, hast helped and comforted me.

Hey Doug! #2

WHITEHOUSE GOV. BLOG:

Supports a Woman's Right to Choose: President Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority in his Adminstration. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in that case.

Preventing Unintended Pregnancy: President Obama was an original co-sponsor of legislation to expand access to contraception, health information, and preventive services to help reduce unintended pregnancies. Introduced in January 2007, the Prevention First Act will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods. The Act will also end insurance discrimination against contraception, improve awareness about emergency contraception, and provide compassionate assistance to rape victims.

Not exactly news, folks!
.

Hey Doug! #1

LifeNews :

...Officials with the incoming administration of Barack Obama have confirmed that he will indeed overturn a pro-life policy of President Bush on his first day in office. Despite campaigning on the rhetoric of wanting to reduce abortions, Obama will make one of his first actions promoting them globally.

Meanwhile, some 77 members of Congress have signed onto a letter asking Obama to back down from doing so.

President Bush used an executive order on his first day in office to reinstitute a pro-life policy that prevents forcing taxpayers to fund international groups that perform or promote abortions in other countries.

While U.S. law prohibits funding abortions directly, Bush's Mexico City Policy expands the law by also prohibiting the funding of pro-abortion groups that either do abortions overseas or lobby pro-life governments to sacrifice their abortion limits.

During the presidential election, pro-life groups issued a clarion call to voters telling them their tax money would be used if Obama were elected and saying he would likely reverse the Mexico City Policy immediately after taking office.

The capital publication Congressional Quarterly reports that top Washington officials tell it that the incoming president will reverse the pro-life measure on his first day as president, on Wednesday.

When Obama overturns the limits on global abortions, he will do so over the objections of dozens of members of Congress.

"As a new administration begins, it is our hope you will work, as you have pledged, to create a new era of bi-partisan cooperation. We urge you to continue the Mexico City Policy, which separates abortion and family planning in America's foreign aid programs," the bipartisan group of lawmakers wrote Obama on Friday...

I guess we'll see how far bio-fuel will take the 'pro-life' democrats!

Real Medicine - Spain

Truth Hurts

LifeSiteNews:

Madrid's Carlos III Hospital has provoked a controversy and a government investigation by distributing an informational pamphlet on sexuality that recommends abstinence from sexual intercourse until marriage, mentions that abortion ends a human life, and calls sodomy a "behavioral disturbance" that spreads disease and causes depression.

Although the statements in the pamphlet are conceded by much of the medical establishment and supported by peer-reviewed studies, Madrid's Health Director Juan Jose Guermes expressed outrage at its distribution, and promised a full investigation to determine who was responsible.

"That guide was expressly prohibited," Guermes told the media last week. “We are going to open a reserved informational file to counteract its distribution within the hospital."

Guermes claimed that the guide contained "personal opinions" of "only some" doctors at the Infectious Diseases unit of the hospital. However, he said, their opinions are "not official" and noted that the hospital, which has publicly disassociated itself from the document, had already removed it from circulation.

The pamphlet, a 53-page guide entitled, "Adolescents and AIDS: Questions and Answers," gives medical advice to readers regarding unhealthy sexual practices. It notes that scientific studies indicate that "homosexuality and heterosexuality are not comparable from a health perspective. Homosexuals tend to be more promiscuous, with the physical and emotional problems that (such behavior) supposes."

"Homosexuality is more frequently associated with sexually transmitted diseases and mental disturbances (anxiety, depression) ... it is necessary to be understanding and to help people with homosexual habits: to the extent that it is possible, it is necessary to resolve their behavioral disturbance."

Regarding abortion, the guide states that "although some legal systems, such as that in Spain, allow abortions under certain circumstances, from the biological point of view, abortion is nothing less than the termination of the life of a human being inside the womb of his mother."

The guide also repeats the fact, acknowledged by the United Nations, that condoms have a high failure rate, even when used "properly," stating that contraceptive use has "limited effectiveness" in the face of "the AIDS pandemic, which is growing rapidly." It also condemns the notion that "sex with a condom is safe" which, "besides being false, can be dangerous" because "it conveys messages that trivialize sexuality, encouraging the population to be promiscuous, in an animalistic way."

The pamphlet promotes the "ABC" approach that has been highly effective in Africa, particularly in Uganda. The ABC ("Abstinence, Be faithful, use a Condom") approach prioritizes abstinence and faithfulness due to their effectiveness in preventing the transmission of venereal diseases.

The Spanish newspaper El Mundo opined in its story on the case that the pamphlet "is filled with ideology that contradicts the most basic psychology. And democracy."

The Collective of Lesbians, Gays, Transsexuals, and Bisexuals of Madrid claims that the guide, "does not divulge scientific and objective information."

However, some segments of the commercial media have questioned the furor surrounding a pamphlet that generally conveys medical facts and counsels readers to recognize "true love" rather than cheap pleasure.

"It is necessary to ask if the Public Administration should focus almost exclusively on the most liberal tendencies that support abortion and sexual practices, like masturbation and promiscuity, and even homosexuality on occasion, or if they should also focus on that sector of society that supports a life based on love and faithfulness to one's partner, which in the final analysis is the only certain method for preventing 100% of these diseases?" writes Cristina Arredondo for Gaceta.

"Both the Carlos III (Hospital) and the City of Madrid have wanted to distance themselves from that guide ... why are they looking the other way?" writes El Pais in an editorial. "The fact that more than 75% of AIDS infections are produced by sexual transmission (either because of sick homosexuals or perverted heterosexuals) is a secondary issue. If these careless people knew about the scientific soundness of true love, they would have no doubt: chastity before condoms."

(I live for the day the New York Times prints an editorial like that!)

Don't Worry, Be Happy !

Mark Steyn at 'The Corner':

...if Aunt Zeituni had settled in Wasilla — say, in lodgings across the way from Bristol Palin's boyfriend's ex-girlfriend's uncle's sled dog's veterinarian's ammunition dealer — the fact that she's an "illegal immigrant" might have come out a lot sooner, even if only from the Atlantic Monthly investigative unit driving by and asking her whether Joe the Plumber had ever serviced Trig's real mother's double-wide.

On the other hand, what could be more American than an Undocumented First Family? If I'd known it was this easy, I'd have run myself.

I was away for much of the summer and, when I returned, the entire campaign felt like an absurd satire I wasn't quite up to speed on. But truly, in a world in which the many illegal foreign contributions to the leading candidate's unprecedented fundraising include his own deportation-ordered aunt, satire is dead.

By the way, one thing you can say for certain is that Aunt Zeituni's deportation order will never be enforced. Demanding proof of identity at polling stations, requiring address verification for credit-card contributions, getting hung up on foreigners donating to candidates, enforcing deportation orders . . . To raise such footling technicalities as "the law" is racist and so, in a squeamish politically correct culture, we let it slide, even as it corrupts the integrity of the democratic process and the defining act of a free society...

They just don't care....yet.