Life Is Worth Living, Inc

E-Letter #112, July 7, 2009

2009-07-07T06:56:00.001-05:00

Dear Members and Friends,

This 4th of July weekend found me reflecting on the glory days of our nation, when we truly were "one nation under God," striving for "liberty and justice for all." To spell out the betrayals of that legacy in this letter would be "preaching to the choir," so I will not indulge myself. We cannot go back. We must go forward with hope and courage. We can and must persevere in prayer for God's protection and blessings on our nation; for an end to abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, embryonic stem cell research, and all other murderous acts; for religious freedom and the consequent protection of conscience rights; for church and government leaders; and the list goes on.

Last month, our e-letter dealt with contraception, noting the anniversary of Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 U.S. Supreme Court decision which overturned the CT law prohibiting the sale and distribution of birth control drugs and devices. In order to gain a deeper understanding of this critical subject, I encourage you to read Contraception and Catholic Denial, the excellent article attached to this e-letter. Its author, Thomas Reynolds, teaches theology in the Diaconate Formation Program and presents the Pre-Cana Program - Theology of the Body - for the Archdiocese of New York. Tom is a friend of LWL and subscriber to our e-letter.

Next, an article By Phil Lawler in the latest Catholic Culture e-newsletter seems providential because, for several months, I have been contemplating revisiting a key bioethical issue -- "brain death." Dead or Alive: 'Brain Death,' the Vulnerable, and the Slippery Slope is a must-read. Simply click on this link:

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=329.

That's all for now. There will be no e-letter in August. I'm taking the rest of the summer off in order to get ready for our move to Texas in September. If you need to reach me for any reason, my cell phone number is 715-340-4308.

In the Sacred Heart,

Julie Grimstad

Executive Director

E-Letter #111, June 11, 2009

2009-06-11T16:26:00.001-05:00

Dear Members and Friends,

It has been several months since I sent you an "official" e-letter. I assume you have been inundated lately with a lot of bad news, just as I have been. As an antidote, this e-letter contains uplifting news. But first, I have some personal news.

My husband and I have bought a small townhome near Fort Worth, Texas (in the town of Bedford to be precise) and have put our house in Wisconsin on the market. We have many reasons for moving back to Texas after almost 10 years in beautiful Wisconsin. Chief among them are our wish to live near our four young grandchildren and my husband's growing dislike of the cold Wisconsin winters. During this transition, if you need to call me for any reason, my cell phone number is 715-342-4249.

Now, the good news:

Six years ago, Pro-Life Wisconsin (PLW) came up with the idea to observe the anniversary of Griswold v. Connecticut with rallies throughout the state. (In 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Connecticut law that prohibited the sale and distribution of birth control drugs and devices. For more information, see the article below my signature.) That first year, handfuls of people turned out to hold signs and pray together, publicly demonstrating their opposition to contraception and educating the public about the dangers of birth control drugs and devices. The magnitude of what has happened since is awe-inspiring. American Life League took this idea to a national level with PROTEST THE PILL DAY. The observance has now spread to 21 states and four countries.

This year, I was honored to be invited to address the group that rallied in Stevens Point, Wisconsin to observe the 44th anniversary of Griswold v. Connecticut. This group, consisting of families with small children, young adults and grandparents, holds a prayer rally every Wednesday in front of the family planning office near the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point. Organized by the Servants of Our Lady of Guadalupe, a pro-life apostolate in the Diocese of La Crosse, Wisconsin, these faithfilled and faithful people, in the words of Pope John Paul II, "proclaim the Gospel of life with

honesty and love to the people of our time."

I ended my talk to this inspiring group of people with these words: "I have a plaque in my kitchen that says 'Work for the Lord. The pay isn't much, but the benefits are out of this world.' May God richly reward you for your faithfulness. THANK YOU!!"

In the Sacred Heart,

Julie Grimstad

Executive Director

THE TRUTH ABOUT CONTRACEPTION

Sunday, June 7^th, marked the 44^th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut which struck down a Connecticut law that prohibited the sale and distribution of birth control drugs and devices. Chief Justice Steven Douglas cited a so-called constitutional "right to privacy" which he claimed to find in the "penumbras, formed by emanations" of the Bill of Rights.

This vague notion of privacy would later be cited in Roe v. Wade, as justification for allowing abortion on demand; in "right to die" cases permitting death by starvation and dehydration; and in numerous other court decisions, such as those endorsing homosexual "marriage."

Griswold v. CT was the first of many court decisions that led to the culture of death we live in today. One of the talks I frequently give is called "From Birth Control to Death Control," an outline of the step-by-step development of the culture of death in America beginning with the legalization and widespread acceptance of contraception.

Those of us who know that contraception is a moral evil which leads to other evils, often shrink from our duty to tell others the truth. Why? Because birth control is a sacred cow that even many in the pro-life movement refuse to call by its proper name: EVIL. Those of us who do speak out against birth control are often ridiculed as "so radical that they even oppose birth control." In the eyes of the world, we are fools.

What hurts, though, is not when Planned Parenthood-types ridicule us. We expect that. What hurts is when those who call themselves pro-life refuse to acknowledge that contraception is the root of the culture of death and who, like our enemies, call us "radical" and "impractical" for wanting to outlaw contraceptive drugs and devices.

Some people scoff at us; others think we are naïve. But we must never be afraid to look people in the eye and tell them exactly what we believeand why we believe it. In order to do that, we must KNOW WHY contraception is wrong and that takes a bit of studying. We must do our homework.

Recent polls indicate that we are making headway in convincing the public that abortion is an evil that should be outlawed. Contraception is another matter. If we shrink from linking contraception to abortion and a host of other evils, we are responsible for the fact that most of our fellow citizens are blind to the evil of contraception and, indeed, contracept without giving it a second thought.

Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood's founder, once stated, "The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its members is to kill it." The evidence seems to convict many Christians of having the same anti-child mentality. Have you ever heard anyone in your church say, "I can't handle more than two children"? Or, when a couple has announced that they are having another child, "Will this be your last?" Whatever happened to "Congratulations!"?

The number one reason a woman aborts her child is that the child is an inconvenience. When we use birth control, we are embracing the same anti-life mentality. In fact, many birth control drugs and devices are abortifacients. How many people know that? It's a work of mercy to instruct the ignorant.

We must understand that, through the ages, all Christian churches have consistently opposed birth control. Only in the last 80 years have Protestant churches peddled the notion that birth control is okay, even good. When did God rescind his command to "be fruitful and multiply"? Is it any wonder that so many Protestant churches do not oppose abortion? The mentality that rationalizes disobeying God's command to "be fruitful and multiply" is the same mentality that rationalizes disobeying His command "you shall not kill."

The Catholic Church is the only Christian body that continues to teach that contraception is profoundly unlawful and is never, for any reason, justified. To say the contrary is equal to saying that situations may arise in which it is permissible to make up our own rules as we go along, that is, to pretend that we are God. And, that is precisely the Pandora's Box that the Supreme Court opened with its decision in Griswold v. Connecticut.

Julie Grimstad

6/7/09

Catholic Medical Association protests funding Embryonic Stem Cell Research

2009-03-11T10:30:00.001-05:00

Dear Members,

Below is the text of CMA's Press Release responding to President Obama's revocation of the Bush policy regarding human embryonic stem cell research -- a policy that provided ethical limits, but not a ban, on federal funding.

A formatted copy of the Press Release is also attached. Please circulate this far and wide.

Thanks.

John F. Brehany, Ph.D., S.T.L.
Executive Director and Ethicist

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: John Brehany, Ph.D., S.T.L. Executive Director & Ethicist
Catholic Medical Association
215-877-9099; info@cathmed.org

CMA Protests Obama Executive Order
Funding Life-Destroying Embryonic Stem Cell Research

DATELINE March 10, 2009 The Catholic Medical Association (CMA) protests President Obama's March 9, 2009, executive order providing taxpayer funding for research that destroys the lives of human embryos. This decision demonstrates a disregard for human life, for the beliefs of millions of Americans, and for the lives and health of those suffering from devastating diseases and injuries.

CMA President Louis C. Breschi, M.D., stated, "It is very unfortunate that, at a time when ethical options are showing greater promise than ever, and when the nation's economy is suffering, President Obama would direct more taxpayer dollars into scientific research that is unethical, ineffective, unworkable, and unnecessary."

John F. Brehany, Ph.D., CMA's executive director, explained further: "President Obama's radical new policy is unethical because human beingsat the embryonic stage of lifeare being destroyed in the name of curing disease. It is ineffective because human embryonic stem cell research has no demonstrated success in treating diseases, despite receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in federal, state, and private funding. Basing therapies on human embryonic stem cells is unworkable because it will require obtaining human eggs from thousands of womena painful, dangerous, and expensive process. And finally, destroying human embryos is unnecessary. Not only have adult stem cell (ASC) therapies demonstrated real-life success in treating dozens of diseases, but new induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) techniques have created cells with all the properties of embryonic stem cellswithout destroying human lives to obtain them."

President Obama's action belies the language of consensus, high ideals, and scientific objectivity in which it is wrapped. For, at the same he overturned the executive order limiting federal funding to those embryonic stem cell lines created before August 9, 2001, President Obama also revoked, without comment, a June 20, 2007, executive order (no. 13435) encouraging the National Institutes of Health to promote research into clinically effective alternative sources of stem cell linessources that do not depend on destroying human life.

Finally, while President Obama claimed that he would reject "cloning for human reproduction," he failed to acknowledge that he actually supports human cloningfor therapy and research. His policy provides taxpayer funding for a new industry dedicated to creating and destroying human lives in labs.

The Catholic Medical Association is the nation's largest professional organization of Catholic physicians. To learn more about the CMA and its publications, go to www.cathmed.org.

E-Letter #110, January 19, 2009

2009-01-19T15:02:00.001-06:00

Dear Members and Friends,

On this inauguration eve, there is much that needs to be said, but I am almost -- not quite -- tongue-tied. Having put off writing this e-letter until the last possible moment in the search for encouraging words, I was rescued just yesterday by member Mardie who sent information about the First 100 Days Prayer Campaign. Nothing could be more encouraging than knowing we can join many other Christians in praying for President Obama's conversion concerning the right to life, etc. For more details, see the flyers at http://www.ahumbleplea.com/Docs/100Rosaries.pdf, which you may also print and distribute. There are two flyers: one for Catholics and one for non-Catholic Christians.

As you may know, my main area of pro-life work is combating euthanasia and assisted suicide (imposed death after a person is born). I have just finished helping rewrite a 12-page newspaper supplement called Imposed Death: Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide which is produced and distributed by Human Life Alliance. The updated supplement will be released in March, but you can still read the old version at www.humanlife.org. Physician-assisted suicide has been legally practiced in Oregon since 1997, but has recently been legalizedl in both Washington, by a vote of the people, and in Montana, by a judge legislating from the bench. Read all about these revolting developments in items 1 and 2.

Hopefully some of you will be in Washington D.C. for the March for Life. Dress warm. I'll be with you in spirit, spending January 22nd in adoration at St. Peter Catholic Church in Stevens Point, WI.

Finally, I leave you with the good news. On January 15th, President Bush proclaimed January 18, 2009 to be National Sanctity of Human Life Day. He declared, "The sanctity of human life is written in the hearts of all men and women. On this day and throughout the year, we aspire to build a society in which every child is welcome in life and protected in law. We also encourage more of our fellow Americans to join our just and noble cause. History tells us that with a cause rooted in our deepest principles and appealing to the best instincts of our citizens, we will prevail." Hear! Hear!

In the Sacred Heart,

Julie Grimstad

Executive Director

Item 1. Washington Voters Approve Physician-Assisted Suicide

On November 4, 2008, Washington became the second state to legalize PAS. 59% of voters approved Initiative 1000, modeled on Oregon's law. The new law is set to take effect in July 2009.

It is heartening to report that the Washington State Medical Association is outspoken in its opposition to PAS and Eastern Washington's largest hospital system, Providence Health and Services, will forbid physicians from helping patients die at any of its facilities. Compassion & Choices (C&C) and Death With Dignity National Center (DDNC), the groups that led the campaign, refuse to use the "s" word (suicide). They reject the term "physician-assisted suicide" and instead urge the use of more appealing terms like "death with dignity" and "aid-in-dying," but Washington's medical providers aren't stupid. Self-killing, even with a doctor's help, is suicide and legalization of assisted suicide does not turn a crime into a nice medical treatment.

Item 2. The Legalization of Assisted Suicide in Montana

On December 5, 2009, Montana District Court judge Dorothy McCarter ruled that the state law banning assisted suicide violates both the right to privacy guaranteed in the Montana constitution and the constitutional clause that reads, "The dignity of the human being is inviolable." The judge, in essense, found a "fundamental right" to die--that is, to commit suicide with a legally provided drug overdose. Whatever happened to the inviolable right to life?

Here are blogs explaining the situation in Montana:

http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2009/01/montana-legalizes-assisted-suicide-by.html

http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2009/01/judicial-tyranny-in-montana.html

THE END

Common sense needed at last stage of life

2009-01-12T11:01:00.001-06:00

by Julie Grimstad

The Catholic Times, January 8, 2009

It is virtually impossible to escape all the death talk in the media with its focus on worst case medical scenarios and perplexing treatment options. In spite of all the hype that leads people to feel overwhelmed or frightened by medical decision-making when they or their loved ones are seriously ill or near death, not every such situation involves wrestling with difficult dilemmas. Plain old common sensealong with accurate informationmay be all that is needed to make a person's last stage of life as good as possible.

For instance, Nancy Valko, an intensive care nurse, recalls: I once cared for Mary (not her real name), an older woman who was near death with cancer. Her loving family took her to the doctor when she became confused and severely short of breath. An x-ray showed a fluid build-up near her lungs. The doctor inserted a long needle, aspirated the fluid and Mary immediately improved. Still worried, the family asked me what they should do if the fluid built up again because they were afraid that this would prolong her death. I told them that the primary question now was comfort. If, for example, fluid did slowly build up again but Mary was comfortable, it could be burdensome to aspirate the fluid. However, if Mary did develop severe breathing problems that could not be controlled by medication, they might want to consider another aspiration since the goal was to make Mary as comfortable as possible during the short time she had left. "Why, that's just common sense!" her daughter exclaimed. Exactly!

[http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/val/val_31commonsense.html]

Sometimes, because it is assumed that a person is dying, other possibilities are overlooked. For example, when an elderly person doesn't feel well or eats very little, his doctor and family may think he is dying of old age and look no further. However, poor nutrition, depression, loneliness, and other reasons for the person's condition should be explored. The solution can be as simple as better nutrition, antidepressants, visitors or a pet. A thorough medical examination may also reveal treatable physical problems. If the person is truly dying, he or she will die with or without interventions. But it is gratifying for all concerned when an elderly person makes a remarkable recovery after his or her true needs are identified and met.

If a time comes when it is impossible to heal or cure, we do not deliberately hasten death. We do what we can to meet the person's physical, emotional, social and spiritual needs. We lovingly care for the terminally ill person until death comes naturally.

Patients who want potentially effective treatment should not be denied it even when there is only a faint hope of curing or extending life. Extraordinary or experimental treatments can be tried with the option of stopping them if they don't produce the hoped for results.

A balanced view rejects intentionally causing death while it accepts the morally sound decision to stop medical interventions that are ineffective, harmful, extremely burdensome to the patient or overly zealous. It's just common sense.

Dedication of the Memorial to the Unborn

2008-12-01T14:47:00.000-06:00

Dedication of the Memorial to the Unborn

Source: Pro-Life Wisconsin's Monday Update, December 1, 2008

Archbishop Burke

The Dedication of the Memorial to the Unborn at the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe in La Crosse will be December 12, feast day of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Archbishop Raymond L. Burke will perform the dedication at 10 a.m. Archbishop Burke will say Mass at 11 a.m. Archbishop Burke is the founder of the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe and currently Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura in Rome.

"Join us for this very memorable moment as we dedicate the newest and most important Memorial to the Unborn," said Sister Christa Marie, director of the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe. "The Memorial will help pilgrims know the teaching of the Catholic Church on such life issues as contraception, abortion and embryonic research."

For more information, go to http://www.guadalupeshrine.org/Home/FeastDay.htm or call (608) 782-5440.

E-Letter #109, November 16, 2008

2008-11-16T19:51:00.001-06:00

Dear Members and Friends,

We lost some big ones this election. From abortion to assisted suicide, the news is very bad. However, even while we are still licking our wounds, we must pick ourselves up and strive more diligently than ever to build a culture of life. The culture of death may hold the high ground for a time with Barack Obama and the pro-abortion party in control of our government, but ultimately the adversaries of life--or, more precisely, the proponents of the right to kill defenseless human beings--will lose the war. The final victory belongs to our all-powerful God.

History attests to the fact that followers of Christ never despair. We respect and protect the powerless and oppressed in season and out of season. The bleakest period in recent history--the rise of Hitler and National Socialism--was also a shining hour for the Church. Under the merciless Nazi regime, man's inhumanity to man was simply too horrible to contemplate, and so many turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the Holocaust. The Church did not.

The Catholic Church, led by the heroic Vicar of Christ, saved hundreds of thousands of Jews from certain death. When Pope Pius XII died fifty years ago, Jewish leaders from around the world paid tribute to him. Pinchas Lapide, an Israeli official who researched the Yad Vashem archives, suggested that 860,000 trees be planted in the hills of Judea to honor the pope--one for every Jewish person he saved.

In 1940, Albert Einstein declared: "Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing the truth." In 1941, a New York Times editorial paid tribute to this pope: "The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness of Europe this Christmas." In 1944, the chief rabbi of Jerusalem stated: "The people of Israel will never forget what His Holiness and his illustrious delegates...are doing for our unfortunate brothers and sisters in the most tragic hour of our history, which is living proof of Divine Providence in the world."

My friends, Divine Providence has not deserted the world in this dark hour. The Church and all its members are God's Providence for the world. We may not be able to save every life endangered by the culture of death, but we can spend ourselves trying to protect them all and promoting equal justice for all--from conception until natural death--until God secures His victory.

In the Sacred Heart,

Julie Grimstad

Executive Director

Source of information about Pope Pius XII: Catholic League advertisement in the New York Times, October 9, 2008, the 50th anniversary of the death of Pius XII.

Link to view No on I-1000 TV ads

2008-11-02T16:21:00.001-06:00

If you haven't given much thought to what legalized physician-assisted suicide really means, please watch these powerful videos and tell others to link to this website and view them. In particular, if you have friends or relatives in Washington State, advise them to check out these ads. The elections are Tuesday. Please pray for the defeat of I-1000 in Washington.

The No on I-1000 TV ads are available for viewing at: http://www.noassistedsuicide.com/video.html

E-Letter #108, October 29, 2008

2008-10-29T19:33:00.000-05:00

Dear Members and Friends,

The United States of America is at a critical juncture. Will we elect men and women to public office who are pro-life or pro-death? I do not think it is hyperbole to say that this election will determine the fate of our nation and affect the whole world.

The items in this E-Letter highlight the recent pronouncements made by numerous Catholic bishops in the U.S. regarding how Catholics should determine which candidates to vote for in the upcoming election. I urge you to share these messages from our good shepherds with everyone you know.

You may never again in your lifetime be given an opportunity like this--the opportunity to be genuinely instrumental in securing legal protection for every human life and legal recognition of the personhood of every human being from conception (fertilization) to natural death..

My good friend and mentor, the late Dr. Joseph R. Stanton, used to cite an ancient Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times." Then he would explain that it is not a curse, but a blessing, to be able to serve God and man in interesting times. These, my friends, are interesting times. I encourage you to ask yourself, "How will I best serve God and man at this momentous time in history?"

In the Sacred Heart,

Julie Grimstad

Executive Director

Item 1. Bishop Robert W. Finn (Kansas City-St. Joseph), in the newspaper of his diocese, October 24, wrote, "Together with the other Bishops of Missouri, I am calling on all the faithful to make this last week before the election a week of prayer for our nation--a week of prayer for the protection of Human Life." He added, "Join me in calling upon Mary in this month of the rosary. In 1571, in the midst of the Battle of Lepanto, when the future of Christian Europe was in the balance and the odds against them were overwhelming, prayer to Our Lady of the Rosary brought the decisive victory. We ask her now to watch over our country and bring us the victory of life."

Item 2. Bishop Robert J. Hermann (current administrator--Archdiocese of St. Louis), in the St. Louis Review, October 17, wrote a column entitled "I Thought You Should Know." He began, "More than anything else, this election is about saving our children or killing our children. This life issue is the overriding issue facing each of us in this coming election. All other issues, including the economy, have to take second place to the issue of life." He started the first 13 paragraphs with the plea "Save our children!" in bold letters. The last paragraph, he started with "Prayer is our protection."

Bishop Hermann confronted "so-called good Catholics," asking questions which should sear the conscience of anyone calling himself/herself Catholic who is tempted to vote for pro-abortion candidates. For instance, "Do some of our so-called good Catholics, who may go to Mass every Sunday and receive the Holy Eucharist, really believe that voting for a pro-abortion candidate, when there is a clear alternative and therefore no justifiable reason for so doing, is really not voting to have children killed?"

Bishop Hermann's entire article can be read online at http://www.catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=30126&section=Cathcom.

Item 3. Over 80 Bishops Say Abortion/Life Issues Defining Issues of Election

An article by Tim Waggoner published by LifeSiteNews.com, October 27, 2008, ought to make every faithful Catholic stand up and cheer. Waggoner wrote, "A comprehensive list compiled by InsideCatholic.com reveals that more than 80 U.S. bishops have proclaimed abortion and the life issues to be the defining issues in the upcoming election, including 22 bishops who signed on to a joint statement by the New York bishops, and another 10 bishops who signed on to a Pennsylvania joint statement." To read the full article, click here http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/oct/08102710.html.

LET US PRAY that the determination of Catholic bishops to reach Catholic voters at this 11th hour pays off!

THE END

GET THE PICTURE?

2008-10-26T20:09:00.001-05:00

Here is a powerful picture and commentary from Cardinal Egan.

www.cny.org/archive/eg/eg102308.htm

One day, please God, when the stranglehold on public opinion in the United States has been released by the extremists for whom abortion is the center of their political and moral life, our nation will, in my judgment, look back on what we have been doing to innocent human beings within their mothers as a crime no less heinous than what was approved by the Supreme Court in the "Dred Scott Case" in the 19th century, and no less heinous than what was perpetrated by Hitler and Stalin in the 20th. There is nothing at all complicated about the utter wrongness of abortion, and making it all seem complicated mitigates that wrongness not at all. On the contrary, it intensifies it. -- Edward Cardinal Egan, Archbishop of New York

URGENT APPEAL: HELP DEFEAT THE WASHINGTON ASSISTED SUICIDE INITIATIVE

2008-10-20T13:44:00.003-05:00

Initiative 1000 is a proposal to legalize assisted suicide in the state of Washington. Nightly polls are showing that the No on I-1000 campaign is not only in a dead heat with the proponents' campaign, but is actually pulling ahead! With your help, this dangerous initiative CAN BE DEFEATED.

Opponents of assisted suicide are making gains because of their media campaign. TV and radio ads, especially those featuring the actor Martin Sheen, are alerting voters to the dangers inherent in a state endorsing assisted suicide as a medical treatment.

More money is needed to continue these ads in the last week of the campaign. Even small donations will make a big difference in getting the truth about assisted suicide to Washington voters in time.

Also, Margaret Dore, a lawyer and very active member on the No on I-1000 campaign, is asking people to write opposition letters to Washington publications and on-line blogs. It doesn't matter if you are not a Washington resident.

If you or anyone you know would be interested in donating to this urgent cause or in writing letters, please contact Julie Grimstad at juliegrimstad@yahoo.com.

For more information, visit the website of the Washington State Coalition Against Assisted Suicide: http://noassistedsuicide.com/

Thanks.

Julie

Obama Distorts His Abortion Record

2008-10-16T10:04:00.003-05:00

San Joaquin ProLife Council sent this report to Life is Worth Living, Inc.

"Sweeping Pro-abortion Policy Changes," by NRLC's Douglas Johnson (from National Review Online) and "Obama's Abortion Extremism" by Robert P. George, professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University (from Public Discourse).

What follows is a release from the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) in Washington, D.C., issued Thursday, October 16, 2008, at 10 AM EDT. For further information, contact NRLC at 202-626-8820 or 202-626-8825, or send e-mail to Legfederal@aol.com. Please forward this e-mail to any appropriate lists.

Obama Distorts His Abortion Record In Third Debate

WASHINGTON -- "On partial-birth abortion and on the rights of infants who survive abortions, Barack Obama's answers in the third presidential debate were highly misleading," commented Douglas Johnson, longtime legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the nation's largest pro-life organization.

-- The Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) was a simple three-sentence bill to establish that every baby who achieved "complete expulsion or extraction" from the mother, and who showed defined signs of life, was to enjoy the legal protections of a "person." As a state senator, Obama led the opposition to this bill in 2001, 2002, and 2003. On March 13, 2003, Obama killed the bill at a committee meeting over which he presided as chairman. In the October 15 debate, Obama said, "The fact is that there was already a law on the books in Illinois that required providing lifesaving treatment." This claim is highly misleading. The law "on the books," 720 ILCS 510.6, on its face, applies only where an abortionist declares before the abortion that there was "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb." But humans are often born alive a month or more before they reach the point where such "sustained survival" – that is, long-term survival – is likely or possible (which is often called the point of "viability"). When Obama spoke against the BAIPA on the Illinois Senate floor in 2001 -- the only senator to do so -- he didn't even claim that the BAIPA was duplicative of existing law. Rather, he objected to defining what he called a "previable fetus" as a legal "person" -- even though the bill clearly applied only to fully born infants. These events are detailed in an August 28, 2008 NRLC White Paper titled "Barack Obama's Actions and Shifting Claims on the Protection of Born-Alive Aborted Infants -– and What They Tell Us About His Thinking on Abortion," which contains numerous hyperlinks to primary sources.

-- Because 720 ILCS 510.6 gives complete discretion to the abortionist himself, and because a 1993 consent decree issued by a federal court nullified key provisions (such as the definition of "born alive"), the law was so riddled with loopholes as to be virtually unenforceable even with respect to babies who had clearly achieved the capacity for long-term survival. During Obama's time in the state Senate there were bills (other than the BAIPA) to close some of these loopholes in order to provide more effective protections for post-viable abortion survivors. Obama opposed those bills, too. On April 4, 2002, Obama opposed a bill (SB 1663) that would have more strictly defined the circumstances under which the presence of a second physician (to care for a live-born baby) would be required during a post-viability abortion; Obama argued that this would "burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion . . . [I]t's important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births."

-- In the debate, Obama said that the state BAIPA "would have helped to undermine Roe v. Wade." To evaluate this claim, one must examine the actual language of the BAIPAs. The original 2001 bill was only three sentences long; the third sentence was as follows: "(c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law." As recently as August 19, 2008, the Obama campaign issued a memo in which it singled out that sentence as "Language Clearly Threatening Roe." This claim is consistent with Obama's 2001 argument that a "previable fetus" should not be regarded as a person, even when born alive.

-- At the March 13, 2003 committee meeting over which Obama presided, the "immediate protection" clause was removed and replaced with the "neutrality clause" copied from the federal BAIPA, which said explicitly that the bill had no bearing on the legal status of any human "prior to being being born alive." Obama then led the committee Democrats in voting down the bill, anyway. For years afterwards, Obama claimed that the state BAIPA had lacked the "neutrality clause," and on August 16, 2008, Obama said that NRLC was "lying" when we said otherwise. This dispute was reviewed by both FactCheck.org and Politifact.org, both of which came down on NRLC's side. To read the original 2001 Illinois BAIPA side-by-side with the amended 2003 version -- both of which Obama voted against -- click here.

-- In the presidential debate, Senator John McCain accurately noted that Obama had opposed Illinois legislation to ban partial-birth abortions. This is true -- indeed, during his primary contest with Hillary Clinton, Obama's supporters presented detailed accounts lauding his leadership in opposing legislation to ban partial-birth abortion, afford legal protection to born-alive babies, and require parental notification for abortion. (Under Article IV, Section 8 of the Illinois Constitution, the effect of voting "present" on the Illinois Senate floor is exactly the same as voting "no.") In his response to McCain in the debate, Obama said, "I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, partial-birth or otherwise, as long as there's an exception for the mother's health and life, and this did not contain that exception." Here, Obama packed two distortions into a single sentence. First, Obama is using the phrase "late term" to refer to the third trimester of pregnancy. It has long been established that the great majority of partial-birth abortions are performed in the fifth and sixth months; these are babies developed enough to be born alive (hence the term "partial birth"), but are not "late term" in the sense that the phrase is used by pro-abortion advocates. Secondly, the Supreme Court has defined the term "health" to include, in the abortion context, "all factors -- physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age -- relevant to the well-being of the patient."

-- Obama is a cosponsor of the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA) (S. 1173), which would nullify all state and federal laws that "interfere with" access to abortion before "viability" (as defined by the abortionist). The bill would also nullify all state and federal laws that "interfere with" access to abortion after viability if deemed to enhance "health." Because the term "health" is not qualified in the bill, no state would be allowed to exclude any "health" justification whatever for post-viability abortions, because to do so would impermissibly narrow a federally guaranteed right. In short, the FOCA would establish a federal "abortion right" broader than Roe v. Wade and, in the words of the National Organization for Women, "sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies." The chief sponsors and advocacy groups backing the legislation have acknowledged that it would make partial-birth abortion legal again, nullify state parental notification laws, and require the state and federal governments to fund abortions.

-- Speaking to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund on July 17, 2007, Obama said, "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do."

-- In the presidential debate, Obama said, "But there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together" -- for example, by "helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby." Yet, Obama advocates cutting off all federal aid to crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs). Across the nation, CPCs provide all manner of assistance to women who are experiencing crisis pregnancies, and they save the lives of many children. There is a very modest amount of federal funding going to such centers in some states. Pro-life lawmakers have pushed legislation to greatly expand such funding, but it has been blocked by lawmakers allied with the abortion lobby. Late in 2007, RHrealitycheck.org, a prominent pro-abortion advocacy website (representing the side hostile to such funding), submitted in writing the following question to the Obama campaign: "Does Sen. Obama support continuing federal funding for crisis pregnancy centers?" The Obama campaign's written response was short, but it spoke volumes: "No."

***

For additional information on Obama's sweeping pro-abortion agenda, read "Efforts to Sell Obama to Pro-Life Americans_Collide With His Support for Sweeping Pro-abortion Policy Changes," by NRLC's Douglas Johnson (from National Review Online) and "Obama's Abortion Extremism" by Robert P. George, professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University

Pro-Life Memorial Day Octobor 6th

2008-09-30T13:12:00.001-05:00

Since the U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton in 1973, 49,640,776 babies have been surgically and medically aborted millions more have been killed chemically. This staggering death toll is the direct result of these two decisions.

On the first Monday in October, the U.S. Supreme Court begins its new term. This is a day on which pro-lifers across the nation will mourn the victims of America's hidden holocaust: abortion. American Life League will hold a vigil at the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. on the morning of October 6th to remind the Justices of the day that will live in infamy: January 22, 1973--the anniversary of the Court's decisions that permitted this slaughter of the innocents.

Find out what activities are planned to mourn the victims of abortion in your state or community and get involved. If you cannot take part in an organized event, honor the children killed by surgical and chemical abortion by praying privately or with your family for an end to abortion and for the salvation of the souls of all who have been/are involved in procuring or perforning abortions.

E-Letter #107, September 29, 2008

2008-09-29T15:58:00.000-05:00

Dear Members and Friends,

In the encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), Pope John Paul II stated: "Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. From the very beginnings of the Church, the apostolic preaching reminded Christians of their duty to obey legitimately constituted public authorities (cf. Rom. 13:1-7; I Pet. 2:13-14), but at the same time it firmly warned that we must obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29)" (no. 73).

I call this particular passage from Evangelium Vitae to your attention because of two crucially important threats to our basic God-given rights as enumerated in the Declaration of Independence: LIFE and LIBERTY.

How these undermine the right to life will be obvious as soon as these threats are named. How they undermine liberty will become clear as you read items 1 and 2. These are truly "times that try men's souls." Please pray for the defeat of the Culture of Death.

In the Sacred Heart,

Julie Grimstad

Executive Director

Item 1. FOCA

Last week, Cardinal Rigali's Letter to Congress Regarding the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) was posted on our website (www.lifeisworthliving.com). I hope you will read and reflect on Cardinal Rigali's strongly worded letter. Here is a tidbit: "Despite its deceptive title, FOCA would deprive the American people in all 50 states of the freedom they now have to enact modest restraints and regulations on the abortion industry. FOCA would coerce all Americans into subsidizing and promoting abortion with their tax dollars. And FOCA would counteract any and all sincere efforts by government to reduce abortions in our country."

FOCA is an attempt to create a "fundamental right" to abortion throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy. That is more extreme even than Roe v. Wade, and, in fact, will mean that existing laws which restrict or regulate abortion will be unenforceable. Senator Obama supports FOCA and promises, if he is elected president, to sign it into law.

How can we protect the rights of all to life and liberty when, if this bill becomes law, all American taxpayers will be coerced into supporting the most heinous of moral crimes? Also, as Cardinal Rigali points out, this bill insists that every program supporting women in childbirth and child care must support abortion. This means that no one who works in these programs would be exempt from promoting abortion.

FOCA must be stopped! If it should become law, then as Christians we will be morally obliged to "obey God rather than men," whatever the personal suffering we may have to endure for opposing this evil.

Item 2. Washington State Assisted Suicide Initiative (I-1000) -- Bad News and Hopeful News

On November 4, 2008 Washington voters will go to the polls to decide whether or not to make it legal for doctors to help sick people kill themselves. The results of the latest SurveyUSA poll, conducted last week, are bad news. 49% of likely voters say they are certain to vote "Yes" on I-1000; 24% are certain to vote "No"; 26% are not certain, but the majority of them are leaning toward a "Yes" vote.

The hopeful news is that, today, the Coalition Against Assisted Suicide announced it has started a $750,000 broadcast advertising campaign featuring actor Martin Sheen. Sheen's concern for vulnerable people is the reason he is against assisted suicide: "We have a health care system where the more money you have, the better medical care you receive. Initiative 1000 is a dangerous idea -- because so many people do not have the money necessary to get the care they need. When I heard about Initiative 1000, I wanted to help stop it before it harms people who are at risk."

Eileen Geller, R.N., B.S.N., the Coalition Against Assisted Suicide campaign coordinator, was quoted in the Coalition's news release: "It is absolutely crucial that voters understand the very real implications of I-1000. Most people in Washington don't even know that I-1000 is on the ballot this November, and ballots will be mailed in the next three weeks."

According to Geller, the ads point out some of the major flaws in the proposed law:

Spouses and family members do not need to be told before -- or after -- a loved one is given lethal drugs.
Persons suffering from depression can be given a lethal overdose without any psychological counseling or treatment -- nothing in the initiative requires an assessment of potential depression by a qualified professional.
Health care insurers and HMO's could exploit I-1000 to save costs, since a bottle of lethal drugs costs far less than other end-of-life care.
Heirs to a patient's estate are allowed to participate in the assisted suicide and to witness the request for lethal drugs. This would contravene existing practice governing wills and estates, a scenario that worries law enforcement because of the real potential for abuse.

The Coalition Against Assisted Suicide is working hard to raise more money to fund an even larger media buy, but still expects to be outspent at least three-to-one by proponents of physician-assisted suicide.

For information about how to help the Washington State Coalition Against Assisted Suicide:
http://noassistedsuicide.com/
Coalition Against Assisted Suicide
P.O. Box 11794
Olympia WA 98508
206-337-2091

THE END

Cardinal Rigali's Letter to Congress Regarding the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA)

2008-09-26T19:44:00.001-05:00

"We cannot reduce abortions by insisting that every program supporting women in childbirth and child care must also support abortion." -- Cardinal Justin Rigali

_____

Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities

3211 Fourth Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20017-1194

(202)541-3071 FAX (202)541-3054 TELEX 7400424

September 19, 2008

Dear Member of Congress:

As the 110th Congress returns for its final weeks of legislative activity, the Catholic bishops of the United States are gravely concerned about any possible consideration of the "Freedom of Choice Act" ("FOCA," S. 1173 and H.R. 1964). Pro-abortion groups and some of the bill's congressional sponsors have said they want this legislation enacted soon.

Despite its deceptive title, FOCA would deprive the American people in all 50 states of the freedom they now have to enact modest restraints and regulations on the abortion industry. FOCA would coerce all Americans into subsidizing and promoting abortion with their tax dollars. And FOCA would counteract any and all sincere efforts by government to reduce abortions in our country.

The operative language of FOCA is twofold. First it creates a "fundamental right" to abortion throughout the nine months of pregnancy, including a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined "health" reasons. No government body at any level would be able to "deny or interfere with" this newly created federal right. Second, it forbids government at all levels to "discriminate" against the exercise of this right "in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information." For the first time, abortion on demand would be a national entitlement that government must condone and promote in all public programs affecting pregnant women.

While some supporters have said FOCA would simply "codify" the Supreme Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, their own statements disprove this assertion. FOCA was introduced the day after the Supreme Court's decision in Gonzales v. Carhart, which upheld the federal ban on partial-birth abortions within the bounds of Roe with FOCA's sponsors declaring that its primary purpose is to counteract this ruling and ensure that the grisly killing of partly-born children will once again be permitted nationwide. Sponsors also acknowledge that FOCA will require all Americans to support abortion with their state and federal tax dollars despite a long line of Supreme Court decisions, consistent with Roe, upholding bans on public funding since 1975.

The National Organization for Women (NOW), in its materials supporting FOCA, has declared that it "would sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies" laws and policies that are in effect today because they do not conflict with Roe. These include modest and widely supported state laws to protect women from unscrupulous and dangerous abortionists (including those who are not licensed physicians), ensure informed consent, protect parental rights in the case of minors undergoing abortions, and so on. The extreme and unprecedented scope of the "fundamental right" created by this bill is more fully documented in the attached legal analysis from the USCCB Office of General Counsel.

In recent months the national debate on abortion has taken a turn that may be productive. Members of both parties have sought to reach a consensus on ways to reduce abortions in our society. It is well documented, for example, that even modest abortion regulations such as public funding bans and laws protecting parental rights can substantially reduce abortions. Because many women have testified that they are pressured toward abortion by social and economic hardships, bipartisan legislation providing practical support to help women carry their pregnancies to term, such as the Pregnant Women Support Act (S. 2407, H.R. 3192), deserves Congress's attention. By contrast, there is considerable evidence that programs promoting contraceptive mandates and "emergency contraception" generally do not reduce abortions (see www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/contraception/index.shtml#2).

However, there is one thing absolutely everyone should be able to agree on: We can't reduce abortions by promoting abortion. We cannot reduce abortions by invalidating the very laws that have been shown to reduce abortions. We cannot reduce abortions by insisting that every program supporting women in childbirth and child care must also support abortion. No one who sponsors or supports legislation like FOCA can credibly claim to be part of a good-faith discussion on how to reduce abortions.

Therefore I urge all members of Congress to pledge their opposition to FOCA and other legislation designed to promote abortion. In this way we can begin a serious and sincere discussion on how to reduce the tragic incidence of abortion in our society.

Sincerely,

Cardinal Justin Rigali
Archbishop of Philadelphia
Chairman, Committee on Pro-Life Activities
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

Re-thinking the business of organ procurement and transplantation

2008-09-06T14:26:00.001-05:00

In organ transplantation, the preeminent ethical requirement is the "dead donor rule," which is that donor patients must be declared dead before they may be stripped of organs necessary for life (vital organs). An article in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, this month (Vol. 359:674-675, 8/14/08), suggests that the "dead donor rule" should be discarded. Why? Because, the article's authors are not convinced that donors are really dead.

The article, "The Dead Donor Rule and Organ Transplantation," was written by Robert D. Truog, M.D., a professor of medical ethics and anesthesia at Harvard Medical School, and Franklin G. Miller, Ph.D., a faculty member of the National Institutes of Health, Department of Bioethics. Both authors are proponents of vital organ donation, but present convincing arguments that neither "brain death" nor "cardiac death" is really death. In other words, we ordinary people have been deceived for years. "Dead" donors are not really dead.

Both "brain death" and "cardiac death" are hastily declared, not for the patient's welfare, but because removal of vital organs must be done before they begin to deteriorate due to loss of blood circulation. Vital organs are useless if physicians wait the time necessary to determine that a person is certainly dead.

The authors write that the dead donor rule "has greater potential to undermine trust in the transplantation enterprise than to preserve it." "At worst," they say, "this ongoing reliance [on the rule] suggests that the medical profession has been gerrymandering the definition of death to carefully conform with conditions that are most favorable for transplantation. At best, the rule has provided misleading ethical cover that cannot withstand careful scrutiny."

Truog and Miller suggest that the solution is "valid informed consent." In other words, they think it's okay to kill people for their organs, "under the limited conditions of devastating neurologic injury," if the patient or his/her family has consented. Their proposal opens the door to taking organs from patients who have been diagnosed to be "permanently unconscious." Might expanding the category of eligible donors be the authors' actual motive for writing this article?

Even if this is the case, they are at least being honest. Let's not pretend that living people are dead.

Finally, consider this: The practice of organ procurement for transplantation is unique in medicine. It contradicts key principles of medical ethics. For instance, not a single medical act involved in organ procurement is for the benefit or well-being of the patient. Everything that is done to the donor patient is referred to as "organ preservation therapy." Where is the care and respect due to the human person?

A German operating room nurse who worked in a transplant center, while viewing an exhibition on Nazi murders of hospital inmates, thought that one day she might be found complicit in medical crimes: "You cannot help thinking that if medicine continues to make such rapid progress and if what is legally acceptable today is no longer so in five or ten yearsor the day after tomorrow: Have you killed all these people, have you been complicit in their killing?" ("Taboo Transgressions in Transplantation Medicine," by Anna Bergmann, Ph.D., translated by Otmar Binder; Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Vol 13, No. 2, Summer 2008.)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (2296) teaches that the removal of organs that would "directly bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being" is intrinsically evil. Yet this is what occurs when a surgeon removes the organs necessary for life from a person who is not dead. Let us pray that the honesty of Dr. Truog and Dr. Miller stimulates re-thinking of the entire business of organ procurement and transplantation.

Written by Julie Grimstad, Executive Director, Life is Worth Living, Inc.

Bishops Set Pelosi Straight on Abortion

2008-09-02T19:21:00.000-05:00

The Bishops are not letting Speaker Nancy Pelosi get away with spreading confusion about Church teaching on abortion. To read their responses to her outrageous defense of her pro-abortion stance, check out this link to The Crossroads Initiative:

http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/1093/Bishops_Respond_to_House_Speaker_Pelosi.html

Urgent Euthanasia Update

2008-08-31T12:58:00.003-05:00

Help Stop Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide
Human Life Alliance Weekly Wire, August 14, 2008

In Washington state a measure will appear on the November ballot allowing voters to decide if they should become the second state in the U.S. to legalize assisted suicide. Currently, Oregon is the only state where assisted suicide is legal.

In California, Assemblymember Patty Berg, has repeatedly tried to legalize assisted suicide. Her bill AB 2747 is being opposed by pro-life forces in the state.

You can make a difference educating people about end-of-life issues. HLA's Imposed Death can help people in your community understand important end-of-life decisions.

If you are in California or Washington state, please contact us about our rush-delivery services. Don't spend another day without this life-saving resource at your fingertips.

To request copies of Imposed Death click here

Mexico has the disreputable distinction of being the first country in Latin America to legalize abortion on demand

2008-08-30T04:45:00.002-05:00

Spirit & Life
"The words I spoke to you are spirit and life." (Jn 6:63)
Human Life International e-Newsletter
Volume 03, Number 33 | Friday, August 29, 2008
www.hli.org

Montezuma's Abortion Revenge

Men like Pancho Villa and Emiliano Zapata may be remembered as some of the worst criminals of Mexican history, but yesterday's vote of the Mexican Supreme Court will make Villa's and Zapata's killings seem like so much child's play. Reminiscent of the US Supreme Court decision in 1973, eight (out of eleven) Supreme Court justices of Mexico legalized abortion yesterday, August 27th, and consigned themselves to the annals of history as the worst of their country's killers. They gave Mexico the disreputable distinction of being the first country in Latin America to legalize abortion on demand, and in fact, if the likely "domino effect" of abortion legalization in the Hispanic world follows, they will be guilty of the innocent blood of a whole continent.

Criminals are apparently not bound by logic or popular convention. Despite recent surveys of millions of Mexicans indicating that at least 65% of the people were totally against the legalization of abortion, the Supreme Court just simply ignored them - which is another way of saying that democracy is essentially meaningless in Mexico. And, despite the specific wording in the Mexican Constitution that enumerates a right to life "from the moment of fertilization," something the US Constitution could only dream of, the eight enlightened gods of law sitting on their lofty thrones simply declared that right null and void - which is another way of saying that the rule of law is meaningless in Mexico too.

These eight justices have now, arbitrarily and inhumanely, unleashed a plague of killing that will destroy the Mexican family, the already-plummeting fertility rate and the degrading morals of Mexico's youth. The Mexican bishops said it correctly in their televised ads prior to the killer decision that "when a society opens up a debate on abortion, what they are doing, in effect, is debating the very future of a nation." Yes indeed; and not only the future of Mexico, but of the whole Hispanic world.

I have continuously tied the business of abortion to the satanic work of child sacrifice which has tried to rear its ugly head in every age since biblical times. Abortion is a demonic industry, and every society that opens its doors to the killing of its infants becomes slowly possessed by these demons whose thirst for innocent blood will never, ever, be sated. Mexico was at one time home of the devilish Aztec religion which practiced bloody human sacrifice until Hernando Cortes and his troops defeated the Emperor Montezuma in the 16th Century thus preparing the way for the total Catholic evangelization of that land by Our Lady of Guadalupe. Yet, demons don't live in time. They live in the sinfulness of the human heart, and they have been given a new birth in Mexico once again.

I have no doubt that the recent appearance and immense popularity of the so-called "Santa Muerte" ("holy death") occult practice in Mexico, whose symbol is the Grim Reaper, has presaged the appearance of the demon of human sacrifice once again. This ancient demon that once ruled Mexican society only needed a few servants on the Supreme Court to ritualize human sacrifice once again - this time in the guise of abortion on demand. And they have already begun to reconstruct the new pagan pyramids of Mexico - in the hospitals and abortion mills where blood sacrifice is being offered as we speak.

In light of this catastrophic defeat for life, I can only repeat the Lord's stinging rebuke of the black-robed leaders of His day who were responsible for the death of the Innocent One: Woe to the eight servants of Montezuma's abortion revenge - their souls are in danger of a worse death than they inflict on those innocent children. We must pray for their eternal salvation. And I must add: Woe to everyone who remains silent while this demon satisfies his blood lust on innocent children anywhere in the world.

Sincerely Yours in Christ,

Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer,
President, Human Life International

E-Letter #106, August 28, 2008

2008-08-28T14:45:00.001-05:00

Dear Members and Friends,

I took a month off to enjoy family and summer, so this E-Letter is two in one. There are two crucial items covered herein, which, I believe, urgently require our intense and persevering prayer.

Let us pray: O Sacred Heart of Jesus, we place all our trust in You. We know that You want to help us, because You are all-good. We know that You know how to help us, because You are all-knowing. We know that You are able to help us, because You are all-powerful.Therefore, with confidence we ask You to help us, who recognize Your sovereignty over all life, to secure full protection under the law for every human life. Give us the graces necessary to fearlessly bear witness to the Gospel of Life in word and deed. O Heart of Love, make us all one mind in the truth and one heart in charity. May Our Father's Will be done on earth as it is in Heaven. Amen.

In the Sacred Heart,

Julie Grimstad

Executive Director

Item 1. The "Right to Life" of Every Human Being is THE ISSUE, Overriding the Economy, Health Care, the War, etc.

Before you read any further, I suggest you read Chuck Colson's Commentary on "The Sanctity of Life" in today's BreakPoint at http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=7510.

After you have read this Commentary, you can further educate yourself by obtaining a copy of Archbishop Charles J. Chaput's new book Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living Our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life. This book has the answers you can give to those Catholics who plan to vote for pro-abortion candidates for public office. It gives you the words to use when you write letters to the editor. It gives you the confidence to confront those politicians who proclaim themselves Catholic but who don't "buy into" all that the Church teaches--such as Democratic vice-presidential nominee Joseph Biden and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

As Archbishop Chaput said in a recent interview with National Review Online, "Our faith should shape our lives, including our political choices. Of course, that demands that we actually study and deepen our Catholic faith."

Item 2. "Brain Death" is Not Death, Nor is "Cardiac Death" True Death.

The preeminent ethical requirement for organ transplantation is the "dead donor rule," which is that patients must be declared dead before they may be stripped of their vital organs. An article in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, this month (Vol. 359:674-675, 8/14/08), suggests that the "dead donor rule" should be discarded. Why? Because, the article's authors are not convinced that donors are really dead.

The article, "The Dead Donor Rule and Organ Transplantation," was written by Robert D. Truog, M.D., a professor of medical ethics and anesthesia at Harvard Medical School, and Franklin G. Miller, Ph.D., a faculty member of the National Institutes of Health, Department of Bioethics. Both authors are proponents of vital organ donation, but present convincing arguments that neither "brain death" nor "cardiac death" are really death. In other words, we ordinary people have been deceived for years. "Dead" donors are not really dead.

Even if that is the case, they are at least being honest. Let's not pretend that living people are dead.

A German operating room nurse who worked in a transplant center, while viewing an exhibition on Nazi murders of hospital inmates, thought that one day she might be found complicit in medical crimes: "You cannot help thinking that if medicine continues to make such rapid progress and if what is legally acceptable today is no longer so in five or ten years--or the day after tomorrow: Have you killed all these people, have you been complicit in their killing?" ("Taboo Transgressions in Transplantation Medicine," by Anna Bergmann, Ph.D., translated by Otmar Binder; Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Vol 13, No. 2, Summer 2008.)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (2296) teaches that the removal of organs that would "directly bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being" is intrinsically evil. Yet this is what occurs when a surgeon removes the vital organs necessary for life from a person who is not dead. Let us pray that the honesty of Truog and Miller stimulates re-thinking of the entire business of organ procurement and transplantation.

THE END

CANON 915

2008-08-21T15:53:00.003-05:00

Will Denver Catholic Archbishop finally enforce Canon 915?

By Barbara Kralis

August 19, 2008

The Democrat National Convention of what many refer to as 'the pro-abortion party of the United States' will take place within the Archdiocese of Denver from Saturday, August 23, with the official Welcoming Celebration, through Friday, August 29, 2008.

More than 50,000 persons, including Democrat Party elected politicians, party members, delegates, and media, are expected for the weeklong event at various venues throughout the city. Many of these visiting folks will be pro-abortion Catholics or Catholics in name only. Ironically, the 'Freedom from Religion Foundation' is posting a billboard near the Convention Center that says, 'Keep Religion Out of Politics.'

Many are wondering if Archbishop Charles Chaput of the Archdiocese of Denver is prepared spiritually to take advantage of such a momentous teaching moment? Here's why.

It's well known the Denver Archbishop has failed to say that he will implement Canon Law's canon 915, a clearly taught discipline against persons who obstinately persist in grave, manifest [public] sin, such as the murder of the unborn child and infanticide. This is a moral stand, not a political one.

Let's take the Democrat Catholic governor of Colorado, Bill Ritter, for an example, who lives and works in the Denver area. Archbishop Chaput has warned him publicly for almost two years, has written columns denouncing Ritter's legislations, and I assume the Archbishop has written him personal catechetical appeals.

What is so morally offensive about Governor Bill Ritter that Archbishop Chaput should deny him Holy Communion? Let us look at Ritter's record to date.

Shortly after taking office, Ritter restored state funding for Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, signed legislation that requires all Roman Catholic hospitals to distribute emergency contraception to rape survivors, and pledged that he will not seek to appoint judges who oppose abortion rights. To date, Ritter has no anti-abortion legislation on his agenda. Ritter also has made it clear that if Roe v. Wade were overturned, he would veto legislation that is 'too restrictive' against abortions in Colorado. Ritter also supports sodomite marriage. The Catholic Church condemns all of Ritter's above 'right to life' beliefs.[i]

When a public pro-abortion person disregards a bishop's directive to stay away and comes to Holy Communion 'of his own volition,' and the Minister of the Eucharist gives the Host to such a person, the bishop is doing evil [CIC, n.1755] because he has not instructed his Ministers to deny. The Denver Archbishop refuses to walk the talk.[ii] He failed to teach his flock that these persons must be denied Holy Communion.

Sadly, Archbishop Chaput has indicated that it is the responsibility of the communicant to stay away from the Communion Rail. This is not correct. Rather, it is the responsibility of the Minister of the Eucharist to deny Holy Communion. This is a huge difference that goes against the Church's teachings[iii] regarding canon 915 as well as recent statements from the Vatican stating that the manifest pro-abortion politicians must be denied, and the burden IS upon the Minister to deny, NOT upon the communicant to stay away.

Canon Law also places the responsibility on the minister 'ne admittantur' who, in some canonists' opinion, could be punished themselves according to canon 1389 §2, should he unlawfully administer the sacrament with the consequent danger of scandal for the rest of the faithful. Canon 1339 prescribes the possibility of punishing any person who causes grave scandal by any violation of a divine or ecclesiastical law.

Therefore, if pro-abortion Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi approaches the altar in Denver to receive the Eucharist, the Ministers of the Eucharist, including 'ordinary' and 'extra-ordinary,'[iv] must deny Holy Communion themselves, regardless that their bishop has failed to instruct them to do so.

Archbishop Chaput in May of 2004 in his regular column for the Denver Catholic Register, wrote:

"The current media turmoil over "denying Catholic politicians Communion" is filled with ignorance about the Church and the real meaning of the Eucharist. Denying anyone Communion is a very grave matter. It should be reserved for extraordinary cases of public scandal. But the Church always expects Catholics who are living in serious sin or who deny the teachings of the Church whether they're highly visible officials or anonymous parishioners to have the integrity to respect both the Eucharist and the faithful, and to refrain from receiving Communion."

All right, Archbishop. What are you waiting for? Isn't murder [abortion] and sodomy grave enough and extraordinary enough to deny Holy Communion?

This is not a political decision, dear Archbishop, but a moral decision, for all times, not just for election times. It is not a sudden decision of piety, as you say in your column, but of concern for the eternal salvation of souls of persons who refuse to abandon their pro-abortion, pro-sodomite views. Abortion is murder and evil actions have consequences and a bishop is called to 'govern' and 'correct' using the discipline of canon 915.

If Archbishop Chaput' statement and action in regard to Governor Ritter is morally correct, this would mean that priests in the Denver Archdiocese, and everywhere else for that matter, should give Holy Communion without question to anyone approaching the Altar, to people publicly professing beliefs contrary to the doctrines of the Catholic Church or publicly living lives at serious variance with the teachings of the Church. This would include manifest homosexual couples approaching the Eucharist arm and arm, the publicly known divorced and "remarried" couple without benefit of annulment, manifest directors of Planned Parenthood, manifest Mafia figures, manifest drug lords, et al.

Photo: Madam Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), departs Notre Dame Chapel at Trinity University in Washington, January 3, 2007, after participating in a Mass and receiving sacrilegious Communion. Pelosi recently complained, "I have never, in my district in California, in my archdiocese [been told by my Archbishop]if I was going to [be allowed to] receive communion. I never knew if this was the day it would be withheld. And that's a hard way to go to church." [Note: Photo not reproduced here.]

Let's ask this question of the Archbishop if you were distributing Holy Communion and in front of you stood a known serial killer with a severed bloody head in one hand and a bloody machete in the other hand, would you give him the Eucharist? And after you denied the serial killer you next had standing before you the known pro-abortion politician Nancy Pelosi. Would you also deny her? Murder is murder, isn't it Archbishop?

It is well for us to remember that in his memorandum entitled "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion General Principles," Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, said without ambiguity:

"The minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" when warning and counsel given to the manifest sinner "have not had their effect."[v]

In contrast to Archbishop Chaput, 15 U.S. Archbishops and Bishops[vi] have publicly stated that they would deny Holy Communion to such persons. Of this list of 15 Bishops, is included Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs, Co. Does the disunited U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops now teach that it is correct for Bishop Sheridan to deny Nancy Pelosi the Eucharist in his diocese while Archbishop Chaput, in his Archdiocese, just 75 minutes away, allows his ministers to give evil Nancy Pelosi the Eucharist?

For some U.S. bishops to deny and other U.S. bishops not deny Holy Communion to pro-abortion politicians is a source of disunity and confusion for the entire universal Church and a grave scandal against the faithful worldwide.

This leads the common observer to wonder why a group of 268 active U.S. bishops, including 25 Archbishops and 11 Cardinals, should even pretend to exist as a united Conference when they cannot agree on the most fundamental and crucial teaching of the Church, that abortion is murder. [vii]

Recently, in the prestigious canon law journal, specifically the 2007 edition of the Pontificia Università Gregoriana Periodica De Re Canonica, volume 96, Archbishop Raymond L. Burke wrote an important essay entitled "The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to Those Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin." In it, he suitably and accurately named three of the 253 active, obstinate bishops who refused to obey the Church's canon law c. 915.^{^[viii]}

Furthermore, on May 9, 2007, Pope Benedict reiterated lofty and long-held Church teachings at 35,000 feet above sea level while in flight to Brazil, agreeing with the Mexican bishops' recent warning of automatic 'tolerati' excommunication^{^[ix]} or 'Latæ sententiæ'^{^[x]} for Catholic persons who supported, legislated, or promoted abortion [cf. formal accomplices, c.1329; cf. EV 62B]. Benedict said the teaching was, in fact, the law of the Church:

"Yes, this excommunication was not an arbitrary one but is allowed by Canon Law^{^[xi]} which says that the killing of an innocent child is incompatible with receiving Communion, which is receiving the Body of Christ. [The Mexican bishops] did nothing new, surprising, or arbitrary. They simply announced publicly what is contained in the law of the Churchwhich expresses our appreciation for life and that human individuality, human personality is present from the first moment [Politicians who support abortion] will get the penalty of excommunication. This is not revenge, it is just what happens in the case of serious sins." ^{^[xii]}

Pope Benedict and the Bishops who teach in union with the Pope speak loud and clear what the church's priorities are for voting as a Catholic. They teach that one may not consider other human conditions without giving first predominant consideration of the five most important conditions of the right to life: abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, cloning and same-sex marriage.

To send a note of encouragement to Archbishop Chaput to enforce canon 915, you may email him personally at: shepherd@archden.org.

Barbara Kralis, the article's author, writes for various Christian and conservative publications. Her columns have been featured at RenewAmerica.us, Catholic World Report, LifeSite.com, CatholicCitizens.org, Alliance Defense Fund, Intellectual Conservative, LifeIssues.net, CatholicCulture.org, The Wanderer newspaper, Catholic World News, New Oxford Review, Phil Brennan's WOW, MichNews, ChronWatch, North Carolina Conservative, Catholic Citizens of Illinois, Illinois Family Institute, and others. She and her husband, Mitch, live in the great State of Texas. She can be reached at: AveMaria@earthlink.net

[i] The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's 'Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life' 11/24/02 states in No.4: "John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of the Church, has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a 'grave and clear obligation to oppose' any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them"[Evangelium vitae, n.73].

[ii] Shortly after the CDF's November, 2002 'Doctrinal Note' on Catholics in political life, in the Congregation of Divine Worship's December, 2002 Notitiae edition we read from its prefect Cardinal Estevez: "Another fundamental right of the faithful, as noted in Canon 213, is 'the right to receive assistance by the sacred Pastors from the spiritual goods of the Church, especially the word of God and the Sacraments.' In view of the law that 'sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who opportunely ask for them, are properly disposed and are not prohibited by law from receiving them' (canon 843 ¶ 1), there should be no such refusal to any Catholic who presents himself for Holy Communion at Mass, except in cases presenting a danger of grave scandal to other believers arising out of the person's unrepented public sin or obstinate heresy or schism, publicly professed or declared."

[iii] Pope John Paul II, in 'Ecclesia De Eucharistia' states that only the faithful who have confessed grave sins in the Sacrament of Penance may receive Holy Communion, and that those who "obstinately persist in manifest grave sin" must be denied Communion.

[iv] This loss of the 'fullness of unity' in teaching means that most 'ordinary ministers of Holy Communion' [cardinals, bishops, priests, deacons] and EMHCs [laymen who are duly installed by the bishops as 'extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion'] are handing Jesus over to be crucified once again.

[v] Cardinal Ratzinger was referring to an earlier Vatican document, "Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics," nos. 3-4, 6/00.

[vi] Revised 8/14/08: Archbishop Raymond L Burke, Bishop Emeritus, St. Louis; Bishop Fabian W. Bruskewitz, Lincoln NE; Bishop Joseph A. Galante, Camden, NJ; Bishop John M. Smith, Trenton, NJ; Bishop Michael Sheridan, Colorado Springs, CO; Bishop Robert F. Vasa, Baker, OR; Bishop Gerald Gettelfinger, Evansville, IN; Bishop Robert J. Baker, Birmingham, AL; Bishop Peter J. Jugis, Bishop, Charlotte, NC; Bishop Samuel Aquila, Fargo, ND; Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, Phoenix, AZ; Bishop Paul S. Coakley, D.D., Salina, KS.

Retired Bishops:

Bishop Henry Rene Gracida, Bishop Emeritus, Corpus Christi, TX; Archbishop John F. Donoghue Archbishop, Atlanta, GA, Bishop John Y. Yanta, Bishop Emeritus, Amarillo, TX.

[vii] Cf. endnote #4. Also, Pontius Pilate told Jesus that "It was your own people and the chief priests who have handed you over to me" [Jn. 18:35]. And Jesus responded to Pilate that "he who handed me over to you is guilty of the greater sin" [Jn. 19:11].

[viii] Specifically Archbishop Burke named Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles [cf footnote n. 4 of Periodica De Re Canonica essay], Cardinal Theodore McCarrick [cf footnote n. 5 of same essay], the former Archbishop of Washington, D.C.; and McCarrick's successor, Archbishop Donald Wuerl [cf footnote n. 87 of same essay].

[ix] The excommunication affects all those who commit this crime with the knowledge of the penalty attached and thus includes those accomplices without whose help the crime would not have been committed [Canon 1329]. Any person who promotes, legislates, and supports abortion is clearly a formal accomplice. Clearly, U.S. Catholic politicians have been enlightened to the facts of excommunication by this time by their bishops and Catholic laity.

[x] 'Automatically without sentence.' A censure incurred by the very fact of committing a crime. This excommunication is inflicted by the perpetrator on himselfby his very act.

[xi] Canon Law is law; it is not a suggestion. Canon Law 915 states: "Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion." For a Catholic to vote for pro-abortion legislation is a "manifest grave sin." According to Code of Canon Law, a bishop has not only the right but also the duty to stop a grave sinner from committing sacrilege and scandal. Canon 1369 tells bishops: "A person is to be punished with a just penalty, who...gravely harms public morals...." The Church has an innate and proper right to coerce offending members by means of penal sanctions (canon 1311). Diocesan bishops as well as the Pope possess legislative power, and the Code of Canon Law (canons 1315 and 1318) expressly recognizes their right to enact laws for their dioceses.

[xii] Excommunication is a "medicinal penalty" [Canon 1312]; it is fundamentally oriented toward bringing Catholics to repent of certain seriously wrong behaviors. Meant not as punishment, but rather to bring people to wake up to what they're doing and the seriousness of it. The Pope has the right, the obligation, and the duty to enforce the moral law, which is superior to all municipal, state, federal, or even international law.

CANON 915

2008-08-21T15:53:00.001-05:00

Will Denver Catholic Archbishop finally enforce Canon 915?

By Barbara Kralis

August 19, 2008

Many are wondering if Archbishop Charles Chaput of the Archdiocese of Denver is prepared spiritually to take advantage of such a momentous teaching moment? Here's why.

What is so morally offensive about Governor Bill Ritter that Archbishop Chaput should deny him Holy Communion? Let us look at Ritter's record to date.

Archbishop Chaput in May of 2004 in his regular column for the Denver Catholic Register, wrote:

All right, Archbishop. What are you waiting for? Isn't murder [abortion] and sodomy grave enough and extraordinary enough to deny Holy Communion?

It is well for us to remember that in his memorandum entitled "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion General Principles," Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, said without ambiguity:

"The minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" when warning and counsel given to the manifest sinner "have not had their effect."[v]

To send a note of encouragement to Archbishop Chaput to enforce canon 915, you may email him personally at: shepherd@archden.org.

[v] Cardinal Ratzinger was referring to an earlier Vatican document, "Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics," nos. 3-4, 6/00.

Retired Bishops:

Bishop Henry Rene Gracida, Bishop Emeritus, Corpus Christi, TX; Archbishop John F. Donoghue Archbishop, Atlanta, GA, Bishop John Y. Yanta, Bishop Emeritus, Amarillo, TX.

[x] 'Automatically without sentence.' A censure incurred by the very fact of committing a crime. This excommunication is inflicted by the perpetrator on himselfby his very act.

ASSISTED SUICIDE: Washington I-1000 Initiative Most Important Vote in November

2008-08-20T06:20:00.003-05:00

By Alex Schadenberg
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
www.epcc.ca
Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Washington I-1000 initiative is the most important vote in this November's election cycle.

Click on this link:
http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2008/08/
washington-i-1000-initiative-is-most.html

I came across this beg letter from Faye Girsh, the vice president of the Hemlock Society of San Diego California.

I agree with Faye Girsch that this is the most important vote in ten years.

Sadly, many of the leaders of pro-life, religious, disability and medical communities, remain unaware of the importance of the I-1000 initiative in Washington State.

If the I-1000 initiative passes in Washington State, the momentum is likely to shift toward the legalisation of assisted suicide throughout the United States in a series of state by state Initiatives.

Washington State was chosen by the euthanasia lobby as the "most likely" place to legalise assisted suicide in the United States. The Euthanasia lobby has combined forces by focusing on Washington State at a national level.

We must hold the line.

I know that you people many other commitments and concerns but the Coalition Against Assisted Suicide in Washington State desperately needs your support.

A recent report showed that the Dying With Dignity campaign in Washington State has raised 10 times more money than the Coalition Against Assisted Suicide.

The euthanasia lobby is united in their effort to use Washington State as a springboard for their nationwide goal of legalising assisted suicide. They have raised an incredible amount of money from throughout the USA. Faye Girsh is the prime example, she is raising money in California to legalise assisted suicide in Washington State.

Please help make Faye Girsh's biggest fear come true. Please support the Washington State Coalition Against Assisted Suicide.
http://noassistedsuicide.com/
Coalition Against Assisted Suicide
P.O. Box 11794
Olympia WA 98508
206-337-2091

Comment by Faye Girsh:
The Hemlock Society of San Diego, a 501 C4 organization, is convinced that the Washington Death with Dignity initiative is the most important focus of the right-to-die movement in more than a decade.

To this end, and consistent with our past support of every ballot initiative since the first one in Washington state in 1991, we are having a campaign to raise funds to support this initiative. We have already sent $10,000 to Yes on I-1000.

Last month we launched a Matching Fund challenge to our members. We will match all contributions up to a total of $25,000. We have sent out two mailings with the required election law information and have asked our members to send their checks made out directly to Yes on I-1000 to us, with the required information. We will match every cent and send the total to the campaign in Washington.

We have spent our own funds to invite Eli Stutsman to speak to our members on two recent occasions, have had a party to launch the
campaign, and, by the end of the month, will have sent out three mailings.

We are concerned about the mobilization of the Catholic Church and Right to Life organizations to raise significant money for its defeat since they also realize that success will have a domino effect. We feel that a victory in Washington is the best hope for California to have such a law. Our board has been consistently unanimous in its support of this effort.

Faye Girsh, Vice President
Hemlock Society of San Diego

http://www.alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/

PERSONHOOD:Sexual and Asexual Origins of Human Life

2008-07-23T13:06:00.001-05:00

Source: Pro-Life Today / 22 July 2008 (American Life League)

THANK YOU COLORADO RIGHT TO LIFE
By Judie Brown

It is not often that I can begin a week with a celebratory blog, but that is precisely what I am about to do. It is all thanks to the recent statement issued by Colorado Right to Life. In a public statement acknowledging the need to correct the Colorado personhood amendment's language, CRTL states the following:

Dr. Dianne N. Irving, a bioethicist and professor at Georgetown University, has criticized the personhood amendment, which we support, which appears on Colorado's November 2008 ballot. Dr. Irving's moral and scientific arguments are not only valid, they are foundational to the long-term success of the personhood movement. Colorado RTL will join Dr. Irving in educating pro-lifers, the public and politicians about the sexual and asexual origins of human life that must be recognized in law for it to protect all persons. Dr. Irving's criticism illustrates Solomon's words, "Faithful are the wounds of a friend" (Proverbs 27:6).
Dr. Irving rightly explains that defining human life as beginning at "the moment of fertilization" includes only those people who came into existence at the union of a sperm and oocyte (ovum). However, scientists and fertility clinicians bring many human beings into existence through asexual reproduction quite apart from the merging of a sperm and ovum. Scientists "split" the youngest embryonic children, breaking off cells, to cause twinning that brings a second child into existence, and fertility clinics will then destroy any unneeded embryos. Dr. Irving has cataloged many asexual methods of human reproduction including splitting embryos and cloning, methods which produce living human beings which the personhood movement must protect by love and by law.

Dr. Irving criticizes Colorado's Amendment 48 because it addresses sexual but not asexual reproduction. CRTL concurs and recommends that the personhood movement nationwide accept Dr. Irving's moral and scientific conclusions and adopt fully protective legal wording to the effect of: "defining 'person' as any human life from the moment of sexual or asexual reproduction, including from fertilization."

CRTL disagrees with Dr. Irving only in her characterization that our initiative wording provides an "exclusionary clause... denying human personhood to all categories of asexually reproduced human beings." Rather, Colorado's personhood Amendment 48 uses the word "include," that the term "person... shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization." This definition would not exclude cloned or in vitro twinned children. Other than this legal disagreement, CRTL thanks Dr. Irving for her courage and insight, and asks the personhood movement to adopt her biological, moral and legal argument.

Not only is this public statement a historic first in my years in the pro-life movement, but it is also among the most cogent and humble I have ever seen. It is so refreshing to realize that there are pro-life organizations that do want to get the message right, down to the last word! And, as Dr. Irving pointed out in her reply,

It would seem that CRTL is quite graciously agreeing with the scientific and moral points that I have provided, and changing the language of their "Personhood Amendment 48" to reflect both sexually and asexually reproduced human beings. It is quite refreshing to see such intellectual and moral honesty on these difficult issues. Millions of young innocent living human beings will thereby be saved from manipulation and destruction, including naturally occurring human identical twins reproduced asexually within the woman's body. Their only remaining disagreement, i.e., over my use of the term "exclusionary" when they refer to their term "including", is, I think, still debatable legal advice given to me is that it would be better and far safer legally to use the more inclusive phrase, "including but not limited to". Even better to use the far safer inclusive phrase, "whether sexually or asexually reproduced". If the scientific facts about human asexual reproduction are objectively true, which they are, then one does wonder why the strange reticence on the part of many to actually use those scientific terms per se within a law or regulation.

As you review what I am sharing with you and realize how wonderful it is that we are finally at a place in the pro-life movement at least in Colorado where egos and agendas have been replaced with a sincere search for truth and accuracy, pray that all organizations find the same peace in their hearts by seeking the full scientific truth and setting aside preconceived notions. What we just witnessed between Colorado Right to Life and Dr. Irving is monumental.

Please join me in praising God and thanking Him! Through this recent chain of events, we are moving ever closer to the real answer to ending the killing of preborn children in America.

Judie Brown is president of American Life League and a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life.

Respond to Judie
http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog_response.php?id=2269

Expert on Forced Abortions in China Urges Boycott of Beijing Summer Olympics

2008-07-21T21:12:00.001-05:00

A leading expert on the brutal campaign of forced abortions and sterilizations that accompany China's one-child family planning policy is urging a boycott of the Summer Olympics. Steven Mosher, of the Population Research Institute, says the games will legitimize China's abhorrent human rights records. To read the full story at Life News.com, click here

http://www.lifenews.com/int827.html.