The Phony War on Women

How many times have you heard the hackneyed phrase from the political left, “the war on women”?  I think I hear it on a regular basis.  Yesterday, on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace, had a Democratic spokesman, Xavier Becerra, on to discuss the pending SCOTUS ruling related to religious freedom, otherwise known as “the Hobby Lobby Case.”  When Mr. Wallace asked Mr. Becerra how can the Democrats defend forcing people to pay for something they believe violates their religious freedoms, he answered by saying that Obamacare does not violate a woman’s religious belief (apparently they have another definition of what is a violation of religious beliefs) and that “no one has the right to discriminate against a woman’s beliefs.”  As Lt. Columbo would say:  just one more question:  what does a woman’s beliefs have to do with the violations of a person’s religious beliefs ?  This is what the left does, it cannot answer a direct question and they instead, change the question.  Click here for a video of this interview – this particular question starts at about the 11:50 minute mark of the video.

Former Hewlett Packard Executive, Carly Fiorina has started a campaign to counter this phony “war on women” that the left is promoting.  Click here for more information on this issue from Ms. Fiorina.  The classic on this phony “war on women” was when a supposed Catholic girl, Sandra Fluke, a law student at a Catholic University, Georgetown University Law School, testified before a Congressional committee.  What she was complaining about was that an employer should pay for her birth control insurance coverage.  As it turns out you can get this type of drug for no more than $9 per month at Target.  This, to the left, is the burning issue; sexual satisfaction should be guaranteed by and paid for by your employer.  So, the left invents a “war on women” unless an employer pays for his employees sexual pleasures.  What right does that come from?  Where do these rights come from and why should an employer be forced to pay for these costs?  An employer pays an employee for work provided.  Why does he have to pay for anything else, unless it is negotiated freely between the two?  Do you pay for your Plummer’s insurance just because he fixed your faucet?  You pay him for the work and nothing else.  Does the word hedonism come to mind?  I think it does, but then this is the world of the left.

The U.N. Declares Pro-Life a Form of Torture?

If there ever was a sign that our culture is not only upside down but has gone into a demented state, the proof was provided recently by a UN conference declaring that the Catholic Church is guilty of torture for advocating the saving of babies in the womb.  I know that this sounds absurd but you have to read it for yourself.  Click here for the story.

Let me see if I got this straight.  The UN says that the Catholic Church by advocating for the life of an unborn baby is committing torture?  If you read the story mentioned earlier you will see that the UN has its own definition of what torture is.  No it’s not water boarding, it’s the natural delivery of a baby from its mother’s womb.  Don’t ask me, I don’t get it either.  Such is the state of our society where wrong is right and down is up.

I know that the UN knows what an abortion is but perhaps they don’t understand what happens in an abortion.  For the benefit of those in the UN here is what an abortion looks like.  Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life has a wonderful video explanation.  I invite all of you and especially anyone who works for the UN to watch it.  Click here to watch it.

Stealth Euthanasia

The following is a summary of notes I took and materials presented and discussed at the Stealth Euthanasia Conference held on November 23, 2013 at Biola University, La Mirada, California.

What is Euthanasia:  An action or an omission which of itself or by intention causes death, in order that all suffering may in this way be eliminated.  Euthanasia’s terms of reference, therefore, are to be found in the intention of the will and in the methods used. There is a trend in the United States to legalize euthanasia.  Three states have already legalized it:  Oregon, Washington and Vermont.  The euthanasia lobby is very savvy and has as their goal to legalize euthanasia throughout the United States.  Their method is one of gradualism.  They pour all their recourses into one state and after passage in that state, move to another state until all states legalize euthanasia. The euthanasia advocates do not like to use the word, euthanasia, they prefer terms like “death with dignity, assisted dying, compassionate choices, etc.  LMU Professor Christopher Kaczor, one of the speakers, states that euthanasia is driven by a worldview of human life, one that does not value the dignity of life.  There is no moral difference between active or passive euthanasia; they both accomplish the same thing:  death.  He also explained ordinary and extraordinary means of extending life.  The main issue is whether the treatment is burdensome or beneficial.

Abuse of Euthanasia:  Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition in Canada, another conference speaker, talked about the slippery slope that is euthanasia.  In Oregon, for example, the only reports made to the state on legal euthanasia are provided solely by the doctors who perform the euthanasia.  Reports are voluntary. There are no controls on how euthanasia is administered.  He pointed out that if there are abuses, no one knows about them because the doctors do not self-report abuses.  The principal goal of legalized euthanasia is to protect the doctors, not the patients.  It is estimated that depression is the prime factor in choosing euthanasia.  Since assisted suicide became legal in Oregon, state officials have been candid about offering suicide in lieu of costly medications.  In refusing to approve requests for expensive drugs that could prolong several residents’ lives, Oregon Health Care officials reminded them that the cost of suicide pills would be fully covered.  Schadenberg commented that the most likely person in our society to kill you is a doctor.

In Belgium, a 37 year-old college professor got a call one day telling him that his perfectly healthy 64 year-old mother, had chosen euthanasia and had died.  It turned out that she was depressed after a 10-year relationship ended so she chose to end her life “legally.”  Also, in Belgium, two Belgian identical twins, both born deaf, Marc and Eddy Verbassem chose euthanasia after they started losing their sight.  Not wanting to be a burden to others they both elected euthanasia and died together.  Recent studies concerning the Belgian euthanasia law found that: 32% of the assisted deaths are done without request and 47% of the assisted deaths go unreported in the Flanders region of Belgium.  Another recent study found that even though nurses are prohibited from doing euthanasia, that in fact nurses are euthanizing their patients in Belgium. There has never been an attempted prosecution for abuses of the Belgian euthanasia law.  In Oregon since 2009 there has been a 30% increase in euthanasia deaths.  Furthermore, the Oregon suicide law does not prevent elder abuse; the lethal dose can be administered without oversight.  There are many pitfalls in euthanasia laws.  Some people are counseled to take euthanasia for no good reason.

Another conference speaker, Jennifer Hamman, related a story about when she was hospitalized and in a coma due to epileptic medicine that proved to be totally wrong and put her in a coma.  While in a coma in a hospital she could hear the doctors discuss her case.  One doctor complained that her husband had not agreed to stop all treatments and that her organs could go to some needy persons.  The woman eventually recovered and today is perfectly healthy. I’m a witness since she spoke at the conference and looked perfectly healthy.  In Oregon, in 2012, only 2 of the 77 people who died by euthanasia were referred for a psychiatric evaluation. This is significant because a study conducted by Oregon researcher, Linda Ganzini, found that 15 of 58 participants in her study were either depressed or experiencing feelings of extreme hopelessness. Of the 58 participants in her Oregon study, who had asked for assisted suicide, 18 died by assisted suicide with three of the assisted suicide deaths being persons who Ganzini found had questionable competency due to their depression/feelings of hopelessness.

Medical experts, like Herbert Hendin, MD, in his book Seduced by Death. (New York:  W.W. Norton & Co., 1998, notes that nearly 95% of those who kill themselves have been shown to have a diagnosable mental illness in the months preceding their death – the majority suffering from treatable depression.  Several studies have found that, especially among the elderly, more patients kill themselves out of fear of having cancer than do patients actually diagnosed with cancer.

Margaret Dore, a Washington State Attorney on Euthanasia Abuse: The Washington euthanasia bill was sold as “promoting patient choice and control,” instead the bill is a recipe for elder abuse.  The law allows an heir or another person who will benefit financially from a patient’s death to help the patient sign up for the lethal dose.  The law allows an heir, or someone else who will benefit financially from the death to pick up the lethal dose at the pharmacy.  Once the lethal dose is in the house, there is no oversight.  Washington law applies to patients with a “terminal condition” defined as having a medical prediction of less than six months to live.  Such patients are not necessarily dying and may have years to live.  This is because doctor predictions of life expectancy can be wrong because the requirement of six months to live is based on the patient not being treated.  Consider Oregon resident, Jeanette Hall, who was diagnosed with cancer in 2000 and wanted to do assisted suicide.  Her doctor convinced her to be treated instead.  In a 2012 affidavit, she states:  “This July, it was 12 years since my diagnosis.  If my doctor had believed in assisted suicide, I would be dead.”

Patient control is an illusion. Washington law does not require a witness to the death.  Without the disinterested witness, the opportunity is created for the patient’s heir, or for another person who will benefit financially from the death, to administer a lethal dose without his consent.

Lila Rose at the Values Voters Conference 2013

Lila Rose the super star of pro-life apologetics speaking at the recent Values Voters Conference in Washington DC.  I first heard this beautiful young woman speak at this same conference when she was only 19 years old and was impressed with her eloquence and powerful speaking ability.  You must see this:

Science and the Beginning of Life

As I’ve stated in previous posts on this blog, science is nearly unanimous that life begins at conception.  First of all, what do we mean by “conception.”?   We normally understand “the union of sperm and ovum.” A term also used to describe that event is “fertilization.”  Essentially, this is the single cell stage.  What does science say about this?

  • Professor Robert George of Princeton University, in his great book Embryo, A Defense of Human Life, quotes the authors of a well-known embryology textbook by Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, in The Developing Human: ” Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to produce a single cell – a zygote.” Moore and Persaud write that the initial totipotent cell that is the result of fertilization “marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”
  • In the Fetal Development page of the Priests for Life web site the following sources are highlighted for the humanity of the zygote:
  • Dr. Jerome Lejeune, “Father of Modern Genetics” and discoverer of the cause of Down’s Syndrome, stated, “To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion . . . it is plain experimental evidence.”
  • Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at Mayo Clinic, stated, “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”
  • Sir William Liley, a key pioneer of fetal therapy, wrote a famous article in 1972, The Foetus as a Personality, in which he shows us why we have moved away from the view of the fetus as an inert, unformed passenger awaiting arrival at the destination of life, and have seen that the fetus is a splendidly functioning human, full of vigor and very much in command of the pregnancy.
  • The widely used medical textbook The Developing Human, Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th Edition, Moore, Persaud, Saunders, 1998, states at page 2 that “The intricate processes by which a baby develops from a single cell are miraculous …. This cell [the zygote] results from the union of an oocyte [egg] and sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being ….” At page 18 this theme is repeated: “Human development begins at fertilization [emphasis in original] ….”
  • Scott Klusendorf, in his book Pro-Life 101 quotes Dr. Landrum Shettles, the first scientist to achieve conception in a test tube:  “conception not only confers life, it “defines” life.”
  • The former Director of Planned Parenthood, Dr. Alan Guttmacher, was perplexed that anyone, much less a medical doctor would question this.  “This all seems so simple and evident that it is difficult to picture a time when it wasn’t part of the common knowledge” he wrote in his book Life In the Making.
  • The following link lists numerous quotes from scientific books that are too numerous to list.  I provide a link for you to look.  Click here.

“Pro-Choice” or it Depends What the Meaning of is, is

The other day I was watching the Hannity show where the host was conducting a Townhall-type of meeting with college students.  Now, the minute you mention college students to me, I immediately think of such adjectives as clueless, naive, left-wing seminarian, etc.  When Hannity asked these students how many of them believed in abortion on demand, half of them raised their hands.  One young woman stated what I’ve heard so many times that I can only shake my head and repeat one of the aforementioned adjectives.  This young woman said that “abortion is for each woman and her doctor to decide.”  Now would anybody say that murdering your two year-old child should be up to you and your doctor to decide?  Why not?  But, this is the level of ignorance that is repeadted  every day by non-thinkers such as college students and pro-abortion advocates.

What is the issue?  Is an unborn not a human being?  When does life begin?  You’re life and my life did not begin the minute we came out of the womb; it started as a zygote, a single cell.  This is not an opinion; science has verified this.  Click here for details.  Many of the “pro-choice” crowd will tell you that they follow only what science can prove, but when you provide the scientific proof, they change the subject; the idea that only science can provide proof is a falsehood in itself.  This is referred to as scientism.  I challenge any “pro-abortion” advocate to provide proof of their position.  I’ve never been offered one.  I’m still waiting.

Liberal Catholics, the Church and Abortion

As I was driving down the street  in Southern California today, I saw a car with a bumper sticker that read:  “I’m Catholic and pro-life.”  I thought to myself, well, that is about the same as saying “I’m a member of society and I’m pro-life.”  Being a Catholic and being pro-life have nothing to do with each other, unfortunately.  The percentage of pro-life Catholics is about the same as for the general population; so it makes no sense to say that one is Catholic and pro-life, necessarily.  Here is a study by a Rhode Island group on what Catholics believe about abortion.  Click here.

Being a liberal, by definition, means that you are basically marching to your own tune, and only following church teaching when you agree with it.  This is commonly referred to in Catholic circles as being a “cafeteria Catholic.”  As I see it, you cannot be a liberal Catholic and be true to church teaching – it’s a contradiction.  Think about it!  The dictionary defines “liberal” as “open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.”  How can you be true to the church and be a liberal?

The liberal Catholic will pick and choose what suits him/her.  Let’s take abortion for an example.  In my church, which is one of the largest Catholic churches in Southern California, about 60% of the “faithful” are pro-abortion, in my estimate – they would call themselves “pro-choice.”  Now, since logic is important in this blog, let’s examine this.  What makes you a Catholic?  If you only follow 95% of church teaching are you a Catholic?  If you only follow 60% of church teaching are you a Catholic?  Now, let’s make a comparison.  If I’m only faithful to my wife 95% of the time, am I faithful?  What about if I’m only faithful only 60% of the time?  Would I call myself a faithful husband?  Then why do liberal Catholics call themselves Catholics if they do not follow 100% of church teaching? Being a “liberal Catholic” is a contradiction in logic.

Far From the Madding Crowd

Last week we attended a family reunion to welcome a cousin from the East Coast we had not seen in over 10 years.  I attended with great reluctance because most of these family members (on my wife’s side) are committed hard-core leftists who have no problem insulting others who are not of the same political stripe.  I do not discuss my politics with them, but they always feel free to discuss their twisted ideology in our company, not worrying whom they may offend.

Sure enough, after a few hours conversation one of these relatives pops off about how stupid a couple of Republican members of Congress are.  Here we go again, I thought.  One of our relatives, who is of my political stripe decided he was not having none of this insulting behavior:  He challenged them on their rudeness in no uncertain terms.  They backed off and claimed they had no idea they were offensive.

What was their offense?  besides insulting a hand full of Republicans they disagree with, they were praising Wendy Davis, the Texas legislator who raised so much fuss about the law that Texas finally approved, regulating abortion clinics and banning partial birth abortions.  To these folks, Wendy Davis is a hero.  As I pointed out in my last post, Wendy Davis believes that a six-month old, perfectly healthy baby in the womb can be killed.  Her Democratic colleagues agree heartily.  They call this “women’s health.”

It never ceases to amaze me at the lack of logic on the left.  How can a baby in the womb be killed and called “woman’s health”?  This is akin to Hitler saying that his killing of six million Jews was not really killing but a “culling of the races.”  Would a leftist who believes in abortion at any time agree that this is the same thing?  Logic compels you to make the same comparison.

This is the insanity of the left.  Believe what they believe or you’re an idiot, in their mind.  The tragic part of this is that there are many people in the US who believe as these leftists described here believe.  Let me get as far from this madding crowd as I can.

The Party of Death

You’ve recently heard of the ruckus the Democrats of Texas have orchestrated against the passing of a new law restricting  abortion after five-months pregnancy and regulating of abortion clinics.  An abortion after five months of pregnancy is considered  “partial birth abortion.”  Click here for a definition of partial birth abortion.  The bill would additionally restrict abortion clinics to prevent the horrors of the Dr. Kermit Gosnell abortion clinic in Philadelphia.

The party of death, the Democratic Party, is for unfettered abortion at any time up to delivery.  Remember, Dr. Gosnell was convicted of murder because he killed babies after birth.  Had he killed the babies in the womb just before delivery he would still be a free man today.   What does a five-month old baby look like?  Click here is to see an image of a five-month old baby in the womb.  Is this baby a clump of tissue or a human being?  According to the party of death any baby can be dismembered in the womb up to delivery; they call this “women’s health.”  Excuse me, but in logic, this is crazy.  The supporters of the party of death were yelling “hail to Satan” in one of their demonstrations.  Well, I think they’re right in hailing Satan, because this is exactly what abortion is.  The party of death call themselves an advocate of the “little man” or of the poor, yet the most vulnerable of society, the baby in the womb is ripe for dismemberment and death.

Abortion and “The Big Lie”

We all marvel at how an entire nation like the Germany of World War II could support the murderous Adolph Hitler.   Indeed, Hitler perpetuated the lie that the Jews were somehow “the problem.”  His most ardent henchman, Joseph Goebbels,  is famous for saying that if you repeat a lie many times people will eventually believe it as truth.  There is a perfect correlation today on how many people, including religious Christians, Jews and others can believe that a perfectly healthy baby can be killed, as long as it is in the mother’s womb.  Take the recent Dr. Gosnell murder trial where he killed babies after the baby came out of the womb.  He routinely snipped the neck of the struggling baby on the table to kill it.  This outraged most people and Dr. Gosnell was convicted of first degree murder.

A reporter recently asked Nancy Pelosi what is the difference between what Dr. Gosnell did and the killing of a baby in the womb?  Pelosi opposes any law limiting partial birth abortion, even though she claims to be Catholic.  She gave an angry convoluted answer, which did not address the question, but trotted out “a woman’s right to choose.”  Watch this video of Pelosi responding to this question – it’s a classic. This is contrary to all logic, yet many people, including good friends of mine who attend the same church I do,  cannot admit that there is no difference.  They keep stating the nonsensical answer that women have “a right to do with their bodies what they like,” or words to that effect.

What has happened in our society, world-wide, is that the lie about abortion has been repeated so many times, and indeed everyday, that these people believe it as truth.  There is no difference between what the Nazis did to six million Jews and what we do today to unborn babies in the womb; the Nazis killed innocent human beings and we kill innocent human beings in the womb.  What supports this claim?  Science has verified that human life begins at conception; logic tells you that the baby in the womb is the same baby in a mother’s loving arms, a few minutes after birth.  Natural  Law, the law written in all of our hearts, tells us that murder is wrong.  You don’t need to be educated to know that murder is wrong.  Should you have any questions about this, just go to anyone in the world and ask them if murder is OK.  Another example of the law written in our heart:  let’s say I come to your house and before I leave I take you nice new Nikon Camera that you spent $1,000 without your permission.  Would the owner of the camera say that was wrong?  We know, by instinct, what is right and wrong.  Abortion is the killing of a human life and it is wrong all the time, under all circumstances.