Congressional Bill Would Help College Students Avoid Abortions
by Steven Ertelt LifeNews.com Editor November 10, 2005
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- College-aged women tend to have the highest rate of abortions in the country and a new Congressional measure is intended to give them the financial and practical pregnant support necessary to help them avoid abortions.
You are receiving press releases from Christian Newswire because you or your news outlet subscribed to this service. To ensure that you continue to receive emails from us, add newsdesk@earnedmedia.org to your address book today. If you haven't done so already, click to confirm your interest in receiving these press releases. You may also choose to receive "text only" releases. To no longer receive our emails, click to unsubscribe.
Grand Jury Asked to Investigate Abortion Murder, Misconduct WICHITA, Kansas, Jan. 17 /Christian Newswire/ -- While the thoughts of the nation are focused on the subject of abortion through the Samuel Alito Senate Confirmation hearings and anticipation of the upcoming 33rd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, an effort has been launched that will force a Kansas county to convene a Grand Jury to investigate alleged criminal acts that led to the abortion death of a Down Syndrome teenager last year.
The victim, Christin A. Gilbert, died from complications to a third-trimester abortion received at George R. Tiller’s Women’s Health Care Services in Wichita, Kansas, the site of over 2,000 arrests during Operation Rescue’s “Summer of Mercy” protests in 1991.
Allegations that the Grand Jury will be asked to investigate include second-degree murder, involuntary manslaughter, mistreatment of a dependent adult, failure to report abuse or neglect of children, and illegal late-term abortion.
Gilbert suffered complications during her abortion that were not fully diagnosed. Gilbert’s condition continued to worsen, but instead of sending her to the hospital, abortion clinic staff sent her to a hotel room where she continued to deteriorate. Finally, an ambulance was summoned for Gilbert, but not until days later when she was “Code Blue.” Even then, with callous disregard for Gilbert’s life, a clinic employee requested that the ambulance run with “no lights and no sirens.”
In Tarrant County, Texas, where Gilbert lived, a Grand Jury convened last year to probe allegations of felony sexual assault that led to Gilbert’s pregnancy. That Grand Jury is still investigating.
A confidential family source, who is cooperating with the Kansas Grand Jury effort, has told Operation Rescue that Gilbert could not have legally consented to sexual activity because of the severity of her Down Syndrome condition, and that she never would have chosen abortion for her baby, leading to concerns that Gilbert was the victim of an illegal forced abortion.
According to Kansas law, a Grand Jury must convene within 60 days of the submission of a required number of signatures of registered voters. Those signatures are due to be submitted on March 1, 2006.
“The abortion lobby told the nation that the 1973 Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade would make abortion ‘safe and legal’ for women. It may have decriminalized abortion, but it did not make it safe – not for Christin Gilbert nor the thousands of other women who have died from slipshod abortions in the past 33 years,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman.
Operation Rescue documented Gilbert’s death and has worked through the state, the legislature, and now the courts to bring justice for Christin Gilbert and her pre-born child.
More information on the Grand Jury effort can be found at http://justicefor christin.com.
Christian Newswire To: National Desk Contact: Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue, 316-841-1700;
Cheryl Sullenger, Operation Rescue Outreach Coordinator, 316-516-3034 Operation Rescue Justice for Christin
This week, pro-life lawmakers introduced the Elizabeth Cady Stanton Pregnant and Parenting Students Act of 2005.
The measure would establish a pilot program to provide $10 million for 200 grants to encourage institutions of higher education to establish and operate a pregnant and parenting student services office. The office would serve pregnant and parenting students and help students who are considering adoption instead of abortion.
On many college campuses, student health insurance pays for abortions but won't provide students with the support needed to carry a pregnancy to term. Most student health offices have staff that will gladly refer students to local abortion centers but won't advice them of abortion alternatives.
Feminists for Life, a national organization that has long addressed the needs of women in the abortion debate, says this new bill changes that scenario.
“We are so pleased that we can share what we have learned from pregnant and parenting students through our efforts hosting FFL's Pregnancy Resource Forums at top campuses across the country," says FFL President Serrin Foster.
"Today's parents need creative solutions that challenge the status quo," Foster explained. Because of the bill, "more women, children and families will be better served.”
Senator Elizabeth Dole, a North Carolina Republican and the only pro-life woman in the Senate, and Rep. Melissa Hart, a Pennsylvania Republican, are the lead sponsors of the measure.
Research from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, points to the need for the legislation.
According to AGI, forty-five percent of women who have abortions are of college-age, 18-24 years old. Women with some college had a pregnancy rate that was lower than average, but still “had the highest abortion rate of any educational group.”
“The statistics support what pregnant and parenting students have been telling Feminists for Life for years-that they need more resources and support,” Foster said.
Among women who had abortions, 71% of 18-19 year olds and 58% of 20-24 year olds said having a child would interfere with their education or career.
“We need to listen," Foster said.
Colleges who participated in the grants authorized by the legislation would host an initial pregnancy forum to better understand how to help students. The forums would help set goals for improved services and access to services including housing, child care, maternity coverage and riders for additional family members in any student health care plan.
Related web sites: Feminists for Life of America - http://www.feministsforlife.org
Printed from: http://www.lifenews.com/nat1787.html
More "Straight Talk"
Michael Galloway, founder, Catholic Online, and co-founder, Your Catholic Voice Foundation (YCVF).
It's Grass Roots or We Will Fail! Do We Truly Desire to End Abortion? Help Wanted: Ambassadors of Light
Dear Friends:
Thank you for being so patience these last few weeks. Our "Catholic Online" and "Your Catholic Voice Foundation" participation for the immediate needs of Hurricane Katrina victims has been addressed.
We are now returning, front and center, to "Babies Count on Me" campaign.
The first casualty of the War on the Womb was not a baby. It was the Truth. Do you feel prepared to tell the truth to your neighbor?
If we are going to unite to win this War on the Womb, the first priority must be a widely disseminated message of Foundational Truth. How do we accomplish this?
Some say visual media. Some say billboard campaigns. Some say e-mail blasts. Some say direct mail campaigns. Some say national debates. Some say newspaper ads. Who is right? Where should the priority of budget allocations for message go?
Probably everyone is right to a degree and can make a reasonable argument for the use of all of these "message media" tools. However, no integration of message and media is going to be anywhere near as effective as one neighbor talking to another neighbor, or one worker talking to a fellow worker, or one soccer coach talking to another soccer coach. We need to engage our friends and neighbors in discussion. We need to ask thought provoking questions. We need to ask them often. We need to be ready to talk. We must feel prepared.
In poll after poll, one message comes through: One half of the American population does not feel strongly one way or the other about the issue of Abortion. Does it bother us that some people have more conviction and intensity about their college football picks than the right of unborn children to live?
How does a person come to feel strongly about this issue? What information is necessary to impact how a person feels about Abortion? What is the very best method of delivering this message? Who should deliver it? When should it be delivered?
For over thirty years, at the expense of literally hundreds of millions of dollars, that's hundreds of millions, we have been trying to accomplish in the public arena what probably can only be well accomplished over a cup of coffee or a bowl of ice cream. We don't need a poll to tell us that most Americans are Pro-Dessert.
When Christ entrusted the future of the church to His followers, He gave them three metaphors and promised them some very real help in their role as Ambassadors of truth.
The Metaphors for the establishment of Gospel, the good news, of Christ's Kingdom were:
Light: You are the light of the world.
Salt: You are the salt of the earth.
Yeast: You are yeast to work through the entire batch of dough.
We must understand that we cannot be light under a bushel, salt in the saltshaker, or yeast stored in a container and do our job. We must come in contact with our world to effect our world.
Of course, they expressed concern about their abilities, much as you and I would today, or do today when we think about talking to anyone about our personal beliefs. To this vacuum of confidence, Christ promised the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit who would provide the actual words required, when required, for the purposes required. We have to prepare but God provides the opportunities as well as the content. I will ask again. Do you feel prepared?
We cannot win the War on the Womb without "feet in the streets". Is there a need for money? Of course. Is there a need for Pregnancy Resource Centers? Of course. Is there a need for education? Of course. Is there a need for counseling, before and after an abortion? Of course. These and other measures must be taken.
What is practically needed? Ambassadors of Life in every village, town, city, and metropolis that will systematically take the message of life, in non-threatening, non-combative methods to an informal setting over coffee and dessert with friends, and friends of friends. We need Light, Salt, and Yeast.
What separates, in the simplest terms, the Pro-life and Pro-choice movements? Cut through it all, and where do you find the foundational positions that under gird both positions?
The Pro-Choice Movement believes a woman has the right to abort, kill, a pre-birth child, for any reason. The Pro-life movement believes that a pre-birth fetus is a human being, entitled to the right to be born.
Certainly, a person of even average intelligence can explain over a cup of coffee, in ten minutes, the reasons they believe a fetus is a human being, and has a right to be born. One half of all the people you know and see every single day have no firm opinion on this matter. One half.
The Pro-Choice position cannot sustain itself if a person believes the un-born child is entitled to life, and protection under the law. A baby trumps "choice".
Almost no one, statistically, believes that a mother, in the privacy of her own home, and for her own reasons, may punish, torture, or kill her toddler, regardless of her economic condition or the inconvenience that the toddler brings to the mother's life. No one believes a father that does not desire to take responsibility for his child may kill the child to avoid responsibility. So a toddler is entitled to life, but a baby is not entitled to life? Where is the disconnect? Who or what is in the womb?
Think this through with me. If 99.9% of the population believes that infanticide is absolutely wrong, than why is Abortion considered a right? Sounds like we haven't communicated our position very well.
Science has clearly established that a fetus has everything required to become a fully formed and fully functioning human being and that it is totally distinct from its mother's body. This is not a religious fact. It is a scientific fact.
The entire matter hinges on what we believe about Who or What is in the womb.
If our neighbor comes to believe that a fetus in the womb is a pre-toddler, a human being, it will be impossible to deny that human being the right to live. We make decisions, at home, in our community, and in our nation on our acceptance of certain tenants of truth.
Every single day, literally hundreds of millions of US citizens are inconvenienced by speed limits, seat belt laws, drunk driving statutes, and traffic lights. Every day prospective child molesters are inconvenienced by child protection statutes. Every single day industry is inconvenienced by pure air standards. Somehow, we have figured out how to protect our drivers, our children from predators, and our air from polluters, regardless of the cost or inconvenience. We get it done!
The United States of America is blessed to have a citizenry that is relatively intelligent, relatively well educated, and enjoys a system of representative government that can establish laws that protect our citizenry.
However we have a history that tells us, we, as a society, can support moral wrongs by the popular vote, unless and until a grass roots movement says, "This is wrong. It doesn't matter that it is legal. It is wrong."
Slavery was not more wrong in the mid century than at the turn of the century. What changed? A grass roots movement said, "It is absolutely, fundamentally, and morally wrong. It does not matter who is inconvenienced by eradicating slavery. It does not matter what the economic impact is to this country. It does not matter if businesses will go out of business. It does not matter that national trade will suffer. It does not matter that entire sections of our lifestyle will be impacted. It is wrong. And it must end. We must do what is right, and find a way to sort out the impact as we go. The first step is to do what is right."
And we spent money and the blood of our citizenry to correct the deeply ingrained, yet deeply troubling, moral wrong. We found our way!
If we have learned anything from history, we have learned that, in a representative governmental system, when the citizenry want something done, based on the conviction of their hearts, it is going to come to pass. There may be inflamed rhetoric. There may be people voted out of office. There may be protests, and as the Scriptures say, "great gnashing of teeth", but when your un-committed neighbors believe that a fetus is simply a pre-born toddler, with an absolute right to live, we will see it come to pass. And how will they come to believe it? You could very well be the messenger.
I am Sincerely Yours in Christ, Michael Galloway
A life and death debate over a baby. A Priest, a prostitute and a homeless man walk into a police station. Debating the Life Issue. Can You Explain Why You Believe Abortion on Demand is Wrong? Can You Respond to Proponents of .Pro-choice. Arguments? Can You Explain to Your Co-worker Why You Are Pro-Life?
The Pro-Choice Position is Easily Summarized, and reflected in the overview below, as well as in the high school debate story below. Before you read the story, can you respond to these positions of the ProChoice Agenda? This is not an exhaustive list of positions, but is representative. Please print this overview and the debate story for future reflection.
A Woman is constitutionally entitled to the right of privacy, and thereby entitled to determine the destiny of the fetus in her womb. A Woman is not aborting a baby, because what she aborts does not have the attributes of a human being. A Woman's right to choose abortion is the right to self determine her best course of reproductive health considering all moral and health options. A Woman's right to choose is rooted in compassionate concern for the prospective needs of the prospective child, truly valuing children and family, and weighing costs, care, parenting skills, and all factors, primary of which is the issue of "Is the child planned, and Is the child wanted?". A Woman's right to choose cannot be abridged by the "good intentions" of the religious community who have no authority over the decisions of the woman and no right to legislate their morality. No one can say with assurance, when does life truly begin, and therefore, every one's opinion is as valid as any one's opinion. A Woman's right to choose in anchored is the "freedom of choice", a right basic to our way of life, and it must be protected and preserved. The Medical Community is perfectly capable of assisting an expectant mother with her options, and this issue should end there. People of religious conviction have no consensus of opinion in this matter, and are therefore disqualified , both by reason of their lack of unity, and by the protection afforded constitutionally for separation of Church and State from influencing this body of law. Fetal rights and Fetal protection legislation punishes women for their behavior during pregnancy, and is opening a very dangerous door to prosecution for any number of perceived wrong behaviors. A Priest, a prostitute and a homeless man walk into a police station. The Debate was Humiliating. Pro-Lifers are Zapped. The Kids Get Ready for Round Two
The Debate was over. Women's right to choose. Rape. Incest. Rights of governments to interfere. Our bodies, our decisions. Abortion is the legal law of the land. All front and centre. Thank heavens the humiliation was over.
The pro-life position students hung their heads. They were mortified. In only minutes, literally minutes, they had their heads handed to them by the "pro-choice" debate team. And in front of the entire student body, and their teachers. Even the cooks and janitors watched. It wasn't pretty. Six points made. Six responses pitifully failed. Debate over. Custer had more success at Bull Run.
The track coach, Mr. Evans, had walked up to their table. The auditorium was empty as everyone had moved to the cafeteria. "That must have been very painful. And humiliating. To be so publicly trounced, in front of the entire student body." This insight was followed by a larger than life laugh from Mr. Evans. No one shared his good humor.
Robert looked up, but Sheryl spoke first." We thought you were on our side. Now you're laughing at us. Thanks for nothing." Heads hung lower.
"Well, you were wrong. I was on the side of winning, and you are obviously on the side of losing. You will find the loser's side pretty lonely. Look around. See anyone asking for autographs?" He continued, "Look kids, being right is not enough. Being on the side of right is not enough. You lost this debate. You deserved to lose this debate. Do you want to know why?"
By now the kids were pretty exasperated. "Sure. Tell us why we lost the debate. We thought we lost because we sucked." From Robert.
"You were simply un-prepared. You were un-prepared to respond to their assertions. You were unprepared to respond to miss-direction. You were un-prepared to respond to personality attacks. But you know where you really blew it?" He was now leaning over the table and inviting them with his eyes to respond.
This time it was Greg, the favorite for valedictorian of the senior class in his best sarcasm. "Not just where we blew it, but where we really blew it. Boy, I can't wait for this!"
Mr. Evans weighed in. "Greg, you are a smart guy. All you kids are smart. But today it didn't look like it. You were unprepared to frame your arguments in a way that engaged your opponent and the audience."
"Do yourself a favor. Find a way, in one sentence, one sentence that neutralizes your opponent's position, and states your position in a way that cannot be misunderstood. At most use two sentences. Then use an illustration than cannot be misunderstood. But force yourself to talk less and communicate more. Use a statement. Ask a question. Make a comparison, but talk less, and communicate more. No one, and I mean no one is going to remember one point that your team made today. If facts and figures mattered, there would be no debate. You over-talked one of the most important social issues of our day, and lost badly."
Greg was pretty uncomfortable with this dressing down, but his desire to win this debate, for many reasons, were overshadowing his wounded pride. "Maybe Mr. Evans is right. Why don't we try to summarize in a very brief response our positions from the debate today?"
Sheryl didn't feel like role play, and she said as much. "It is far too complex a debate for one sentence replies or summaries. With all due respect, Mr. Evans, it is a very complex societal issue."
Mr. Evans laughed out loud. "No Sheryl, it is not that complex. Let's all of us have a go at it. I will take the first challenge and frame the response, and we will work into the others. What was the first position?"
Robert remembered. It was his to respond to. They never made up the lost ground after he muddled his answer. "We assert that a woman, as a citizen of the United States, has the essential and sovereign constitutional right to choose what she does with her body."
Mr. Evans began. "This is simply an untrue statement, for in no home, business, or public or private location, in America may a woman or a man for that matter, choose to do anything, without some limitations, with their body by constitutionally vested rights. Can I shoot up heroin, smoke dope, do meth, parade about on a playground without my clothes, and sell my body organs on the black market? No, the constitution does not guarantee unbridled personal freedom. The supposition is clearly and universally false."
They had to admit. It was a pretty good response. Sheryl got into the game. "How about the one I had to handle. "The Right to Life Zealots are trying to force their morality on the rest of society. We believe that a woman's right to choose to abort an unwelcome or unplanned pregnancy is her decision, and the state has no right to interfere in that decision, and that one segment of society has no right to enforce their morality on another segment of society."
"That was a tough one, wasn't it Sheryl. Why?" Mr. Evans had their attention. "What did the speaker do?"
"It seemed like he threw everything in, so no matter what you said, you were against women and part of the "evil" right to life zealots forcing our views on mothers. Anyway, I blew it." Sheryl was almost despondent.
"Again, hit the main issue in a way that is understandable. How about, "You have made three assertions, all of which are untrue. A woman has an unbridled right, the state cannot interfere, and one segment of society has no right to "enforce" their morality on another segment of society.
Let us respond to the third assertion first.
Early one morning, a priest, a prostitute, and a homeless man walk into a police station. The prostitute says," I was on my way home from work and there is a produce truck stalled on the train track crossing." The Priest says," I was on my way in to Mass, and I noticed a stalled grocery truck on the Railroad crossing." The homeless man says," I woke up this morning out by the RR Crossing, and there is a truck sitting where the train goes through." The police immediately send a patrol car, contact the Railroad, and call for a wrecker to avoid the loss of innocent life. Notice that the character or the perceived worth, or the religious conviction of the messenger did not change the message. "Innocent lives will be lost, if someone doesn't do something". Any member of our society, regardless of their religious or non-religious conviction may contribute to the process of establishing truth and right action in the interest of protecting innocent life.
Next, A woman has the legal right to choose. "This is a sad and embarrassing argument for the position of Pro-Abortion that just doesn't work. The last people that tried this argument approach tried to use it to justify slavery. Does this sound familiar? No do-gooder group, particularly a church group, can tell me not to have slaves. If I want to buy slaves, sell slaves, do anything I want with my slaves, it is nobody's business but my own, and non-slave owners cannot tell slave owners what to do. It is our legal right. Your argument failed slave owners and it fails for you today. Why? Slavery was fundamentally wrong. You cannot make something right that is fundamentally wrong no matter how clever you are, even if a current law supports your position.
Lastly, Guess what? All laws are anti-choice for somebody! A Republic form of government guarantees the State the right to interfere. Any other conclusion is simply un-informed or naive. All laws reflect a certain moral view. All laws reflect a developed view of society's concerns. A bank robber may not agree with bank robbery laws, but most law abiding citizens do. We certainly legislate morality. We did it yesterday, will do it today, and it will happen tomorrow. Your premise is simply incorrect and without foundation in current fact or history."
"I had the tough one, and I really blew it." This time it was Sandra. She was really sick with her performance. "We hold that a woman has a right to an abortion because a woman does have the right to control her own body, and this right may not be interfered with, for any reason"
Mr. Evans took a little extra time. "Who around this table is for a woman or a man's right to make choices with his own body, so long as those choices do not break laws or injure other people?" Everyone looked around and slowly raised their hands. "What just happened? So, it looks like we are pro-choice, right? We were miss-directed and we walked right into it. Don't be conflicted. Everyone is pro-choice. To a point. And guess what? Everyone is "anti-choice" on certain issues."
"The entire abortion debate, boiled down, is not complex. It is simple. Ready?"
They were really ready. "Tell us!".
"The Pro Choice Side simply believes that a woman is making a choice for her own body. The Pro Life side believes she is making a choice for another human being that at that moment is totally defenseless. If it is not a human being, no harm, no foul. If it is a human being, than every single argument made for killing a child in the womb can be made for killing of children outside the womb. It all hinges on this issue."
"Is this true? Is what I have said true?" Mr. Evans waited. "If it is true, than again, how do we respond simply, truthfully, and completely to this statement? "A woman has the right to make a choice over her own body."?
Greg took the lead, a little confidence rising. "How about, We would agree that a woman certainly, within the confines of the law, has the right to make decisions regarding her own body, but that is not what you are referring to in your statement when you qualify it with the act of abortion.
In an Abortion, a woman is not aborting a part of her own body. She is not losing a tooth, or an organ, or some extra tissue. Science has established that the embryo, the fetus, the baby, that is aborted has everything it could ever possibly need to be a human being, and that it is, on a very small scale, a truly human being. The only thing that happens after conception is that this baby gets older, larger, more aware and less dependant. This is not a religious view. It is scientific fact and the subject of many medical school textbooks.
We do not believe that any woman, or any man, has the right to unilaterally determine that a child shall not have the right to life because the child is small, dependant, or not very highly developed. We do not allow such decisions after birth. Some of our audience remember the Susan Smith incident in which a mother killed her children by submerging her automobile. Either this act was wrong or was it simply bad timing? We do not allow mothers to kill toddlers, junior high students, teenagers or their adult children. Why? And what is the true difference between an infant and a toddler and an infant and a pre-born baby? Only the location and stage of development. Can you imagine a law that said "Seniors have the right to abort Freshman?" They are obviously less developed and most are smaller.
Your statement confuses a baby, completely distinct from his or her mother, even though it is in the mother's body, with a disposable part of the mother's body. Therefore, your premise is false, and your position is without merit.
A woman has a right to make choices over the destiny of her own body, but not the right to make decisions for the life and death destiny of another human being, that is temporarily residing in her body.
Mr. Evans joined the group in a clap. "Bravo, Greg. Not in one sentence or two sentences, but I bet you would have kept the audience with you, and, more importantly forced the truth into focus, which is the real purpose of this kind of debate.
Greg asked, "How would you have handled it?"
Mr. Evans stated, "Greg, I think you did a good job. If I were answering it, I would probably start with a statement like, "The three most important words in real estate are "location, location, location." The four most important words in this debate are, "Is it a baby?" If it is a baby, the location of the baby is irrelevant. In the mother, out of the mother in a hospital, or out of the hospital in a home, or out of the home in a day school. Location does not matter. If it is a baby, it is entitled to the same rights we provide to any person in the human family. If it is a baby, then by definition, the mother of the baby does not have a right to kill this baby.
Many in the audience will remember the tiny baby that fell into a well pipe in the family home back yard, and it could not free itself. The entire nation held vigil by their televisions to see if the tiny baby could be rescued from this dark, temporary location. The baby was totally dependent. Surprisingly no one suggested that instruments be inserted into the well pipe to dismember the child and remove it from the pipe in the interest of saving money or inconvenience to the parents. That baby was rescued. America cheered.
1,300,000 plus babies a year never have the opportunity to emerge from the mother's womb alive. Instead, they are forcibly removed and die in the process. Why? What is the difference between the baby in the well and the baby in the womb?
You kids are smart. Why not ask for round two? The good news is the other side hasn't come up with any new arguments for nearly forty years. In the mean time, science is helping your side. There will be no surprises." Mr. Evans stood to leave.
"Mr. Evans, what about my question. "If obtaining an abortion becomes illegal, it will force poor women to seek illegal abortions and further contribute to mother and infant mortality." Isn't it true? Really, I know we are for life and against abortion, but isn't it true? How do we answer statements that we can't really refute if they are true. It's kind of hard to win debates when you think they might be right?" No wonder Peter had been so quiet.
And Janet had gotten the rape statement combined with the incest statement. She wasn't sure if she could get a one sentence response, now or ever.
Mr. Evans smiled. At least they were getting their spirit back.
To Peter: "We, as a country, do not refrain from passing laws to protect the innocent because the laws will inconvenience people, whether those people are rich or poor. As an example, child sexual abuse laws are in place to protect children. We do not consider when passing such laws that their compliance may inconvenience those who exploit children. We pass the laws to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Women don't have to get illegal abortions if abortion on demand becomes illegal. They can choose to get illegal abortions. They would be choosing to break a law. The primary consideration in determining right or wrong is not the convenience of keeping the law after right action has been determined."
To Janet: "Less than one percent of all unexpected pregnancies are the result of a rape or a forced sexual union, and yet it is a very significant issue. What is rape? Rape is a horrible act of violence carried out against a smaller, defenseless person, by a larger person in control by the virtue of their overwhelming strength. Most people are anti-choice about the right to rape. To abort the child created by such a union continues the aggression of the more powerful against the defenseless. Do we punish an innocent?
Let's say a one year old's father has too much to drink one night, crosses the line between right and wrong, and rapes the neighbor. Should the child of the father that committed this horrible act be put to death for his father's act? Even if the man goes to prison, that toddler will be there, in the same neighborhood, day after day, week after week as a reminder that his father committed a crime. To punish an innocent for another's crime, no matter how heinous the crime, is certainly beneath a truly human society.
It is of course, a difficult and vexing issue, unless and until you determine Who and What is in the womb. If what develops in the womb is a child, we cannot kill a child for her parent's crime. Would anyone in this room vote to kill a child for her father's crime? Is it a difficult question? Of course it is difficult. Right up to the point when you determine the unborn is a human being. And then it becomes very clear. When we know what is right, we find a way to deal with the outcome.
Kids, listen. The question always, always comes back to this: What or who is the unborn in the womb? Are they a human being, smaller, less developed, totally dependant, and perhaps less aware then a kindergartner? If we know this, we know what to do.
We know what laws to pass. We know what rights to grant and what rights to limit. We know what we must do in our society to make allowances for this information. Is it possible that an unexpected pregnancy would inconvenience the mother for many months? Of course. And yet the alternative is death. We can figure this out, if we have the answer to this simple question.
Our society has wrestled through difficult issues before. We found the truth. We displaced the lies. We displaced the entrenched positions. We made accommodations in our daily lifestyle to reflect the reality of our discoveries. We passed laws. We may have to establish financial subsidies. But we will find a way to act on the truth.
Your next debate will be much more productive, it you keep that as your focus. No matter what statement is made, how does it relate to this fundamental knowledge, of who, or what is in the womb?
See you around."
The Current Situation in American Life: Nearly five of ten people have no firm conviction regarding abortion. Half of your neighbors. Half of the parents in the local school. And believe it or not, many in your church this coming Sunday.
Are you prepared to win hearts and minds? Can you listen to the opposition's arguments, and respond with truth that makes sense? Can you ask thought provoking questions? Can you articulate truth without being combative, and let .truth. win on its own merits? Can you demonstrate the human rights issues apart from the religious issues? Do you know the simple scientific findings now available that were unknown in 1973?
How important is it? Over one million three hundred thousand persons that God designed, assigned, and made ready for delivery will be killed on the way to his or her destiny because a mother does not see this issue clearly and because our laws still provide for Abortion on Demand.
When we look at it like that, doesn't a little homework make sense, a little practice role play and invitations to a few conversations over coffee and dessert with the non-committed for the purpose of establishing dialogue?
YCVF is committed to providing resources for a grass roots effort to establish dialogue that opens minds to the possibility that who or what is in the womb is a baby, a human being, with rights, defined and protected by law.
Contact Us Your Catholic Voice Foundation - 501 © 3 PO Box 11236 Bakersfield, CA 93389 Email: info@ycvf.org Web: www.ycvf.org
Tel: 661 869-1000 Fax: 661 869-0461 www.ycvf.org
Many women victim of 'gendercide,' study finds 18 Nov 2005 04:36:40 GMT
Source: Reuters
Background TALKING POINT: The global food aid controversy
FACTBOX: Cholera epidemic hits Guinea-Bissau
FAMINE RESOURCE FILE: The reality of hunger
SLIDE SHOW: Life-cycle of a famine
MORE By Larry Fine
UNITED NATIONS, Nov 17 (Reuters) - There is a shortfall of some 200 million women in the world -- "missing' due to what a three-year study on violence against women calls "gendercide."
The number of what the study describes as 'missing' women is based on the random birthrate of males and females and how many fewer women there are than what would be expected in the world population, said Theodor Winkler, head of a research center that directed the project.
Winkler told a news conference at the United Nations on Thursday that gender-related abortions and infanticides were the leading causes for the shortfall in the female population. Another factor was domestic violence, including so-called honor killings in some cultures.
"We are confronted with the slaughter of Eve, a systematic gendercide of tragic proportions," Winkler wrote in the preface to the study, recently published as a book titled "Women in an Insecure World."
"There are dozens of ways women come to a grisly end," Winkler told U.N. reporters. "Obviously, human rights and the legal protection of women is of crucial importance but it is only one component. There is also a cultural change that must operate."
Winkler said violence against women was the fourth-leading cause of premature death on the planet, ranking behind only disease, hunger and war.
"It starts in the womb. There are societies where male births are preferred, particularly if the number of births are limited. That's where abortion for gender reasons starts," he said.
The book uses U.N., World Heath Organization and government reports and photographs to examine the plight of women.
It details statistics on rape, violence traced to forced marriages, prostitution and sex slavery. The book says that according to a study based on 50 surveys from around the world, "at least one out of every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused in her lifetime."
At least 700,000 women are sold into prostitution annually, the book added.
"The deeply rooted phenomenon of the violence against women is one of the great crimes of humanity. We cannot close our eyes to it and hope it simply goes away," Winkler said.
The book was produced by a committee formed by the Geneva Center for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces to be distributed to governments, academics and health practitioners.
AlertNet news is provided by
YES AND BY 8 WEEKS...
By 8 weeks?
By this age the neuroanatomic structures are present. What is needed is (1) asensory nerve to feel the pain and send a message to (2) the thalamus, a part ofthe base of the brain, and (3) motor nerves that send a message to that area.These are present at 8 weeks.
The pain impulse goes to the thalamus. It sends a signal down the motornerves to pull away from the hurt.
Give an example.
Try sticking an infant with a pin and you know what happens. She opens hermouth to cry and also pulls away.
Try sticking an 8 week old human fetus in the palm of his hand. He opens hismouth and pulls his hand away.
A more technical description would add that changes in heart rate and fetalmovement also suggest that intrauterine manipulations are painful to the fetus.
Volman & Pearson, "What the Fetus Feels," British Med.Journal, Jan. 26,1980, pp. 233-234.
O.K., that is activity that can be observed, but is there other evidence ofpain? After all, the fetal baby can’t tell us he hurts.
Pain can be detected when nociceptors (pain receptors) discharge electricalimpulses to the spinal cord and brain. These fire impulses outward, telling themuscles and body to react. These can be measured.
Mountcastle, MedicalPhysiology, St.Louis: C.V. Mosby, pp. 391-427
"Lip tactile response may be evoked by the end of the 7th week. At 11weeks, the face and all parts of the upper and lower extremities are sensitiveto touch. By 13 1/2 to 14 weeks, the entire body surface, except for the backand the top of the head, are sensitive to pain."
S. Reinis & J. Goldman, TheDevelopment of the Brain C. Thomas Pub.,1980
Give me more proof.
In 1984 President Reagan said: "Whenthe lives of the unborn are snuffed out, they often feel pain, pain that is longand agonizing."
President Ronald Reagan to National Religious Broadcasters, New York Times,Jan. 31, 1984
This provoked a public reaction from pro-abortion circles and a response froman auspicious group of professors, including pain specialists and two pastpresidents of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
They strongly backed Mr. Reagan and produced substantial documentation.Excerpts of their letter (2/13/84) to him included:
"Real time ultrasonography, fetoscopy, study of the fetal EKG(electrocardiogram) and fetal EEG (electroencephalogram) have demonstrated theremarkable responsiveness of the human fetus to pain, touch, and sound. That thefetus responds to changes in light intensity within the womb, to heat, to cold,and to taste (by altering the chemical nature of the fluid swallowed by thefetus) has been exquisitely documented in the pioneering work of the late SirWilliam Lily — the father of fetology."
We state categorically that no finding of modern fetology invalidates theremarkable conclusion drawn after a lifetime of research by the late ProfessorArnold Gesell of Yale University. In The Embryology of Behavior:The Beginnings of the Human Mind (1945,Harper Bros.), Dr. Gesell wrote, "and so by the close of the firsttrimester the fetus is a sentient, moving being. We need not speculate as to thenature of his psychic attributes, but we may assert that the organization of hispsychosomatic self is well under way."
Mr. President, in drawing attention to the capability of the human fetus tofeel pain, you stand on firmly established ground.
Willke, J & B, Abortion:Questions & Answers, Hayes, 1991, Chpt. 10
What of The Silent Scream?
A Realtime ultrasoundvideo tape and movie of a 12-week suction abortion is commercially available as,The Silent Scream,narrated by Dr. B. Nathanson, a former abortionist. It dramatically, butfactually, shows the pre-born baby dodging the suction instrument time aftertime, while its heartbeat doubles in rate. When finally caught, its body beingdismembered, the baby’s mouth clearly opens wide — hence, the title(available from American Portrait Films, P.O. Box 19266, Cleveland, OH 44119,216-531-8600). Proabortionists have attempted to discredit this film. A welldocumented paper refuting their charges is available from National Right toLife, 419 7th St. NW, Washington, DC 20004, $2.00 p.p.
A short, 10-minute video showing the testimony of the doctor who did theabortion in Silent Scream definitelydebunks any criticism of SilentScream’s accuracy. TheAnswer, Bernadel, Inc., P.O. Box 1897, Old Chelsea Station, New York,NY, 10011.
Pain? What of just comfort?
"One of the most uncomfortable ledges that the unborn can encounter ishis mother’s backbone. If he happens to be lying so that his own backbone isacross hers [when the mother lies on her back], the unborn will wiggle arounduntil he can get away from this highly disagreeable position."
M. Liley & B. Day, ModernMotherhood, Random House, 1969, p. 42
But isn’t pain mostly psychological?
There is also organic, or physiological pain which elicits a neurologicalresponse to pain.
P. Lubeskind, "Psychology & Physiology of Pain," Amer. ReviewPsychology, vol.28, 1977, p. 42
But early on there is no cerebral cortex for thinking, therefore no pain?
The cortex isn’t needed to feel pain. The thalamus is needed and (seeabove) is functioning at 8 weeks. Even complete removal of the cortex does noteliminate the sensation of pain. "Indeed there seems to be little evidencethat pain information reaches the sensory cortex."
Patton et al., Intro. to Basic Neurology, W. B. Saunders Co. 1976, p. 178
How about during an abortion?
This really hit the fan during the 1996 debate in the U.S. Congress over alaw to ban partial birth abortions. Pro-abortionists had claimed that theanaesthetic had already killed the fetal baby. Top officials of the U.S. Societyfor Obstetric Anaesthesia & Perinatology vigorously denied this explainingthat usual anaesthesia did not harm the baby.
D. Gianelli, Anaesthesiologists Question Claims in Abortion Debate, Am. Med.News, Jan. 1, ’96
This brought the issue of fetal pain into the news, and testimony was givento the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the U.S. House of Representatives.
"The fetus within this time frame of gestation, 20 weeks and beyond, isfully capable of experiencing pain. Without doubt a partial birth abortion is adreadfully painful experience for any infant.
R. White, Dir. Neurosurgery & Brain Research, Case WesternUniv.
Also, "Far from being less able to feel pain, such premature newbornsmay be more sensitive to pain" ...that babies under 30 weeks have a"newly established pain system that is raw and unmodified at this tenderage."
P. Ranalli, Neuro. Dept., Univ. of Toronto
Give me more research data.
Data in the British Medical Journal, Lancet, gave solid confirmation of suchpain. It is known that the fetal umbilical cord has no pain receptors such asthe rest of the fetal body. Accordingly, they tested fetal hormone stressresponse comparing puncturing of the abdomen and of the cord.
They observed "thefetus reacts to intrahepatic (liver) needling with vigorous body and breathingmovements, but not to cord needling. The levels of these hormones did not varywith fetal age."
M. Fisk,et al., Fetal Plasma Cortisol and Bendorphin Response to Intrauterine Needling, Lancet, Vol. 344, July 9, 1994, Pg. 77
Another excellent British studycommented on this: "It cannot be comfortable for the fetus to have a scalpelectrode implanted on his skin, to have blood taken from the scalp or to sufferthe skull compression that may occur even with spontaneous delivery. It ishardly surprising that infants delivered by difficult forceps extraction act asif they have a severe headache."
Valman& Pearson, "What the Fetus Feels," British Med. Jour., Jan. 26, 1980
More about fetal pain from Neurologist Paul Ranalli.
Fetal Study Adds Fuel to Late Term Abortion Debate (Fox News, Aug. 31, 2001)
God sees embryos as full and complete humans - Pope
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - God sees embryos as "full and complete" humans, Pope Benedict said on Wednesday in an address that firmly underlined the Roman Catholic Church's stance against abortion and scientific research on embryos.
"The loving eyes of God look on the human being, considered full and complete at its beginning," Benedict said in his weekly address to the faithful gathered in St. Peter's Square.
Quoting Psalm 139, Benedict said the Bible teaches that God already recognises the embryo as a complete human. That view is the basis for the Church teaching that aborting or manipulating these embryos amounts to murder.
In Psalm 139, the psalmist says to God: "Thou didst see my limbs unformed in the womb, and in thy book they are all recorded."
"It is extremely powerful, the idea in this psalm, that in this 'unformed' embryo God already sees the whole future," Benedict said.
"In the Lord's book of life, the days that this creature will live and will fill with works during his time on earth are already written."
Benedict has already weighed into an Italian debate on abortion ahead of a general election in April, publicly supporting a pro-life group that right-wing Health Minister Francesco Storace wants to have access to counselling centres advising women seeking to terminate pregnancy.
The Pontiff also raised the theme in his Christmas Eve mass on Saturday, saying the love of God shines on each child, "even on those still unborn".
As well as being against abortion in all cases, the Church opposes stem-cell research which extracts useful cells from unused embryos left over from fertility treatments.
The United States Congress is debating whether to expand federal funding for this kind of research, which scientists say could provide cures to many debilitating diseases.
More "Straight Talk"
from Michael Galloway, founder, Catholic Online, and co-founder, Your Catholic Voice Foundation (YCVF).
Statistics, Lies and the Simple Truth A Reminder: What we know about the rate of abortion. Why don't enough of us care any more?
Mark Twain's statement regarding statistics is often quoted and needn't be repeated here. It's enough to say Mr. Clemens believed even reliable statistics were unsafe in the hands of manipulative people. He was right.
You've seen the statistics regarding the prevalence of abortion. Abortion is a common medical procedure. Always wrong. Altogether too common. You've seen the figures. They're staggering. Those who actually support the killing of pre-born children suggest that 1.31 million babies are aborted each year. As a culture, we've been doing this legally at a steady pace for decades. The numbers add up. The most conservative estimates result in a total of over 40 million unborn children aborted since 1973. More than a few estimates approach or exceed 50 million. Fifty million babies! Fifty million! Let's think about that single statistical reality.
No manipulation here. The Centers for Disease Control, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood.they use each other's statistical information, and they all agree. We've been killing our pre-born babies at a horrific rate, and most people.too many conscionable neighbors among them.accept the figures with a practiced sense of recognition and detachment. Why the absence of alarm? What does 40 to 50 million dead people look like anyway?
Imagine you named each one after Mr. Guttmacher. And allow yourself a choice, boy or girl, Alan or Aileen. Think of each deserving Guttmacher baby strolling across a graduation stage at the announcement of each name, at least five syllables each. Maybe you could read as many 30 or more a minute. Thirty would be a pretty steady pace. If a team of readers read all the names (and here we'll use the conservative figure of 40 million total), and you and your team of volunteers took turns and read for ten hours a day, you'd still be reading the names of the dead nearly seven years later.
Fifty million people? Can you grasp it? It's similar to the numbers of people who vote as either Republicans or Democrats in a national U.S. presidential election. Choose. Eliminate everybody who voted in the last election as a Democrat or as a Republican. Go ahead. Choose. That's fifty million people. Think of a football stadium crammed with 100,000 partisan fans, people gathered for the national NCAA championship. Add a few more games, and you have the entire BCS. Now, systematically eliminate all those fans just as abortionists have systematically eliminated the pre-born, and you'd need ticket stubs that stretch back a century or more before you'd completely empty the stands.
Fifty million people? Lose the West Coast. That's right. The whole thing. Everybody in California, Oregon and Washington State. Go ahead, throw in Alaska. Everyone. You could lose most of the East Coast, if you preferred. It's a matter of choice, and it's fifty million people.
You know these statistics, you say. Begin counting, count 24/7 and it would take almost two weeks to count to 1 million. Counting to 40 million or more would take you . . . what . . . a year and a half? You know all that. At some point, you've probably been asked by an elementary school teacher to consider the reality of a million of this or a million of that. Most have.
Here's the deal. We aren't talking mere numbers here. Fifty million isn't just a number. Fifty million isn't just a statistical reality that defines the debate between those who support abortion and those who oppose it.
We're talking about people, fifty million of them created in the image of God. Each one precious, vital and meaningful. That's what the number 50,000,000 represents. But sadly, not now living, breathing people. Not the millions who hear their names announced during graduation ceremonies. Not the millions who vote in presidential elections. Not the millions who attend college football championships. Not the millions who actually live on the West Coast, the East Coast, nor those who live in the Heartland.
The dead. Fifty million dead. Fifty million dead babies. That's what the number represents. Would-be names and faces. People allowed to grow up, graduate, vote, enjoy life, and support their peers. Even attend ball games. All killed before birth. The horror is staggering.
How can we let another year slip by? Do we not hear the clock ticking? Do we allow the numbers of aborted babies to continue to rise? At the rate of several every minute?
We must acknowledge the loss for what it is. We must see the killing for what it is. And, we must continue to speak for those unable to speak for themselves. Otherwise, these dear unborn children are reduced to mere statistics.
Refer to the unborn as people, as babies, and some will disagree. Call abortion murder, and some will disagree. Nuance of language allows the living to define the dead in various ways. But, no one disagrees on the extent of the killing. Fifty million abortions. Fifty million dead.
Some refuse to recognize these babies as people. Many others are certain that human beings is exactly who they are. Astonishingly, many more are uncertain. Proclaim the truth. Join the Psalmist David and acknowledge the wondrous work that God is actively performing in .the inmost being. of each unborn child. Encourage others to seek the truth, as well.
End the slaughter. Stop it now. Embrace a future in which the value of each life is cherished as vital.those born, those unborn, and those now aborted.
Will you proclaim that truth? Will you stand up for the pre-born? Will you speak up? Will you?
Not just statistics. Not just numbers. Pre-born babies. Unborn children. They are people, and killing them is wrong. That's the simple truth.
I am Sincerely Yours in Christ, Michael Galloway
Date: 2006-06-11
Neonatologist Proves That Fetus Feel Pain
Possibly Before Late Gestation
ROME, JUNE 11, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Fetus do feel pain, reports a renown neonatologist and professor of the University of Kansas.
K.J.S. Anand, who proved in the '80s that newborns feel pain, demonstrates in a study that appears in the June 2006 issue of "Pain Clinical Updates," official review of the International Association for the Study of Pain, that fetus feel pain as well, possibly even before late gestation.
According to Anand, the study was carried out because "fetal pain has so many implications that it requires a scientific appraisal independent of the heated controversies regarding abortion, women's rights, or the beginnings of human life."
Anand states: "Earlier arguments against the possibility of fetal pain were based upon the immaturity of, or inhibition of, cortical neurons and thalamocortical inputs in the fetus, as these elements are considered essential for conscious pain perception.
"However, immaturity or hypofunction of cortical neurons are not by themselves sufficient to preclude the occurrence of fetal pain."
"In a careful analysis of fetal behavior that relies upon memory and learning as the highest-order evidence for psychological function in utero," it can be "concluded that conscious sensory perception does occur in the fetus," he said.
"Abortion," the article states, "or fetal surgery provoke robust behavioral and physiological responses not unlike the fetal responses to other aversive stimuli."
Critique
Anand criticizes works that cast doubt on prenatal pain based on the peculiarity of the fetus' nervous system.
He writes: "Such reviews presuppose that cortical activation is necessary for fetal pain perception.
"Based upon this assumption, the lack of evidence for pain-specific thalamocortical connections supports their contention against fetal pain.
"This line of reasoning, however, ignores clinical data ... that ablation or stimulation of the primary somatosensory cortex does not alter pain perception in adults, whereas thalamic ablation or stimulation does."
Anand states that "available scientific evidence makes it possible, even probable, that fetal pain perception occurs well before late gestation."
"Our current understanding of development provides the anatomical structures, the physiological mechanisms, and the functional evidence for pain perception developing in the second trimester, certainly not in the first trimester, but well before the third trimester of human gestation," he says.
Professor Carlo Bellieni, neonatologist of Intensive Neonatal Therapy at Sienna's Le Scotte University Polyclinic, said in comments to ZENIT that the "scientific evidence on the fetal pain" found in the study comes from "the highest world authority" on the topic.
"The struggle against pain by one who cannot express is reinforced," he said.
More "Straight Talk"
from Michael Galloway, founder, Catholic Online, and co-founder, Your Catholic Voice Foundation (YCVF). Ten Questions That Must Be Answered. "Clear Hearing, Clear Seeing, and Clear Thinking Demanded. Lazy Minds Need Not Apply."
Dear Friends,
Thank you for reading these letters. This is the second in a series of twelve addressing the incredible crime happening daily against the innocent and defenseless child in the womb. I am a father, and a grandfather, and a Catholic Christian. I am asking, begging, if necessary, that you read and pray about the content of this letter.
If we ever hope to have any significant statistical impact against the onslaught of Abortion, we must hear clearly, see clearly and think clearly.
I know that someone out there is going to either get their feelings hurt or misunderstand my statement, or get defensive. I am asked every week in the many conversations I have,
"Don't you think that the efforts undertaken by the hundreds of agencies, ministries and individuals are having an impact?"
Of course they are having an impact. That is not the point. The point is that one million babies per year, over 80,000 per month, are being Aborted. Abortion kills babies. Everything we are currently doing is good, but not good enough!!!!!! This result is not acceptable to me, and I trust, it is not acceptable to you.
Now let me ask you a question and how would you answer?
If we do everything the same way, in the same intensity, with the same people, and the same resources, in the same locations, can we expect a different or more positive result???
I Propose that we will not get a different result, less abortions and more adoptions, unless we change some things. The first proposal I submit is that we need to change the way we hear, see and think.
Needed: Excellent Listeners With Clear Eyes and Capacity to Think We need to Hear Clearly at a depth uncommon to normal conversation, in order to See Clearly what is occurring in order to Think Clearly to react.
In several places in the Gospels, Jesus is quoted as saying, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." The Christ knew our tendency to listen at a surface level and miss the "pearls" of truth and understanding. We have to dig deep.
What kind of questions should we be asking? What will the answers tell us about our current efforts and activities to stop Abortion? As an example, wouldn't it be pretty important to have the answers to the following questions answered with crystal clarity?
We must ask the following ten questions and truly listen to the answer so that we can actually see the truth and then prepare our response.
When the decision is made to Abort a child, who makes the decision? A Senator, a representative, a governor, a medical doctor, a Planned Parenthood counselor? Who makes the decision? How does that person make the decision they make? Is it possible an expectant mother makes the decision to Abort just like you make decisions in your daily life?: She looks at her situation, she looks at her alternatives, she weighs her alternatives, and she makes a determination based on what she believes will provide her with the best outcome. She may consider outside information, but for the most part, our current delivery of outside information is too little, delivered way too late. Isn't it obvious by the result we are not achieving? Why does she make the decision to Abort? This is a very big decision, made with broad frequency across ethnic, religious and ideological lines. What are the final "tipping point" issues, the factors that form the "Why"? What can you assume by the fact that the decision is made? Who helps her with this decision? Who has influence in this decision? When is the decision to Abort made? a. Is it made before the pregnancy occurs? b. Has a young expectant mother, or a woman in middle years made a decision well in advance of the situation? c. Did they make the decision watching a friend or family member struggle with an unexpected birth event? d. Did they observe the religious community interact with expectant mothers? e. Did they watch the person's life become completely unraveled in terms of education, finances and family ridicule and shame? f. Was the person influenced in middle school, years ahead of the event by a sex education curriculum philosophy that teaches this baby is not a human being.
Who does the expectant mother talk to first, after suspecting she is pregnant? Her peers? Her parents? The father? A counselor at school? How far down the list of confidants is a representative of the Faith, or are they on the list at all? What does she believe her options are when she learns that she is unexpectedly pregnant? Who shaped those perceptions? It is an absolute error of the greatest magnitude to believe we understand clearly how to stop abortion, if we do not know why it occurs in the first place. Many anti-abortion efforts address a few of the questions. No Response addresses them all.
We cannot afford to be partially informed. The conclusions we draw, the actions we take, the money we donate and spend, all reflect what we believe we know.
I am inviting you to participate with me, a father, grandfather, and a Pro- active Catholic Christian, over the next ninety days as we together seek truth, inspiration, and direction.
I promise to share everything we are discovering, and I invite you to explore this "territory of darkness" seized by our opposition as a stronghold that kills so many tens of thousands of God's precious gifts.
I know we, you and I, can have an immediate and measurable impact as we press forward into this territory currently dominated by a culture of death. It is not for the faint of heart or weak of will. Let us join hands and ranks and advance.
Sincerely Yours in Christ, Michael Galloway
More "Straight Talk"
from Michael Galloway, founder, Catholic Online, and co-founder, Your Catholic Voice Foundation (YCVF).
Is Our Goal To Stop Abortion? Are Pro Lifers Thinking Clearly? Do we know the result we seek?
Dear Friends:
Last week we asked ten questions that must be answered. (To review click here) This week I am asking you to think with me about our current approach and review the Pro Choice logic in a linked Parable. (Chris and Monica Argue)
Look at these statistics:
One in Four Pregnancies result in an Abortion. There will be 1.37 Million Abortions in the US this year. 43% of Women childbearing age have had or will have an abortion. A Gallop Poll reported:
26% of Americans are very strongly pro-choice 29% of Americans are very strongly pro-life. It appears that 45% can be influenced.
Amazingly, as many as 60% of abortions are obtained by women who identify themselves with the Catholic Church, Orthodox Church or various Protestant denominations of the Church. It is safe to say that every single family in America has been touched, directly or indirectly by an act of abortion. Every family.
What is occurring? Why is it occurring? What can be done about it?
Once we begin to get answers to causes, instead of focusing on symptoms, we then need to reason intelligently, what I call, Clear Thinking. Clear Thinking is hard work, and hard to come by. Is our goal to end abortion? We need solutions that work.
We need clear thinking that lets us understand the core or cause of a matter.
Without understanding causes, we have a tendency to focus on the symptoms. The cure for polio was not a better iron lung machine. It was a vaccine that could eliminate the cause.
If we are not careful we could find ourselves focusing our efforts, our money and energy on the symptoms and not the causes. Why do we focus on Symptoms? We often focus on symptoms because even lazy thinking can define symptoms very easily and we feel like we should do something, anything to stop this terrible situation.
Is our goal to stop abortion? We have many worthy goals. Is this our primary goal? If so, by what means?
We do not come up with airplanes flying by studying a rock falling; and we do not come up with ships floating by studying sinking. We must define the result we desire, and then define the steps to achieve the result, and then do the steps.
We need some Clear Thinking but what is clear thinking?
Clear thinking has the following attributes:
Clear thinking asks hard questions. Clear thinking must break with historic stubbornness. Clear thinking rejects pat answers and lazy solutions. Clear thinking penetrates to causes after reviewing results. Clear thinking is humble by nature. Ego gets in the way of Clear thinking. Clear thinking is never self serving. Pet conclusions must be forsaken. Clear thinking is unbiased. Group conclusions are often flawed. Clear thinking is analytical. It seeks a forensic understanding. Clear thinking is unthreatened by discovery. It is open to truth. Clear thinking, lastly, is so rare, when applied, may seem brilliant. Clear thinking asks, What If?, and follows that precious string of infinite possibilities.
This Generation cannot afford to look at the issue of Abortion, in all of its iterations and manifestations, except within the discipline of Clear Thinking.
We will never, never impact this carnage, conducted by the knowing against the powerless, until we see it through the lens of Clear Thinking.
As an example:
What if the decision to obtain an abortion is really settled in the mind of an expectant mother years before she is pregnant? If it is, when did it occur, and how did it occur?
What if a friend of a teenager is the most dominant influence in the mind of an expectant teen mother? If that is true, should some of our resources be devoted to enabling and equipping peer groups?
What if the boyfriend of an expectant mother has the greatest impact in the decision to abort, and he believes that abortion does not kill a child? Should there be message and media directed to young men, and middle aged men?
What if the sex ed classes being conducted in middle and high schools have so de-humanized the child in the womb, that abortion is simply perceived as pro-active birth control that simply eliminates extra tissue from the body? If I am getting rid of a cold or a wart, do I face a moral dilemma?
What if the Pro Life movement has been ineffective at communicating its message that Abortion stills a beating heart? We have tried lots of messages in various media forms. What works, and what doesn't work? If Coca Cola can communicate their message worldwide, what about Pro-Life, Pro-Adoption? How can we be most effective?
What if rivalry has kept ministries, missions and groups sufficiently apart resulting in duplication of efforts, and overlap, in some geographic areas, and no vital services in other areas for expectant mothers? Can we do a better job of coordination?
What if the Pro-Life Pro Adoption movement were as well organized, well funded, and well focused as Planned Parenthood? Do you suppose that a twenty five year plan administered through 25,000 volunteers and 850 offices with nearly a Billion Dollar annual budget would make a difference in our effectiveness?
Next Week: The Enemies of the Pro Life Pro Adoption Movement. Some are closer than you think.
Would you like to read a demonstration of the popular Pro-Choice perspective argue with a pregnant mom that cuts through rhetoric? Click here for "Chris argues to abort his child. Monica says "Bite me"."
Back next week.
Sincerely Yours in Christ, Michael Galloway
More "Straight Talk"
from Michael Galloway, founder, Catholic Online, and co-founder, Your Catholic Voice Foundation (YCVF).
The Baby In the Womb has Three Enemies Apathy, Treasonous Sympathizers, We Choose Agenda. Someone should step into the fight.
The Roe Vs Wade ruling did not make the United States a Nation of Murderers.
It simply revealed that we are a nation of murderers if someone removes the restraint. Not a pretty picture is it? Compromise of principle is a slippery slope.
One of four pregnancies will be terminated by abortion this year. Over one million senseless and brutal acts committed by the powerful against the powerless. It will not stop until we have had enough and get serious about providing alternatives.
Have you had enough? What will it take to get you and me off our backsides?
How can this occur? Let me share a few observations in our continuing series to provoke thought and a more successful action to promote life and adoption. It is critical now.
Years ago, newspapers would call attention to a criminal act by emphasizing Public Enemy No. 1. The Public Enemies of the Child in the Womb may surprise you.
The baby in the womb has three enemies that make the challenges of childhood disease and health trauma pale in comparison. These enemies will orchestrate the death of one in four children in the womb. In cultures outside the United States, the statistics are even more alarming, particularly for baby girls. If you are going to fight an enemy, you should know something about the enemy you intend to engage.
Enemy Number 1: Apathy. We don't know and we don't care. The debate surrounding women's rights, abortion rights, and the language utilized by all sides to raise the rhetoric is generally ignored by almost half of the population. We are numb and dumb. It is more offensive to have pictures of aborted babies on a television news program than the very fact the pictures demonstrate babies are being slaughtered. Forty five percent of our population, according to polls have no strong opinion on Abortion, yet nearly 70%, in the same polls, say that religious belief is an important priority in their lives. Evidently, those that believe that abortion kills a child have been unsuccessful in communicating their message in a meaningful way that would be measured by some meaningful depth of conviction by one half of our society. It is time to make the Apathetic Uncomfortable by every effective means of communication.
Enemy Number 2: Treasonous Co-conspirators and Sympathizers even in church circles. These deluded individuals are quoted as saying that "they are certainly against abortion, but are for a woman's right to choose." They have reached an accommodation with the Kingdom of Darkness; they are sell outs, they should not be in leadership in the Church or in any para-church organizations. There is no neutral position to claim in the issue of abortion. You either want it stopped or you are complicit in the brutal killing of helpless innocent children.
It is reminiscent of some cowardly people who once said, "Well, I believe slavery is wrong, and I would never own slaves, but I support a person's right to choose to own slaves." No one with a truly formed conscience that felt the impression of the Holy Spirit believed that slavery was right, in spite of the fact that there were laws and court rulings that supported slavery. Amazingly, the slave owners and those who made a profit in the "trade" utilized the familiar argument heard today. "Anyone against slavery is against personal freedom expressed as a right to choose. If you don't want to own slaves, don't interfere in our rights to own slaves. We have a legal right to choose. We will suffer economic hardship if we are not allowed to retain slaves. Even the Highest Court of the Land says the slave is a non-person without rights that must be respected." Sound familiar???
It was never right, and it was never going to be right to own a person, even if the law considered them less than full persons. Being sanctioned by state or federal rulings did not make it right. Our society, and particularly those that were slaves suffered greatly until we collectively said, "Enough" and backed our conviction with our actions. We had to look carefully at the rights of individuals set forth in our country's founding documents. We should be mindful that there were church attending people who were content to do nothing, and gave support to the "Right to Choose" argument of those who chose to own slaves. They were just cowards. We have a lot of cowards in the religious circles today.
We have to stop being so politically correct and allowing for so many diverse opinions, when some "opinions" are simply wrong. Misguided PC Tolerance is killing babies. Let judgment start with the church and those who claim allegiance to Christ. No wiggle room. No neutrality. While we hear a lot about utilizing a litmus test for public office appointments being inappropriate, there should be no such reluctance for those that profess to represent Christian based organizations. Are they Pro-life, or Pro-Death? We should ask. They should answer.
We all know the clever word games associated with utilizing the phrase "Pro-Choice" to establish that we are for a person's right to choose. Get real. Everyone is pro-choice about some issues, and anti-choice about other issues. Want an example?
Our society may say that every man should have the right of choice regarding his right for personal sexual expression, but my support for his right of choice would cease the moment he expressed intentions to harm my daughter. When there can be a victim by the action following a choice, the right to choose was just narrowed or completely disappears. Some "choices" are simply wrong!
A room full of sixth graders could sort this out. Can we?
Enemy Number 3: We do what we choose. The organized expressions of a mistaken philosophy of life that makes perceived personal happiness and convenience the primary consideration for all decisions, rejecting even the concept of moral absolutes as archaic meanderings of a less enlightened civilization and the current preoccupation of a "radical religious right" is alive and well, and spreading around the world.
Throughout history, this philosophy has found its way through many expressions and movements, but it is safe to say, in all of history, it has not been as pervasive as it is today. Regardless of the name of the movement, all expressions share a common theme:
Man is the center of the universe, and man is a law unto himself. Therefore, whatever man determines, at that moment in history to be right, is right.
The implication of embracing such a philosophy of life is staggering. Any act can be reasoned out within this incorrect philosophical context. Any Act! No atrocity is bad if it serves my personal good. No act is wrong or right, it is just expedient. There is no absolute right or wrong. We determine.
We are living with the result of this philosophy mirrored by our society's actions. "Children are likely to try sexual expression anyway, so let's teach them technique without moral restraint or compass. You already have two children and are now established in your career. Better to abort this child than have a child that is unwanted. You don't really want to marry this girl you have been sleeping with. Convince her to abort the child so there are no future ties and messy obligations. (see Chris and Monica Debate) Baby girls are less valuable than baby boys. Abort them. Children with handicaps will be burdened throughout their entire life. Better they do not start. On and on."
We are alarmed with the increase in child abuse, and the daily reports of unthinkable acts of violence against helpless children. Why? It is the natural result of a society throwing off any objective moral restraints. Read Romans, Chapter One in the Sacred Scriptures.
The baby in the womb has three enemies. Unfortunately, that baby is not quite ready to step into battle on its own. Someone should step in, and now.
Every pregnancy occurs in relationship to some family. Often, the support of the family is the dominant single influence in the decision to choose life. Can the influence of a parent or grandparent overcome the enemies of the child in the womb? Is it possible that even good Catholics could waiver in a time of teen pregnancy? Please read, "Papa, do you love me?" Our decisions, even when it is tough to do the right thing, make all the difference.
Next Week: "The Blindfolded Chess Player." Our opposition in this cause has a lot to teach us about effective focus.
I am thankful for your prayers and thoughts, and continued willingness to study these issues with YCVF.
Yours Sincerely in Christ, Michael Galloway
More "Straight Talk"
from Michael Galloway, founder, Catholic Online, and co-founder, Your Catholic Voice Foundation (YCVF).
The Blindfolded Chess Player. Ignoring Our Adversary 46 Million Un-Natural Decisions
I am thinking we need a little humility to be a little more effective in our mission. In business we call this opposition research. What is our competition doing? Are we paying attention? What should we be doing? In business, it is vital to survival.
The Pro-Life, Pro-Adoption Movement cannot afford to ignore the tactics and corporate personality of its most worthy adversaries.
The site is Central Park, New York City. The scene could be a movie script. In the midst of thirty chess games being conducted with absolute seriousness, a new opponent sits down with a flourish accross from the "park champion", who is already seated. The board is set. A crowd gathers. The youthful challenger pulls from his pocket a blind fold, and quickly wraps it about his head, sealing off his vision. The elderly gentlemen sitting across the table grins widely, and says "Ready?". The young, sight impaired challenger answers, "Ready." His friend assures the other onlookers that he is going to play his own game, and he does not want the distraction of watching his opponent. The game is over before it is begun. The victory is assured.
The player in this chess game, just like in life, that "sees" the board, and his opponent's tactics with clarity wins. The player that ignores his opponent often loses.
Arrogance has no place in chess, or in the battle for the life of the unborn.
I am focusing this week on a few of the lessons we can learn from our adversary. I, as well as others, have observed a few attributes of our opposition's approach to furthering their agenda that may surprise you.
In terms of effectiveness, their philosophy, and their ability to deliver it, has resulted in mothers of babies making the most unnatural of decisions to kill their unborn child, in numbers now exceeding 40 million times. Let that sink in. Even if you do not respect or pretend to understand their position or agenda, you must pay attention to the effectiveness of their result. This is an un-natural decision. Un-natural. And yet.
What are the attributes of the Adversary's temperament, operations, movement, philosophy, and tactics? The following represent a few of our observations.
They have developed thick skin. No matter how many names they are called, or how their position is vilified, they stay to their agenda. Name calling doesn't seem to distract them.
They are bold in the public arena and in living rooms. They are aware that this fight takes place in the public arena, as well as in small coffee clutches. They are fully cognizant of the need to be well represented everywhere.
They have a very simple to understand and implement Mission Statement and have a twenty five year business plan to facilitate their mission. They have embraced a broader mission than most Pro-Life supporters perceive, and in this broader mission, abortion is a means to a very sellable end, what they tell the world is women's control of reproductive rights.
They raise funds to establish their mission, and they are adroit at spending these funds with leverage. They are never embarrassed to ask for donations, fund raisers, grants, trades, gifts of merchandise, services, and outright influence. They ask, and ask, and ask, and fully expect a donation, both now and in the future. They have demonstrated an absolute conviction to use any and all means to procure money for their causes. Not shy! No reticence. They ask donors to sacrifice because they believe in their cause. Period.
They believe in geographic dispersion of their personnel and resources, but suffer no inefficiency of overlap. Their centralized coordination of mission has achieved a cooperation among even independent groups and non-affiliates dedicated to this philosophy, that is remarkable. Mission first. Local egos second. They have asked, "Where should we be? How do we get a presence there?" They then work it out. Mission first. Ego second.
They believe that getting their message to the next generation, is equally important with serving the current generation. They are proactive in distributing educational materials, philosophy, and curriculum years ahead of sexual activity. They do not complain about the void of teaching from Church and Home. They do not expect someone else to fix it. They fill the void.
They are media savvy, media efficient, and media current. There is no reluctance to set the objective to be determined, retain the experts to frame the message, and pay the dollars to deliver the message. If one outlet shuts them down, they storm the local airwaves via another methodology or refocus their funds towards another market. They retreat and live to fight another day.
They have figured out how to qualify their cause within approved and publicly funded delivery systems to underwrite their goals. Their 990 shows they received over $248M from state and federal government grants and payments. They have been content to frame their philosophy without religious precepts very carefully and very successfully, and enjoy the benefit of a neutral human rights message with government funding.
They have been, and continue to be, incredibly successful at recruiting, training, organizing, and communicating with volunteers. On any given day, they can easily mobilize via phone or e-mail more than 24,000 volunteers to tasks for that day. Pretty impressive.
They will spend necessary monies to advance their causes through lobby groups, and media centers. They do not need to call a committee meeting to retain a lawyer, hire a lobbyist, buy airtime, send a representative to a talk show, or organize a public event. If it fits their mission strategy and the opportunity exists, they do it. Now.
They do not make excuses when they lose a battle here and there. They are not above blaming the "right wing", or Christians, or Pro-Choice (whom they artfully call "anti-choice") politicians, or even resorting to scare tactics, but be assured; They immediately bounce back, use the temporary set back as a reason to raise funds and recruit volunteers, and they frequently reinforce in other areas to avoid the same type of loss again. They suffer no "blame assessment" mentality or guilt hangover. They expect to win and lose, and they move on.
They have wisely learned to let people participate in their cause, rather than adapting their cause and mission statement to fit the desires of donors or other groups seeking a different agenda. If you want to further their agenda, you are welcome. If you have your own agenda, you will not receive their time, let alone their support.
They spend money to get things done. They have no illusion that legal wars, media wars, or political wars are won without spending money, and the best people to fight such wars are hardened mercenaries, those who do their job, with excellence, for money. They do not attempt to procure professional services through volunteerism as a prime mission advancing methodology. They pay for services and retain the best.
They do not quit. They are in it for the long haul. They wake up every day with an ambitious agenda. They remind each other in conversations and communication of the necessity of their agenda. They literally look at the entire globe and ask, "how do we take our mission and message and operations everywhere?" And they take steps, that day, to facilitate these decisions.
They study the Pro-life movement in depth. A reading of the recent publication of Gloria Feldt's (Former President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America) book, would surprise most Pro-Lifers. Without addressing her many claims here, it is certainly clear that we are studied. Our methods, our claims, our tactics, our public and private acts, any inconsistencies between our "talk" and our "walk" are fodder for the grist. Be assured. This Adversary is Not Wearing a Blindfold. They clearly understand the nature of conducting a conflict over ideology.
What difference does it make to know our adversary? What difference does it make to play a chess game with a blindfold? The perceptions of our children are at stake. The future of the unborn child in the womb of an expectant mother is at stake. When we don't pay attention, we lose, and they lose, and our society loses.
We miss with a lot of young kids faced with tough decisions because we are not in the marketplace, the schools, with our message. These young lives need us now! There is a story of a young girl named Jamie that we missed attached to this letter. See if you can figure out when and where we missed with Jamie (Click here to review)
Next Week: A River Without Banks is Just a Swamp.
Thank you for your participation in this exercise of dialogue and critical thinking. We have received messages and e-mails from around the globe. We are thankful, and humbled, by the response.
I am Sincerely Yours in Christ,
Michael Galloway
We missed with Jamie Survey BCOM sign up Donate to this great cause
This email should be viewed while connected to the Internet. If you experience difficulty viewing this message, please click here.
P.O. Box 9686 Bakersfield, Ca. USA 93389 Phone: 1(661) 869-1000 Fax: 1(661) 869-0461 Email: catholic@catholic.org http://www.catholic.org
More "Straight Talk"
from Michael Galloway, founder, Catholic Online, and co-founder, Your Catholic Voice Foundation (YCVF).
A River Without Banks Is Just A Swamp Our Approach to Sex Education Is Creating a Swamp Why Don't We Talk To Our Children? Who Is Talking To Our Children?
Ready to talk about Sex Education? This letter is a little longer than previous letters, but the topic demands it. Are you happy with the Sex Education Status Quo? I can think of no more appropriate metaphor to describe the result of our collective approach to what often passes as "sex education" than "a river without banks is just a swamp".
Even the most urban city dweller can appreciate the beauty of a flowing creek or river. Environmentalists are quick to tell us, "protect the banks, protect the river."
Every plant, tree, bird, animal, insect, and human being that receives benefit from the flow of a river is immediately penalized when the banks are eroded, the flow is dissipated, and clear, clean life giving water becomes pools of stinking, stagnant, disease promoting, cesspools. It is a known fact: Water, left to its own devices, seeks the easiest, barrier free, low point as it's target. Yes indeed. This is a picture of our current approach to what passes as "sex education".
To continue with the application of the metaphor, let's just assume that the knowledge about sexual expression as God intended it represents a river of life giving, life sustaining knowledge. Read the book of Genesis. God did not look at all of creation and say, "Everything I have created is good, except sexual relations between husband and wife and procreation."
Sex was and is God's idea.
It wasn't an idea created by science, educators, pornographers or "Pro-Choice" advocates. What happened? How did this wonderful aspect of our life and our true human vocation get hijacked? And Why?
I will tell you what happened! "We are asleep at the switch." The banks on this river of knowledge have been eroded, chipped away. Forget the idea of gentle, natural erosion. Those who benefit by turning the "river" into a "swamp" have used bulldozers. Someone should ask "Why?". Clue: Think there is any money in this message? Does "Sex Sell"? Who is selling this message? Who is buying? Why are we letting it happen? We have a whole generation of kids that have embraced this message that are "damaged goods".
We can no longer sit on our hands and watch!
Our approach, and "our" includes me, has been that of an ostrich hiding it's head in a hole and hoping against hope that everything will turn out all right. Well, guess what? It is not turning out alright. Time to take our heads out of the sand.
Stopping Abortion is not just about dealing with unwanted pregnancy. It is also about prevention of unwanted pregnancy.
Here are a few observations:
Sexual activity among teens and pre-teens is, statistically, at historic highs. Sexually Transmitted Diseases are epidemic. In spite of Sex Education, teen pregnancy is not statistically diminished. Is it any wonder when we have failed to teach what is true?
What pass as "Sex education" classes in most of our public schools are almost universally without any moral guidance or compass.
The classes are typically separating sexual activity from any thorough discussion of authentic human love, marriage, true responsibility, family and procreation.
The true dignity of the human sexuality and the human person is being replaced with a so called "enlightened" approach to sexual "expression" and "techniques", a counterfeit . and all of this is taught under a guise of "taking responsibility" when the very behaviors promoted are irresponsible and dangerous.
No banks. Just a Swamp.
Do you know why we have a swamp? We have allowed the swamp to be created!
Let's start with Mom and Dad.
We don't tell our kids "jack" about sex. Dad's don't talk to their sons. Mom's don't talk to their daughters. And you can be pretty sure, if we can't talk to our sons as men, we certainly are not going to talk to our daughters, and are moms going to talk to their sons? It is not happening. And because we won't talk, open lines of communication, about this most critical area, our children are going to satisfy their curiosity from other sources.
Some say "the Church" should do this job. With all due respect, it is my belief the church has done and is doing its job. I don't believe there is a absence of a clear message. I think there is an absence of implementation.
What does the Church teach?
In Catholic teaching, the family is a domestic church and parents are the first teachers of their children. Parents, in addition to this role as the primary teachers, are the primary protectors of their children, both at home, and at school. The Church does assist, but we do not abdicate our unique and irreplaceable role as parents to the Church, or to the public school system, or to some other institution. "If its to be, its up to me". When you said "I do", and then said "I will" to having sexual relations with your spouse, and having a child, you also said "I am" the provider of "Banks" in this child.s life. You want a swamp? Ignore the necessity of "The Banks".
Why don't we talk about sex with our kids?
You would not believe the number of e-mails we have received from people as a result of the Babies Count On Me Campaign that tell us no one talked to them as children about sex, how babies are created, what is responsible behavior, God's view on sexual expression, nothing. "NO BANKS"
So think about it. If we, who have Catholic faith cannot, or will not discuss this vital, critical, important area with our children, why are we the slightest bit surprised that our neighbors, who live their lives sometimes without the benefit of the moral compass provided by the teachings of the Church, either teach nothing, or in the alternative, teach that caution should accompany sexual expression and leave it at that?
We don't talk about sex with our kids for three reasons, among others:
We often do what was done with us. If our parents were lacking in this regard, we repeat the same action. We hope our kids turn out fine. Ostrich! We have not spent the time building talking relationships with our children so that when it comes time to explore these issues, the history of feeling "safe" to discuss their questions and natural curiosities does not exist. Many pre-teens do not even believe their parents have sex, or that when their parents were young they ever had sexual desire, or wanted to look at naked pictures, or talked about sex with their friends. "Not their parents. Gross! No way!" We have not equipped ourselves to have the conversation. We have not invested the time, ahead of the fact, to prepare ourselves to deliver moral, spiritual and practical information and guidance. Do we ourselves know what the Church teaches in this vital area? Do we believe it is true? Can we answer our own children's questions? Think about it. You can be pretty sure that any child is eventually going to have questions in their mind about sex. Are you ready when the time comes? Or do you freak out thinking about having to answer these questions. "Good question. Ask your mom." Or "let's talk later". It is time to re-create some the "BANKS" in the lives of our young people. We will not get a different result by doing the same things over and over again that have not or will not work. Trying harder at approaches that have not worked is lunacy.
We propose that there are three critically important necessities to change the result of this swamp we have, to a river we desire:
Tools in the hands of Parents: We must put tools in the hands of parents that equip the parents to build a dialogue with their children about human sexuality that has as it foundation the truths taught by the Catholic Church about the plan of God in creating us as sexual beings. Contrary to what some may think, the Catholic Church is not "against" sex. Quite to the contrary, the Church calls men and women to experience the true dignity and beauty of their identity as sexual beings within the vocation to true love, including conjugal love and sexuality, within marriage. Do we teach this? What we teach our children must be technically and medically correct, but it must proceed from a much deeper place. We must impart to them the deeper meaning of sexual activity and help place within them a moral compass. It is much easier to prevent erosion than rebuild banks after a swamp is created. Our ideology must be represented in the Public and Private Education Venue. We must promote the creation and utilization of a truly good SEX ED curriculum for application within the Public and Private School system that provides technically accurate information that is delivered within the framework of a moral foundation and responsible living. Our critics are right. We complain about their approach, but we have been absent from the marketplace. It is possible to prepare a sex education curriculum that properly involves parents, communicates moral and medical information that is accurate - and does not violate the so called "separation of Church and State." Moral values serve the common good. It can be done. It must be done. It is time to go to Public School Board Meetings with Petitions and Tools. Young Adults Everywhere Must Hear From Us. We must be proactive in our communities delivering this same message to young adults that have grown up without the benefit of a parent's counsel or a proper morally grounded sex education program because we didn't deliver the goods in the past. There are hundreds of college and university settings as well as non-institutional settings that could be, and must be outlets for a curriculum that provides a values foundation as well as technically correct information. To be absent from this marketplace assures more of the same current social results. In a word, a swamp. While it is true that you cannot turn a stagnant swamp back into a river overnight, it is also true that you start by restoring "The Banks". We hope you will be inspired to stand with YCVF as we attempt to deal with Abortion and its' many contributory causes.
Attached to this letter is a story about "Timothy and Martha Smith doing Sex Ed." Please take a moment and click through. Ending the carnage of Abortion is also about building a true culture of life and responsible living. It can be done. It must be done!
Our critics say we do to little or nothing in this area of education. Time to prove them wrong. Back next week with "The Victims of Abortion. Moms, Dads, and Babies."
I am, Sincerely Yours in Christ, Michael Galloway
Why An Abortionist?
by Fr. Frank Pavone
http://www.holyspiritinteractive.net/features/prolife/21.asp
Former Abortionist Bernard Nathanson Exposes Lies of American Pro-Abortion Movement
"We were guilty of massive deception" says Nathanson about abortion industry
By Tim Waggoner
TORONTO, ON, July 29, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - On July 9, 2008, CFRB talk show host, Spider Jones, interviewed former abortionist Dr. Bernard Nathanson about his past involvement in the abortion movement and his conversion to the pro-life viewpoint.
At one time Nathanson was deeply entrenched in the American pro-abortion movement, having co-founded the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) and overseen 75,000 abortions as director of an abortion clinic. During the CFRB program Nathanson recalled the deceitful and dishonest tactics that he and NARAL relied upon to push for the legalization and acceptance of abortion.
"We claimed that between five and ten thousand women a year died of botched abortions," he said. "The actual figure was closer to 200 to 300 and we also claimed that there were a million illegal abortions a year in the United States and the actual figure was close to 200,000. So, we were guilty of massive deception."
"I mean as a founding member and chairman of the medical committee, I accepted the figures which came from a biostatistician named Christopher Tietze and he and his wife passed along these figures to us at NARAL. We were in no position to validate them or not, so we accepted them in the interests of higher standards, or at least higher objectives," he explained.
Nathanson's conversion to the pro-life movement was sparked by the advent of the ultrasound machine in the early 1970s. He related how his heart was moved to realize that a fetus is in fact a human being after he watched an unborn baby recoil from a vacuum abortion device before being sucked from its mother's womb.
Nathanson titled the video of this incident "The Silent Scream" and began using it to spread the pro-life message. Planned Parenthood, however, took a page out of NARAL's book when the abortion giant spread rumors that the video was a fake. Nathanson confirmed that these rumors, like the tactics of NARAL, were lies.
"Planned Parenthood was responsible for that," he said. "But it was not faked and what we did in order to validate it was to go to Dr. Ian Donald in Scotland, who is the father of ultra-sound, the inventor of ultra-sound and he looked at the film and he swore an affidavit that everything was as it was shown and there was no doctoring or manipulation or any changes in the speed or anything else."
Nathanson then addressed the fact that abortion is now used as a form of birth control - a result of another pro-abortion fabrication.
"One of the myths that was fed to the public through the media was that legalizing abortion would only mean that abortions taking place illegally, would be done legally. But in fact, abortion is now being used primary as a method of birth control all over the world and in the USA too."
Pro-abortion advocates "refuse to see what most people are now conceding, that the fetus is a human being and we have no business massacring it in large numbers," concluded Dr. Nathanson.
High abortion rates in New York City
High abortion rates worry me as well. I live in New York. In 2005, there were 245,402 births and 268,931 deaths if you include the 117,944 abortions* (82,922 NYCity)
*Note: any abortion statistics are self reported by the abortionists
Not only is New York State losing population to other states but also we are losing the next generation to lower birth rates and abortion.
Of the 117,944 abortions 52,798 were first timers. That means the majority are using abortion as birth control.
Also I must comment on this article: "There is an ongoing debate about the emotional consequences of abortion. A spokeswoman for the state Department of Health says that no studies have shown it damages women psychologically."
Having personal knowledge of some post abortive women and googling what appears to be unbiased reporting (taking none from either side of the abortion debate) I find these remarks by an unidentified spokeswoman from the state health department. See article below for an example.
The Alan Guttmacher Institute which was quoted in this piece is the research arm of Planned Parenthood. They have reported that the majority of abortions occur after birth control failure. They have also reported that the majority of abortions are performed on unmarried young women.
Abortion is bad for business. We have conservatively in this country lost over 50,000,000 since Roe v Wade. Having been self employed, I never had a business plan to eliminate my future customers. I am retired now and wonder what life would be like if we hadn't aborted 50,000,000 consumers, taxpayers, and social security payees.
But most of all, I wonder what life would be like if we had not chosen to accept the most violent of solutions -- the destruction of the most innocent of human life -- to claim free love takes precedence over the responsible use of our sexual faculties.
Mrs. Mary E. Quinn
Rochester, NY
P.S. Please pass this along to Ms. Scott
High abortion rate worries NY experts
Higher cost and health complications lead to concerns
In most of the United States, 24 abortions are carried out for every 100 live births. In New York, 72 abortions occur for every 100 live births.
The continuing boom in abortions—90,157 were performed in the city in 2006, the last year for which statistics are available—apparently means that many women are using abortion as their birth control method of choice. That concerns health advocates, who point out that the procedure sometimes causes complications and is more expensive than contraception. The high rate also shows that these women are not protected against AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. http://www.crainsnewyork.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080810/FREE/240836415/1008
Study Shows Parental Involvement Laws Reduce Abortions From 19-31 Percent
http://www.lifenews.com/state3492.html
Stem Cells: A Political History
by Joseph Bottum and Ryan T. Anderson
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6380