“HPV: Sorting Through the Facts”

Life Matters —The Newsletter of the Respect Life Office of the Diocese of Rockford
March 2007

By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office

While waiting last summer for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of its new vaccine, Gardasil, pharmaceutical giant, Merck, launched a multi-million dollar marketing campaign to create awareness and acceptance of the vaccine. The campaign, “Tell Someone,” encourages women to “Learn about cervical cancer and other consequences of human papillomavirus (HPV) and then tell someone.”

After Gardasil was granted FDA approval on June 8, 2006, the “One Less” campaign was launched to empower women to get vaccinations for themselves and their daughters—so as to ensure “one less life [will be] affected by cervical cancer.” According to Bev Lybrand, vice president & general manager, HPV Franchise, Gardasil, “Merck is committed to educating and providing access to women and girls who may benefit from this critical vaccine.”

In its “educational” efforts, Merck repeatedly asks the question, “Did you know that cervical cancer is caused by certain types of a common virus?”

It’s a virus we should all be concerned about—it’s called human papillomavirus (HPV). And even though HPV is really common, many people don’t know they have it because there often are no signs or symptoms. For most women, HPV clears on its own. But for some, cervical cancer and other consequences can develop.

The implication is this common virus is one that “all” of us could “catch.” But, is that true?

Curiously omitted from Merck’s advertising campaigns is any mention of the fact that genital HPV is a sexually transmitted disease (STD).

Searching Merck’s website, you will find the facts:

Women and men who have any kind of sexual activity involving genital contact with an infected person can get human papillomavirus (HPV). That means it’s possible to get genital HPV without having intercourse. And, because many people who have the virus may not show any signs or symptoms, they can transmit the virus without even knowing it.

HPV and Cancer
The Center for Disease Control (CDC) reports that “Human papillomavirus is the name of a group of viruses that includes more than 100 different strains or types. More than 30 of these viruses are sexually transmitted, and they can infect the genital area of men and women.”

According to a study reported in Journal of Pathology, J.M Walbommers, et. al., found “The presence of HPV in virtually all [99.7%] cervical cancers implies the highest worldwide attributable fraction so far reported for a specific cause of any major human cancer.” HPV can also cause other genital cancers in both males and females.

Gardasil protects against only 4 strains of HPV that account for about for 70% of cervical cancers. The CDC reports, “Because the vaccine does not protect against all types of HPV, it will not prevent all cases of cervical cancer or genital warts. About 30% of cervical cancers will not be prevented by the vaccine, so it will be important for women to continue getting screened for cervical cancer (regular Pap tests).”

Eliminating or reducing risk
Information from the CDC on preventing genital HPV and cancer includes this:

The surest way to eliminate risk for genital HPV infection is to refrain from any genital contact with another individual. For those who choose to be sexually active, a long-term, mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner is the strategy most likely to prevent future genital HPV infections. However, it is difficult to determine whether a partner who has been sexually active in the past is currently infected.

Regular Pap tests and follow-up can prevent most but not all, cases of cervical cancer . . . Pap tests can also detect most, but not all, cervical cancers at an early, curable stage. Most women diagnosed with cervical cancer in the U.S. have either never had a Pap test, or have not had a Pap test in the last 5 years.

Cervical cancer once claimed the lives of more American women than any other type of cancer. But over the last 40 years, widespread cervical cancer screening using the Pap test and treatment of pre-cancerous cervical abnormalities have resulted in a marked reduction in cervical cancer incidence and mortality in the U.S.

Merck pushes for mandating the vaccine
After the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted last June to recommend the use of Gardasil in females from ages 9 to 26, Merck has been engaging in huge lobbying efforts and—as former Congressman Bob Barr writes—“is pulling out all stops in an effort to secure legislation mandating vaccination with its product.”

There are two proposed bills in the Illinois state legislature that will require girls entering the sixth grade (in public, private or parochial school) to receive the HPV vaccination. While there is an opt-out provision, the pressure to vaccinate young girls for a sexually transmitted disease is a concern for many parents.

Oppose mandating
The American College of Pediatricians (ACP) and the Catholic Medical Association (CMA) have issued position papers on HPV Immunization in which both organizations strongly oppose state mandated HPV vaccinations for young girls.

The ACP’s position includes the following:

Until further research is completed, HPV vaccine recipients should be fully informed as to the current limits of knowledge regarding the vaccine’s potency and duration of protection.

They should be counseled, however, that HPV vaccination is not completely protective against cervical cancer. . .The most medically safe sexual conduct for adolescents is abstinence until marriage, and they should be counseled accordingly.

The American College of Pediatricians is opposed to any legislation which would require HPV vaccination for school attendance. Excluding children from school for refusal to be vaccinated for a disease spread only by penetrating vaginal intercourse is a serious, precedent-setting action that trespasses on the right of parents to make medical decisions for their children as well as on the rights of the children to attend school. In addition, this vaccine prevents a disease which is exclusively sexually transmitted; mandating it as early as 9 years of age places the medical provider in an ethical dilemma.

Excerpts from the CMA position paper include the following:

There is no ethical objection to the HPV vaccine either as a strategy against disease or in its production. Patients and parents must have the opportunity to give informed consent to its
administration . . .

The CMA opposes mandating the use of HPV vaccine, as well as direct or indirect efforts to pressure parents or minors to accept it.

HPV vaccine is a medical treatment, and under natural and civil law, it is parents who have the primary authority and responsibility to raise their children and to approve medical treatments for them. Addressing the issue of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) is a part of parents’ indispensable task of teaching their children about sex and forming them in chastity. Using mandates or other pressure (such as threatening to exclude children from attending school) violates parental rights and undermines parents authority . . .

An explosion in the number and severity of STIs has been one result of the breakdown in sexual morality over the last 40 years. Gardasil® can help to address one consequence of the spread of HPV, i.e., cervical cancer. At the same time, to best promote the health and happiness of adolescents, physicians, parents and social institutions should redouble their efforts to promote chastity. Consistent messages about and support for this virtue will not only help to reduce disease, but will help individuals, couples, and marriages to flourish.

HPV is transmitted through sexual activity and not by casual contact in the school setting. For this and other valid reasons, the decision to vaccinate minor girls must be made by informed parents, not the government.

For more information:
www.cdc.gov/nip/vaccine/hpv/hpv-faqs.htm
www.acpeds.org/index.cgi?CONTEXT=art&cat=10006&art=140&BISKIT=2570524575
www.cathmed.org/pressreleases/CMA_Statement_HPV_Vaccine.pdf

Copyright, 2007

Totally Unreasonable

The Observer—Official Newspaper of the Catholic Diocese of Rockford
Publication date: March 2, 2007

Life Lines
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office

“With a pro-choice governor, a Legislature controlled by the Democratic Party and a branch of the American Civil Liberties Union that has successfully challenged every attempt to place legal limits on abortion in Illinois, things are not likely to change soon, at least for women 18 or older . . . [b]ut for teens, the outlook is less certain.” So writes Cindy Richards in her February 14, 2007 column in the Chicago Sun Times. Richards was reacting to recent action by Illinois Attorney General, Lisa Madigan, setting into motion the process of lifting the long-standing injunction on the Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995. This law has never been enforced due to the refusal of the Illinois Supreme Court to promulgate the “rules” for judicial bypass. Responding to a formal request, the Court finally issued the rules in September 2006.

As expected, the Court’s action was enough to strike fear in those abortion advocates who cannot accept any restrictions —no matter how reasonable—on the so-called “right” to abortion. They are so afraid of losing unbridled access to abortion that they are now pulling out all stops to ensure that parents have no right to be told that their minor daughter is seeking an abortion.

Rep. John Fritchey (D-Chicago)—with support and encouragement from Planned Parenthood and the ACLU— introduced the Adolescent Health Care Safety Act (now HB 317) on October 2, 2006. This bill specifically states it “repeals the Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995.”

Fritchey, in a news release, writes “I would hope that my colleagues, regardless of their position on abortion, would have faith in family, clergy and medical professionals to give responsible counseling to a young woman seeking advice about her pregnancy.” No, Mr. Fritchey, those of us who truly care for the welfare of young girls do not have faith in the “family” you describe in HB 317, or the “clergy” who function as pseudo-chaplains at abortion mills, or abortionists and their staff.

In writing about working “closely” with Fritchey on HB 317, Planned Parenthood admits the bill “will expand parental notification to include other adults such as older siblings, aunts/uncles, and members of the clergy, among others. If a teen is unable to notify one of those adults the bill allows for her—instead of going in front of a judge in an intimidating legal system—to receive counseling from a trained health professional such as a licensed nurse, social worker, or member of the clergy.”

There you have it. If HB 317 passes, there will be no change in the status quo. A 12-year-old girl will still be able to procure an abortion without her parent’s knowledge.

Under the 1995 law, parents will not be required to give consent, but at least they will be made aware of what their daughter is planning and hopefully they will be able to lead her to life affirming choices that would be in her and her baby’s best interest. Under HB 317, parents will be left totally in the dark.

Illinois Governor Blagojevich has made it clear he thinks girls under the age of 18 are capable of making a decision for abortion and yet when it comes to tattoos he says, “At that age [18], most kids . . . don’t have the judgment or perspective to decide on something as permanent as tattooing your skin. Teenagers may not realize getting a tattoo is a decision they'll live with, and potentially regret for the rest of their lives.” He favors denying parents even knowing their minor daughter is seeking an abortion and yet he vetoed a bill that lowered the age (even with parental permission) for tattoos from 21 to 18.

Forty-four states have passed some form of parental involvement laws with regard to abortion for minor girls. Yet, in Illinois, abortion advocates continue to work to prevent parents from even knowing about the planned killing of their grandchildren and the possible consequences to their daughters. This is totally unreasonable and it is time for parents to stand up for their rights.

Copyright, 2007

Adequate and loving care

The Observer—Official Newspaper of the Catholic Diocese of Rockford
Publication date: February 2, 2007

Life Lines
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office

February 11th— the memorial of Our Lady of Lourdes— is also the 15th World Day of the Sick. In his message for this special day, Pope Benedict XVI writes, “Once again the Church turns her eyes to those who suffer and calls attention to the incurably ill, many of whom are dying from terminal diseases.” The Holy Father continues, “I would like to encourage the efforts of those who work daily to ensure that the incurably and terminally ill, together with their families, receive adequate and loving care.”

After reading the Holy Father’s message, my thoughts turned to the pre-born children who have been diagnosed with lethal fetal conditions. Will these children “receive adequate and loving care” in utero or will they be rejected because they are expected to die before or shortly after birth?

It is estimated between 80 to 90% of all babies believed to have lethal conditions are aborted—some by “early induction” where labor is induced and the premature infant is delivered. Many parents are deceived into thinking this is not an abortion, but as the National Catholic Bioethics Center explains, “induction of labor before term performed simply for the reason that the child has a lethal anomaly is direct abortion.”

Rather than offering support and loving care, many in the medical profession, either directly or tacitly, send the message that abortion is best for the baby and the family. In reality, hastening the baby’s death has no benefit for him or her and ultimately not for the family.

Physicians at the Tepeyac Family Center in Virginia acknowledge this as they write, “Some think that we can control death by terminating the pregnancy, the aborting of the life is an attempt to eliminate the suffering. We have found that the exact opposite to be true. The suffering remains.”

Studies have shown that parents often experience even more suffering if they decide to abort their babies who have fatal conditions. Because of their deliberate decision, they believe they have no one with whom to discuss their feelings of grief. Many tell friends and family that they miscarried, so when the additional grief hits them, they feel they have nowhere to turn. To suffering parents who chose abortion, I pray you will follow the words of John Paul II: “If you have not already done so, give yourselves over with humility and trust to repentance. The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.”

For those who are facing a difficult pre-natal diagnosis or may know someone who is, please know there are loving alternatives to abortion. A number of web sites offer information and support. Benotafraid.net is “an online outreach to parents who have received a poor or difficult prenatal diagnosis. The family stories, articles, and links within this site are presented as a resource for those who may have been asked to choose between terminating a pregnancy or continuing on despite the diagnosis. The benotafraid.net families faced the same decision and chose not to terminate. By sharing our experiences, we hope to offer encouragement to those who may be afraid to continue on.”

Among the numerous resources listed on benotafraid.net is The Haven Network—a peri-natal hospice located in Rockford, Illinois. One of The Haven’s programs “provides emotional, spiritual and practical support, including meal delivery, layettes and burial gowns, and memory boxes through trained volunteers . . . Family Partner volunteers receive specialized education that assists them to journey with their assigned family for one year and will extend that support through subsequent pregnancies if desired.”

I am privileged to serve as an advisor for this wonderful organization and I encourage anyone facing a difficult prenatal diagnosis to contact The Haven at 815.962.1512 or visit their website at thehavennetwork.org.

Families do not have to face the difficulty of a lethal pre-natal diagnosis alone. There are Good Samaritans who will provide more than “adequate and loving care.”

Copyright, 2007

“WHAAAATEVERRRR!”

Life Matters —The Newsletter of the Respect Life Office of the Diocese of Rockford
December 2006

By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge, M.A.
Director, Respect Life Office

Pop-culture phrases and words come and go, but one that has hung on way too long is the frequently uttered “whatever.” Dictionary.com characterizes the interjection as being “used to indicate indifference to a state of affairs, situation, previous statement, etc.” Used most often as a throw away expression, it typically indicates disinterest, apathy, or an “I don’t care” attitude.

While the word itself is not inherently offensive, it may represent an attitude that is reflective of a society that has become apathetic about relationships, issues, or circumstances.

Apathy is problematic in many areas of life, but most importantly in issues that affect the dignity of the human person. As Catholics, we are obligated to respect and protect innocent human life from fertilization to natural death. As Catholics, we are called to be pro-life. The Catechism (#2270) states it clearly: “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person—among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.”

Why?
Why then, do so many Catholics have nothing to do with efforts designed to teach respect and protection of innocent human life? Why do so many remain silent when people advocate for abortion? And why do some obstinately reject the teachings of the Church?

For some, it may be a case of really not understanding the issues. It may be a lack of knowing what to do or say. Some may truly believe there is nothing they can do to make a real difference. They feel powerless. Some feel

detached. For others, it might be—without even realizing it—that they have accepted the attitudes of the culture instead of the Church. For many, it is apathy.

They don’t see how abortion, for example, affects them, so they go about their daily activities with little or no concern for the 3,500 unborn babies who are killed by procured abortion each day in this country. If it doesn’t affect them personally, they are not concerned.

What they don’t realize is that their apathy may affect them some day. If their children and grandchildren don’t learn to respect and protect human life, who will protect their grandchildren and great grandchildren who may be conceived at “inconvenient” times?

Apathy can grow
Unchecked, apathy can grow into compromise, complicity, and ultimately evil acts. As Christian fiction author Bodie Thoene writes, “Apathy is the glove into which evil slips its hand.”

There is no doubt the Holocaust was evil. There is no doubt procured abortion is evil.

One of the stated objectives of the Holocaust Memorial Center is “To record the apathy of the many who did nothing and to honor those who risked their lives to save Jews.” Just as it was wrong for the many to ignore what was happening to their Jewish neighbors during the Holocaust, it is also wrong for us to ignore the plight of our unborn neighbors who are “chosen” for abortion.

Some people are so distracted by material and social pursuits, they are not even aware that they have become apathetic to the plight of the most vulnerable among us. Of course, it is much easier to be apathetic if you purposely remain uninformed about the reality of abortion. It’s easier to yield to apathy when you don’t actually see the gruesome results of abortion. Most people do not search the internet for a video of actual an
abortion procedure or pictures of the resulting dismembered babies.

Not only are there many who don’t want to know what really goes on in abortion mills, some actually get angry when someone tries to tell or show them.
I have written about Brenda Pratt Shafer’s congressional testimony before, but a revisit seems appropriate here.

Shafer is a registered nurse who until 1993 described herself as “very pro-choice.” During a temporary nursing assignment at the women’s Medical Center in Dayton, Ohio, Shafer stood by as abortionist Martin Haskell committed a Dilation and Extraction (D&X or Partial Birth Abortion) on a woman who was 26½ weeks pregnant.

Testifying before the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives on March 21, 1966, Shafer described the D & X:

Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms—everything but the head . . .

The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the [surgical] scissors through the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out . . . like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall.

The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp . . . Dr. Haskell delivered the baby’s head. He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw that baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.

Shafer witnessed what few people have seen and it changed her life forever. Not only was she no longer pro-choice, she became a pro-life activist!

I don’t know how anyone can read Shafer’s gruesome description of “choice” and remain apathetic and yet, I know some who have.

If you share this testimony with others and they are not moved, perhaps you should refer them to a new 2½ minute video entitled “Choice Blues.” If you e-mail me, I will send you the link. Be aware, it is an extremely graphic and horrific video of an actual abortion that is very upsetting to watch. For some, however, it may be what is needed to pull them out of their apathy.

What else can we do?
It is important to acknowledge apathy if, indeed, it describes an attitude about the value of all human life. Serious prayer for direction is also needed. Not everyone will be called to the same activity, but all of us should do something to protect and promote life.

In 2002, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Office of Pro-Life Activities issued the following appeal:

Let us recommit ourselves today to tending the Lord's vineyard, beginning with our own little parcel. Let us read, and pray, and study and live the Gospel of Life that we may grow rich in grace and abundant in God's holy life.

Along with Saint Paul, let us have no fear. Rather, let us abide in the peace of God that surpasses all understanding and which will guard our hearts and minds in Christ Jesus.

Whatever is true, let us embrace it and live!
Whatever is honorable, let us embrace it and live!
Whatever is just, let us embrace it and live!
Whatever is pure, let us embrace it and live!

Let us embrace and live the Gospel of Life, that the harvest God finds in this blessed nation at the end of time may be rich, and faithful and true!

Studying the Gospel of Life* is, indeed, a good place to begin learning about the Church’s teaching on the dignity of innocent human life.

In addition, future issues of Life Matters will be focusing on the “how to’s” of defending life.
________________

If you have specific questions about life issues that you would like answered in future Life Matters, you may submit them for consideration to pbainbridge@rockforddiocese.org


*Evangelium Vitae (the Gospel of Life) may be purchased at a Catholic bookstore or may be downloaded at: http://www.ewtn.com/library/encyc/jp2evang.htm

Copyright, 2007

“Serious Blows to the Dignity

Life Matters —The Newsletter of the Respect Life Office of the Diocese of Rockford
December 2006

By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office

The November elections have come and gone. No more irritating ads. No more yard signs. No more unwanted political flyers. It’s finally over—at least for another two years. The ramifications, however, are just beginning.

The dominant media culture as well as average citizens are still analyzing the results of the mid-term elections. There is no shortage of opinions. One thing is certain: with the opening of the 110th Congress in January 2007, there will be a shift of power that will not bode well for the unborn, those with severe disabilities, and those with traditional values.

The sad reality is the dignity of every human being—especially of the most vulnerable—was dealt a serious blow by the 2006 mid-term elections.

In November 12th interview with the Zenit news agency, journalist Russell Shaw (who has served as a member of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications for 10 years and was recently elected to another 5 year term) summed it up: “[The impact of the November elections] means no new pro-life legislation at the federal level in the next two years. In fact, pro-lifers will have their hands full protecting gains already made. Even more serious, in the new Senate the pro-choice side will be able to defeat any new Supreme Court nominees resembling Roberts and Alito that the president might send up.”

Failed referenda in California and Oregon
In addition to the change in the national political landscape, there were four failed state referenda that have abortion apologists and moral relativists cheering. California and Oregon rejected (54 to 46 percent) attempts to ensure that parents of underage girls seeking abortion would be notified.

Most people agree that parents should be involved in major decisions made by their minor children. In California, all non-emergency medical procedures on boys and girls under the age of 18 must have parental consent. It is not unreasonable to expect that parents should at least be informed when their minor daughters are seeking an abortion—a procedure than can have serious physical and emotional consequences.

According to the National Abortion Federation, “forty-four states have passed laws requiring either parental notification or consent, in some cases even by both parents.” The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has upheld these parental involvement laws as long as there is a provision for judicial bypass.

With misleading, dishonest advertising from Planned Parenthood, the League of Women Voters, various medical associations, the Oregon Education Association, and the California Teachers Association it’s not surprising that California and Oregon rejected the ballot measures. What is surprising is that Oregon’s parental notification measure received the same 46 percent citizen support as did California’s proposition. I say “surprising” because Oregon has virtually no restrictions on abortion and has gone much further in removing legal parental involvement with children— Oregon does not require parental consent for medical procedures if the minor is 15 or older.

Pro-life citizens vow to be back in 2008. They will not give up—even in states as liberal as California and Oregon.

Ban goes down to defeat in South Dakota
Socially conservative South Dakota already has parental notification and a 24-hour waiting period. In March 2006, the legislature passed House Bill (HB) 1215—a bill that banned most abortions. While not a perfect law, it was anticipated that pro-abortion forces would file suit which would then send it to the Supreme Court where it would force a re-examination of Roe.

Before that could happen, Planned Parenthood and its ilk descended on South Dakota and garnered enough signatures to place a statewide initiative on the 2006 ballot in the hope of repealing the new prohibition on abortion. To cover all their bases, they also filed suit to prohibit the law from taking effect. Right on cue, one day before the law was to take effect, it was enjoined by a Federal judge. Now the citizens of South Dakota would vote on whether to uphold the abortion ban or repeal it.

As in California and Oregon, Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups led the fight against the ban. The Los Angeles Times reported that “abortion rights supporters . . . relied on money and volunteers from across the nation to defeat the ban.” What they didn’t report was how they also relied on medical disinformation and false claims to sway voters to vote “no.”

Unfortunately, the referendum was rejected by 55-45 percent. That’s the bad news. The good news is that the vast majority of legislators who voted for HB 1215 were re-elected and the pro-life people will not give up. Like pro-lifers in California and Oregon, South Dakota pro-lifers will be back in 2008.

A heartbreaking loss in Missouri
If ever there were an example of out and out lies affecting the outcome of an election, it was the battle over Missouri’s Amendment 2—the Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative. Unfortunately, it was narrowly passed by a mere 51 to 49 percent.

While there were a number of false assertions in the debate surrounding Amendment 2, the most egregious was that a “yes” vote would ban human cloning. This statement was widely publicized and even appeared on the website of the Missouri Secretary of State under the so-called “2006 Fair Ballot Language.”

“Fairness” would have acknowledged that the passage of amendment 2 would make cloning a constitutional right in Missouri.

Perhaps the Secretary of State was counting on the fact that the average citizen would not read the full text of the Amendment to the Missouri Constitution. Section 38 (d) 1.2. (1) states, “No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being.” Section 38 (d) 1.2. (3) states, “No stem cells may be taken from a human blastocyst more than fourteen days after cell division begins.” Section 38 (d) 1.6. (1) offers the following definition: “’Blastocyst’” means a small mass of cells that results from cell division, caused either by fertilization or somatic cell nuclear transfer, that has not been implanted in a uterus.”

“Somatic cell nuclear transfer” (SCNT) is the scientific term for cloning. How, then can the Amendment state that human cloning is banned?

What is banned is “reproductive” cloning (carrying a cloned human being to term), not “therapeutic” cloning (creating a human being and then destroying it for research purposes). Therapeutic cloning is now legal in Missouri.

Like pro-lifers in California, Oregon, and South Dakota, Missouri pro-lifers will be back in 2008.

What now?
Archbishop Raymond Burke summed up the loss in Missouri:

“The election campaign for the passage of Amendment 2 has shown us all how deeply rooted the culture of death is in our society. The experience of the campaign is a clarion call to all Catholics and other men and women of good will to rededicate ourselves to prayer and work, in order that we restore, in our state and nation, the respect for the integrity of human procreation and for the inviolable dignity of every human life, from the first moment of its existence.

The Catholic Church will continue to teach the moral law written upon every human heart, which teaches us that nothing can ever justify the artificial generation of human life and that nothing can ever justify the killing of innocent and defenseless human life.

With regard to stem-cell research, the Catholic Church in the Archdiocese of Saint Louis stands by its unparalleled tradition of compassionate health care and pledges continued support of ethical stem-cell research.”

The same sentiments could be applied to losses in California, Oregon, and South Dakota. The defeats we experienced in this mid-term election are only a setback. We may be down, but we are not out!

We will not give up until all innocent human life—from fertilization to natural death—is respected and protected.
­­­­­­­­­­________

For additional commentary related to this topic, please see my “LifeLines” column in the December 1st edition of The Observer.


Copyright, 2006

Deception wins over truth

The Observer—Official Newspaper of the Catholic Diocese of Rockford
Publication date: December 1, 2006

Life Lines
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office

“Passage of the stem cell constitutional amendment in Missouri, albeit by a slim margin, came as a welcome victory of science over ideology.” That is the opinion—though a poorly informed one—of the editorial board of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch three days after the citizens of Missouri voted by a margin of only 2 percent to pass Amendment 2—the Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative.

Jaci Winship, executive director of Missourians Against Human Cloning, had a different view as she writes, “Truth was defeated and deception won a victory.”

These two opposing comments reflect the basic struggle that took place in Missouri between those who argued for a “Yes” vote on Amendment 2 and those who advocated for a “No” vote. Fueled by the mainstream media, confusion and deception reigned.

In making an informed decision, a person needs to know the facts. But in the debate on embryonic stem cell research and cloning (as well as many other issues), the average person relies—unfortunately—on the mainstream media and his or her circle of family, friends, or colleagues for the “facts.” That often results in disinformation and serious error.

One of the major deceptions in the Missouri debate centered on what the Amendment would or would not permit. Proponents insisted the amendment would not permit cloning. Opponents insisted it would. Who was telling the truth?

The “Fair Ballot Language” from the Missouri Secretary of State’s website states, “This amendment will allow Missouri patients and researchers access to any method of stem cell research, therapies and cures permitted under federal law.” It definitely states that a “Yes” vote would “ban human cloning or attempted cloning.” But is a definite statement necessarily a true statement?

The question (not answered by the Fair Ballot Language) that must be answered is “what is meant by ‘stem cell research’ and ‘human cloning?’”

In the “Full Text” section of the Secretary of State’s website, the amendment’s definition of “stem cell” is found:

“Stem cell” means a cell that can divide multiple times and give rise to specialized cells in the body, and includes but is not limited to the stem cells generally referred to as (i) adult stem cells that are found in some body tissues (including but not limited to adult stem cells derived from adult body tissues and from discarded umbilical cords and placentas), and (ii) embryonic stem cells (including but not limited to stem cells derived from in vitro fertilization blastocysts and from cell reprogramming techniques such as somatic cell nuclear transfer.

Human embryonic stem cell research,” also referred to as “early stem cell research,” means any scientific or medical research involving human stem cells derived from in vitro fertilization blastocysts or from somatic cell nuclear transfer.

The last four words in both definitions hold the key to understanding the truth. “Somatic cell nuclear transfer” is the scientific (not ideological) term for cloning. The amendment clearly says it bans human cloning, so how can it ban cloning in one section of the amendment and permit it in another? Checking the definition section again, you will find:

“Clone or attempt to clone a human being” means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being.

There you have it. While a “Yes” vote on Amendment 2 was a vote against reproductive cloning (implanting a cloned human being in a uterus and carrying him or her to term), it was also a vote for therapeutic cloning (creating human embryos for the purpose of harvesting their stem cells).

When all the other examples of deception (too numerous for this space) surrounding Amendment 2 are objectively examined, there can be little doubt that Jaci Winship is right—deception won over truth.

Copyright, 2006

“Parents Left In The Dark”

Life Matters —The Newsletter of the Respect Life Office of the Diocese of Rockford
November 2006

By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office

In 1995, the Illinois State General Assembly passed the Parental Notice of Abortion Act—a bill requiring an abortionist to notify a minor girl’s parent, grandparent, or legal guardian before committing an abortion. Then-Gov. Jim Edgar, despite holding a pro-abortion ideology, signed the bill into law.

Unfortunately, the law never took effect due to the refusal of the Illinois Supreme Court to promulgate the “rules” for judicial bypass. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Illinois quickly filed suit to prevent enforcement of the law and U.S. District Court Judge Paul Plunkett issued a permanent injunction order on February 9, 1996 making the law unenforceable.

If the Illinois Supreme Court had stayed out of politics and just fulfilled its responsibility under the Illinois constitution, parents would have been given the opportunity to at least be told that their minor daughter was scheduled for abortion. It was the Court’s duty to promulgate the “rules” and it refused to do so—bending instead to political pressure from the pro-abortion crowd.

The Chicago Tribune (which supports legalized abortion) recently admitted in an editorial that the Court “did indeed allow politics to creep into the courtroom . . . The court didn’t rule on the constitutionality of the law. But by refusing to write the rules, the court killed the law: A federal judge ruled that it could not be enforced without the rules. The state court sat on its hands; in effect, it vetoed a law supported by the governor and a majority of the House and Senate.”

Eleven years later, minor girls from surrounding states with parental consent or notification law(Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Kentucky, and Indiana) circumvent those laws by traveling to Illinois for their abortions. The ACLU of Illinois (a rabidly pro-abortion group) admits, “The number of women traveling to Illinois for abortions has risen in recent years as result of . . . mandatory parental involvement laws in other states and other restrictive legislation.”

In the state of Illinois, girls old enough to get pregnant (that could be as young as 12) are considered old enough to procure an abortion without parental knowledge.

A recent editorial in the Rockford Register Star (another supporter of legalized abortion) opined, “In 1997, more than 4,500 minors crossed the state line to get an abortion in Illinois, bypassing state law and bypassing the moral authority of their parents. That’s the latest record available, but we believe it’s a relevant number because abortions tend to be underreported.” Couple this with a recent editorial from the Chicago Tribune which stated, “many people, including many people who support abortion rights, believe that a parental-notification law is simply common sense” and you can see why so many organizations and individuals have been outraged by the inaction of the 1995 Illinois Supreme Court.

New Court—New Opportunity
Last summer—with assistance from the legal advocacy group, the Thomas More Society— a coalition of organizations including the Catholic Conference of Illinois joined an Illinois state attorney in his request that the Court reconsider the “rules.”

It didn’t take long for the Court to respond. On September 20, 2006 the Illinois Supreme Court finally issued the rules for the judicial bypass procedure. Parents will have to wait for the state’s attorney general to ask Judge Plunkett to lift his 1996 court order that will then allow the Parental Notice of Abortion Act to take effect.

What will happen if the law takes effect?
If the court order is lifted and the parental notification law takes effect, an abortionist will be required to tell a parent, grandparent or legal guardian at least 48 hours before a girl under the age of 18 procures an abortion. Parents will not have to give consent, but at least they will be aware of what their daughter is planning and hopefully they will be able to convince her that there are life affirming choices that she can make.

As with most parental involvement laws, the Illinois law provides an exception for “medical emergencies” or if the minor has been sexually or physically abused by a parent. There is a provision for judicial bypass whereby a judge may waive notice “if the minor is sufficiently mature or if notification is not in the minor’s best interest.”

It is not a great law, but it is the best we have—for now. It does have the potential to prevent young girls from being pressured into to having abortions by those who really have no lasting interest in their well-being. Minors need to be protected in many areas, but particularly with a decision as serious as abortion. The abortion decision can have lasting emotional consequences as well as the possibility of physical complications. Parents must not be kept in the dark about such critical decisions.

Pro-Abortion forces respond
The rules were barely printed before the pro-abortion forces began their campaign to assure that parents will have no say in a young girl’s decision to abort her unborn child. Filed in the Illinois House on October 2, 2006 “The Adolescent Health Care Safety Act,” would repeal the Parental Notice of Abortion Act. The act “Provides that a person may not intentionally perform an abortion on a minor or on an incompetent person unless 48 hours’ notice has been given to a specified adult family member or a member of the clergy.”

What makes this new act unique is that it casts a much wider net to include any family member (siblings, step-siblings, aunts and uncles) age 18 or older to act as an “authority” for the minor girl. In addition, members of the clergy, social workers, psychologists, nurses, and physicians would also be included in that wider net. It is not far fetched to imagine an older boyfriend posing as a teen’s “uncle.” And let’s not forget some abortion facilities have their own “clergy.”

David E. Smith, executive director of the Illinois Family Institute, responded to the proposed act by explaining, “There’s no compelling state interest to modify the existing law. This bill serves the interests of the radical abortion industry in Illinois—not girls nor the parents who love them.”

Pray and Act
It is my hope that parents will pray for their children daily and that they will convey to them that while there are expectations for chaste behavior, parents love their children unconditionally. If a young girl makes wrong choices and becomes pregnant, she needs the love and support of her family. While it will not be easy, life is always the right choice. Circumstances—no matter how dire they appear—do not change the fact that human life is precious at every stage.

A pregnant teen is usually frightened. On the advice of her boyfriend or “counselor” at an abortion facility, she might be led to believe that abortion is her only option. Deirdre McQuaid, pro-life spokeswoman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops writes, “Secret abortions undermine parents’ ability to care for their children in crisis and put young girls at particular risk both physically and emotionally . . . Abortion does not solve an adolescent’s problems, but instead often compounds her fears, anxiety and sense of isolation.”

Better than the provision of law is the love and support of parents. With their love, support, and counsel, she may see that although her sexual activity was wrong and pregnancy is not what she wanted, she can carry her baby to term and place him or her with a loving family.

Parents also need to let their elected representatives know that, at minimum, they want the Parental Notice of Abortion Act. The Adolescent Health Care Safety Act should be rejected. Call or write your state representative or senator and tell them that parents should not be left in the dark regarding a minor’s abortion— a decision that will impact the rest of her life.


Copyright, 2006

Ms. tries to eliminate stigma of abortion

The Observer—Official Newspaper of the Catholic Diocese of Rockford
Publication date: November 3, 2006

Life Lines
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office

“I’ve never stopped being grateful that I was able to have an abortion in my early twenties. It was the first time I took responsibility for my own life.” Those words, by aging radical feminist and founder of Ms. Magazine, Gloria Steinem, were prominently displayed in the Fall 2006 issue of the magazine. Also included were the words of 27-year-old Tyffine Jones, who said, “I would never have graduated high school, then college, if I hadn’t had an abortion. It changed my life.” Those were the only published comments from women who had signed on for the recent “We Had Abortions” campaign sponsored by Ms.

Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation (the publisher of Ms.) is making another attempt to get women to go public with the fact that they had guilt-free abortions. In 1972, Ms. announced that they were following the lead of “343 prominent French women” (who in 1971 had declared they had abortions) by publishing the names of “53 well-known U.S. women” who procured illegal abortions.

The use of the words “well-known” and “prominent” to describe women who—as Ms. claims—are not ashamed of their abortions is very telling. It is just one more attempt to change the way society views abortion. The not so subtle implication is: if well-known and prominent women see abortion as a positive choice, why should you poor, ordinary women think there’s something wrong with it.

Katherine Spillar, executive editor of Ms., told the Associate Press “more than 5,000 women have signed the [current] petition” although “the magazine had room for only 1,016 names.” The other 3,984 are supposedly on its website, although they were nowhere to be found. I did find a request for signers and others who support “choice” to “make a contribution so Ms. can promote the petition and provide needed funds to fight abortion bans …”

Yes, radical feminists are definitely in the business of fighting any restriction on abortion. But equally important to their efforts to keep unrestricted abortion legal is their frenetic effort at achieving total societal acceptance of abortion. They refuse to acknowledge that women suffer emotionally after abortion.

By pursuing women who have had abortions to sign the petition, they are seeking affirmation for women who are suffering in silence that they made the “right” decision when they chose abortion. The goal is to get women to think, “Gee, if these women are okay with their abortions, I should be “okay with mine.” However, pretending that abortion is a positive choice does not help women who are suffering its aftermath.

Immediately after the abortion, many women do feel relieved because their perceived “crisis” is over. With the passage of time, however, many suffer with grief and regret when they realize that the abortion did, indeed, destroy the life of their baby. They come to the understand that abortion was not a good decision even though it may have appeared initially to solve their “problems.”

Abortion advocates fear the truth that abortion is wrong and hurts women. It is not a good choice. But, if they were to admit that, how could they continue justifying it? They have to keep pretending.

Although Ms. and other abortion apologists refuse to recognize their legitimacy, thousands of women are coming forward to tell their stories of regret and suffering after abortion. These women are not just signing a petition. They are telling their stories of regret publicly and then offering other women the path to hope and healing. But Ms. wants nothing to do with them. They, like so many pro-abortion organizations, offer no help to women who are suffering—their only interest is in keeping abortion legal and making it socially acceptable.

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, is truly concerned about women who have had abortions. Women who seek help from the Church will find hope, forgiveness, and healing. The same cannot be said for the Ms. crowd.

Copyright, 2006

“A great campaign in support of life”

The Observer—Official Newspaper of the Catholic Diocese of Rockford
Publication date: October 6, 2006

Life Lines
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office

In 1972, before the infamous Supreme Court decisions (Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton) struck down state laws prohibiting abortion, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) designated the first Sunday in October as “Respect Life Sunday.” Originally, the educational and prayer campaign lasted a week. Eventually it became a month-long effort and now it is a year-long program beginning anew each October. The theme changes each year, but the basic goal is the same: to promote a culture of life by teaching the faithful to respect and protect all human life from fertilization to natural death.

John Paul II stressed the importance of this goal when he wrote: “What is urgently called for is a general mobilization of consciences and a united ethical effort to activate a great campaign in support of life . . . We need to begin with the renewal of a culture of life within Christian communities themselves. Too often it happens that believers, even those who take an active part in the life of the Church, end up by separating their Christian faith from its ethical requirements concerning life, and thus fall into moral subjectivism and certain objectionable ways of acting . . . With equal clarity and determination we must identify the steps we are called to take in order to serve life in all its truth. At the same time, we need to promote a serious and in-depth exchange about basic issues of human life with everyone, including non-believers, in intellectual circles, in the various professional spheres and at the level of people’s everyday life” (Evangelium Vitae 95).

In responding to this call for a “great campaign in support of life,” the USCCB (with the approval of the full body of Bishops) updated their blueprint for building a culture of life by issuing a revised Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities in 2001.

The Pastoral Plan (which was originally issued in 1975 with a subsequent revision in 1985) provides a comprehensive model for pro-life efforts by calling “upon all the resources of the Church—its people, services, and institutions—to pursue this effort with renewed energy and commitment in four major areas”: 1) public information and education; 2) pastoral care; 3) public policy; and 4) prayer and worship. This framework for pro-life activities assumes that each state, diocese, and parish will have a coordinated effort to implement the Pastoral Plan.

In addition, the Pastoral Plan includes a reaffirmation of the Church’s teaching regarding the dignity of human life and the responsibility of all living persons to protect life from its very earliest stage. On occasion, those working to protect the unborn are criticized for focusing too much attention on abortion and not enough to other issues that violate the dignity of the human person. The bishops clearly state in the Pastoral Plan that “abortion necessarily plays a central role” among the various life issues and that “it is imperative that those who are called to serve the least among us give urgent attention and priority to this issue of justice. . . Our concern is only intensified by the realization that a policy and practice that result in well over a million deaths from abortions each year cannot but diminish respect for life in other areas.”

That does not mean that the bishops only concern is abortion, but it does signal the preeminence of outlawing abortion and other direct attacks on innocent human life including embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, and euthanasia.

Think seriously about the 3,500 pre-born babies intentionally killed each day in this country through procured surgical abortion.

Will you remain silent while the most vulnerable among us are being deliberately destroyed? Or, will you join “the great campaign in support of life” and “serve life in all its truth”?

The decision is yours, but don’t underestimate the significance of that decision—someone’s life may depend on it.


Copyright, 2006

“Be Aware, Be Very Aware”

Life Matters —The Newsletter of the Respect Life Office of the Diocese of Rockford
September 2006

By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office

Parents hope and pray their children will be safe when they are away from home. While the concern typically is for their children’s physical safety, parents today have to be concerned about their moral safety as well. Unbeknownst to many, there are purveyors of immorality lurking in school classrooms, after school groups, and other places kids frequent. Parents must make every effort to know what is being taught to their children—especially in the realm of human sexuality—whether that teaching is direct or implied.

It is no longer safe to assume that nice sounding programs are harmless. It is no longer safe to assume that agencies and individuals assigned to teach our children and teens understand what is best for them. Gone are the days when parents could send children off to school and other activities and be assured that adults, materials, and programs would not violate traditional values including those that recognize that sexual activity outside the bonds of marriage is wrong.

Today, there is a powerful, well coordinated effort aimed at indoctrinating young people with a totally different message about human sexuality. Young people are told that times have changed and that there are no rights or wrongs with sexual activity as long as the participants “consent” and that they are “responsible.” In appealing to the natural desire of young people wanting to be viewed as “adults,” the purveyors of this message seduce them into believing this “new way of thinking.” One of their methods is to convince schools to adopt “comprehensive sex education” programs.

The forces behind the indoctrination
In Illinois, the well-organized, well-funded effort to get comprehensive sex education in every school is

led by a group calling itself the “Illinois Campaign for Responsible Sex Education (ICRSE).” Their website admits that it is a “joint project of the Illinois Caucus for Adolescent Heath and Planned Parenthood/Chicago Area.”

The Caucus laments that “. . . much of the curricula that’s currently available is abstinence-only and many teens are getting incomplete or inaccurate information. A comprehensive sex education program provides young people with the information they need to be safe, make informed choices, and act responsibly.” What they propose (and are doing in many schools) is anything but responsible.

There’s no surprise here. Planned Parenthood and its ilk have been trying to re-define human sexuality for more than 80 years. The effort in Illinois is basically no different than in other states. They offer disinformation and factoids in an effort to gain access to our children. Once they have that access, they begin their indoctrination.

Don’t be fooled. Comprehensive sex education is the brain-child of Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS)—which was founded by former PPFA personnel. It is now advocated by many individuals and organizations that push contraception and abortion.

What do they teach children?
According to PPFA and SEICUS publications, the following are just some core concepts of comprehensive sex education:

• sexuality education must be started in kindergarten and continue through 12th grade
• boys and girls should be taught together
• teen sex is “normal” and must be “consensual, mutually satisfying, and safe’”
• “students should make the decision to either abstain from sexual activity or use condoms and other forms of contraception”
• there is nothing wrong with teens or pre-teens having sex as long as they contracept and use condoms
• “condemning all nonmarital sex in unrealistic and irresponsible”
• if a girl gets pregnant and chooses abortion, her parents have no right to be notifiedabstinence can be a positive choice for teens, but so can a wide variety of sexual activities
• abstinence-only programs are “dangerous and irresponsible”

A few examples
PPFA’s brochure, “Human Sexuality—What Children Need to Know and When They Need to Know It (2004)” outlines what they want children to know. The following are just a few of those irresponsible ideas:

By age 5 “children need to know a woman does not have to have a baby unless she wants to”

By ages 5-7 children need to know:

• “that sexual identity includes sexual orientation — lesbian, gay, straight, or bisexual. . . [and they need to know] the basic facts about HIV/AIDS.”
• “that people experience sexual pleasure in a number of ways”

By ages 8-12 preteens need to:

• “know that sex is pleasurable, not only a way to have a baby”
• “be able to protect against sexually transmitted infections and unwanted pregnancy”
• “know what abortion is [and] about assisted pregnancy — that a woman does not need to have sex to get pregnant”
• “know that contraceptive options are available including emergency contraception”
• “know how to get contraceptives”
• “be able to name a variety of contraceptives [and] discuss safer sex”

Ages 13-18, teenagers need to:

• “know about the range of difference in sexual behaviors and relationships, including abstinence, marriage and domestic partnership, and opposite- and same-sex partnering
• “know the advantages, disadvantages, facts, fallacies, and effective use of contraceptive methods
• “be comfortable in asking about and obtaining contraception

Remember, these are only a few examples of the inappropriate and irresponsible ideas being forced on children and teens. In many classrooms, girls are forced to put condoms on fruits or vegetables in front of their male classmates. Often “innovative” games with sexual themes are played. “Teen Peer Sexuality Educators” are also utilized to “teach” immorality. All these activities serve to break down the natural barriers of modesty and chastity.

In a further attempt to trivialize sexual activity, it is defined as “sex play.” The message implied is: Hey! It’s fun! It’s just another recreational activity! The “cool” kids are doing it! Why not join in the fun?

Children and teens eventually become so desensitized to all matters of a sexual nature, that it becomes easier and easier for them to engage in progressive sexual activity.

Clear and present danger
The comprehensive sex ed pushers want to take something that was designed by God for the good of marriage and society and reduce it to mere “play.” Some of the recommendations given to children (in comprehensive sex ed classes) about specific sexual practices and ways to avoid pregnancy are so vile, that even with the warning at the beginning of this article, I choose not to identify them in this context.

The “values free” messages given by the peddlers of comprehensive sex ed is in direct opposition to the beneficial teachings of the Church. Much of what is taught is also medically inaccurate and serves to harm, not help children and teens.

What’s a parent to do?
First, be aware of what is being taught to your children. Do not be fooled when you are told that an “abstinence based” or “abstinence plus” program is okay. These programs are just comprehensive sex ed in disguise. Illinois law allows parents to opt out their children from these programs. Exercise your right to do so. Teach your children the truth.

Parents need to carry out their God given duty to teach their children about chastity and self-mastery.
The parents’ behavior must model these virtues and children need to understand that parents believe their children can control their behaviors.

Catholic youth leader, Brandon Jubar, gives excellent advice when he writes, “The goal is not to make morality conform to a teen's way of thinking. The goal is to teach our teens to think critically and make good, moral choices that conform to the teachings of the Church — which are the teachings of Christ.”

As Janice Shaw Crouse of Concerned Women for America writes, “Today, sadly, there are far too many teens with broken hearts and incurable diseases because adults are unwilling to state categorically that sex is meant exclusively for marriage.”

Copyright, 2006

Using “religion” to promote immoral causes

The Observer—Official Newspaper of the Catholic Diocese of Rockford
Publication date: September 1, 2006

Life Lines
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office

Margaret Sanger—the infamous founder of Planned Parenthood—was baptized Catholic, but did not practice the faith. In fact, she spent a great deal of time publicly attacking the Church for its stance against birth control.
Sanger did, however, recognize the influence religion had on culture and she knew her success would be limited if she did not gain legitimacy from religious bodies. Her efforts paid off when the Federal Council of Churches (FCC) endorsed birth control in 1931 and in 1961 when the National Council of Churches (formerly the FCC) approved of abortion in limited circumstances.

Although Sanger rejected conventional religious doctrines, she was not above twisting Sacred Scripture and religious tradition to fit her ideology. One of her blasphemous attempts to gain Christian support for birth control was her implication that Zachary and Elizabeth practiced birth control because in her words, “John the Baptist was an only child, and his parents were well along in years when he was born.”

Throughout its history and even today, Planned Parenthood continues in its attempt to convince people of faith that their ideologies are in conformity with traditional Christian beliefs. Anyone who understands the facts about Planned Parenthood—it commits more abortions that any other single entity in this country; it promotes total sexual freedom; it works to deny parental rights; it pushes contraception on teens; and it treats chastity with disdain—recognizes that its dogmas and practices are in direct opposition to traditional Christian belief.

In 1994 Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) formed its official “Clergy Advisory Board” and immediately followed with the creation of the “Pro-Choice Religious Network.” According to PPFA, Clergy Voices (the publication of the Network) “presents the biblical and theological arguments for human reproductive freedom . . . [and] covers all aspects of reproductive issues including sexuality education in our schools, teen pregnancy, family planning, and abortion rights.”

In 2002 the Rev. Monica Corsaro of the United Methodist Church was appointed full time “state chaplain” for Planned Parenthood in the state of Washington. Corsaro told The Seattle Times, “It’s important for Planned Parenthood to have someone on staff who can speak as a person of faith, speaking from her faith, and for people of faith.” Actually, it’s another example of Planned Parenthood’s attempt to use religion to legitimize its extreme ideas and activities.
An article in Clergy Voices claims, “Rev. Corsaro demonstrates once again that, contrary to what the opposition would have the public believe, the Planned Parenthood mission and programs do, in fact, reflect the faith traditions millions of Americans.” In reality, Planned Parenthood’s mission and programs reflect only those Americans who worship at the altar of moral relativism.

PPFA appointed Rev. Ignacio Castuera, another Methodist minister, as its National Chaplain in 2004. Castuera boasts that “. . . Planned Parenthood has been in the business of values, and religious leaders have been active supporters, from the very beginning . . . the chaplain is first of all a symbol, a living reminder of the close relationship between progressive religious forces and the struggle for sexual and reproductive freedom for women.”

While Planned Parenthood may receive affirmations from “progressive” religious bodies that have lost their way, it’s mission—which stands in direct opposition to the unchanging, authoritative teachings of the Catholic Church—will never receive an imprimatur. But they want to attract Catholics, so what can they do?
Enter Planned Parenthood’s “Catholic” mouthpiece: ex-priest Daniel Maguire, professor of Moral Theology at Marquette University. Maguire serves as a member of the PPFA Clergy Advisory Board and claims “grounds for permitting abortion exist in the Catholic tradition . . .” He has gone so far as to claim that St. Antoninus of Florence was a “pro-choice Catholic.” Not only is he wrong, his statements are heretical.

Once again, “religion”—no matter how dissenting—is used to justify killing the most vulnerable among us. Unfortunately, truth has never been a priority for Planned Parenthood or its minions.

Copyright, 2006

“Can The Door Be Closed?”

Life Matters —The Newsletter of the Respect Life Office of the Diocese of Rockford
August 2006

By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office

It was the evening of August 9, 2001. Many of us were waiting apprehensively for President Bush’s much-anticipated announcement regarding what he was going to do about the existing ban on Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

Would he retain the ban thereby taking a stand for the dignity of all human beings—even the smallest among us? Would he lift the ban only for embryos that were destined for death? Or would he revoke the ban totally which would then force taxpayers to fund the deliberate destruction of human beings at their earliest stage of development?

As I waited for his live televised response, I prayed that he would make the morally correct choice and keep the ban in place. His decision was actually a surprise—for me, at least. He decided that the Federal government would fund research on the 62 cell lines from embryos that were destroyed before August 9, 2001. Federal funding would not be allocated for cell lines obtained from embryos destroyed after that date, but he allowed funding in those situations “where the life and death decision has already been made.”

Unthinkable
It would be unthinkable to even contemplate sanctioning experimentation on a two-year old who would deliberately be killed for that specific purpose. Can you imagine someone saying, well the death decision has already been made, so let’s experiment on her? I pray no one would consider that a morally permissible act. There is no moral difference between deliberately killing a five-day-old embryo, a 16-week-old fetus, a two-year-old toddler, a six-year-old, a 15-year- old, or an 85-year-old. All innocent human life has value regardless of his or her developmental stage.

Ken Conner, then-president of the Family Research Council, said this, “Moral principles are not divisible. Killing human embryos for research is wrong in every instance. The President is only stepping deeper into the moral morass.”

A word from our Holy Father
In March of this year, Pope Benedict XVI (while addressing participants in the 12th General Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life) commented, “Therefore, the magisterium of the Church has constantly proclaimed the sacred and inviolable character of every human life from its conception until its natural end. This moral judgment also applies to the origins of the life of an embryo even before it is implanted in the mother’s womb, which will protect and nourish it for nine months until the moment of birth: ‘Human life is sacred and inviolable at every moment of existence, including the initial phase which precedes birth.’”

The door was opened
Once President Bush gave Federal government sanction to embryonic stem cell research (no matter how limited) the door was open. Senator Edward Kennedy, D-Mass, remarked that getting a “foot in the door” was an important step. As philosopher Michael Novak commented, “Giving away the principle means the next surrender is much, much easier . . . There’ll be enormous pressure now to widen this research.”

And, of course that’s exactly what happened. On July 18 of this year—after years of work behind the scenes, the Senate passed, by a vote of 63 to 37, HR 810 (the Stem Cell Research enhancement Act of 2005) which would greatly expand Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. No longer would such research be limited to the pre August 9, 2001 existing stem cell lines. Instead, any “left over” embryos from in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures would be eligible for experimentation and destruction.

There was a lot of talk from a number of Senators about “ethical” procedures and “consent” by the “donors.” But, there is nothing ethical about parents giving consent to scientists to destroy their very tiny daughters and sons.

Courageous Veto
President Bush vetoed HR 810 the next day and the House of Representatives sustained the veto. At least for now, additional federal tax dollars will not be used for the destruction of very early human life.

The President’s veto was “courageous” because a great deal of political pressure had been put on him not to veto the bill. In addition to powerful members of his own party, Bush was lobbied by a number of state governors including—not surprisingly—Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich); many medical charities; a number of high profile individuals and groups; and a number of individuals with family members with debilitating diseases and conditions.

“Snowflakes” in attendance
On July 19, 2006 the East Room of the White House was packed with more than 200 people who came to hear the President announce the veto. Among those 200 were 18 families who had adopted “spare” frozen embryos left over from IVF procedures.

The picture below shows President Bush holding Trey Jones of Cypress, Texas. Trey is one of the “snowflake” babies—as they are affectionately called—who was frozen soon after he came into being. He was adopted, implanted in his mother’s womb, and was born a year ago.

In his comments, the President spoke about the “snowflake” babies:

Yet we must also remember that embryonic stem cells come from human embryos that are destroyed for their cells. Each of these human embryos is a unique human life with inherent dignity and matchless value. We see that value in the children who are with us today. Each of these children began his or her life as a frozen embryo [sic] that was created for in vitro fertilization, but remained unused after the fertility treatments were complete. Each of these children was adopted while still an embryo, and has been blessed with the chance to grow up in a loving family.

These boys and girls are not spare parts. They remind us of what is lost when embryos are destroyed in the name of research. They remind us that we all begin our lives as a small collection of cells. And they remind us that in our zeal for new treatments and cures, America must never abandon our fundamental morals.

These were wonderful, truthful comments about the children. If only the President’s speech writers hadn’t missed the important point that the children did not begin their lives as frozen embryos. Each began his or her life in a petri dish at the time of fertilization and then they were frozen. It’s an important point not to be missed.

The bad news
The bad news, of course, is as Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif, stated, “The research is going to occur with federal funding or without.” And let’s remember that research with those 62 cell lines created prior to 2001 is still being funded by the Federal government.

In addition, taxpayers in a number of states (currently: California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland and New Jersey) will also be paying for their state’s research programs involving the destruction of tiny humans.

In July 2005, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich issued an executive order for $10 million of taxpayer money to be used for embryonic stem cell and cloning research. Blagojevich issued an executive order for another $5 million (for further destruction of young human life) one day after Bush issued his veto of HR 810.

Let’s not forget that while some citizens may not be forced to pay for embryonic stem cell research and “therapeutic” cloning, neither (tragically) is prohibited by Federal law. The door is open and it will not be closed easily if at all.
­­­­­­­

Copyright, 2006

And the award goes to . . .

The Observer—Official Newspaper of the Catholic Diocese of Rockford
Publication date: August 4, 2006

Life Lines
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office

“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.” Attributed to Winston Churchill, these words seem relevant in the ongoing debate on embryonic stem cell research (ESCR).

During the war of words, a number of individuals became living examples of the citation above. However, the award for the best example of “stumbling over the truth and hurrying off” goes to Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn). In an opinion piece in the San Francisco Chronicle on July 13, 2006 Frist writes, “Although I am anti-abortion and believe the human embryo has moral significance from the moment of conception, I will back this embryonic stem-cell research package on the Senate floor.”

Five days later, writing in The Washington Post, Frist begins, “I am pro-life. I recognize that human life begins at conception; before coming to the Senate, I spent my life practicing medicine in order to save lives.” He continues by claiming he has a “deep-seated belief that human life has value at all stages of development” and that “each human embryo represents a nascent, genetically distinct human life and thus has tremendous moral significance.”

Senator Frist acknowledges the scientific fact that the human embryo is a “genetically distinct human life;” he acknowledges that embryos have “tremendous moral significance;” and yet he wants to bestow governmental sanction on their destruction. He admits that he has “deep moral concerns” about ESCR and yet, he ignores those concerns.

Most politicians pushing for ESCR dance around the facts with semantic gymnastics. Unlike Frist, they don’t stumble over the truth—they don’t even come near it. Instead, they attempt to dehumanize the embryo by talking about him or her being “potential life” and nothing more than “a collection of cells.” They do not concede the definitive scientific fact that human life begins at fertilization/conception and that the embryo is not “a collection of cells,” but a self-contained organism that contains cells.

Instead of debating the facts, ESCR apologists resort to emotionalism interspersed with false choices and grand illusions with a glaring absence of scientific fact. Instead of logically debating whether or not it is permissible for society to condone destroying one human life—no matter the stage of development—for the benefit another, they tug on emotions by focusing on individuals who “might” be helped from ESCR.

ESCR advocates reduce the discussion to a false choice between ESCR or the “death of millions” who suffer from disease. They give false hope that cures are “just around the corner” and that ESCR offers the best chance for those cures.

Much of the discussion centers on the fact that only “left over” or “spare” embryos from in vitro fertilization procedures would be “used” [killed] for research—as if this made the destruction of tiny humans acceptable. William Kristol, of the Weekly Standard, writes: “Yes, such embryos might be left over in fertility clinics, but the fact that they are unwanted does not change what they are or give us a license to destroy them.”

There are some scientific “advancements” that simply must be rejected and destroying human embryos for their stem cells is one of those. Even if the purpose is to discover successful treatments for those suffering, we may never do evil that good may result. The end does not justify the means.

Our hearts go out to those who are suffering, but we must not kill even one human being—no matter how small—in an attempt to benefit another. There are moral ways to reach the same end and those are the ones science must pursue.

To date, there have been at least 72 diseases/conditions that have been successfully treated in humans using non-embryonic stem cells. Not one human has been successfully treated with embryonic stem cells.

Let’s not stumble over the truth and hurry off as if nothing happened. Let’s acknowledge the truth and spread it widely.

Copyright, 2006

Accustomed to most, surprised by one

The Observer—Official Newspaper of the Catholic Diocese of Rockford
Publication date: July 14, 2006

Life Lines
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office

I have become accustomed to the common objections offered by many Catholics to the Church’s unwavering and non-negotiable stance on many issues associated with human sexuality—especially in the area of marriage and procreation.

Their opposition typically originates from little, if any, accurate information on the Church’s teaching on matrimony as well as a lack of understanding about Natural Family Planning (NFP). Once presented with the truth, many are struck by the awesome wisdom of the Church and they embrace it fully.

Others, of course, are obstinate—refusing to accept the truth and choosing, instead, to follow their own personal opinion. They seem to believe that they are wiser than the Church.

Surprisingly, there is a small group of individuals who appear to be faithful to the moral teachings of the Church with one exception: they believe NFP is morally wrong. They view it “Catholic contraception.”

In writing Evangelium Vitae, John Paul II reiterated the traditional teaching of the Church: “The work of educating in the service of life involves the training of married couples in responsible procreation . . . [which] requires couples to be obedient to the Lord's call and to act as faithful interpreters of his plan. This happens when the family is generously open to new lives, and when couples maintain an attitude of openness and service to life, even if, for serious reasons and in respect for the moral law, they choose to avoid a new birth for the time being or indefinitely. The moral law obliges them in every case to control the impulse of instinct and passion, and to respect the biological laws inscribed in their person. It is precisely this respect which makes legitimate, at the service of responsible procreation, the use of natural methods of regulating fertility."

Many in the anti-NFP crowd erroneously think the Church’s moral teachings changed after Vatican II—they think the pre-conciliar Church forbade NFP. They are either unaware, or refuse to accept Church documents before Vatican II that approved of periodic continence for regulating birth.

In 1853 a ruling by the Sacred Penitentiary declared that periodic continence for the purpose of avoiding pregnancy (for right reasons) was moral.

Pius XI’s encyclical Casti Conubii (Christian Marriage) was written in 1930. In the fourth chapter, he wrote: “any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”

Referencing the first two words (“any use”) some insist that Pius XI was condemning both contraception and NFP. Reading the entire sentence (and the entire chapter) makes it clear he was referring only to contraception. NFP does not frustrate the “natural power to generate life.” If the “act” (marital intercourse) does not take place (the couple abstains), it cannot be “frustrated in its natural power to generate life.”

Earlier in the chapter, Pius XI explained the moral difference between contraception and periodic abstinence when he wrote that a contraceptive act is a “sin against nature” and a “deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious, but “virtuous continence” in matrimony is permitted by “Christian law” for [the avoidance of pregnancy].

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (#2370), being the “sure and authentic reference text” for Catholic doctrine, declares that “Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self- observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.”

The people who reject the Church’s teaching on contraception as well as those who reject her teaching on NFP are failing to think “with the mind of the Church.” We cannot, on the one hand be Protestant in our approach to moral truth nor more Catholic than the Church when we interpret clear definitions and boundaries set by the Church’s Magisterium.



Copyright, 2006

Breaching the moral floodgate

The Observer—Official Newspaper of the Catholic Diocese of Rockford
Publication date: June 2, 2006

Life Lines
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office

Most everyone knew if the levees and floodgates were seriously breached, New Orleans would flood.

“Floodgates,” according to the Oxford American Dictionary, are “a last restraint holding back an outpouring of something powerful or substantial.” When the floodgates in New Orleans were compromised, the effects were progressive, devastating and will be long lasting.

Referencing Ivor van Heerden’s new book, The Storm, Candy Booth Thomas in the May 22, 2006 issue of Time writes, “87% of the water that flooded New Orleans came through breaches in the floodwalls, not over the tops of levees. That's key because a storm surge topping the levees would have lasted but a few hours, leaving at most 3 ft. of water in New Orleans, he calculates. The breaches, by comparison, let water pour in for days, inundating houses up to their rooftops.”

What happens when moral floodgates are breached? Just as van Heerden describes the results of physical breaches, openings in moral floodgates let immorality seep in gradually, not all at once. The consequences, while not always visible and immediate, have deadly and long lasting effects on the culture.

The moral floodgate that had been holding abortion back in a largely Catholic country was finally breached on May 10, 2006. By a 5-3 decision, the Constitutional Court of Colombia legalized abortion in cases of rape, incest, “fetal malformation” and where “necessary” to save the life of the mother.

Mónica Roa, an attorney educated at New York University law school, led the fight for liberalization of the Colombian law which prohibited all abortions. After the ruling was handed down, Roa admitted that abortion apologists “have worked for years preparing the terrain so that the suit was successful in the court and in public opinion.” She also acknowledged the importance of changing “societal attitudes towards abortion.”

Preparing the terrain and changing societal attitudes, of course, began in Colombia in the 60s when the moral floodgate was pierced by the introduction of birth control. PROFAMILIA —the second largest affiliate of International Planned Parenthood Federation—set up shop in Colombia in1965. Now “the country's largest sexual and reproductive health organization,” it “operates 35 centers across Colombia, with more than 1,400 employees.”

Maria Isabel Plata, executive director of PROFAMILIA, speaking at a recent United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) roundtable commented, “A successful sexual and reproductive health programme generates its own momentum.” That momentum, unfortunately, has changed the way many in the culture view the dignity of the human person.

UNFPA reported that “PROFAMILIA started distributing contraceptives 30 years ago, at a time when pharmacies would not carry them. It encountered opposition from the medical profession and the Catholic Church, but the Government [according to Plata] ‘left us alone’ . . .” The first crack in the moral floodgate had occured.

In 1969 the Colombian government widened that breach by offering contraception through its maternal and child health programs. The journal, Profamilia, boasted in 1992, “Today family planning [contraception] with its varied technologies has become an accepted behavior of the majority of fertile couples.” Tragically, as has been the case in many other countries, wide acceptance of contraception paved the way toward the acquiescence of abortion.

Father Thomas J. Euteneuer, president of Human Life International,
identifies the evolution of societal acceptance of abortion when he says, “the process of introducing abortion in societies ruled by a Judeo-Christian ethic is always the unholy trinity—contraception, sex education, and abortion—in that order.”

Modern history illustrates that point. By 1993 sex education programs in Colombia had become mandatory in all primary and secondary schools.

Just as in the United States, contraception and immoral sex education became firmly established in the Colombian culture. It was just a matter of time before abortion broke through the already breached moral floodgate holding it back. Now, barring a miracle, it won’t be long before abortions are legal for any reason.

Rebuilding the moral floodgates will not be easy, but just as in New Orleans, the efforts must continue.


Copyright, 2006

Special Kids—Special Moms

The Observer—Official Newspaper of the Catholic Diocese of Rockford
Publication date: May 5, 2006

Life Lines
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office

As Mother’s Day approaches, I am reminded of some special moms I have had the privilege of knowing. Having spent many years of my professional life working with the disabled (from infancy to middle age), I have learned important lessons about what it means to be a mother from joyful, brave, tenacious, and sometimes heroic women.

Some of the children I remember had mild to moderate disabilities, but some were severely disabled—unable to perform even the simplest activities of daily living. Many had cerebral palsy; some had hearing loss, cognitive impairment, or Down Syndrome; one was deaf and blind with mild spastic quadriplegia.

While professional intervention was crucial to their habilitation, the importance of the love and support of their mothers could not be over estimated. These women dedicated their lives to their children. Although it was not always easy, they never viewed their children as “burdens.”

Many of the moms told me their families were blessed by the presence of a child with special needs. They felt they became less selfish, more flexible, and more loving.

Another special mom—one I have not had the privilege of meeting—is Melissa Wiley. Melissa is a mother of five, accomplished author, and in her “spare” time maintains a blog (melissawiley.typepad.com). Her daughter, Jane, was diagnosed with leukemia when she was just a toddler. One of her sons is disabled. In her February 16, 2006 entry, she writes about him—affectionately referring to him as “wonderboy.” He has a number of conditions including hypertonia, developmental delay and a hearing loss.
Melissa’s writings are not bleak or disheartening. Instead, they are hopeful, uplifting, encouraging, and sprinkled with humor.

She sums it up when she writes, “Being entrusted with the care of a child who is not physically perfect can be yes, painful and scary, but also one of the sweetest, most rewarding experiences a person can have. Do you know how much they teach us, these small, brave, persevering persons? I hadn’t begun to grasp the meaning of that whole ‘Count it all joy’ business in the book of James until I met these children. Now I get it, or at least I get a glimpse of it. There is immeasurable joy not just in the overcoming of trial, but even—I know it sounds implausible, but it’s true—in the trial itself.”

Thinking about her then-unborn daughter, Anne, [born April 14, 2006], Melissa writes, “Of course I hope, for her sake, that she will be a healthy child. No mother hopes for her children to have to walk a difficult road; it is our nature to want their paths to be as pleasant as possible. But no longer could I say and mean (even if I didn’t know the gender of the child): ‘I don’t care what it is as long as it’s healthy,’ with its tacit suggestion that an unhealthy baby means only tragedy and sorrow. If that wish had come true last time, I wouldn’t have my Wonderboy. If this child—or any of my others, for that matter, for Jane is proof that being ‘born healthy’ is no guarantee of perpetual good health—should encounter serious medical difficulties, I know now that no matter how hard the road may be . . . there can be humor and camaraderie and courage and hope among the band of travelers—especially the smallest ones.”

This is just the attitude of so many of the special moms I have known. Of course, there are challenges. Of course, there are disappointments. Of course, there can be heartache. Yet, their demonstration of unconditional love is a testament to the dignity of human life and the value of motherhood.

By these examples and those from my mother, I have learned about sacrificial love, determination, loyalty, and humor. I also learned the importance of standing up for the weak and vulnerable—and this is one of the reasons I will go to my grave fighting for the “little guys.”


Copyright, 2006

Post-Fertilization Confusion

Life Matters —The Newsletter of the Respect Life Office of the Diocese of Rockford
April 2006

By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office

I attended a meeting recently where a discussion ensued about the mechanisms of the birth control pill (“The Pill”) and other hormonal “contraceptives.” Sitting around a large configuration of tables were about forty people all of whom are ardently pro-life. All but four were Catholic.

With the exception of two individuals (one Catholic and one Evangelical), everyone in the group agreed that the scientific evidence clearly demonstrates that one of the mechanisms of hormonal contraception is to render the endometrium of the uterus hostile to implantation—thus potentially acting as an early abortifacient.

The dissenters said they did not know if hormonal contraception can cause an abortion. If these two solidly pro-life individuals are unclear about the nature of hormonal contraception, it logically follows that there are many others who are also confused.

First things first
There are basically two categories of hormonal contraceptives—combined (monophasic, biphasic, or triphasic) oral contraceptives (COCs) and progestin-only methods.

Common COCs are “The Pill” (including, but not limited to: Allesse, Estrostep, Lo/Ovral, Milvane, Mircette, Mirelle, Nordette, Ortho-Novum, Ortho Tri-Cyclen, Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo, Ovral, Sequilar, Seasonale, Triphasil, Triquilar, and Yasmin); the hormone releasing vaginal ring (NuvaRing); and the patch (Ortho Evra).

Progestin-only methods include “mini-pills” including but not limited to: Micronor, Nor-QD, Ovrette; Depo-Provera also known as DMPA that is given by injection every three months; the intrauterine system (IUS) Mirena which may be left in place for up to five years and the intrauterine device (IUD) Progestasert Progesterone T which must be replaced yearly.

How do hormonal contraceptives work?
The Physicians’ Desk Reference (PDR) has been published for more than fifty years and is the most trusted source of information on both prescription and over-the-counter drugs. It is used by physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and others who need accurate information about drugs.

The pharmacology of COCs is explained in the PDR’s 2006 edition (p. 2395):

Combination oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus, which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus, and changes in the endometrium, which reduce the likelihood of implantation.

The pharmacology of progestin-only contraceptives is also addressed (p. 2411):

Progestin-only contraceptives prevent conception by suppressing ovulation in approximately half of users, thickening the cervical mucus to inhibit sperm penetration, lowering mid-cycle LH and FSH peaks, slowing the movement of the ovum through the fallopian tubes, and altering the endometrium.

While this same information concerning the mechanisms of combined oral contraceptives and progestin-only contraceptives is included in the package inserts for physicians and pharmacists, it typically is not found in the patient package insert.

Every hormonal “contraceptive,” without exception, lists altering of the endometrium as one of its possible actions. Most mention “thinning” or “atrophy” of the endometrium which makes it “unsuitable” or “hostile” for implantation of the “fertilized egg” (very tiny human being). Some describe the action as “keeping the uterine lining from thickening to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.” Of course, these descriptions are just clinical ways of describing a potential, very early abortion; if a human embryo cannot implant in the endometrium, he or she will die.

Speaking before the United States Supreme Court in the 1989 case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, attorney Frank Sussman (representing the abortionists) commented, “The most common forms of what we most generally in common parlance call contraception today, IUD’s, low-dose birth control pills, which are the safest type of birth control pills available, act as abortifacients. They are correctly labeled as both.”

According to the Mayo clinic website (hardly a pro-life site), “hormonal contraceptives, a popular method of birth control . . . prevent pregnancy by inhibiting ovulation, by altering cervical mucus, which decreases sperm mobility, and by impairing embryo implantation in the uterus.”

Why, then, is there lack of agreement?
The 1995 edition of Stedman's Medical Dictionary defines pregnancy as “the condition of a woman or female mammal from conception until birth.” It defines “conception” as “the formation of a viable zygote by the union of a spermatozoon and an ovum; fertilization.”

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and other abortion advocacy groups reject the traditional definition. They want people to believe that conception and pregnancy begin at implantation. This is one reason some physicians do not acknowledge the abortifacient mechanism of hormonal contraceptives. If you reject the long standing definition of conception, you can refuse to recognize that preventing implantation is an early abortion.

No wonder there is so much confusion. It would seem that a standard medical dictionary would take precedence over a vote by members of an organization, but sadly, that is not the reality. Those who claim that hormonal contraceptives cannot cause early abortions do so on the basis of this distorted and politically convenient definition of “conception.”

It is sometimes argued that hormonal “contraceptives” cannot have an abortifacient mechanism as some women do become pregnant while taking the pill. In reality, this means all three mechanisms of the pill failed. Altering the endometrium does not imply that implantation is impossible, just that it is less likely.

One does not have to be a researcher to recognize that the manufacturers of hormonal contraception know the mechanism of action of their products. The drug companies concede, albeit sometimes reluctantly, that these “contraceptives” alter the endometrium. They know that when the endometrium is thinned or altered, the survival of tiny humans if far less likely.

It does not take a leap of logic to understand that if a woman is taking hormonal “contraceptives” and ovulation occurs, there is a greater chance that the newly formed human will be aborted. Denying this is intellectually dishonest, even if it is politically and financially beneficial.

So far, 227 physicians have publicly signed on to the following:

We, the undersigned physicians do therefore declare that the pill and similar birth control products act, part of the time, by design, to prevent implantation of an already created human being. These products clearly cause an early abortion and are — despite the semantic gymnastics of their ardent apologists
—abortifacient.”

In no way, does this mean that hormonal contraceptives always act as abortifacients. Implying that would be as intellectually dishonest as saying they never do.

Learn more
Those who remain unconvinced may learn more by visiting the following web sites:

http://www.epm.org/articles/26doctor.html
http://archfami.amaassn.org/cgi/content/full/9/2/126
http://www.epm.org/bcp.html
http://www.aaplog.org/collition.htm
http://www.epm.org/articles/pilldebate.html
http://www.prolifephysicians.org/lifebegins.htm
http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/issues/abortion/fact1098.htm
http://ccli.org/nfp/contraception/mdexplains.php
http://www.omsoul.com/pamview.php?idnum=153&orderid=d711842cd96aae22f9f16fb3e1fd8cdb
http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10193


Copyright, 2006

Interrelated, but not equivalent

The Observer—Official Newspaper of the Catholic Diocese of Rockford
Publication date: April 7, 2006

Life Lines
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office

It’s not often I receive correspondence regarding a column that spurs me to respond publicly. “Maria,” however, sent a clever, albeit inaccurate, analysis of my “Who’s in the Cafeteria Line” piece last month. Unfortunately, she did not take the recommended large serving of the Catechism and if she passed by it, it’s logical to assume there may be others who also overlooked that most nutritious offering.

Maria misses the central theme of the column: faithful Catholics cannot choose to believe what they want to believe and ignore teachings where they think the Church is wrong. As the late Fr. John Hardon explained, “. . . our duty as Roman Catholics is to adhere to both the letter and the Spirit as the Holy Father delineates them for us, not pick and choose those aspects of Catholicism more to our liking.”

Maria makes the issue one of political elections and she tacitly justifies the whole concept of cafeteria Catholicism. She fails to understand that being a “cafeteria Catholic” is about Catholics—whether politicians (Democrat, Republican, or Independent) or ordinary citizens.

In classic “peace and justice speak,” Maria points to the war in Iraq, support of the death penalty, arms control, debt, environment, housing, labor, migrants and refugees, non-violence, poverty, and social security. She claims if these issues are ignored and one is a “single-issue voter [caring only about abortion],” they are “rejecting most of what the Church teaches.”

In addition to not fully understanding “what the Church teaches,” Maria confuses the Seamless Garment or consistent life ethic proposed by the late Cardinal Bernardin. While the Cardinal believed all social justice issues were interrelated, he was emphatic in stating that they were not equal.

On one occasion, he wrote, “Not all values, however, are of equal weight . . . I wish to emphasize that no earthly value is more fundamental than human life itself . . . if one must choose between protecting or serving lesser human values that depend upon life for their existence and life itself, human life must take precedence. Today the recognition of human life as a fundamental value is threatened. Nowhere is this clearer than in the case of elective abortion.”

The consistent, authoritative teaching of the Church is unequivocal—the fundamental right to life is the source of all other rights. In Christifideles Laici, John Paul II wrote,
“. . . the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights—for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture— is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.”

If Maria had studied fully the Catechism and other official Church documents, she would have discovered that none of the human rights she mentioned can be addressed in the same way as abortion. The Second Vatican Council defined abortion as an “unspeakable crime.” You won’t find that said about the issues mentioned by Maria.

There is a hierarchy of moral issues. While Catholics certainly must be concerned and act against all violations against human dignity, we must not act as if all issues are morally equivalent.

To be in conformity with the moral norms of the Church, we must know what those norms are. The Catechism is our first source of reference. In the Catechism, we learn, “Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church (no. 2039)” and “All men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and his Church, and to embrace it and hold on to it as they come to know it (no. 2104).”

We have an obligation to learn the truth, so once again I encourage a thorough study of the Catechism. The truth found there—not my opinion, nor Maria’s—is what ultimately matters.


Copyright, 2006

Setting up Shop in a Location Near You?

Life Matters —The Newsletter of the Respect Life Office of the Diocese of Rockford
March 2006

By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office

The eleven counties in Northern Illinois included in the Diocese of Rockford most assuredly have organizations, professionals, and ordinary citizens who are devotees of the philosophy and mission of Planned Parenthood. We have been fortunate, however, not to have Planned Parenthood’s physical presence in the Diocese. Tragically, that may be changing very soon as we have reason to believe that they may be setting up shop in Rockford and perhaps McHenry.

As some of you may not be fully understand why this is tragic, this month’s Life Matters is designed to give you a basic introduction to Planned Parenthood.

Beginnings
Margaret Higgins Sanger was born in 1879 and was baptized Catholic. Sanger’s mother was Catholic. Her father was an atheist who is described by Sanger biographer, Ellen Chesler, as having “contempt for religious authority.”

Sanger rejected Christianity in general, and Catholicism in particular, and spent her entire adult life challenging the traditional view of human sexuality. She worked diligently to redefine sex and to eliminate cultural and religious constraints on human sexuality. According to a sympathetic biographer, Sanger believed that “sex was more important than anything else.”

Her personal life was wanton. Her own granddaughter, Margaret Lampe, estimated Sanger’s series of affairs “probably numbered as many as a hundred.”

Sanger spent her entire adult life pushing for the acceptance of widespread use of birth control. In 1916 she opened the first U.S. birth control clinic in Brooklyn, New York. Today, Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) marks its beginning with the opening of that first clinic.

Sanger and her friend Katharine McCormick were the forces behind the development of “the Pill.” Bernard Asbell, author of The Pill, writes, “There after it changed how human beings behave.” Sanger and her ilk rejoiced that procreation could now be separated from the pursuit of sexual pleasure—what followed, of course, was the sexual revolution with all its tragic consequences.

The organization today
Since its founding, PPFA has grown into a behemoth not-for-profit organization with 120 affiliates and 850 “health centers” in 50 states and the District of Columbia. While PPFA writes, “Each Planned Parenthood affiliate is a unique, locally governed health service organization that reflects the diverse needs of its community,” it is important to understand that each affiliate must abide by PPFA’s mission and may not say or do anything in contradiction to the policies set by PPFA. So, while not all affiliates offer surgical abortions, those who do not must refer to another provider.

For the fiscal year ending June 30, 2004 PPFA reported revenue of $810 million ($265.2 million from taxpayers) with a $35.2 million profit. In that same fiscal year, Gloria Feldt, past president of PPFA, was paid $452,870.

How can a not-for-profit make a $35.2 million profit? Simple. The Internal Revenue Code may classify an organization as “not-for-profit” if that organization does not pay out net earnings to shareholders or individuals as a dividend or share.

Abortion central
In 1994, the Wall Street Journal—with good reason—designated Planned Parenthood as “abortion central.” Each year in the United States, Planned Parenthood commits more abortions than any other single entity. As the reported number of abortions continues to decline in the U.S., the number of reported abortions committed at Planned
Parenthood continues to increase.

In 2004, PPFA reported committing 255,015 abortions in its own facilities. At $400 per abortion, that translates to $102,006,000 added to its coffers.

Planned Parenthood has killed more than 3.8 million pre-born babies in its own facilities since abortion was decriminalized in 1973. They are so committed to abortion that they oppose any and all restrictions on the procedure. If a woman is pregnant with a girl and she wants a boy, Planned Parenthood has said, “We support completely a woman's right to access abortion. We do not judge their motivation.”

PPFA’s longest reigning president, Faye Wattleton, in a 1997 Ms. Magazine interview said, “I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don’t know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus, but it is the woman’s body, and therefore ultimately her choice.”

So committed are they to abortion on demand, that in 1997, Gloria Feldt (then-president of PPFA) commented, “reproductive choices [including abortion] are not just legal rights but are recognized as moral necessities without which there can be no liberty.”

As if that were not extreme enough, one of Planned Parenthood’s brochures insists, “By age five, children should: Understand the concept that a woman does not have to have a baby unless she wants to.”

Pushing promiscuity
True to its founder’s distorted view of human sexuality and her goal to eliminate all prohibitions on sexual expression, PPFA continues in its attempt to force its philosophies and programs on our culture. “

Violating common decency and traditional values, Planned Parenthood seduces children and teens with its enticing, yet insidious messages. They use the entertainment media, celebrities, “comprehensive sex education” programs, and their own teen website to spread their dogma of moral relativism. Their mantras “only you can decide what is right for you” and “there are no rights or wrongs with any sexual activity as long as it is consensual” are conveyed in ways that play on the vulnerability of young people who want to be considered mature.

Rejecting the proper view of human sexuality, Planned Parenthood violates the innocence of children and teens. Rather than teaching self-mastery and chastity, Planned Parenthood chooses—as Faye Walttleton boasted—“not to be an organization promoting celibacy or chastity. Our concern is not to convey ‘shoulds’ and ‘should nots,’ but to help young people make responsible decisions about their sexual relationships.”

Of course, “responsible decisions” in Planned Parenthood terms is anything but responsible. Planned Parenthood believes “responsible” is engaging in sexual activity of any kind as long as condoms and chemical “contraceptives” are in abundance and that abortion is readily available as a backup when the contraceptives fail.

Parents
Recognizing the importance of public relations, Planned Parenthood loves to make pronouncements about the importance of parental involvement with their kids. In reality, this is what they believe: “Planned Parenthood opposes any limitation or restriction [parental notification or consent] on the access of adolescents to confidential reproductive health services, including contraception and abortion.”

In addition, on their teen website, this is what Planned Parenthood communicates to tweens and teens: “Take the useful, smart stuff you’ve learned from your folks and kick the crap to the curb.” So much for the importance of parental involvement.

Obviously, Planned Parenthood wants parental involvement only when parents have bought into the Planned Parenthood belief system. They want everyone to adopt their ideas which—over the past 89 years—have brought us the sexual revolution with all its deadly consequences. Planned Parenthood is not the solution to the problem—it is at the root of the problem.

Children and teens can be taught to live chaste lives. If you want what is best for your children; if you want your children to be happy and healthy; and, if you are concerned about their souls, keep them away from anyone or anything that has been tainted by Planned Parenthood.



Copyright, 2006

Who’s in the cafeteria line?

The Observer—Official Newspaper of the Catholic Diocese of Rockford
Publication date: March 3, 2006

Life Lines
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office

A group calling itself “Catholics for Faithful Citizenship (CFC),” recently issued a press release on the newly elected House Majority Leader, John Boehner (R-Ohio). CFC referred to Boehner as a “cafeteria Catholic”—a term usually reserved for Catholics who reject one or more of the moral teachings of the Church. I was certain that John Boehner had a 100% pro-life voting record, but then again, perhaps my memory was failing.

A brief search revealed that Boehner does, indeed, have a 100% pro-life voting record and, according to NARAL and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, a 0% pro-choice voting record. Boehner had written a letter on January 17, 2006 in which he clearly stated his acceptance of the Church’s teaching on the sanctity of human life “completely, totally, and without equivocation.”

Why then, does CFC refer to Boehner as a “cafeteria Catholic”? While I had always thought I understood what that label meant, I did a quick internet search and found 42,900 entries for “cafeteria Catholic.” There were a number of definitions, but the generally accepted one is someone who picks and chooses which doctrines they will accept or reject. Typically, those who proudly call themselves “cafeteria Catholics” accept most of the social teachings of the Church, but reject one or more of the moral teachings—usually the prohibition on abortion, contraception, non-marital sex, embryonic stem cell research, assisted suicide, or homosexual activity.

I could find no evidence that Boehner rejected any of these teachings, so why was he being called a “cafeteria Catholic”? In a news release, CFC writes, “Boehner like most cafeteria Catholics, has made the decision to use his Catholicism to rally support around a single issue; abortion.” Now, there’s a leap of logic. Boehner is following the official teachings of the Church as conveyed by the Catechism and the USCCB statement, Faithful Citizenship (from which CFC gets its name) and he gets labeled “cafeteria Catholic.”

By now, I’m wondering how CFC would evaluate a 100% pro-abortion politician who calls himself Catholic. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass) comes to mind. Sure enough, CFC describes Kennedy as someone who “has long been a friend of the least among us.” Kennedy, a friend of the unborn? Nonsense. Let’s not forget that Sen. Kennedy (who has a 100% pro-abortion NARAL voting record) voted against a ban on partial birth abortion—a procedure so gruesome that even many pro-abortion congressmen voted for the ban.

When references can be found on the internet referring to Archbishop Burke and Cardinal George as “cafeteria Catholics,” you know ultimately, this is not about labels. It is about whether Catholics really believe and follow the teachings of the Church. The question is whether Catholics profess a belief and adherence to the Church or to their own views? If we are to be faithful Catholics, we cannot choose to believe what we want to believe and ignore those teachings where we think the Church is wrong. It’s one thing not to fully understand what those teachings are, but it’s a totally different situation to reject them.

Our final authority must be the authentic, authoritative, enduring and unchangeable teaching of the Church that can be found in the Catechism. The prologue to that document states, “This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church’s tradition.”

In John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter approving and promulgating the Catechism, he writes that the Catechism “is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium…[it is] a full, complete exposition of catholic doctrine, enabling everyone to know what the Church professes, celebrates, lives, and prays in her daily life.”

If you are in the cafeteria, get a huge serving of the Catechism. You will never go back to the buffet again.

Copyright, 2006

Reported Abortions In Illinois: Lowest In 30 Years

Life Matters —The Newsletter of the Respect Life Office of the Diocese of Rockford
February 2006

By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office

The “2004 Illinois Abortion Statistics” have been released by the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH). Normally, the “numbers” are available in the Fall, but there was a delay until the middle of December. Interestingly, the gentleman I spoke with at the IDPH told me the reason they were late was because “we don’t have enough staff.” Maybe if pre-born children were not being killed by procured abortion, there would be more consumers to generate more economic activity; hence, there would be more funds available to IDPH, and there would be more people to fill positions—something to think about.

According to IDPH, there were a reported 41,577 abortions committed on women in Illinois in 2004. Of that number, 38,151 were committed on women who lived in Illinois with 85 of “unknown” residence and 3,341 “out of state.” These statistics indicate that, at minimum, 104 pre-born babies from Illinois were killed by abortion each and every day in 2004.

In 2003, 42,228 abortions were reported: 38,700 on Illinois residents; 3,497 “out of state;” and 31 “unknown.” Comparing the statistics for both years, 2004 reflects an estimated drop of 651 abortions.

“51” rule still exists
As I have reported in past years, Illinois has an odd system for reporting procured abortions: the number of abortions is counted only if there are 51 aborting mothers from a particular county. If only 50 or less mothers from a particular county abort their babies, these abortions are not counted in the reported figures.

I recently wrote to the IDPH asking about the reasoning behind this “rule,” and was told: “This is due to a 1993 federal court settlement that stipulates that we cannot disclose any abortion information in any data field that totals less than 51.” When I asked for clarification, I was told that Planned Parenthood filed suit “protesting that the Department’s collection of abortion data was an invasion of a woman’s privacy. A temporary restraining order was issued in 1984 that prohibited the Department from mandating reporting of abortions. A settlement was reached between Planned Parenthood and the attorney general (Neil Hartigan) and the Department in 1993 that included the limit on statistics we [IDPH] can report.”

As a result of Planned Parenthood’s interference, the citizens of Illinois have been denied information that in no way invades a “woman’s privacy.” Once again, they used their financial coffers to get what it wanted—even though it makes no sense. The statistics on abortion do not list a woman’s name, so how could this possibly violate privacy? All other “vital statistics by county of residence” (births, marriage, infant mortality, and deaths) include numbers under 51. Why, then, is it not the same for abortion statistics? So far, no one has been able to provide a rational answer.

In 2003, there were 69 out of the 102 counties in Illinois listed as “less than or equal to 50.” In 2004, there were 71 counties in this category. That means we have no idea the number of women from 71 counties who may have procured abortions. For each county it could be any number between zero and 50. It also means that the number of reported statewide abortions could remain the same or be increased by a maximum of 3,621 (71 counties times 50).

This “51” rule coupled with the fact that there are advantages (financial and philosophical) for the abortionists to underreport the abortions, leave us with no way of knowing for certain just how many abortions are committed in Illinois. All we have is a minimum and we must never forget that each and every number represents the death of a human being — therefore, every number does make a difference.

How many in our own Diocese?
Here is the breakdown of the reported number (by county of residence of their mothers) of pre-born babies killed by abortion in our Diocese in 2004:

Boone— 90 (up from 78 in 2003);

Carroll—unknown;*

DeKalb—164 (down from
171 in 2003);

JoDaviess—unknown;*

Kane—650 (up
from 612 in 2003):

Lee—unknown;*

McHenry—458 (up from 451 in 2003);

Ogle—52
(down from 74 in 2003);

Stephenson—52 (down from 65 in
2003);

Whiteside—unknown;* (52 in
2003)

Winnebago—584 (down from 631 in 2003);

*could be as many as 50

Sadly, three of the nine counties with reported increases in abortion are in the Rockford Diocese: Boone, Kane, McHenry. Four (Carroll, JoDaviess, Lee, and Whiteside) are “unknown.” Whiteside clearly demonstrates the problem with the “51” rule—last year there were 52 mothers residing in Whiteside County who aborted and now we have no idea how many aborted in 2004—we certainly cannot assume there were none.

Thankfully, four counties (DeKalb, Ogle, Stephenson, and Winnebago) in the Diocese had a reported decrease in women aborting.

No agreement on why
The difficulty with statistics often lies with interpretation. Just what do these numbers mean?

It is generally accepted that the number of abortions in this country is on the decline—the only debatable issues appear to be by how much and why?

Commenting on the 2004 Illinois abortion statistics, Pam Sutherland, president of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, remarks: “We have better and better forms of birth control . . . We’ve really seen a drop since women have become aware of emergency contraception.”

Once again, Sutherland, a representative of the single largest committer of abortions in this country, is attempting to convey the false impression that so-called emergency contraception is reducing the number of abortions, when in reality, it often acts to cause a very early abortion. We have no way of knowing just how many early abortions are caused by emergency “contraception.”

Diana Yates from the Champaign-Urbana Public Health District remarked, “I would say that in order to properly understand any trends you need to look over a period of years, because numbers do fluctuate for a variety of reasons . . . If you look back from the late 1990s to the present you will see a downward trend in abortions . . . It isn’t easy to explain a trend like this . . . There are so many factors that could influence how many people that are getting abortions, from the age of the population to the number of abortion providers in the state or in a particular region. A lot of folks will travel elsewhere to get abortions, so it can skew the numbers one way or another too.”

While missing some authentic possibilities, at least Yates offered reasons other than the typical emergency contraceptive mantra of Planned Parenthood.

Alternative Reasons
While we have no way of ascertaining the exact reasons for the reported decline in abortions in Illinois, there are some reasonable possibilities: 1) A majority of Americans are demonstrating an increased awareness of the humanity of the pre-born; 2) There is an increased appreciation for chastity. 3) Young people are increasingly coming to believe abortion is a “negative.” 4) Dedicated sidewalk counselors (who stand outside abortion mills regardless of the weather) are offering love and support and are dissuading women and girls from seeking abortion; 5) Pregnancy care centers are offering women life-affirming choices; 6) More women are coming forward to share their stories about the negative psychological affects of abortion.

While I certainly hope the IDPH 2004 statistics are reflective of a true decline in abortion in Illinois—and I do believe there is a national decline— we must never forget that even one abortion is one too many. In our own Diocese there are five pre-born babies killed each and every day. We simply must do whatever we can (in God-honoring ways) to change the hearts and minds of those in our spheres of influence so that the killing will stop.

Copyright, 2006

Suffering Takes Many Forms

The Observer—Official Newspaper of the Catholic Diocese of Rockford
Publication date: February 3, 2006

Life Lines
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office

World Day of the Sick — instituted by John Paul II on May 13, 1992—is an annual event held each February 11th, the commemoration of the apparition of Our Lady of Lourdes. Designed to be a day “devoted to the care of the suffering,” World Day of the Sick is a special time set aside for reflection on the Christian meaning of suffering which, as we know so well, can take many forms.

Pope Benedict XVI announced that the 14th World Day of the Sick will focus on mental illness and human dignity. The Holy Father stressed that he wanted to call “the attention of public opinion to the problems connected with mental disturbance, which by now afflicts one-fifth of mankind and constitutes a real and authentic social health care emergency.”

In making his announcement, the Pope also noted that “the experts recognize that at the origin of new forms of mental disturbance we may also find the negative impact of the crisis of moral values.” As John Paul II wrote in Salvifici Doloris (The Christian Meaning of Human Suffering), “The vastness and the many forms of moral suffering are certainly no less in number than the forms of physical suffering. But at the same time, moral suffering seems as it were less identified and less reachable by therapy.”

Of the many conditions that can beset humans, moral suffering and mental illness or psychological disturbances are the least understood. Part of the problem is the invisible nature of such afflictions. When we see someone who is in a wheelchair, or who is blind or deaf, we recognize that the person has a disability. This is not the case with those who suffer from one of the many varieties of mental illness or mental health problems. Typically, we have no way of knowing they are suffering—unless they tell us.

As women suffering the aftermath of abortion continue to come forward in greater numbers to tell their stories, we have become increasingly aware of the suffering and mental health problems associated with abortion. Many women suffering from abortion are experiencing moral suffering and some may have developed severe psychological disturbances. Their problems can range from mild depression to severe psychosis.

While most abortion apologists continue to deny that women experience any significant psychological problems after abortion, there are a number of studies demonstrating the opposite. These studies coupled with reports from an ever increasing number of women seeking counseling after abortion, clearly demonstrate a strong link between and abortion and subsequent meNtal problems including, but not limited to, clinical depression, anxiety, suicide, substance abuse, and “post-traumatic stress disorder.” (The American Psychiatric Association lists abortion as “a life event which can produce post-traumatic stress disorder.”)

Do you know someone who is suffering the aftermath of abortion? If so, I hope you pray for them and take the time to listen and then encourage them to seek help. Be a Good Samaritan. As John Paul II wrote in Salvifici Doloris, “Everyone who stops beside the suffering of another person, whatever form it may take, is a Good Samaritan. This stopping does not mean curiosity but availability. It is like the opening of a certain interior disposition of the heart, which also has an emotional expression of its own.”

If you are one of the many women who have had an abortion and are suffering in silence, it is time to get whatever support or help you need. Don’t wait. Be assured, there is hope, help, and healing for you in the Church. Please speak with a priest or call Project Rachel at 1.800.5WECARE so that you may be referred to someone who can help. You may or may not need professional therapy, but know that we have a loving God who calls you to be reconciled and healed.

Please reach out and receive the loving, healing touch of our Lord, Jesus Christ.


Copyright, 2006

Her wedding dress won’t fit with a “baby in there”

The Observer—Official Newspaper of the Catholic Diocese of Rockford
Publication date: January 13, 2006

Life Lines
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office

As we approach another anniversary of Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton— the Supreme Court decisions that abolished all prohibitions on abortion in this country—we are reminded how the previously unthinkable has now become commonplace. Even with the reported U.S. abortion rate declining, the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI—an affiliate of Planned Parenthood Federation of America) reports that abortion remains “one of the most frequently performed surgical procedures” with “more than one-fifth of all pregnancies” ending in abortion.

Regarding women procuring abortion, AGI states, “three-quarters say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about two-thirds say they cannot afford to have a child; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.”

There is no doubt that some women who are facing untimely pregnancies agonize over their options. Many naively believe they have no choice other than abortion. An increasing number, however, are choosing abortion for what most reasonable people would consider frivolous reasons.
Women writing about their “positive” abortion experiences at www.imnotsorry.net, clearly demonstrate a lack of angst about their choice for abortion. Here is a sampling of their comments:

Emily: “I was having too much fun . . . Sounds selfish I know, but it’s the truth.”

Lyndsey: “I knew exactly what I would do if I ever became pregnant, I would abort . . . growing inside me was this little parasite waiting to come into the world and make my life miserable.”

Leanne: “After spending some years as a stay-at-home mother, I . . received a law degree. I am now blessed with a career I love, a strong, loving marriage, and a beautiful, brilliant son whom I adore more than words can say. Another child just didn’t fit into the life I had created for my family and myself.”
Amber: “ I was only 20 years old and . . . had just gotten early acceptance to medical school. I knew my boyfriend [a recent law school graduate] of 2 years could fully support me and our kid, but I didn’t WANT to have that life yet! . . . My immediate choice was abortion.”

While Father Thomas Euteneuer, president of Human Life International, was sidewalk counseling outside a Florida abortuary, he attempted to dissuade a teenager from aborting her baby. She said she had to have the abortion because her senior class was going to Disney World in a few months and she “did not want to be the only one who could not ride the rides with her classmates because she was pregnant.”

The November 29, 2005 issue of the Los Angeles Times ran a sympathetic “feature” on Arkansas abortionist, William Harrison. Times staff writer, Stephanie Simon, was allowed access to Harrison’s abortuary and given the opportunity to interview women procuring abortions. Simon reports that 20-year-old Amanda was surprised at “how normal and unashamed she feels as she prepares to end her first pregnancy.” Amanda, who is 15 weeks pregnant, comments, “it’s an everyday occurrence . . . it’s not like this is a rare thing.”
Another of Harrison’s patients is 23-year-old Sarah who works in real estate. She is planning her wedding and tells Simon, “I don’t think my dress would have fit with a baby in there.”

While there is no reason that can justify any procured abortion, there is something particularly disturbing about these flippant responses. We shouldn’t be surprised, however. These women have been bombarded by pro—abortion messages their entire life.

Sadly, some have rejected the truth of the Gospel of life, but many have never even heard of it.

We certainly understand the pressure to abort felt by many women and we convey to them and all women who have had abortions—regardless of the reasons—that, with repentance, there is forgiveness and healing in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

Copyright, 2006

Truth in Reporting?

Life Matters —The Newsletter of the Respect Life Office of the Diocese of Rockford
August 2005

By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office

Those who rely on the secular media to learn about the current debate surrounding stem cell research will most likely not be well informed. Rather than reporting the facts, the majority of media stories are written in such a way to garner support for the use of embryonic stem cells and “non-reproductive” cloning and, in the process, make those opposed to such experimentation appear as ignorant extremists. Many “journalists” write in such a way as to imply that those who support embryonic stem cell research understand science and those who are opposed are “religious” non-thinkers.

This brand of journalism has been apparent in recent media stories about stem cell research in Illinois. On July 12, 2005 Governor Rod Blagojevich signed an executive order creating the taxpayer supported “Illinois Regenerative Medicine Institute (IRMI) program . . . that will provide for the awarding of grants to medical research facilities for the development of finding treatments and cures from stem cell research.”

Media Reports vs. The Facts
Referencing Governor Blagojevich’s executive order, Gretchen Ruethling of The New York Times reports, “The state program, which Mr. Blagojevich said he expected to be running by the end of year, permits research on adult, cord blood and new embryonic stem cell lines, but prohibits research involving human cloning, tissue that was bought or sold for research, and embryos from abortions.”

Just how unbiased and truthful is Ruethling’s statement? First of all, the executive order does not “permit” such experimentation as there are no prohibitions against stem cell research of any kind (embryonic or non-embryonic). The only question is who will pay for it. The reader is also left with the impression that these three options are morally equivalent—which they are not. With patient consent, research and treatment with adult stem cells or cord blood are morally acceptable as no human being is harmed in their retrieval. Research utilizing “new” or existing embryonic stem cell lines, however, is morally unacceptable as very tiny human beings are destroyed in order to harvest his or her stem cells.

Ruethling then writes definitively that the Governor’s program “prohibits research involving human cloning.” While the executive order does say, “No funds authorized or made available under the IRMI program shall be used for research involving the reproductive [emphasis added] cloning of a human being,” there is no such prohibition against therapeutic cloning.

In fact, the IRMI program specifically provides for funding for “the product of somatic cell nuclear transfer”—that product is a human clone. It is only reproductive, not therapeutic cloning that will not be funded by IRMI at this time.

Both procedures result in a cloned human being. The difference is therapeutic cloning creates a human being for the purpose of killing them to harvest their stem cells. With reproductive cloning, the cloned human being is implanted in a woman’s uterus with the purpose of bringing him or her to a later developmental stage. Both procedures are morally wrong for a number of reasons, but especially because they threaten human dignity.

More Distortions, Deception, & Disinformation
Ruethling writes that the IRMI prohibits research involving “tissue that was bought or sold for research, and embryos from abortions.” She must want the reader to think that researchers will not be purchasing the tiny human beings.

Let’s look at what the executive order actually says about the exchange of money:

No funds shall be awarded to any person who knowingly, for valuable consideration, purchases or sells embryonic or cadaveric fetal tissue for research purposes. For the purposes of this paragraph, payment of customary medical charges for the removal, processing, disposal, preservation, quality control, storage, transplantation, or implantation of the tissue does not constitute valuable consideration. This paragraph does not prohibit reimbursement for removal, storage, or transportation of embryonic fetal tissue for research purposes pursuant to this Executive Order.

Department rules shall limit payments for the purchase of stem cells or stem cell lines to reasonable payment for removal, processing, disposal, preservation, quality control, storage, transplantation, implantation, or legal transaction or other administrative costs associated with these medical procedures and shall specifically include any required payments for medical or scientific technologies, products, or processes for royalties, patent, licensing fees, or other costs for intellectual property.

Most reasonable people will recognize this wording as allowing for “payment” for the acquisition of human embryos.

Perhaps Ruethling did not properly research her report. Perhaps she did not read the entire executive order. Perhaps she doesn’t know embryonic stem cell research is not illegal. Perhaps she does not know the difference between reproductive and therapeutic cloning. Perhaps she does not know what “valuable consideration” is. Perhaps her bias is showing. I do not know. I do know that she does her readers a disservice.

Opponents
The Associated Press (AP)—which describes itself as the “backbone of the news and information industry since its creation in 1848”—has this to say about people who are opposed to Blagojevich’s Illinois Regenerative Medicine Institute: “Opponents of stem-cell research believe it is immoral because it destroys an embryo, which many consider [emphasis added] to be human life.”

Writing for the Chicago Tribune, John Chase follows this same subtle, pejorative tactic: “ . . . somatic cell nuclear transfer—is considered cloning by the Roman Catholic Church.” Chase further opines, “opponents believe creating embryonic stem cells is akin to cloning and destroying them during research is ending a potential [emphasis added] human life.”

These examples of the oh-so-typical use of semantic gymnastics would be laughable if the situation were not so serious. Does the AP want its readers to believe that human embryos are not human life? Does Chase want his readers to think that those people who oppose embryonic stem cell research and cloning (typically the same ones who oppose abortion) are ignorant and non-thinking? Contrary to Chase’s assertion, the Catholic Church does not “consider” somatic cell nuclear transfer to be cloning. The Catholic Church knows that somatic cell nuclear transfer is cloning. Furthermore, we do not believe that “creating embryonic stem cells is akin to cloning.” We know the difference between human embryos and human clones. We know that creating embryos to destroy them for their stem cells is an affront to human dignity.

Secondly, we do not believe that “destroying [human embryos] is ending a potential human life.” We know that destroying human embryos ends actual human life because we know that human life begins at fertilization— science has clearly demonstrated that fact.

We also know that we cannot rely on the dominant media culture for truth in reporting.

Copyright, 2005

Do ‘Good’ Causes Always Promote Good?

Life Matters —The Newsletter of the Respect Life Office of the Diocese of Rockford
December 2005

By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office

As the end of 2005 draws near, many corporations and individuals will be making decisions about those annual end-of-year charitable donations to various medical charities and other non-for-profit organizations. Wanting to be charitable (and in some cases, wanting a tax deduction), many are unaware their donations may be going to organizations whose philosophies, agendas, and/or programs violate the dignity of the human person.

When money is put into a canister near a checkout counter, donors may not be aware they are unwittingly supporting causes that they would ordinarily consider to be immoral. When neighbors ring the doorbell collecting for well-known medical charities, does the donor know if those charities promote anti-life activities in addition to the “good” they do? When small children show up at the front door with a bright orange UNICEF box, do donors understand what programs their donations may help fund?

UNICEF
Originally founded to provide basic health care and nutrition to children after World War II, UNICEF lost its moral compass as it jumped on the population control, comprehensive sex education, radical feminism, and “reproductive rights” bandwagons. The respected Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute reports, “UNICEF has endorsed, even helped to write, numerous documents that call for increased access to abortion, as well as for the legalization of abortion.”

March of Dimes
Another popular organization that has lost its way is the March of Dimes (MOD). Originally founded to find a cure for polio, the MOD now is involved with a myriad of activities that violate the dignity of the human person.
The MOD supports embryonic stem cell research;
advocates and funds research on pre-implantation genetic diagnosis; and advocates for mandatory contraceptive coverage for insurance plans that cover prescription medicine.

In addition, MOD has financially supported Planned Parenthood—the largest single committer of abortions in the United States. It continues to have joint projects with Planned Parenthood going so far as awarding the President/CEO of Planned Parenthood of Palm Beach and Treasure Coast Area the “Woman of Distinction 2003” award. MOD supports “comprehensive sex education” that includes advocacy of contraception and abortion and approves of genetic counseling that includes informing women of their “reproductive options” (including abortion) when they are told that their unborn baby has a genetic disorder or fetal deformity.

Salvation Army
Probably the most surprising group holding to immoral ideologies is the Salvation Army. Most of us are aware of the good work done by the Salvation Army, but few people are aware that the Salvation Army promotes contraception and approves of abortion in cases of rape, incest, health of the mother and fetal deformity.

The Salvation Army’s International Headquarters states their position clearly:

[Salvation Army] accepts that termination of a pregnancy may be justified on certain limited grounds; that is, where, in the judgment of competent medical and allied staff, the pregnancy poses a serious threat to the life of the mother, or could result in irreversible physical injury to the mother.

In cases of proven rape or legally defined incest an abortion may be justified because of the extent to which rape and incest violate the whole person. Termination of a pregnancy may also be justified where
reliable diagnostic procedures determine that a foetal [sic] abnormality is present which is incompatible with life other than brief post-natal survival or where there is total absence of cognitive function.

Compare that with the Salvation Army-USA’s position statement:

“[the Salvation Army] is opposed to abortion as a means of birth control, family planning, sex selection or for any reason of mere convenience to avoid the responsibility for conception. . . The Salvation Army recognizes tragic and perplexing circumstances that require difficult decisions regarding a pregnancy.
Such decisions should be made only after prayerful and thoughtful consideration, with appropriate involvement of the woman's family and pastoral, medical and other counsel.

So how does this statement differ from the previous one? Basically, the Salvation Army-USA is saying the same thing, but in a slightly disingenuous manner. It has to be read very carefully to understand that the only abortions they oppose are those used for birth control, family planning, sex selection or convenience.

Perhaps the Salvation Army-USA is somewhat bothered by their position on abortion or perhaps they are trying to fool their donors. Either way, their position was enough for my donations to cease years ago.

YWCA
One of the groups whose original moral foundation has crumbled is the YWCA. A visit to their website quickly reveals a radical feminist world view.

In addition, the YWCA is a long-time, aggressive advocate for abortion on demand. It called for the liberalization of abortion laws in 1967 and in 1970 “voted to give special emphasis to the repeal of all laws restricting or prohibiting abortions.”

Today, the YWCA continues with its pro-abortion activities and is a proud member of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

Other Groups
A sampling of other popular non-profit groups that have philosophies and/or programs that violate the dignity of the human person include: AARP, American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, American Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, Earth Day, Juvenile Diabetes Association, Muscular Dystrophy Association, National Audubon Society, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, The National Wildlife Federation (Ranger Rick), Sierra Club, Save the Children, and the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation (Race for the Cure events).

But, don’t these groups do some good?
There is no doubt that all of the above mentioned groups provide some worthwhile services or have some programs that are praiseworthy. The question is whether these praiseworthy efforts outweigh the group’s immoral actions or philosophies.

While there are no easy answers to every moral dilemma we might face when trying to be charitable and yet not wanting to support immoral causes, I think we can take the lead from our beloved John Paul II who—after many years of support—decided to withhold contributions from UNICEF in 1996. In this decision the Vatican criticized “the involvement of UNICEF in family planning that could involve methods considered morally unacceptable by the Catholic Church.”

Moral alternatives
While meeting the needs of the poor, the hungry, the disabled, the infirmed, and the marginalized is imperative, it is my hope people of good will give consideration to funding organizations that provide the necessary research, programs, and services without violating the teachings of the Church.

If you are interested in donating to an organization doing research on birth defects, and you do not want your money going to the March of Dimes, you might want to consider the Michael Fund (www.michaelfund.org).

Other medical charities that do not violate the dignity of the human person include: the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute (www.bcpinstitute.org), the Thomas Hartman Foundation for Parkinson Research (www.hartmanfoundation.org), and Easter Seals (www.easterseals.com).

If you want your donations to support morally acceptable programs assisting victims of natural disasters, poverty and/or other unfortunate circumstances, please consider giving to Catholic Charities (www.ccrfd.org), Society of St. Vincent de Paul (www.svdpusa.org), the Knights of Columbus (www.kofc.org), Peter’s Pence (www.usccb.org/ppc), and Catholic Relief Services (www.catholicrelief.org).

You might be surprised at the many wonderful programs and services these organizations provide—all in accordance with Church teaching.

Copyright, 2005

Not Everyone Welcomed the News

The Observer— Official Newspaper of the Catholic Diocese of Rockford
Publication date: December 2, 2005

Life Lines
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office

Three weeks ago, media outlets, pundits, and bloggers were buzzing about a study in the November 10, 2005 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine regarding a new pre-natal test for early detection of Down syndrome. The story, “Down Syndrome Now Detectable in 1st Trimester: Earlier Diagnosis Allows More Time for Decisions,” was front-page news in the Washington Post.

“Decisions” is a euphemism for abortion. Rob Stein of the Washington Post admits, “screening women before the second trimester allows those who might opt to terminate a pregnancy to make that decision when doctors say an abortion is safer and less traumatic.” There was no mention that “terminating a pregnancy” is no safer and less traumatic for the pre-born baby.

For people who mistakenly believe that babies with Down syndrome are better off dead, the report about the new screening regimen was welcome news.

Not everyone, however, was pleased. With 80 to 90% of babies diagnosed in utero with Down being aborted, advocates for the disabled are concerned that the new screening will result in even more deaths for those with Down.

Michale Bérubé, co-director of the disabilities studies program at Pennsylvania State University and father of a 14-year-old with Down syndrome, told The New York Times, “The more people who think the condition is grounds for termination of a pregnancy, the more likely it will be that you’ll wind up with a society that doesn’t welcome those people once they’re here.”

Mia Peterson has Down syndrome and is the chief of self-advocacy for the National Down Syndrome Society. Responding to the report about the new tests, she told the Times, “I don’t want to think like we’re being judged against . . . not meeting their expectations.”

But isn’t that exactly the primary purpose of these new pre-natal tests? Are they not designed to make “judgments” about the pre-born? If the baby doesn’t meet “expectations,” he or she may be “eliminated.” Thankfully, some will use the diagnosis only to better prepare for the birth of a child with special needs.

The Catechism of The Catholic Church (no. 2274) teaches, “Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, ‘if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safeguarding or healing as an individual . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence.’”

In many cases, pre-natal diagnosis is a death sentence. A number of studies have shown that women are substantially more likely to abort their babies if they think they are “defective” and polls show people opposed to abortion for the “usual” reasons are quick to say that they favor it for fetal deformity. Rather than accepting babies the way they are and providing loving care, they are implying —whether consciously or unconsciously—that they are better off dead.
In 1978, the U.S. bishops addressed this issue when they wrote, “All too often, abortion and postnatal neglect are promoted by arguing that the infant will survive only to suffer a life of pain and deprivation. We find this reasoning appalling. Society’s frequent indifference to the plight of citizens with disabilities is a problem that cries aloud for solutions based on justice and conscience, not violence. All people have a clear duty to do what lies in their power to improve living conditions for people with disabilities, rather than ignoring them or attempting to eliminate them as a burden not worth dealing with.”
While no one wishes for a child to be born with Down syndrome or any other special needs, we must remember that each and every human being is made in the image of God and as faithful Catholics it is our duty and privilege to respect, love, and affirm their dignity.


Copyright, 2005

Times Change, Truth Does Not

The Observer— Official Newspaper of the Catholic Diocese of Rockford
Publication date: November 4, 2005

Life Lines
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office

The recently published book by David Kupelian, The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom, exposes the fact that “much of what Americans once almost universally abhorred has been packaged, perfumed, gift-wrapped, and sold to us as though it had great value.”

Kupelian skillfully explains: 1) how “gay rights” has been sold to America; 2) the myth of Church-State separation; 3) who is selling sex and rebellion to our children; 4) how Western culture was turned upside down in one generation; 5) the campaign to destroy marriage; 6) how fraudulent science unleashed the catastrophic sexual “revolution;” 7) how radicals hijacked the education system; 8) how the press creates a world of illusion we think is real; 9) how lying marketers sold America on unrestricted abortion; and 10) the fall and rise of American Christianity.

Everyone interested in building a culture of life would benefit from reading Kupelian’s book. That being said, I was disappointed—albeit not surprised—that there was no discussion on the social marketing of contraception. “Not surprised” because I assume Kupelian belongs to that branch of Christianity that stands on traditional values except for the belief that contraception is immoral.

It may be possible that he, like so many, has no idea that until 1930, all Christian Churches taught that contraception was evil. Once the first church was seduced by the emerging contraceptive culture (led by Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood), all (except the Catholic Church) eventually bought the lie that contraception would be “good” for marriage.

How did we get to the point where what was once viewed as immoral by the majority is now viewed as so “normal?” A look to the nation’s largest committer of abortion provides the answer. In 1917, a writer for Margaret Sanger’s, Birth Control Review, wrote that birth control was appealing to radicals because “it is calculated to undermine the authority of the Christian churches.”

Today, Planned Parenthood admits, “As an agent of social change, Planned Parenthood has a proud history of bringing reproductive self-determination out of the realm of the mysterious and forbidden into a mainstream, broadly-embraced reality…We have ‘sold’ the public on the notion that individuals have the right to decide when and whether they want to have children. Even before the term was coined, we were doing social marketing.” The tragic fact is that they have been very successful with their marketing activities.

For years, the secular and entertainment media has taken direction on all things “reproductive” from Planned Parenthood who admits they ”encourage screenwriters and producers to incorporate information . . . into scripts for popular television shows, which are a major influence on young people’s sexual behaviors and attitudes.”

Tragically, but predictably, there appear to be more adherents to Planned Parenthood’s Contraception Shangri-La than to the truth found in Humanae Vitae and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Contrary to what many believe, Planned Parenthood’s opinion on contraception is not superior to the teaching of the Church. In fact, Planned Parenthood’s view of human sexuality and contraception has resulted in dire consequences. There is no doubt that times have changed, but truth has not and we must not acquiesce to distorted views of morality.

Dr. Janet Smith writes, “Some have cautioned that it is divisive to stress the Church’s teaching on contraception. The divisions, however, already exist. We must work to heal the divisions by patiently teaching the doctrine of the Church in season and out. G.K. Chesterton’s remark that Christianity has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found difficult and not tried, could be applied to Humanae Vitae: it has not been studied and taught and been rejected, it has not been studied and taught. When more start teaching Humanae Vitae, more will start living by Humanae Vitae, and more will experience the peace and joy that come with doing God’s will.”


Copyright, 2005

October Observances

Life Matters —The Newsletter of the Respect Life Office of the Diocese of Rockford
October 2005

By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office

Various organizations have selected particular days, weeks, or months to promote awareness and garner support for their particular issues. A simple Google search finds more than seventy different observances for the month of October.

A few of these October observances are frivolous: National Toilet Tank Repair Month, Spinach Lovers Month, Celebrate Sun Dried Tomatoes Month, and National Popcorn Poppin’ Month. Others are of a more serious nature with October being National Lupus Awareness Month, National Breast Cancer Awareness Month, National Spina Bifida Awareness Month, National Down Syndrome Month, National Disability Employment Awareness Month and Domestic Violence Awareness Month.

Sponsoring groups or individuals will use the month of October to organize activities to generate awareness of their particular concern and to raise funds for their groups. Sadly, some of these organizations will use donations to support morally objectionable activities. Some make no attempt to raise funds directly, but will use the observance to spread their immoral doctrines.

Gravely immoral observance
One of the organizations that uses an October observance to indoctrinate the unsuspecting is Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) which initiated National Family Sexuality Education Month a number of years ago. The observance is now a program of the National Coalition to Support Sexuality Education (NCSSE) which describes itself as follows:

The SIECUS-led National Coalition to Support Sexuality Education consists of 118 [other self descriptions report 140] national nonprofit organizations, many of which are role models and initiators in promoting health, education, and social justice for our nations youth. These organizations represent a broad constituency of social workers, religious officials and lay people, educators, advocates, physicians, health care professionals, and child development specialists, whose combined work reaches more than 30 million young people. The goal of National Coalition to Support Sexuality Education is to assure that all children and youth receive comprehensive sexuality education.

There does not appear to be anything gravely immoral about that description—unless, of course, you clearly understand the definition of “comprehensive sexuality education.” Their view of human sexuality is in direct opposition to traditional Judeo-Christian morality.

The organizations belonging to this coalition are opposed to any program that teaches chastity or “abstinence-only” sexuality education. They do not believe that sex is a gift from God reserved for marriage. They believe that pre-teens are fully capable of deciding whether or not they want to engage in sexual activity and as long as they use hormonal contraception and condoms, it is perfectly acceptable.

SIECUS/NCSSE promotes contraception, non-marital sex, and abortion. The coalition’s fact sheet states, “comprehensive contraceptive information, education, and services should be readily accessible to adolescents, irrespective of gender or income” and “every woman, regardless of age or income, should have the right to obtain an abortion.”

The October surprise
Which organizations belong to this Coalition that advocates for non-marital sex, contraception, and abortion? Some—Planned Parenthood Federation of America, “Catholics” for a Free Choice, Feminist Majority Fund, NARAL Pro-Choice America, National Abortion Federation, National Council of Churches (Committee on Family Ministries and Human Sexuality), National Coalition of Abortion Providers, People for the American Way, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice—are probably not surprising to most people.

Other member organizations, however, might come as a surprise to some people. The following are just a few examples of additional Coalition member organizations who hold positions on human sexuality and abortion that are at odds with traditional morality: Advocates for Youth, American Association of University Women, American Federation of Teachers, American Library Association, Child Welfare League of America, Children’s Defense Fund, Girls Incorporated, National Council of Jewish Women, National Information Center for Children & Youth with Disabilities, National Latina Health Organization, National Resource Center for Youth Services, National School Boards Association, Network for Family Life Education, United States Conference of Mayors, and the YWCA of the U.S.A.

National Family Sexuality Education Month is one October observance that should be challenged! Do not be fooled. The organizations promoting this observance do not want what is best for your children. They do not believe —as we do—that young people are capable of modesty, chastity, and self-mastery. They believe that pre-born babies are expendable. They oppose parental consent or parental notification. They see nothing wrong with a 12 year-old girl procuring an abortion.

They do not believe in the inherent value and dignity of all human life. They do not believe that all human life is precious

The worthy October observance
Fortunately, there is an observance that promotes the dignity of all human persons. Each year, since 1972, on the first Sunday in October, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) sets into motion a new Respect Life Program. Published by the USCCB Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, this program includes a packet of information designed “to call attention to numerous human life issues.” The theme for this year’s Respect Life Program is “help build a world where human life is always loved and defended and every form of violence is banished.”

While October is designated by some as Respect Life Month, for Catholics it really marks the beginning of another Respect Life year. With the multitude and magnitude of attacks against the dignity of the human person in our world today, our awareness of the vital need for the respect of all human life from fertilization to natural death cannot be limited to 31 days in October.

Be not afraid
We must never be afraid to demonstrate our support for chastity, modesty, Natural Family Planning, adult stem cell research, cord blood stem cell research, adoption, and for those suffering the aftermath of abortion. We must also assist the elderly, the infirmed and those with disabilities.

We must never be afraid to demonstrate our opposition to comprehensive sex education, embryonic stem cell research, cloning, reproductive technologies that separate the unitive or procreative dimensions of the marital act, eugenics, assisted suicide, euthanasia, pornography, and population control initiatives.

We must never be afraid to demonstrate our opposition to those organizations or medical charities that support morally objectionable ideas or actions. We must never be afraid to say “no” to National Family Sexuality Education Month.

We must never be afraid to stand up for life. We must speak out whenever and wherever vulnerable human life is threatened. While the Church does not and cannot force anyone to believe her moral teachings, she must promote and teach the truth.

The laity also has a responsibility to transmit the truth by word and/or deed in our own sphere of influence. Of course, in order to accomplish this, we must know the truth. (The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the best source for all that is Catholic!)

If you have not already done so, I pray that during this October you will make a commitment to defend and promote the inherent value and dignity of all human life from fertilization until natural death.

Copyright, 2005

Shocking—But Not Surprising

The Observer— Official Newspaper of the Catholic Diocese of Rockford
Publication date: October 7, 2005

Life Lines
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office

The widespread devastation wrought by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in the Gulf Coast has been reported extensively. People who survived the storms continue to face a multitude of problems. Many have lost family members, friends, and pets. Many more have lost homes, cars, clothing, and other material possessions. Some were injured or became infected from exposure to unsanitary conditions. Many suffering from previous health conditions were evacuated without their life saving medications.

U. S. News & World Report described the conditions: “doctors and nurses. . . struggled against enormous odds to keep thousands of seriously ill people alive without the most basic tools—food, water, medicine. . .displaced residents with chronic health problems tried to make do without life-sustaining treatments like insulin and kidney dialysis. Even those who were healthy when the hurricane hit risked serious injury or death through dehydration, infection, or starvation. . .”

Louisiana’s Secretary of Health and Hospitals, Dr. Fred Cerise, told Newsweek, “People have died and will die because there’s not enough resources.”

In response to the tragic effects of the hurricanes, there has been an enormous outpouring of assistance offered by the Church. Thousands of parishes, Catholic Charities USA, local Catholic Charities, St. Vincent DePaul Societies, the Knights of Columbus, and a number of other humanitarian agencies and individuals continue to provide the basics of life including shelter, food, water, and essential medical care to those suffering from the disaster. Thousands of physicians from all over the country rushed to the various shelters in the Gulf Coast.

As these various Church-based entities and health care professionals exerted great effort just to keep hurricane victims alive and provide for their basic needs, one very large, well-funded organization chose to capitalize on the suffering of others to promote its own agenda and add to its own coffers.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA)—the largest single committer of abortions and the major promoter of “recreational sex” in this country—responded to the tragedy of Katrina by saying, “Planned Parenthood clinics . . . are doing everything possible to attend to the needs of patients in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.”

To what “needs” is Planned Parenthood “attending?” Are they providing water? Food? Clothing? Shelter? Medicine? Certainly not. They are attending only to services that advance their agenda—redefining moral values, encouraging recreational sex, providing band-aids for the consequences of non-marital sexual activity, pushing birth control pills/shots, and terminating the pre-born.

While some may find this shocking, it is not surprising. After the September 11th terrorist attacks, one Planned Parenthood affiliate sold red, white, and blue condoms to “hopefully stem the increase of unintended pregnancies while letting Americans display their colors proudly.” The New York City affiliate offered “complete reproductive health care from September 18th through September 22nd free of cost” to “the many New York women who have been displaced or may otherwise be in need due to the World Trade Center tragedy.”

Not content with spreading its insidious agenda, Planned Parenthood is taking advantage of the Gulf Coast catastrophe to add to its already over-flowing assets by appealing to individuals and foundations for funds. The Hewlett Foundation responded with a $1 million grant.

The grant, coupled with Planned Parenthood’s available assets of $549.8 million, makes one wonder why they are not willing to provide or at least donate to authentic relief efforts. They certainly could afford to do just that, but apparently they choose not to.

Defenders of Planned Parenthood argue that the organization is not set up for disaster response. That’s true, but many other organizations, corporations, and individuals— also not set up for disaster response—have found ways to respond to the hurricanes by sending truck loads of food, water, clothing, medicine, and other necessities of life.

As usual, Planned Parenthood’s claim about providing for the needs of the poor is nothing but a self-serving façade. Then again, if you kill pre-born babies for profit, deception is probably no big deal.


Copyright, 2005

“The Britney Factor ”

Life Matters —The Newsletter of the Respect Life Office of the Diocese of Rockford
September 2005

By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office

They tug. They pull. They attempt to “rearrange.” They are obviously uncomfortable. Yet, apparently wanting to “fit in” with their peers or trying to look like pop culture icons, they continue to dress immodestly. Many of us have been embarrassed for these young girls (and some not so young ones) who struggle to “adjust” their mini-skirts or short shorts when they sit down; or frequently try to stretch their tops to cover their midriffs; or pull their jeans up; or. . .well, you get the picture.

If they continue to dress in this manner, their innate sense of modesty and innocence will be compromised; they will be desensitized; and they will no longer be uncomfortable. This is what has happened to many (young and old) in our society. The cultural elite believe that a sense of modesty or embarrassment about states of undress are old fashioned. Sex education programs intentionally work to tear down this sense of embarrassment or modesty.

In reality, natural embarrassment and modesty are protective. They send a message that something is not quite right. When absent, girls may become vulnerable to inappropriate overtures from the opposite sex.

Writing for Living With Teenagers magazine, Walt Mueller expresses the sad fact that “ . . .modesty is no longer a virtue. Clothing styles have long been a matter of concern. The decline in modesty has left kids oblivious and shameless as they are more and more willing to expose every nook and cranny of their bodies— either by leaving them uncovered or covered too tightly.”

Jennifer Hooks, in the March-April, 2004 issue of Children’s Ministry Magazine writes, “It’s no secret that today’s clothing trends leave little to the imagination. In an attempt to tone down students’ wardrobe choices, schools across the nation have instituted bans on buttocks-baring low-rise jeans, exposed thong underwear, explicit T-shirt logos, midriff T-shirts, and diving necklines. And these bans aren’t just in high schools—many have been put into effect in junior high schools and even elementary schools.”

The way we dress speaks about who we are
Many of the girls (and women) dressing immodestly are not trying to be immodest, but whether they know it or not, the way all of us dress sends a message. The question is: what message do we want our clothing to send? Does the way we dress reflect our belief in chastity and purity?

Evangelical pastor and author, Joshua Harris in Dannah Gresh’s book, And the Bride Wore White: Seven Secrets to Sexual Purity comments:

How you dress is one way of showing that you do not trust God. Shannon, my wife, talks about this a lot. She knows girls face the temptation to pick out the shorter skirt in the closet because they know that it grabs the guy’s attention. But girls have a responsibility to their brothers in Christ to help guard their purity. They have a responsibility to the guy. The way you dress makes a huge difference in how a guy views you and how he guards his heart. You have no idea how difficult it is for a guy to look at you with purity in his heart when you are dressed immodestly. I think a lot of you are naïve. You don’t understand how a male works….Christian or non-Christian. You don’t know that we are stimulated by sight. You just see the style, ya know? But you run the risk of really defrauding your Christian brother if you reach for the immodest outfit. If you could just see where girls who dress immodestly lead guys mentally.

The average teen or adult female who dresses immodestly will most likely claim that she is not dressing to be seductive or provocative, but rather is just dressing to be “in style” or fashionable. While that may be true, it cannot be denied that immodest clothing does draw attention to the female and may be an occasion of sin for others.

RADIX—a Catholic ministry that travels the country presenting the teachings of the Church through drama, music, and comedy—addresses this topic on its website:

Maybe you dress immodestly but you think it’s okay since, “your intention isn’t to tempt others”. You say that it’s what you feel comfortable in, or that you have to dress that way because it’s part of a uniform, for school or work. That may not be as serious a sin as trying to tempt others, but if you know that what you are wearing is something that is, or will most likely be a source of temptation, then out of charity, wear something else. Why would that be charitable, you might ask? It would show that you’re considering the soul, yours and others!! It would show that you are putting the salvation of souls before your comfort, or sport, or desire to fit in with the fashionable crowd. That is a great and awesome sacrifice . . .

Consequences
When Britney Spears first appeared on the entertainment scene, her image was considered wholesome by Hollywood standards. She publicly proclaimed her virginity as well as her Christian faith. When her dress departed from “wholesome,” she continued to proclaim that she would retain her virginity until marriage. Her clothes and “moves,” however, were sending a very different message.

Grammy-award-winning Christian pop star, Rebecca St. James had this to say about Spears: “The biggest thing I feel for Britney is I feel sad for her. I also feel sad for the nine or 10-year-olds watching her who see her dressing in a very promiscuous fashion, almost asking for people to treat her as a sex object. They are going to start dressing that way too.” And, they do.

Spears had this to say, "These parents, they think I'm a role model for their kids, that their kids look at me as some sort of idol. But it's the parents' job to make sure their kids don't turn out that shallow. That's not my responsibility. I'm not responsible for your kid."

It did not take long for Spears’ virginity pledge to be broken. Certainly, there may have been many factors contributing to her slide into non-marital sex, but it cannot be denied that sexual sins frequently stem from some form of immodesty. She also left her Christian faith for Kabbalah.

The parent factor
With the exception of how much they cost, the average parent today does not think much about the clothes their daughters wear. Some even think dressing like Britney Spears is “cute.” Here’s what television commentator and columnist, Betsy Hart, had to say: “. . . while I’m not a prude by any means I think dressing a not-yet 6-year-old like she was Britney Spears is at best silly, and at worst unnecessarily sexualizing our littlest girls.”

Some mothers set a poor example by actually dressing immodestly themselves. Tragically, some even encourage their daughters to dress ”hot.” Girls and women can—and should— look great but what message are they sending if they want to look “hot?”

Dressing modestly does not mean looking dowdy. But how can that be achieved? While it is easy for adults, it does take a little extra effort for young girls and teens. But, it can be done. And it should be done!

For excellent practical advice, I encourage you to read an article by Dannah Gresh, “Your Daughter's Wardrobe: A Battle Worth Fighting?” which may be found on the internet at:
http://www.christianwomentoday.com/parenting/modesty.html?a=1011%20on

Author and radio talk show host, Colleen Kelly Mast, recommends that parents begin teaching about modesty when their daughters are as young as six. She says, “Teaching modesty should be a normal part of the discipline of children on the road to self-mastery, It can remind them of their inner dignity as a child of God. Each time a child shops for or gets a new outfit, the question of modesty should be addressed. Children can begin to think about the statements they are making with their clothes.”

Copyright, 2005

"Parents CAN Make a Difference "

The Observer— Official Newspaper of the Catholic Diocese of Rockford
Publication date: September 2, 2005

Life Lines
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office

The kids are back at school. They have new gadgets, new routines, new activities, new friends, and new teachers. They are in kindergarten, elementary school, high school or college. They are getting older and spending more time away from home. They may spend more time with their friends, surf the internet, watch television, go to the movies, play electronic games, and select their own reading material. They are becoming more independent.

They continue to learn from their parents, their extended family, their Church, and their teachers. But they are also learning from the dominant media culture whose viewpoints are typically not in accord with moral truth.

Years ago the culture assisted parents in transmitting moral values. Today, the popular culture ridicules those values.

A quick look at print and electronic mass media messages aimed at tweens, teens, and young adults reveals how they are being bombarded with the belief that non-marital sexual activity is proper and healthy; contraception is normal and “responsible”; and abortion is merely a woman’s “choice.” The innocence of children is violated repeatedly by immoral speech and images that permeate today’s entertainment media.

And while some people insist that these immoral images and words do not affect behavior, studies continue to demonstrate how the media culture does shape the values and behavior of our youth—especially in the realm of sexual behavior. A RAND survey published in the September 2004 issue of Pediatrics found “the sexual content of television programs encourages adolescents to initiate sexual intercourse and other sexual activities and that talk about sex on TV had virtually the same effect on teen behavior as depictions of sexual activity. This finding runs counter to the widespread belief that portrayals of action have a more powerful impact than talk.”
Behavioral scientist and lead researcher of the study, Rebecca Collins, reported, “This is the strongest evidence yet that the sexual content of television programs encourages adolescents to initiate sexual intercourse and other sexual activities.” Collins continued, “Even a moderate shift in the sexual content of adolescent TV watching could have a substantial effect on their sexual behavior.”

That’s the bad news. The good news is that parents can make a difference. Study after study clearly demonstrates that if parents take the time to really be involved with their children, they can be a positive influence. Dr. Thomas Lickona writes, “Parents who take pains to supervise their children can take heart from what the research shows: ‘hands-on’ parents—those who set rules and expectations; know about their children’s activities, friends, and behaviors; and monitor them in age-appropriate ways—have teens with lower rates of sexual activity as well as lower rates of drug, alcohol, and tobacco use than their peers.”

Yes, parents can influence their children’s behavior. The encyclical, The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality reminds us that the Catholic Church “has always affirmed that parents have the duty and the right to be the first and the principal educators of their children.” Notice the word, “duty.” It is the duty of the parents to impart the truth about human sexuality to their children.

John Paul II in his message for World Communications Day 2004 emphasized the necessity of being vigilant when it comes to the mass media: “Parents also need to regulate the use of media in the home. This would include planning and scheduling media use, strictly limiting the time children devote to media, making entertainment a family experience, putting some media entirely off limits and periodically excluding all of them for the sake of other family activities. Above all, parents should give good example to children by their own thoughtful and selective use of media.”

If you are involved with your kids and communicate the beauty and benefits of chastity, you can make a difference in their lives. You can raise chaste children. It will take time and effort, but it will be worth it.

Copyright, 2005

“Woe To Those Who Call Evil Good"

The Observer—Official Newspaper of the Catholic Diocese of Rockford
Publication date: August 5, 2005

Life Lines
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office

Swooping in silently, the bomb was released. There was no warning. It landed directly on the unsuspecting citizenry.

It wasn’t a terrorist attack or a B-2 Stealth bomber in a war zone. It was Governor Rod Blagojevich’s July surprise crashing down on the citizens of Illinois. In one fell swoop, Illinois became the fourth state in the union to authorize the use of taxpayer money to fund morally objectionable embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning. Bypassing reasoned debate, Blagojevich issued an executive order that created the Illinois Regenerative Medicine Institute (IRMI) to allocate funds for research including embryonic stem cells and human therapeutic cloning.

During the last session of the General Assembly, a proposal to create the IRMI failed to garner the needed support for passage. Ignoring the lack of support for his draconian plans, Blagojevich circumvented the will of the people and slipped in a single line item of $10 million dollars to the Department of Public Health’s budget “for grants and related expenses of hospitals and universities for scientific research.”

While some lawmakers are crying foul, they share responsibility—it is their job to know what they are voting for. Ten million dollars for “scientific research” should have set off red flags. They should have known. Maybe some did. Regardless, Blagojevich decided for the people. Like it or not—they will pay for deadly experimentation on very tiny human beings.

Sadly, embryonic stem cell research is not illegal. The only question is who will pay for it. If it held as much promise as Blagojevich and others want us to think it does, private money would be pouring in. Instead, private investors are begging out because, as Steven Milloy of JunkScience.com says, “they perceive it to be a pipe dream unlikely to produce any progress and, hence, investment returns, in any reasonable time frame. The bottom line is that if embryonic stem cell research had real promise, private investment would be overflowing into biotech companies. But it's not.”

Commenting on his brash decision to have taxpayers fund this controversial research, Blagojevich said, “. . . I suspect there will be a firestorm of criticism because I'm using executive power . . “

No, Governor. The criticism is not because you used executive power. It is because you used executive power unethically and for immoral purposes.

Attempting to justify his action, Blagojevich proclaimed, "Anytime you do what is morally right . . . however you get there is immaterial." Morally right? Experimenting on and killing tiny human beings for their stem cells and creating human clones is morally right? The end justifies the means? Please, Governor, come down from your relativistic high horse.

Pontificating further, Blagojevich remarks, "My sense of morality argues strongly to not simply sit back and do nothing when children are suffering from juvenile diabetes . . . To simply be afraid to take a position or to act, I think would be immoral." Of course we should not just sit back and do nothing when anyone is suffering. However, we must focus on ethical methods to alleviate suffering.

Governor Blagojevich believes that health care providers who do not provide abortion information should not receive government funding; he believes partial-birth abortion is a moral good; he believes transporting minors across state lines for abortion is good; he does not believe it should be a federal crime to harm a fetus in the commission of another crime; he believes human therapeutic cloning and embryonic stem cell research are good; he believes forcing Illinois citizens to pay for morally objectionable research is good; he believes pharmacists who object to dispensing so-called emergency contraception should be forced into doing so; he believes the end justifies the means.

Blagojevich is confident his worldview is moral. Disagree with him and you are immoral. Isaiah 5:20 comes to mind: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.”


Copyright, 2005

Do your marriage a favor…

The Observer—Official Newspaper of the Catholic Diocese of Rockford
Publication date: July 1, 2005

Life Lines
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office

It can evoke strong emotions. It can result in heated discussions. It can end a conversation quickly. It is misinterpreted and misconstrued . . . it is the mere mention of the Church’s teaching on contraception.

As difficult as it may be for some to accept—and contrary to some “modern” moral theologians—the Church is very clear that contraception, in all its forms including sterilization, is seriously and morally wrong (Catechism n. 2370). It is intrinsically evil. It can never be a morally correct choice. The Church cannot move something in the intrinsically evil category to the morally acceptable category.

The late Bishop Glennon Flavin explained: “The ban on contraception is not a disciplinary law of the Church, like abstinence on Friday, which the Church can enact and which the Church can change and from which the Church can dispense for good reasons. Rather, it is a Divine Law which the Church cannot change any more than it can change the Law of God forbidding murder . . . it may never be practiced for any reason, no matter how good and urgent. A good end never justifies the use of an evil means.”

Why, then, does poll after poll reveal that Catholic couples contracept at the same or higher rate than non-Catholics? Why do polls report the majority of Catholic Ob/Gyns and family practitioners prescribe contraception, thus materially cooperating in evil?

Many Catholics are sincerely confused. Some wrongly believe that they can follow their “individual conscience.” What they fail to understand is that “one must follow his own conscience” only when that conscience is fully formed in accordance with the “authoritative teaching of the Church” (Catechism n. 1776-1802). “The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings (Catechism n 1783).

Others insist that Vatican II allows for an individual to decide whether or not to use contraception. The actual words of the Second Vatican Council in regards to contraception include the following: “Husband and wife, in their mutual relations, may not act arbitrarily but have always to be governed by conscience which must be conformed to the Divine Law, submissive to the teaching authority of the Church, which authentically interprets that law in the light of the gospels.” (Gaudium et Spes, n. 50).

Some do not want to reject the teachings of the Church, but they do not understand how they can live in today’s world without contracepting. They erroneously think if they follow the teachings of the Church, they will have to have as many children as possible.

The Church does not teach that married couples must have as many children as possible. While couples are to be generous in terms of the number of children they have, for just reasons (Catechism n. 2368), they may use Natural Family Planning (NFP) to space their children or limit the size of their family.

Humanae Vitae (n. 10) states, “In relation to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised, either by the deliberate and generous decision to raise a numerous family, or by the decision, made for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth.”

If married couples have just reasons for limiting the size of their family, there are healthy, Church approved methods that are not to be confused with the old, unreliable “rhythm” method. Today’s NFP methods—awareness and appreciation of a woman’s natural cycle of fertility—are very reliable. By learning to identify these natural signs of fertility, couples may avoid a pregnancy or help achieve a pregnancy.

July 24-30, 2005 is NFP Awareness Week. Why not do yourself and your marriage a favor and find out more about it? You won’t regret it.

Copyright, 2005

Stem Cell Research: Back to the Basics

The Observer—Official Newspaper of the Catholic Diocese of Rockford
Publication date: June 3, 2005

Life Lines
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office

Confusion and emotionalism seem to reign over the continuing debate on stem cell research. There is no lack of opinion, although many are based on disinformation, false assumption, and a misplaced sense of compassion. It’s important to sort through the facts to know what stem cell research entails and to understand that true compassion for the plight of another must never prompt us to engage in intrinsically evil actions. To accomplish this, we must go back to the basics.

Rev. Dr. Tadeusz Pacholczyk writes, “A stem cell is essentially a ‘blank’ cell, capable of becoming another more differentiated cell type in the body, such as a skin cell, a muscle cell, or a nerve cell. Stem cells can be used to replace or heal damaged tissues and cells in the body.” This is why there is so much interest in stem cell research. If these cells can be used to cure diseases or other debilitating conditions, why shouldn’t we support research utilizing them? That depends on which type of stems cells we are talking about.

There are two basic types of stem cells—embryonic and non-embryonic (adult). Embryonic stem cells are found in human embryos. Non-embryonic stem cells are found in adult tissues (skin, bone marrow, fat cells, etc.), umbilical cord blood, placentas, and amniotic fluid. When considering the morality of using stem cells, it is critical to know whether the stem cells under discussion are embryonic or non-embryonic.

Non-embryonic stem cell research is morally acceptable (provided consent is given) as no human being is killed in the process of extracting the cells. Embryonic stem cell research is morally objectionable because very tiny human beings must be destroyed in order to harvest their stem cells. As John Paul II commented, “Any treatment which claims to save human lives, yet is based upon the destruction of human life in its embryonic state, is logically and morally contradictory, as is any production of human embryos for the direct or indirect purpose of experimentation or eventual destruction.”

With media stories and congressional testimony pitting suffering individuals against embryos in Petri dishes who don’t look human (even though they look exactly like all humans do at that stage of development), misplaced compassion replaces sound judgment and many push for more embryonic stem cell research.

Some argue, “if it were your child or loved one who was suffering from a disease that could be cured by embryonic stem cells, would you deny them a chance for a cure?” Difficult as it might be, we simply must reject the killing of another human being —no matter his or her size or level of development—for the benefit of another.

Joni Eareckson Tada, who suffered a spinal cord injury, comments, “No one better understands the desire for a cure than I do, as a quadriplegic who has lived in a wheelchair for decades. . . research should not benefit . . . me or any other person with a disability at the expense of other human life. My husband and I support spinal-cord-injury research, but not to the degree that the benefits of any potential cure outweigh serious moral questions, effects on society, and whether it is an affront to God.”

Interestingly, only non-embryonic stem cells have been successful in treating diseases and spinal cord injuries. To date, fifty-eight diseases/conditions have been successfully treated utilizing non-embryonic stem cells. Not one has been successfully treated using embryonic stem cells. Even if the reverse were true, however, it would not affect the immorality of embryonic stem cell research. The end does not justify the means.

Embryonic stem cell research is wrong. No amount of media spin or misplaced compassion can change that. As House Majority Leader, Tom DeLay remarked recently on the floor of the House, “The best that can be said about embryonic stem cell research is that it is scientific exploration into the potential benefits of killing human beings.”

Copyright, 2005

Bringing Honor or Dishonor to Motherhood

The Observer—Official Newspaper of the Catholic Diocese of Rockford
Publication date: May 6, 2005

Life Lines
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office

Breakfast in bed, flowers, cards, hugs, kisses, and other expressions of love will be in abundance on May 8th. While the date for Mother’s Day varies, most countries set aside a day each year to recognize and honor mothers who love, protect, and sacrifice for their children.

According to psychologist Dr. James Dobson, “[T]here is no assignment on earth that requires the array of skills and understanding needed by a mom in fulfilling her everyday duties. She must be a resident psychologist, physician, theologian, educator, nurse, chef, taxi driver, fire marshal and occasional police officer. And if she succeeds in each of these responsibilities, her reward is a quick hug from a rambunctious kid on his way out to play.”

Unfortunately, motherhood is being undermined on many fronts. The United Nations’ Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) has rebuked the “prevalence of sex-role stereotypes” perpetuated by Mother’s Day. An exclusive elementary school in Manhattan has banned Mother’s Day.

Radical feminists preach that motherhood oppresses women and they castigate the God given role of motherhood on a regular basis. Phyllis Schlafly, attorney and founder of Eagle Forum, writes, the “women’s liberation movement disregards, denigrates, and denies the created beginnings of woman and the creative essence of womanhood.”

It is not unusual for abortion rights activists to use Mother’s Day to sponsor newspaper ads or promote events to benefit various pro-abortion groups. One signature ad that appeared in the Buffalo News (New York) was entitled, “Honoring All Mothers, Everywhere. Working to Keep Motherhood a Choice.” The undeniable message was that the signers of the ad wanted women to be able to “choose” whether to give birth to their babies or to end their young lives by abortion.

Last year on its website, Planned Parenthood Federation of American (PPFA) encouraged its followers to “Honor Your Mother on Mother’s Day. Give her War on Choice [a book authored by its then-president, Gloria Feldt].” PPFA— the largest single committer of abortions in this country— has done more to prevent motherhood than any other single organization on earth. It is no surprise that they would use the day set aside to honor motherhood to promote abortion and contraception. It’s hypocrisy at its worst.

Visitors to the website of the pro-abortion National Organization for Women (NOW) will see this: “Delight your mother with these great gift ideas from NOW! And tell her that store proceeds benefit action programs of NOW — another great way to honor your mum.” One of the offerings to “honor your mum” is a “keep abortion legal bracelet.” They are so blinded by “choice” that they do not see the irony.

Make no mistake, NOW, PPFA, and their ilk dishonor motherhood. Advocating for a mother’s so-called right to kill her own pre-born children is an affront to motherhood and to what Mother’s Day is supposed to be. Mother’s Day is for celebrating motherhood, not the unnatural end to it.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines “mother” as “a woman who conceives, gives birth to, or raises and nurtures a child.” This would include those women who gave birth and are raising or have raised their children; those who have adopted children; those who have placed their babies for adoption; those who are pregnant; those who have lost children through miscarriage or premature death; those who had the courage to choose life in difficult situations; or those who have not had children but who have nurtured or helped to nurture others in a variety of ways.

Archbishop Charles Chaput writes, “A woman becomes a mother when she accepts the will of God to bring about, nurture and care for new life in a physical and spiritual manner. Motherhood cannot be separated from the gift of life, physically or spiritually. For this reason, one way to honor mothers is to respect, love and protect the life of the unborn.”



Copyright, 2005

“A Pitiless Way to Kill”

Life Matters —The Newsletter of the Respect Life Office of the Diocese of Rockford
April 2005

By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office

The circumstances surrounding Terri Schlinder Schiavo have raised many questions about end of life decisions. While some of these decisions may be fraught with complexities—making decisions difficult—the decision in Terri’s case should not be complex, The teachings of the Church provide the principles for moral decision making.

As many questions and comments have been directed to the Respect Life Office about Terri and her plight, I thought it might be helpful to share some of these questions and comments as well as the answers/responses.

Comment: “We don’t have enough information to offer an opinion on what should happen to Terri.”

Response: Saying we do not have enough information to opine about Terri Schiavo’s plight is like saying we don’t know enough about what happened in Auschwitz or Dachau to comment on those crimes against humanity.

While the secular media cannot be trusted always to report the truth, by selecting trusted sources of information, we know all we need to know to apply Church teaching to Terrri’s situation.

Question: “Well, what do we know about Terri?”

Answer: We know that she is 41 years old, that she is severely brain damaged, and that she is unable to speak or feed herself. As a result, she receives nutrition and hydration via a feeding tube. We know that she is not “hooked up” to life support and she is not receiving extraordinary medical treatment.

We cannot be certain about speculative reports concerning the circumstances surrounding Terri’s condition (what she can and cannot do), her estranged husband, and her prior wishes regarding being fed via a feeding tube.

Question: What exactly is a feeding tube?

Answer: “Feeding tube” is the common term used
to refer to methods of artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH). When a person is unable to eat or drink independently or has difficulty swallowing, nutrition and hydration may be provided by one of several means. Short-term ANH may be provided intravenously (IV) or by a nasogastic (NG) tube through the nose to the stomach.

For long-term ANH, a tube may be inserted into the stomach (percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy— PEG). This is accomplished by a simple surgical procedure that may be done under local anesthetic in the patient’s room.

It is important to recognize that there are individuals who have feeding tubes and live otherwise normal lives. You might pass by someone carrying groceries for her family when she herself has a PEG tube.

Comment: Feeding tubes seem so unnatural.

Response: In the April 1995 edition of First Things, Nancy Harvey addresses this when she writes:

The extreme, high-tech procedures imagined by ordinary people are rarely the subject of debate; it is simple feeding tubes and common antibiotics that are labeled “unnatural” by “ethicists”—in the thought that the life which they sustain is also unnatural and should not be continued. Feeding tubes are artificial and unnatural, of course, although they are low-tech and simple to use. . . But the nature of man is to live in an unnatural environment. There are many people in our society who are kept alive by unnatural technology. There are many people with mild chronic diseases or physical handicaps who are not robust enough to live without electricity, running water, air-conditioning, cars, microwaves, and telephones.

Perhaps we should ask a different question. Perhaps we should ask, “Is it natural or unnatural for man to use technology to increase his physical comfort?” Having spent a fair amount of time dehydrated and malnourished, I can confidently say that hydration is far more pleasant than the opposite. Anyone who doubts this can forgo fluids for a few days or nourishment for a few weeks and experience the reality. . . There may be times when a cancerous mass or fluid retention causes tube feeding to be painful. And there comes a time when the gut and kidneys shut down. The body cannot use food and water after that point, and death is very close. But I cannot understand taking away food and fluid before the body itself decides to quit.

Nancy Harvey knows of what she writes—she receives nutrition and hydration via a feeding tube.

Question: “Why don’t they just let Terri die? Why don’t they just let her go?”

Answer: Terri is not dying, While she is brain damaged, she is not in the process of dying. If, however, her feeding tube is removed, she will die a painful death due to dehydration and starvation. This will not be letting her die, this will be causing her death.

Question: What is the teaching of the Church regarding artificial nutrition and hydration?

Answer: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in its Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services states, “There should be a presumption in favor of providing nutrition and hydration to all patients, including patients who require medically assisted nutrition, as long as this is of sufficient benefit to outweigh the burdens involved to the patient.”

ANH may become burdensome to the patient when he or she is truly in the process of dying from disease. When death is expected within a few hours or a few days, it may be morally acceptable to cease ANH as long as comfort care (including keeping the mouth, nose, and eyes moist) is provided. However, the USCCB Office of Pro-Life Activities paper, “Questions About Medically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration” states, “Even in the case of the imminently dying patient, of course, any action or omission that of itself or by intention causes death is to be absolutely rejected.”

On October 2, 1998 Pope John Paul II commented, “. . . a great teaching effort is needed to clarify the substantive moral difference between discontinuing medical procedures that may be burdensome, dangerous or disproportionate to the expected outcome, and taking away the ordinary means of preserving life such as feeding.”

The Holy Father clarified this difference in March 2004, when he said, “I should like particularly to underline how the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act. Its use, furthermore, should be considered, in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory, insofar as and until it is seen to have attained its proper finality, which in the present case consists in providing nourishment to the patient and alleviation of his suffering.”

Responding on February 28, 2005 to Terri Schiavo’s situation, the Florida Bishops write, “Simply put, we are called to provide basic means of sustenance such as food and water unless they are doing more harm than good to the patient, or are useless because the patient’s death is imminent. As long as they effectively provide nourishment and help provide comfort, we should see them as part of what we owe to all who are helpless and in our care.”

The Vatican recently spoke out against removing Terri’s feeding tube. Bishop Elio Sgreccia, president of the Academy for Life and the Vatican’s lead spokesman on bioethical issues, said, “To prevent someone access to food and water, represents a way of killing that person… we regard as illicit the decision to remove the gastric feeding tube from Mrs. Terri Schiavo…[it would be] a pitiless way to kill.”

Copyright, 2005

Suffering for a Greater Good

The Observer—Official Newspaper of the Catholic Diocese of Rockford
Publication date: April 1, 2005

Life Lines
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office

As I approached the pro-life bulletin board at our parish last week, I paused to look closely at the picture of Terri Schiavo positioned at the center. Although I had seen this particular picture many times, I was suddenly struck with the realization that 41 year-old Terri bears a striking resemblance to 32 year-old Ann Brodeski who is a member of our parish. Ann is the daughter of Sharon and Ray Brodeski. She has five siblings including our vocations director and pastor of St. Patrick-Amboy, Fr. Aaron Brodeski.

On February 25, 1990 Terri fell into unconsciousness from unknown causes. Eighteen days later (March 15, 1990) Ann slipped into a coma following complications from mononucleosis.

Both women are severely brain damaged, unable to speak, have limited physical movements, and receive nutrition and hydration through a feeding tube. Both are loved and valued by their parents and siblings. There is a huge difference between their circumstances, however. At the request of Terri’s estranged husband, the courts ordered her feeding tube removed and she is slowly dying from dehydration. Tragically, she may be dead by the time you read this.

Ann’s family cannot even imagine removing her feeding tube. Sharon Brodeski believes Ann’s life “serves a greater purpose.” She said “I believe God is using Terri and Ann for a greater good. Their limited lives are being used as a sacrifice.” Sharon adds, “People have told us that Ann has changed their lives.” She notes that her own life is different because of Ann’s condition. Fr. Brodeski concurs when he says, “Ann is uniting her suffering with Christ and her suffering has brought a lot of grace into the world and into my life.”

Lucy Wedemeyer’s husband, Charlie, was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) in 1977 and was told that he did not have long to live. He has been on a portable ventilator since 1984. He is fed through a gastronomy tube and requires 24 hour a day care. The only voluntary movements he can initiate are with his eyes, his eyebrows, and his lips. Lucy can “read” Charlie’s lips and that allows him to speak through her. He is loved and cared for by his family and friends who celebrate his life. He is known for saying, “I live to give others hope” and that is exactly what he does.

Kaye O’Bara has cared for her comatose daughter, Edwarda, for the past 35 years. Edwarda lapsed into a diabetic coma when she was 16. Kaye says, “What I do is not a burden, it’s an honor. I asked God for two daughters. I didn’t put restrictions on it.”

As a speech and language pathologist for many years, I worked with many patients who were severely physically disabled. Some were very intelligent and some were severely cognitively impaired. Some were blind, deaf, or hearing impaired. Some were autistic. Many had feeding tubes. The one thing they had in common was that each one had value, dignity, and worth simply because they were divinely created in God’s image. Each was set apart by God for a special purpose.

Terri Schiavo, Ann Brodeski, Charlie Wedemeyer, Edwarda O’Bara, and all those who are disabled are valued members of our human family who have a special purpose. Please pray for them.

Pray also that someday we will live in a society where material pursuits and worldly pleasures do not trump the Gospel of Life. A society where all human life is valued regardless of physical, emotional, intellectual, or spiritual condition. A society that cares for the infirmed and disabled and does not view them as burdens. A society that understands the value of suffering for a greater good and a society that recognizes true compassion rather than misplaced compassion.

As Pope John Paul II writes in Evangelium Vitae, “true compassion leads to sharing another’s pain; it does not kill the person whose suffering we cannot bear.”


Copyright, 2005

They wouldn’t do it to a dog

The Observer—Official Newspaper of the Catholic Diocese of Rockford
Publication date: March 4, 2005

Life Lines
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office

Terri Schindler Schiavo is a 41-year-old severely disabled woman whose husband and parents are engaged in a legal conflict about whether she will be allowed to live or whether she will be forced to die by dehydration and starvation. As I write, the battle for her life continues to rage. Her parents are fighting to save her life and her estranged husband continues to seek her death. By the time you read this, the courts will most likely have determined whether Terri’s life has been spared or whether she will be in the process of experiencing a slow, agonizing death.

Terri is not receiving extraordinary care. But, because she is severely brain damaged and has a feeding tube, there are those who believe her life is not worth living and that she should die by starvation and dehydration. You can be jailed for starving an animal. Many who rightly fight for the humane treatment of animals and many who rightly oppose the death penalty for convicted criminals see nothing wrong with starving Terri to death. This makes no sense.

In reference to Terri and others in similar conditions, I have heard people say, “I know I wouldn’t want to live that way.” Certainly, no rational person would choose such circumstances. I doubt John Paul II would have chosen his current condition. However, while we do have the right to refuse certain medical procedures, we do not have the right to cause our own death or the death of another.

Those who reject or do not fully understand the teachings of the Church think it humane to hasten the death of someone they view as suffering. The Holy Father addresses this in Evangelium Vitae when he writes, “In reality, what might seem logical and humane when looked at more closely is seen to be senseless and inhumane.”

Popular culture appears to be excessively preoccupied with not having a good “quality” of life and avoiding suffering at all costs. The culture of life, however, teaches that all human life has value and that we are to provide care, not death, for those who are suffering. Our Holy Father writes, “true compassion leads to sharing another’s pain; it does not kill the person whose suffering we cannot bear.” (Evangelium Vitae, #66). Make no mistake, when a feeding tube is removed from a person who is not imminently dying, is not allowing the natural death process to occur—it is killing that person.

A March 2004 joint statement from the Pontifical Academy for Life and the World Federation of Catholic Medical Associations states, “The possible decision of withdrawing nutrition and hydration, necessarily administered to VS [“vegetative” state] patients in an assisted way, is followed inevitably by the patients’ death as a direct consequence. Therefore, it has to be considered a genuine act of euthanasia by omission, which is morally unacceptable.”

Thirty-eight year old Sarah Scantlin of Hutchinson, Kansas recently surprised her family and medical professionals when she spoke for the first time in 20 years. Sarah, who is severely physically disabled and has been in what is described as a “persistent vegetative state” since 1984, suddenly and without any explanation began speaking.

I am thrilled that Sarah has regained the ability to speak, but it is important to acknowledge that her value as a human being is no different now than when she was unable to speak. Her life, like Terri’s has intangible value based on human nature itself.

All human beings, regardless of their physical, intellectual, or emotional condition have worth and dignity simply because they are human. Our worth is not dependent on what we can do, but on who we are—persons made in the image of God.

Terri Schiavo should be allowed to live. What her husband wants to do to her would not be done to a dog and it must not be done to her.

Copyright, 2005

Blinded by Choice

Life Matters —The Newsletter of the Respect Life Office of the Diocese of Rockford
February 2005

By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office

I have to admit I have a tough time understanding why so many seemingly intelligent people have such a disconnect when it comes to the value of all young human life. Whenever we become aware of events that result in the harm to or deaths of innocent people, the greatest outpouring of sympathy is always showered on the children who died or were hurt.

When we first heard of the horrible 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, the focus was immediately on the children in the day care center housed in the building. I will never forget the picture of the fireman carrying the lifeless body of one-year-old Baylee Almon from the debris. Today, there is a memorial, located on the site of the former Murrah building. Inside is a display of chairs—one for each person killed in the bombing. One hundred sixty-eight chairs—one for each person killed in the tragedy. Nineteen of those chairs are smaller than the others—to remember the children.

Children Need Protection
We have special laws to protect children and teens from abuse and neglect, from unsafe environments, and from economic exploitation. Our child safety and child labor laws are designed to save children from harm and exploitation in the work place.

People are outraged—as they should be— when children are abused, neglected, killed, or even die from natural causes. There is just “something” in us that reacts when we learn that innocent babies or children are harmed. Our hearts and our minds tell us children need our protection.

There is an automatic, visceral disdain for people who hurt children. Individuals convicted of crimes against children are often frightened about how other prisoners will treat them. It is not unusual for these convicted child abusers/killers to be “abused” or even killed by other prisoners.

When we learn about a baby who becomes ill or who dies, there is always an outpouring of grief and compassion. Counselors and funeral directors will tell you that the most difficult part of their profession is helping parents who have lost a child.

Abandoned Babies
Expressions of grief and anger are justifiably widespread when newborns are abandoned by their mothers and left to die. In December 2004 another abandoned baby in our Diocese was found frozen to death in a plastic bag. The full term baby girl was named “Baby Crystal” by local police officials.


The Rockford Register Star reporting on Baby Crystal, quoted Lori Pennington, “You just think of those poor, innocent, precious babies, left in Dumpsters and garbage cans. So many people want babies, and people are just throwing them away.” Pennington was one of the women who worked on the passage of the Illinois Abandoned Newborn Infant Protection Act.

In February 2001 the Chicago Tribune, reported that “a work crew in Robbins, Illinois discovered the body of a partially burned baby—with its umbilical cord still attached—near a garbage dumpster in a housing complex . . ..”

Another woman with whom Lori Pennington worked on the passage of a law in Illinois designed to prevent these horrible instances of the dumping newborns reacted by writing:

The heart wrenching sight of the tiny bundle, wrapped in a stiff orange bag instead of a soft pink or blue receiving blanket, strapped to a seemingly huge, adult sized gurney and rolled from a dump by ambulance drivers, haunts my mind. This precious little bundle, who's [sic] beautiful eyes never saw the light of day made a lonely journey from the ambulance, to the hospital emergency room to be poked and prodded by ER personnel and officially pronounced dead. The tiny tortured remains will then be taken to a very cold morgue, with the nauseating and overpowering smell of formaldehyde.

The precious body will be cut into and examined for the cause of death. As a nurse, who has witnessed autopsies, this is a difficult thing to observe even on an adult body. I can't imagine the horror of watching a newborn on that hard cold steel table as each internal organ is skillfully removed, sectioned and examined by a doctor. This incredibly precious gift from God, has met such a tragic end.

I feel such a strong urge to scream out to someone, ANYONE, EVERYONE, STOP THIS!!!! [emphasis in the original] Let these desperate mothers have an option to legally hand their newborns over to a
designated person so that they can have a chance to experience the love and compassion of the human race.

Who could disagree with these sentiments? This was indeed a precious life that should not have ended. Those were really heartfelt, compassionate words. The problem, however, is that these same words about newborns are often spoken by individuals who believe that if five minutes before delivering this baby, the mother had chosen to have a D&X (partial birth abortion), it would have been considered an acceptable choice.

Brenda Pratt Shafer, a registered nurse who has witnessed these gruesome abortions testified before Congress saying:

Dr. Haskell went in with the forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms, everything but the head….The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking.

Then the doctor stuck the [surgical] scissors in the back of the head, and the baby’s arms jerked out….like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp. Next, Dr. Haskell delivered the baby’s head. He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.

Thousands of these partial birth abortions occur in this country each year and yet many of the same people who rightly are horrified at the thought of abandoned newborns are the same people defending the right of a woman to have her pre-born baby killed even when he or she is partially born.

It Makes No Sense
What is the difference between a baby killed by partial birth abortion and an abandoned newborn? In most cases, while the unborn baby is smaller and less developed he or she has the same value as one already born. Both the unborn and the newborn are totally dependent—the former on its mother and the latter on any other person who will care for him or her. Both are “poor, innocent, precious babies.” Both are made in the image of God. Both, sadly, may end up in dumpsters or garbage bags. Aborted babies often end up in garbage disposals or incinerators. Neither tiny human being will have “a chance to experience the love and compassion of the human race.” The major difference is that our courts have said the one form of execution—abortion—is legal and the other—abandonment—is not. If the mothers of abandoned babies had simply implemented their so-called “right to choose,” there would be no public outpouring of sympathy for the baby.

While I applaud the efforts of those encouraging mothers not to abandon their newborns in unsafe places, I still must ask why most of them do not extend the same expressions of grief and outrage to those tiny human beings that are killed while still in—or two-thirds out—of their mother’s womb?

In my opinion, it is because they are blinded by choice. They are so intent on defending a woman’s so-called right to choose abortion that they cannot see the value of all human life including those precious lives growing in their mother’s womb.


Copyright, 2005

“Gentle, Loving Boy” Uses Baseball Bat to Abort His Son

The Observer—Official Newspaper of the Catholic Diocese of Rockford
Publication date: February 4, 2005

Life Lines
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office

A recent incident in Michigan resulted in the tragic death of a 24-week-old unborn baby boy. According to reports, a 16-year-old boy (at the request of his 16-year-old pregnant girlfriend) repeatedly hit her abdomen with a 22-inch “souvenir” baseball bat over a three-week period in an attempt to “end the pregnancy.”

While many tiptoe over the truth, it is obvious these two individuals intentionally killed their unborn child. Every day for three weeks, the young man—with full consent of the young woman—struck her with the specific intent of killing the baby. They could have stopped the assault at any time, but they chose not to. They teamed up to brutally destroy an innocent life and then one of the grandparents helped to bury the little boy in the back yard. A cadaver dog was brought in to locate his tiny body.

No one is being held responsible for the death of the baby and only the young man has been charged with “assaulting a pregnant woman causing a miscarriage.” Under Michigan law, the pregnant woman “no matter how complicit in the termination” cannot be charged. Both grandfathers publicly defended the young man’s actions. There has been little public outrage over the brutal death of the little boy. Instead, the young man is being portrayed as the victim.

The teens will most likely come to regret what they did, but they will not benefit from people making excuses for them. They must be held accountable and helped to understand why their actions were wrong.

Eric Smith, the Macomb County prosecutor, remarked, “The length at which these two 16-year-olds went to abort this unborn child is disturbing.” It demonstrates what can happen when children are not taught the value of chastity and the value of all human life—born and unborn.

The parents of the young man hired defense attorney, Miranda Massie who wasted no time in offering excuses for her client’s despicable actions, calling him “a gentle, loving boy.” Most reasonable people would agree “gentle, loving” young men do not repeatedly hit their pregnant girlfriends with a bat in an attempt to kill their unborn children.

Taking advantage of the opportunity to promote ideology, Massie commented, “We can provide teens with access to safe and legal abortions and access to intelligent information about sex, or we are going to see more back alley abortions like this one. Parental notification laws and abstinence-only sex education approaches add up to desperate acts like these.” She wants people to think the reason these young people engaged in non-marital sex and then wanted to eliminate the “consequence” of that behavior is the fault of laws and “abstinence-only sex education.” No, they did what they did because the culture around them screams that there are no absolute rights or wrongs and that the unborn have no value.

"It’s always tragic when people resort to such drastic measures, when there are appropriate, safe medical measures available,” bemoaned Lori Lamerand of Planned Parenthood. Just how “safe” are these “medical measures” for the unborn baby or how “safe” were these procedures for young women like Holly Patterson—an eighteen-year-old who died from an RU-486 abortion obtained at Planned Parenthood in 2003?

Abortion is always a drastic measure. It takes the life of a very young human being.

Planned Parenthood, the largest single committer of abortions in this country, chooses to ignore the tragedy of the deaths (244,628 in 2003) of unborn babies occurring in its own facilities. To them it is simply a “choice” and I predict they will use—more accurately, misuse—the factoids in this case to ignite fear about increasing numbers of “back alley” abortions in their attempt to repeal parental notification laws and to force all schools to teach “comprehensive sex education.” They never miss an opportunity—real or contrived—to further the culture of death.


Copyright, 2005

Is It Ever “Too Late” for an Abortion?

The Observer—Official Newspaper of the Catholic Diocese of Rockford
Publication date: January 7, 2005

Life Lines
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office

Attempt to convince someone abortion in the United States is legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy and you will most likely be told that you are mistaken. With the dominant media culture bombarding the public with factoids such as abortion is legal only in the first two trimesters of pregnancy, it is likely that your contention will be rejected.

According to the National Abortion Federation, “Despite the claims of some anti-abortion activists, women have access to abortion in the third trimester only in extreme circumstances.” Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, writes in her December, 2004 blog, “Roe v. Wade strikes a sensible balance that allows states to restrict abortion in the third trimester, except in cases where the health or life of the woman is endangered. Most states already have such laws.”

Respected pro-life organizations maintain abortion is legal through all nine months of pregnancy for practically any reason. So what is the truth? Is it ever too late for an abortion? If not, are late term abortions allowed only under extreme circumstances?

The rulings handed down by the United States Supreme Court on January 22, 1973 provide the answer. On that date, the Court handed down two decisions that were “to be read together.” Most Americans, however, are familiar with only one of those two rulings—Roe v. Wade. Few have heard of Doe v. Bolton.

In Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court ruled that women have a constitutional right to abortion. While guaranteeing that right, the Court did say that the state “has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman’s health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a ‘compelling’ point at various stages of the woman’s approach to term.”

The court [in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)] included the following:

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life [410 U.S. 113, 165] may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is
necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

Basically, the state may not regulate abortion for any reason during the first trimester of pregnancy; may regulate abortion only to protect the health of the mother during the second trimester; and may regulate or prohibit abortion in the third trimester except where necessary to preserve the woman’s life or health.

It is this reference to health that is addressed in Doe v. Bolton [410 U.S. 179 (1973)]:

We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors— physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age—relevant to the well being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.

Reading Roe v. Wade and Doe V. Bolton together (as mandated by the Court), it becomes clear that abortion in the United States is legal for virtually any reason throughout all nine months of pregnancy.

Abortionists Warren Hern and George Tiller advertise that they “perform” late term abortions. Hern declares he provides “medically indicated termination of pregnancy up to 36 weeks.” Tiller acknowledges he provides “very late term abortion care for fetal problems and maternal health.” The late James McMahon admitted that he committed abortions “even into the ninth month.”

Sadly, it is never too late to procure an abortion in the United States.


Copyright, 2005

Another Birthday For Louise

Life Matters —The Newsletter of the Respect Life Office of the Diocese of Rockford
August 2004

By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office

Just about a year ago, one could find countless news stories written about the twenty-fifth birthday of Louise Brown. While there might be a reference to her birth in one of those “this day in history” columns this year, I doubt that we will see any in-depth stories like those printed last year. Twenty-five has a milestone importance than twenty-six simply does not.

Yet, on each July 25th, I cannot help but think about the implications of Louise’s birth. Each year is a significant reminder of the watershed event that took place on July 25, 1978 when Louise was born. For those of you who may not know or have forgotten, Louise Brown is the first “test tube baby”— the first successful outcome of in vitro fertilization (IVF).

Sliding Down That Slippery Slope
The first successful IVF procedure was a moral and legal turning point in a number of ways. It changed the way many individuals view the gift of life and it opened the door to a myriad of reproductive technologies now known as ART (artificial reproductive technology). Slowly, but surely, ART has become so common that few couples even stop to think about the moral and legal implications of utilizing such procedures to achieve pregnancy. Pandora’s box was opened and it will not be closed easily, if at all!

Robin Marantz Henig, a science writer for the Washington Post (who supports ART) admitted in a July 13, 2003 article that “If IVF was the first step down a slippery slope of its own, then it seems to have landed us in exactly the spot that Kass [Leon Kass, bioethics professor at the University of Chicago] and others said it would.”

She was referring to an American scientist who had recently announced that he and his colleagues “had successfully inserted cells from a male embryo into an early-stage embryo, creating a mixed-gender chimera that some journalists called a ‘she-male.’ Another team, from Israel and the Netherlands, described a trick that was even more bizarre: harvesting eggs from aborted fetuses and culturing them so they could be used in IVF, thereby creating a baby with a biological mother who had never been born.”

Henig acknowledged that neither of these experiments would have taken place “if IVF hadn’t been perfected over the past quarter-century…Of the scenarios that are now causing so much anxiety —cloning, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, genetic engineering of sex cells, the creation of human/animal hybrids, the culturing of human embryos as a source of replacement parts—none is possible without the techniques of basic IVF: laboratory fertilization and embryo transfer.”

There is simply no doubt that we are, indeed, sliding down that slippery slope when it comes to reproductive technologies. Human beings are coming to be thought of as raw materials or products to be bought and sold—even over the internet.

“Internet Sperm” Babies
Sperm can be “banked” or purchased via numerous sites on the internet. Spermbankdirectory.com has a colored map of the United States and visitors are directed “to find a sperm bank in your region, just click on that region.” Sperm banks charge for access to their list of donors who are described in great detail including physical characteristics.

Some services offer “catalogs” of donors. One sperm bank in Los Angeles says, “We try to provide enough donors to give them a choice, the same opportunity as if they were dating.” We should not be surprised that in Southern California there was a Nobel Prize sperm bank called the Repository for Germinal Choice. Founded by a self-proclaimed eugenicist, the Repository closed in 1999 after “bearing” more than 200 children.

ManNotIncluded.com which was launched in 2002 claims to have 5,000 donors. Once a donor is chosen, ManNotIncluded sends the sperm to the buyer’s home for self-insemination.

In August 2003, the first baby conceived from sperm arranged through ManNotIncluded was born in England. Although the website was designed to assist lesbians achieve pregnancy, this baby was born to a married heterosexual couple.

Frozen Egg Banks
Not to be outdone by the sperm bank web sites, “Frozen Donor Egg Banks” are now appearing on the internet. The first ones—located in Los Angeles and Las Vegas—have a list of donors with a description of their parent ethnicity and physical characteristics (including “hair texture”). This is the a portion of the introduction found when one clicks on “egg donors” at californiaeggbank.com:

Our donors are extensively screened and are all college or graduate students. Unlike many other programs, we do not utilize egg donors over the age of 27 year… We have no age restrictions for health potential recipients interested in utilizing our donors.

Most of these egg banks offer what the Chicago Tribune on June 20, 2004 called “’fertility insurance’ to preserve ‘future reproductive options’ as they age.” Knowing that a woman’s fertility declines with age, these banks are hoping to attract women who want children “some day,” but when they will be less fertile and therefore less likely to conceive. They are hoping their frozen eggs combined with sperm in a petri dish (IVF) will “solve the problem.”

We Want A Baby, Why Can’t We Use IVF?
Sometimes it is difficult for some couples to understand why the Church teaches that IVF is immoral. After all, they are married, they desire children, and they are not able to conceive in the natural way. What could be wrong with utilizing techniques such as IVF that will result in a child who will be loved and cherished by a devoted family?

One has to understand the purpose and meaning of marriage and the conjugal act that reflects respect for the dignity of the husband and the wife. The procreative and unitive aspect of the marital embrace must not be separated. Just as contraception blocks the procreative aspect, IVF eliminates the unitive aspect. Rather than a child being conceived by an act of self-giving by the husband and wife, the child is conceived in a petri dish by a technician. The process of IVF reduces husband and wife to simple sources of raw material (sperm and eggs) and the new human being is on the same level as a “product” carefully selected to be of high quality.

In addition, “spare embryos” from IVF procedures are frozen, discarded, or become the objects of experimentation. “By acting in this way the researcher usurps the place of God; and, even though he may be unaware of this, he sets himself up as the master of the destiny of others inasmuch as he arbitrarily chooses whom he will allow to live and whom he will send to death and kills defenceless [sic] human beings.” (Donum Vitae I, 5)

Even though the goal to have a child is good, many procedures employed to achieve that goal (including IVF) are immoral. The end does not justify the means. There are morally acceptable means to assist in achieving pregnancy and these must be chosen over the immoral means.

Copyright, 2004

Opinion or Truth?

Life Matters —The Newsletter of the Respect Life Office of the Diocese of Rockford
December 2004

By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office

The dictionary defines “opinion” as “the view somebody takes about a certain issue, especially when it is based solely on personal judgment.” “Truth,” on the other hand, is defined in that same dictionary as “a statement that corresponds to fact or reality.”

Often, in our complex world—especially one in which so many individuals depend on the media for information—it is difficult to distinguish between truth and opinion. Even media that purports to reflect Catholic teaching often blurs the line between what the Church actually teaches and what a particular journalist believes or wants to believe the Church teaches.

We have a responsibility as Catholics to know the difference between truth and opinion—between a well-formed and an ill-formed conscience. As Francis Cardinal George wrote on October 10, 2004, “Participation in the Church is based upon Baptism and the profession of the Catholic faith. The common faith shapes personal consciences, so that a Catholic conscience, even as it directs an individual believer’s actions, is never individualistic.”

One has to look no further than to the continuing debate raging over the recent elections to recognize that an abundance of confusion about the clear and unambiguous teaching of the Church in regard to the life issues still lingers. Some Catholics are confused. Others are obstinate in their refusal to accept what the Church teaches—choosing instead to believe what they want to believe. They refuse to acknowledge that some issues are fundamentally more important than others,

One More Time
On a number of occasions, I have referred to the statement from the Bishops included in the 2001 USCCB Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities which addresses the interrelated, but morally disproportional issues of the various assaults on human life. Because of its clarity and importance, I include it again:

“To focus on the evil of deliberate killing in abortion and euthanasia is not to ignore the many other urgent conditions that demean human dignity and threaten human rights. Opposing abortion and euthanasia “does not excuse indifference to those who suffer from poverty, violence and injustice. Any politics of human life must work to resist the violence of war and the scandal of capital punishment. Any politics of human dignity must seriously address issues of racism, poverty, hunger, employment, education, housing and health care.

We pray that Catholics will be advocates for the weak and the marginalized in all these areas. “But being ‘right’ in such matters can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life. Indeed, the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the ‘rightness’ of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 23).”

While the above statements should settle the debate, there are still those who place capital punishment and war on the same moral level as abortion, euthanasia/assisted suicide, embryonic stem cell research, and cloning. The latter offenses against life are intrinsically evil—in other words abortion, euthanasia/assisted suicide, embryonic stem cell research, cloning are always wrong. There are no exceptions.

Always Wrong vs. Almost Always Wrong
Yes, we need to “resist the violence of war and the scandal of capital punishment,” but the Church does not teach that either is intrinsically evil. They are not always wrong.

The Church’s teaching on the death penalty is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) #2267: “Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” While this for all practical purposes eliminates any use of the death penalty (especially in the United States), it is important to recognize that the Church is not saying that capital punishment is intrinsically evil.

Arthur Hippler, Ph.D., director of Peace and Justice for the Diocese of LaCrosse, writes, “. . . while circumstances might render capital punishment just, no circumstances could ever make abortion or euthanasia just, for the lives in question are innocent. . .” The Holy Father in Evangelium Vitae writes, “. . . the commandment ‘you shall not kill’ has an absolute value when it refers to the innocent person.”

What About War?
The CCC #2308-2310 states that “. . . governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed. . . the evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy [“just war” doctrine] belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good. Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.” [emphasis in original]

Whether the Iraqi war meets the criteria for “just war” is not settled. Contrary to what some have reported, there has been no definitive ruling from the Vatican, so it is an open question whether or not it is “just.” It is an issue where faithful Catholics may hold opposing views—where, unlike with abortion, euthanasia/assisted suicide, embryonic stem cell research, and cloning—there can be legitimate differences of opinion.

Cardinal Dulles Speaks
In an interview with Zenit news service, Avery Cardinal Dulles explains, “The Church recognizes that there are occasions when war and the death penalty are justified, even though such measures are undesirable and should be kept to the necessary minimum . . . Catholics who fully accept the doctrine of the Church can sometimes disagree about whether a given war or death sentence is morally defensible . . . Abortion is in a different class. As the deliberate taking of innocent human life, direct abortion can never be justified. About the moral principle, there can be no debate in the Church. The teaching has been constant and emphatic.”

Copyright, 2004