Veritas Vos Liberabit

“HPV: Sorting Through the Facts”

noreply@blogger.com (Patricia Bainbridge) — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 19:31:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Patricia Bainbridge) — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 19:28:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Patricia Bainbridge) — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 19:26:00 +0000

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!”

noreply@blogger.com (Patricia Bainbridge) — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 19:18:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Patricia Bainbridge) — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 22:44:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Patricia Bainbridge) — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 22:39:00 +0000

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”

noreply@blogger.com (Patricia Bainbridge) — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 22:36:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Patricia Bainbridge) — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 22:33:00 +0000

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”

noreply@blogger.com (Patricia Bainbridge) — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 22:29:00 +0000

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”

noreply@blogger.com (Patricia Bainbridge) — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 22:18:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Patricia Bainbridge) — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 20:41:00 +0000

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?”

noreply@blogger.com (Patricia Bainbridge) — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 20:35:00 +0000

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 . . .

noreply@blogger.com (Patricia Bainbridge) — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 20:31:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Patricia Bainbridge) — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 20:26:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Patricia Bainbridge) — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 20:23:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Patricia Bainbridge) — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 20:22:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Patricia Bainbridge) — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 20:13:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Patricia Bainbridge) — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 20:09:00 +0000

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?

noreply@blogger.com (Patricia Bainbridge) — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 20:04:00 +0000

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?

noreply@blogger.com (Patricia Bainbridge) — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 20:12:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Patricia Bainbridge) — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 20:06:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Patricia Bainbridge) — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 20:04:00 +0000

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”

noreply@blogger.com (Patricia Bainbridge) — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 20:00:00 +0000

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?

noreply@blogger.com (Patricia Bainbridge) — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 19:39:00 +0000

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?

noreply@blogger.com (Patricia Bainbridge) — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 19:27:00 +0000

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