Life Matters —The Newsletter of the Respect Life Office of the Diocese of Rockford
August 2003
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Associate Director, Respect Life Office
The date was July 25, 1978—exactly ten years after Pope Paul VI signed his encyclical, Humane Vitae. The place was Oldham General Hospital near Manchester, England and the event was the birth of the first “test tube” baby—Louise Brown. It was a watershed event that would usher in a variety of technological assaults on the dignity of human life.
For the first time in history, physicians had been able to extract eggs from a woman’s body, fertilize them with a man’s sperm in a test tube, and then successfully implant them in a woman’s womb. The result was the birth of Louise who celebrated her twenty-fifth birthday last month.
The first American “test tube” baby was Elizabeth Jordan Carr who was born on December 28, 1981 at Norfolk General Hospital in Norfolk, Virginia. Elizabeth had been “created” at the first fertility clinic in the United States—now know as the Jones Institute for Reproductive Medicine in Virginia Beach. The Institute came under fire in 2001 when staff admitted they had created human embryos specifically to be used for research—“creating” life for the purpose of “using” it and then destroying it.
The technology that produced those embryos as well as Louise and Elizabeth is called in vitro fertilization (IVF). “In vitro” is Latin for “in glass.” Now commonplace, this procedure is included in the smorgasbord of assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) that have followed.
Eighteen Ways to Make a Baby
There are a myriad of ARTs today with IVF being the most common. Other procedures include: zygote intrafallopian transfer (ZIFT); gamete intrafallopian transfer (GIFT); intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI); tubal ovum transfer with sperm (TOTS); low tubal ovum transfer (LTOT); artificial insemination by non-spouse (AID); and artificial insemination by husband (AIH).
At one point during an October 2001 episode of PBS’s Nova —“18 Ways to Make a Baby”— the narrator remarked, “In vitro fertilization has enabled thousands of couples to create the family they desperately want. It has also opened a gateway to a brave new world—where a child can have five parents, or be born to a mother in her sixties; where a baby can have its sex determined before conception or be created with borrowed DNA; where an embryo, no larger than a speck of dust, can have its genes scanned for diseases, or one day be designed with new strengths and talents.” This brave new world has indeed arrived, unfortunately accompanied by all its immoral trappings.
People of good will who desire children are now presented with profound moral dilemmas. Many do not consider the morality of such actions. They focus only on the fact that they want a baby and they will do whatever it takes to have that baby.
Who Are My Parents?
Luanne and John Buzzanca had been struggling with infertility for a long time and in the span of six years had spent over $200,000 on assisted reproductive technologies. Then, before their daughter, Jaycee, was born, Luanne and John separated. Sadly, when the long sought baby was born, John wanted nothing to do with her.
This true story would be comedic if not so serious. Jaycee’s conception was legally and morally complicated to say the least. She was “conceived” in a petri dish from sperm and eggs donated by strangers who “met” for the first time in that petri dish. Jaycee was then implanted in the uterus of still another woman.
A battle ensued over the question of just who Jaycee’s parents were. With two genetic parents, one surrogate mother, and John and Luanne, it was not an easy decision. For a period of time Jaycee was deemed legally parentless. That decision was reversed on appeal with John and Luanne being named Jaycee’s legal parents.
Sixty-Five Year Old Mother
Other consequences of utilizing IVF include post-menopausal women defying the rules of nature because as one remarked, “I want a baby.” On April 8, 2003 Satyabhama Mahapatra, a 65 year old woman in India, delivered a baby boy who had been “conceived” in a petri dish with ova donated by her 26 year old niece and sperm donated by the niece’s husband. Mahapatra is believed to be the oldest woman to give birth to a baby. Previously, the record was shared by two 63 year old women—one from California and one from Italy.
“Mummy Was a Fetus”
In 1995 the Journal of Medical Ethics published an article—“Mummy Was a Fetus: Motherhood and Fetal Ovarian Transplantation”—which described research at Edinburgh University aimed at transplanting fetal ovarian tissue into infertile women.
The July 1, 2003 issue of the Guardian reported that progress has been made on using ova from aborted fetuses. Speaking at the meeting of the European Socity for Human Reproduction and Embryology, Dr. Biron-Shental reported that he had taken the ovaries of seven aborted fetuses between 22 and 33 weeks of age and that he was able to stimulate the growth of follicles that eventually grow into eggs.
Attempting to justify this grotesque research, Biron-Shental was quoted as saying: “We use sperm that’s donated. Ethically, it’s almost the same. There’s just the question of whether your mother was an aborted foetus or your father was someone who donated his sperm.” Obviously, Biron-Shental does not understand the real meaning of ethics! What is technically possible, is not necessarily morally permissible and killing one person—no mater how small—for the benefit of another is simply wrong.
Why Does the Church Oppose IVF?
While the Church has great compassion for couples experiencing the pain and frustration of infertility, she cannot approve any method which causes the death of even one human embryo or fetus and/or eliminates the marital act as the means of achieving pregnancy.
There are, however, some morally acceptable treatments for infertility. Dr. Hanna Klaus writes that “[A]ny procedure which assists marital intercourse in reaching its procreative potential is moral. Procedures which add a ‘third party’ into the act of conception, or which substitute a laboratory procedure for intercourse, are not acceptable.”
Learn More
To learn more about the Church’s teaching on infertility as well as the morally illicit and licit treatments, consult any or all of the following:
1) Catechism of the Catholic Church #2373-2379
www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
2) Donum Vitae www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/tdocs/donumvitae.htm
3) Pope Paul VI Institute www.popepaulvi.com/infertility1.htm
4) The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops—Office of Pro-Life Activities www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/treatment.htm
For spiritual and/or emotional support, contact your parish priest or Elizabeth Ministry.
Copyright, 2003
Monday, February 26, 2007
CLONING -CLONING
Life Matters —The Newsletter of the Respect Life Office of the Diocese of Rockford
March 2003
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Associate Director, Respect Life Office
The editorial board of the Rockford Register Star recently spoke out in opposition to cloning. In doing so, they arrived at the correct conclusion albeit for the wrong reasons. While recognizing that “[s]ome things are just inherently, intrinsically wrong…” and that cloning “should be banned,” the board appears to have based its opposition to cloning on the potential for “genetic problems” rather than on the fact that cloning violates the inherent dignity and inviolability of human life. Opposition to such research must be based on the established scientific and moral certainty of the humanity of the embryo, not on pragmatic concerns.
Whether human life is created by what the editorial board terms the “usual way” (fertilization) or by somatic cell nuclear transfer (cloning), the resulting human embryo is a new, distinct human being. This is scientific fact not religious dogma to be debated. Every notable human embryology textbook recognizes this fact. While none of us were ever a sperm or oocyte, all of us were zygotes, embryos, and fetuses. All of us were infants, toddlers, and adolescents.
Sperm and ova are not human beings. Zygotes, embryos, fetuses, infants, toddlers, and adolescents are. All human life is a continuum and no one is more or less human at any stage of development. Human life must be respected and protected at all its stages. Not to do so puts all of humanity at risk.
It Is Horrible
The editors write that “exciting science aside, copying humans is horrible.” Yes, copying humans is horrible. Experimenting on embryos for hypothetical benefits to those suffering from disease is horrible. Destroying human beings by abortion is horrible. Any deliberate attack on innocent human life is horrible.
Unlike the supposition put forth by the board that some intrinsically wrong actions are “on a level most of us will never be able to comprehend,” it is our contention that most people will understand why cloning (as well as embryonic stem cell research and abortion) is intrinsically wrong if they are presented with the facts rather than the distortions and disinformation typically parlayed by those who want to justify genetic tinkering and so-called reproductive rights.
A Line Must Be Drawn
The editorial board writes that “a world that doesn’t know where to draw the line” is scarier than “a world with fatal illnesses.” We agree. Scarier yet is a world that does not respect and protect all human life‑—a world that decides that some human beings are more valuable than others and a world that supports the killing of the most vulnerable among us.
The editors of the Rockford Register Star oppose human cloning while supporting the idea that the pre-born have no right to life if their mothers choose to abort them. They oppose human cloning while supporting the horrific destruction of viable fetuses through dilatation and extraction (commonly known as partial birth abortion). They oppose the creation of life by cloning but not the destruction of embryonic or fetal life.
The board recognizes the need to “draw a line” and yet it draws that line irrationally. The only logical place to “draw the line” is at the point before the dignity of human life is threatened; before human life is viewed as property; before we treat humans as guinea pigs; and before we are allowed to decide who lives and who dies.
If the line is drawn at any other point, all of us will be at the mercy of the subjective, inconsistent opinions of others on whether we live or die. We either protect all human life or no one is safe.
Yes, there are some things that are intrinsically and inherently wrong. Using human beings as research material is wrong. Cloning is wrong. Embryonic stem cell research is wrong. Abortion is wrong. Racism is wrong. Anything that violates the dignity of humankind is wrong.
Copyright, 2003
March 2003
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Associate Director, Respect Life Office
The editorial board of the Rockford Register Star recently spoke out in opposition to cloning. In doing so, they arrived at the correct conclusion albeit for the wrong reasons. While recognizing that “[s]ome things are just inherently, intrinsically wrong…” and that cloning “should be banned,” the board appears to have based its opposition to cloning on the potential for “genetic problems” rather than on the fact that cloning violates the inherent dignity and inviolability of human life. Opposition to such research must be based on the established scientific and moral certainty of the humanity of the embryo, not on pragmatic concerns.
Whether human life is created by what the editorial board terms the “usual way” (fertilization) or by somatic cell nuclear transfer (cloning), the resulting human embryo is a new, distinct human being. This is scientific fact not religious dogma to be debated. Every notable human embryology textbook recognizes this fact. While none of us were ever a sperm or oocyte, all of us were zygotes, embryos, and fetuses. All of us were infants, toddlers, and adolescents.
Sperm and ova are not human beings. Zygotes, embryos, fetuses, infants, toddlers, and adolescents are. All human life is a continuum and no one is more or less human at any stage of development. Human life must be respected and protected at all its stages. Not to do so puts all of humanity at risk.
It Is Horrible
The editors write that “exciting science aside, copying humans is horrible.” Yes, copying humans is horrible. Experimenting on embryos for hypothetical benefits to those suffering from disease is horrible. Destroying human beings by abortion is horrible. Any deliberate attack on innocent human life is horrible.
Unlike the supposition put forth by the board that some intrinsically wrong actions are “on a level most of us will never be able to comprehend,” it is our contention that most people will understand why cloning (as well as embryonic stem cell research and abortion) is intrinsically wrong if they are presented with the facts rather than the distortions and disinformation typically parlayed by those who want to justify genetic tinkering and so-called reproductive rights.
A Line Must Be Drawn
The editorial board writes that “a world that doesn’t know where to draw the line” is scarier than “a world with fatal illnesses.” We agree. Scarier yet is a world that does not respect and protect all human life‑—a world that decides that some human beings are more valuable than others and a world that supports the killing of the most vulnerable among us.
The editors of the Rockford Register Star oppose human cloning while supporting the idea that the pre-born have no right to life if their mothers choose to abort them. They oppose human cloning while supporting the horrific destruction of viable fetuses through dilatation and extraction (commonly known as partial birth abortion). They oppose the creation of life by cloning but not the destruction of embryonic or fetal life.
The board recognizes the need to “draw a line” and yet it draws that line irrationally. The only logical place to “draw the line” is at the point before the dignity of human life is threatened; before human life is viewed as property; before we treat humans as guinea pigs; and before we are allowed to decide who lives and who dies.
If the line is drawn at any other point, all of us will be at the mercy of the subjective, inconsistent opinions of others on whether we live or die. We either protect all human life or no one is safe.
Yes, there are some things that are intrinsically and inherently wrong. Using human beings as research material is wrong. Cloning is wrong. Embryonic stem cell research is wrong. Abortion is wrong. Racism is wrong. Anything that violates the dignity of humankind is wrong.
Copyright, 2003
SERIOUS CHOICES
Life Matters —The Newsletter of the Respect Life Office of the Diocese of Rockford
February 2003
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Associate Director, Respect Life Office
It is not unusual for the Respect Life Office to be involved in guiding women of various ages to make the right decision when they are facing what they consider to be an untimely pregnancy. With the exception of praying and calling for prayers from the faithful, our involvement is usually indirect—making referrals for practical assistance, recommending morally correct courses of action, and providing emotional support in an attempt to help others who are directly and personally involved with the troubled women in question.
On one occasion, a priest in our Diocese actually traveled over an hour to reach the hospital where an abortion was to be committed on a young woman from a family that he knew. He was able to counsel the woman to choose life for her baby and eventually had the privilege of baptizing that baby. Had he not done the right thing, the baby would not be alive today.
There are a number of other instances where priests, sidewalk counselors, Catholic Charities, and other laity in the Rockford Diocese have been instrumental in saving the lives of unborn babies simply by bolding standing for the truth, praying, and offering practical assistance to women—young and not so young—who had planned on abortion.
Some Still Choose Death
Sometimes, however, no matter how many prayers are offered; no matter how much information is given; no matter how much practical help is presented; no matter how much love and compassion are conveyed, women choose death for their unborn children.
Let us never forget that this happens every day to at least seven tiny human beings whose mothers live in this Diocese. This number does not include other babies—whose mothers do not live in the eleven counties of Northern Illinois—who are killed at the hands of abortionists in Aurora, Elgin, McHenry, and Rockford.
This number also does not include the very tiny humans who are destroyed by the sometime abortifacient action of so-called “Emergency Contraception,” “the pill,” the IUD, Depo-Provera, Norplant, as well as many other chemical “contraceptives” which have as one of their mechanisms the prevention of implantation. And, of course, this number does not include the young humans destroyed through In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) procedures.
Hearts are Hardened
There was a time when all an abortion minded woman had to learn was that her baby’s heart was beating or that he or she had fingers and toes and that would be enough information for her to choose life for her baby. A simple referral to Catholic Charities for practical assistance was also enough for many to choose life.
Now, however, sidewalk counselors report that most young women know full well that their babies’ hearts are beating and they simply do not care. Sometimes when approached by a sidewalk counselor, they will say, “I know it’s a baby, but it’s my choice.” Some of these girls are not even ashamed to be seen at the abortuaries wearing Catholic school uniforms or jackets. Many are there with the full support of their parents. Many will be repeat customers. Many will suffer serious emotional and spiritual consequences from their “choice” for abortion.
Automatic Excommunication
Let’s be clear. Choosing abortion is a very serious matter—obviously for the baby, but also for the woman and for anyone who formally cooperates with her “choice.” The Catechism #2272 states, “Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. ‘A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae [automatic], “by the very commission of the offense,” and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.”
Excommunication is the most severe spiritual sanction the Church can render. Excommunication “impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them. In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication.” (Catechism #1463)
Procuring an abortion—or formally cooperating in the procurement of abortion—automatically bars one from receiving Holy Communion as well as most of the other sacraments. These are serious consequences.
We’ve Said It Before And We’ll Say It Again
Gone are the days where a young woman felt that she had no other option than abortion for what she considered an untimely or crisis pregnancy. Today, more than ever, there are a myriad of agencies and individuals who will help. The Church always has and will continue to offer spiritual, emotional, and practical assistance to any girl or woman who is pregnant and troubled.
Counselors at Catholic Charities have been instrumental in helping women to choose life for their babies as have a number of priests, deacons, sisters, and laity. We have the resources to provide what is needed for any woman to carry her baby to term. There is simply no reason for any woman to choose to end the life of her baby. But, these women need to understand that the resources are available to them and this is where we need your help.
Speak Up!
When Catholics do not speak out against abortion and other crimes against the dignity of human life, they send a message of acceptance. It’s no wonder that a survey of women by the Alan Guttmacher Institute (an affiliate of Planned Parenthood—the largest single committer of abortions in this country) reported that “Catholic women are 29% more likely than Protestants to have an abortion, but are about as likely as all women nationally to do so.” This is heartbreaking and this is scandalous.
It is time to stop sugar-coating the teachings of the Church. It is time to stand up and speak the truth. Human life must be respected and protected from the moment of fertilization. Abortion is an unspeakable crime with grave consequences! Unborn babies deserve better and women deserve better.
Copyright, 2003
February 2003
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Associate Director, Respect Life Office
It is not unusual for the Respect Life Office to be involved in guiding women of various ages to make the right decision when they are facing what they consider to be an untimely pregnancy. With the exception of praying and calling for prayers from the faithful, our involvement is usually indirect—making referrals for practical assistance, recommending morally correct courses of action, and providing emotional support in an attempt to help others who are directly and personally involved with the troubled women in question.
On one occasion, a priest in our Diocese actually traveled over an hour to reach the hospital where an abortion was to be committed on a young woman from a family that he knew. He was able to counsel the woman to choose life for her baby and eventually had the privilege of baptizing that baby. Had he not done the right thing, the baby would not be alive today.
There are a number of other instances where priests, sidewalk counselors, Catholic Charities, and other laity in the Rockford Diocese have been instrumental in saving the lives of unborn babies simply by bolding standing for the truth, praying, and offering practical assistance to women—young and not so young—who had planned on abortion.
Some Still Choose Death
Sometimes, however, no matter how many prayers are offered; no matter how much information is given; no matter how much practical help is presented; no matter how much love and compassion are conveyed, women choose death for their unborn children.
Let us never forget that this happens every day to at least seven tiny human beings whose mothers live in this Diocese. This number does not include other babies—whose mothers do not live in the eleven counties of Northern Illinois—who are killed at the hands of abortionists in Aurora, Elgin, McHenry, and Rockford.
This number also does not include the very tiny humans who are destroyed by the sometime abortifacient action of so-called “Emergency Contraception,” “the pill,” the IUD, Depo-Provera, Norplant, as well as many other chemical “contraceptives” which have as one of their mechanisms the prevention of implantation. And, of course, this number does not include the young humans destroyed through In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) procedures.
Hearts are Hardened
There was a time when all an abortion minded woman had to learn was that her baby’s heart was beating or that he or she had fingers and toes and that would be enough information for her to choose life for her baby. A simple referral to Catholic Charities for practical assistance was also enough for many to choose life.
Now, however, sidewalk counselors report that most young women know full well that their babies’ hearts are beating and they simply do not care. Sometimes when approached by a sidewalk counselor, they will say, “I know it’s a baby, but it’s my choice.” Some of these girls are not even ashamed to be seen at the abortuaries wearing Catholic school uniforms or jackets. Many are there with the full support of their parents. Many will be repeat customers. Many will suffer serious emotional and spiritual consequences from their “choice” for abortion.
Automatic Excommunication
Let’s be clear. Choosing abortion is a very serious matter—obviously for the baby, but also for the woman and for anyone who formally cooperates with her “choice.” The Catechism #2272 states, “Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. ‘A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae [automatic], “by the very commission of the offense,” and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.”
Excommunication is the most severe spiritual sanction the Church can render. Excommunication “impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them. In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication.” (Catechism #1463)
Procuring an abortion—or formally cooperating in the procurement of abortion—automatically bars one from receiving Holy Communion as well as most of the other sacraments. These are serious consequences.
We’ve Said It Before And We’ll Say It Again
Gone are the days where a young woman felt that she had no other option than abortion for what she considered an untimely or crisis pregnancy. Today, more than ever, there are a myriad of agencies and individuals who will help. The Church always has and will continue to offer spiritual, emotional, and practical assistance to any girl or woman who is pregnant and troubled.
Counselors at Catholic Charities have been instrumental in helping women to choose life for their babies as have a number of priests, deacons, sisters, and laity. We have the resources to provide what is needed for any woman to carry her baby to term. There is simply no reason for any woman to choose to end the life of her baby. But, these women need to understand that the resources are available to them and this is where we need your help.
Speak Up!
When Catholics do not speak out against abortion and other crimes against the dignity of human life, they send a message of acceptance. It’s no wonder that a survey of women by the Alan Guttmacher Institute (an affiliate of Planned Parenthood—the largest single committer of abortions in this country) reported that “Catholic women are 29% more likely than Protestants to have an abortion, but are about as likely as all women nationally to do so.” This is heartbreaking and this is scandalous.
It is time to stop sugar-coating the teachings of the Church. It is time to stand up and speak the truth. Human life must be respected and protected from the moment of fertilization. Abortion is an unspeakable crime with grave consequences! Unborn babies deserve better and women deserve better.
Copyright, 2003
I THINK…THEREFORE I AM PRO-LIFE
Life Matters —The Newsletter of the Respect Life Office of the Diocese of Rockford
December 2002
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Associate Director, Respect Life Office
French philosopher Descartes is probably best known for his statement, “Cogito, ergo sum—I think, therefore I am.” Over the years many individuals have added various words to complete Descartes’ declaration. Many of these additions have represented rather inane ideas.
A noted exception is a bumper sticker recently observed in the Rockford area that stated, “I Think…Therefore I Am Pro-Life.” This message offers both pro-lifers and those who advocate abortion an opportunity to reflect on why they believe what they do about abortion.
Most abortion apologists (including the majority of the dominate media culture) continually attempt to portray pro-lifers as unthinking, emotional, uneducated religious fanatics who just blindly follow what their religious leaders tell them without really thinking for themselves. What these pro-choice for abortion individuals fail to recognize or in some cases refuse to acknowledge is that authentic pro-life people do think and have valid reasons for their positions. Some pro-life individuals are self-described atheists and agnostics—hardly following the lead of religious leaders. Others are faithful to the Church’s teaching recognizing the wisdom and rationality in its unambiguous pro-life stance.
The truth is that the pro-choice for abortion individuals are the ones guilty of not thinking rationally. The arguments offered to support abortion are emotionally charged, illogical and simply cannot be defended on the basis of sound analysis! There are a number of abortion apologists who are very articulate speakers—they sound very convincing in their attempts at defending abortion. However, an honest and dispassionate look at the scientific evidence coupled with sound and consistent reasoning leads intellectually honest people to come down on the side of life for the pre-born.
In all fairness, there are individuals who are unable to adequately articulate or even fully understand why they are pro-life and this is unfortunate. We encourage anyone who wants to learn more about the life issues to contact the Diocesan Respect Life Office.
Copyright, 2002
December 2002
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Associate Director, Respect Life Office
French philosopher Descartes is probably best known for his statement, “Cogito, ergo sum—I think, therefore I am.” Over the years many individuals have added various words to complete Descartes’ declaration. Many of these additions have represented rather inane ideas.
A noted exception is a bumper sticker recently observed in the Rockford area that stated, “I Think…Therefore I Am Pro-Life.” This message offers both pro-lifers and those who advocate abortion an opportunity to reflect on why they believe what they do about abortion.
Most abortion apologists (including the majority of the dominate media culture) continually attempt to portray pro-lifers as unthinking, emotional, uneducated religious fanatics who just blindly follow what their religious leaders tell them without really thinking for themselves. What these pro-choice for abortion individuals fail to recognize or in some cases refuse to acknowledge is that authentic pro-life people do think and have valid reasons for their positions. Some pro-life individuals are self-described atheists and agnostics—hardly following the lead of religious leaders. Others are faithful to the Church’s teaching recognizing the wisdom and rationality in its unambiguous pro-life stance.
The truth is that the pro-choice for abortion individuals are the ones guilty of not thinking rationally. The arguments offered to support abortion are emotionally charged, illogical and simply cannot be defended on the basis of sound analysis! There are a number of abortion apologists who are very articulate speakers—they sound very convincing in their attempts at defending abortion. However, an honest and dispassionate look at the scientific evidence coupled with sound and consistent reasoning leads intellectually honest people to come down on the side of life for the pre-born.
In all fairness, there are individuals who are unable to adequately articulate or even fully understand why they are pro-life and this is unfortunate. We encourage anyone who wants to learn more about the life issues to contact the Diocesan Respect Life Office.
Copyright, 2002
“PRO-CHOICE” CATHOLIC POLITICIANS?
Life Matters —The Newsletter of the Respect Life Office of the Diocese of Rockford
December 2002
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Associate Director, Respect Life Office
It is not unusual for pro-choice for abortion politicians to use their religion in an attempt to woo Catholic voters. They often boast that they serve their parishes as lectors, parish council members, or members of a variety of committees.
One of the most egregious recent examples of this scandal surrounds Jennifer Granholm, the newly elected Governor of Michigan who describes herself as “100% pro-choice [for abortion].” She serves as a lector in her parish. What she and other pro-abortion public figures fail to recognize is that in 1989 the National Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote that “No Catholic can responsibly take a ‘pro-choice’ stand when the ‘choice’ in question involves the taking of innocent human life.”
Ms. Granholm and other so-called pro-choice Catholic politicians need to be reminded of Living the Gospel of Life (#32) which clearly states, “We urge those Catholic officials who choose to depart from Church teaching on the inviolability of human life in their public life to consider the consequences for their own spiritual well being, as well as the scandal they risk by leading others into serious sin. We call on them to reflect on the grave contradiction of assuming public roles and presenting themselves as credible Catholics when their actions on fundamental issues of human life are not in agreement with Church teaching. No public official, especially one claiming to be a faithful and serious Catholic, can responsibly advocate for or actively support direct attacks on innocent human life.”
Copyright, 2002
December 2002
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Associate Director, Respect Life Office
It is not unusual for pro-choice for abortion politicians to use their religion in an attempt to woo Catholic voters. They often boast that they serve their parishes as lectors, parish council members, or members of a variety of committees.
One of the most egregious recent examples of this scandal surrounds Jennifer Granholm, the newly elected Governor of Michigan who describes herself as “100% pro-choice [for abortion].” She serves as a lector in her parish. What she and other pro-abortion public figures fail to recognize is that in 1989 the National Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote that “No Catholic can responsibly take a ‘pro-choice’ stand when the ‘choice’ in question involves the taking of innocent human life.”
Ms. Granholm and other so-called pro-choice Catholic politicians need to be reminded of Living the Gospel of Life (#32) which clearly states, “We urge those Catholic officials who choose to depart from Church teaching on the inviolability of human life in their public life to consider the consequences for their own spiritual well being, as well as the scandal they risk by leading others into serious sin. We call on them to reflect on the grave contradiction of assuming public roles and presenting themselves as credible Catholics when their actions on fundamental issues of human life are not in agreement with Church teaching. No public official, especially one claiming to be a faithful and serious Catholic, can responsibly advocate for or actively support direct attacks on innocent human life.”
Copyright, 2002
ABORTIONS INCREASE IN ILLINOIS
Life Matters —The Newsletter of the Respect Life Office of the Diocese of Rockford
November 2002
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Associate Director, Respect Life Office
The Illinois Department of Health has released its “Reported Induced Pregnancy Terminations (euphemism for abortions) By County of Residence” for 2001. According to the report there were 46,546 abortions (up from 45,884 in 2000) committed at various locations in Illinois. Divide that number by 365 and you will find that 128 pre-borns are killed each day in the state of Illinois.
It is important to understand that, for two reasons, these figures represent the minimum number of known abortions for the counties in Illinois. First, if a particular county had “less than or equal to 50” abortions reported, the number of abortions for that county is not included in the tally. Secondly, in the abortion industry it is not uncommon for the number of abortions to be under-reported for a variety of reasons.
Seven Killed Every Day in Our Diocese
For the eleven counties in Northern Illinois in our Diocese, the number of reported abortions for 2001 increased to 2,457 (from 2,359 in 2000). That means that each and every day at least seven pre-born babies from our very own Diocese were destroyed at the hands of an abortionist.
The breakdown of the number of pre-born babies killed in the Rockford Diocese by county of residence of their mothers is as follows: Boone—68 (down from 93 in 2000); Carroll—unknown due to the Illinois Department of Health rule that counties with “less than or equal to 50” are not reported; DeKalb—184 (up from 153 in 2000); JoDaviess—unknown due to the Illinois Department of Health rule that counties with “less than or equal to 50” are not reported; Kane—597 (up from 541 in 2000); Lee—54 (up from no report in 2000); McHenry—510 (down from 548 in 2000); Ogle—84 (down from 92 in 2000); Stephenson—98 (up from 79 in 2000); Whiteside—62 (up from 55 in 2000); and Winnebago—800 (up from 798 in 2000).
Does Anyone Really Care?
We now know that at least seven pre-born babies from our Diocese are killed each day at the hands of an abortionist. Do we just read this and go about our daily activities? Do we just give up saying there is nothing we can do?
Would our response be different if these statistics were for one-week old infants? Or how about two–year-olds? Or five-year-olds? One can be assured that there would be intense moral outrage if these young humans were being killed at a rate of seven per day! Yet we hear little about the massacre of the most vulnerable among us that goes on each day.
Some conclude that as long as abortion is legal, it must not be wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth. Remember, at one time in this country slavery was legal and that was not right. Women could not vote and that was not right. And let’s not forget that Hitler acted legally in his slaughter of millions of Jews.
Are you willing to sacrifice some of your valuable time, talent, and/or money to help overturn this terrible scourge on our society and in our own Diocese? Are you willing to do something? Could you pray each day for the safety of all pre-born children? Would you join your parish respect life committee to help restore a culture of life? If you want to help but do not know what to do or whom to contact, call the Diocesan Respect Life Office.
True?
The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI)—a special affiliate of the largest committer of abortions in this country (Planned Parenthood)—has released the results of its new survey on abortion. According to the AGI, the U.S. abortion rate declined—especially among teens. In explaining this decline, AGI said that that “three-quarters of the decrease was due to improved contraceptive use, while one-quarter was due to delayed sexual activity.” These conclusions are suspect for two reasons: 1) AGI’s figures include only surgical abortions, not medical abortions (such as RU-486 or other hormonal regimens); and 2) information known about the relationship between contraceptive use and subsequent abortions would suggest that if the number of abortions among teens is down, it is most likely related to increased decisions for abstinence before marriage.
Previous reports by AGI have admitted that 58% of all women obtaining abortions were using “contraception” in the month they conceived. What this figure is telling us is that the very means (increased contraceptive use) by which the number of abortions is purported to be reduced has in reality increased that number.
Strange But True
Malcom Potts, M.D., the former medical director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation predicted this very fact when, in 1973, he said, “As people turn to contraception, there will be a rise, not a fall, in the abortion rate.” How can this be? If couples use “contraception,” would not that prevent pregnancies and hence, lower the frequency of abortion?
The reality is that just the opposite happens—as the AGI figure of 58% demonstrates. Greater use of “contraception” leads to more sexual activity and knowing that abortion is available as a back-up, many couples become increasingly more careless with their “contraception” of choice which results in contraceptive failure—pregnancy. “Unwanted” pregnancies by contracepting couples usually end up in abortion.
Politically Correct Spin
There is no way to know how many very young human beings were killed in 2001 by the action of so-called “Emergency Contraception (EC).” Abortion groups and the secular media continue to report that “Emergency Contraception prevents pregnancy; medical abortion terminates pregnancy.” What they are unwilling to admit is that “EC” and medical abortion kills very young human beings!
Knowing the primary action of “EC” is to prevent implantation—clearly an abortifacient action—the abortion apologists are adamant about using the politically correct definition of pregnancy when they maintain that pregnancy begins at implantation. They insist that if implantation does not take place, there is no pregnancy hence, no abortion.
It is unconscionable that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the United States Department of Health and Human Services have yielded to pressure from Planned Parenthood and its ilk to endorse the conveniently invented so-called “general medical definition” which claims that pregnancy begins at implantation.
The problem with this pretext is that it causes confusion and misunderstanding among average citizens—especially among teens and young adults. Of course, this is exactly what the abortion advocates want. If they can convince people that EC does not cause abortion, then they believe these people will be more likely to utilize it—and that is what they want.
Just Tell The Truth
The long held medical definition of pregnancy states that pregnancy (and life) begins at fertilization/conception—not implantation. A visit to the U.S. National Library of Medicine finds this, “A pregnancy begins with conception, when a sperm from a fertile male joins with an ovum (egg) of a fertile female.” The 28th Edition (1994) of Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary defines pregnancy as “the condition of having a developing embryo or fetus in the body, after union of an ovum and spermatozoon.” The 1995 edition of Stedman’s Medical Dictionary, states that pregnancy is “the condition of a woman or female mammal from conception until birth.
Copyright, 2002
November 2002
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Associate Director, Respect Life Office
The Illinois Department of Health has released its “Reported Induced Pregnancy Terminations (euphemism for abortions) By County of Residence” for 2001. According to the report there were 46,546 abortions (up from 45,884 in 2000) committed at various locations in Illinois. Divide that number by 365 and you will find that 128 pre-borns are killed each day in the state of Illinois.
It is important to understand that, for two reasons, these figures represent the minimum number of known abortions for the counties in Illinois. First, if a particular county had “less than or equal to 50” abortions reported, the number of abortions for that county is not included in the tally. Secondly, in the abortion industry it is not uncommon for the number of abortions to be under-reported for a variety of reasons.
Seven Killed Every Day in Our Diocese
For the eleven counties in Northern Illinois in our Diocese, the number of reported abortions for 2001 increased to 2,457 (from 2,359 in 2000). That means that each and every day at least seven pre-born babies from our very own Diocese were destroyed at the hands of an abortionist.
The breakdown of the number of pre-born babies killed in the Rockford Diocese by county of residence of their mothers is as follows: Boone—68 (down from 93 in 2000); Carroll—unknown due to the Illinois Department of Health rule that counties with “less than or equal to 50” are not reported; DeKalb—184 (up from 153 in 2000); JoDaviess—unknown due to the Illinois Department of Health rule that counties with “less than or equal to 50” are not reported; Kane—597 (up from 541 in 2000); Lee—54 (up from no report in 2000); McHenry—510 (down from 548 in 2000); Ogle—84 (down from 92 in 2000); Stephenson—98 (up from 79 in 2000); Whiteside—62 (up from 55 in 2000); and Winnebago—800 (up from 798 in 2000).
Does Anyone Really Care?
We now know that at least seven pre-born babies from our Diocese are killed each day at the hands of an abortionist. Do we just read this and go about our daily activities? Do we just give up saying there is nothing we can do?
Would our response be different if these statistics were for one-week old infants? Or how about two–year-olds? Or five-year-olds? One can be assured that there would be intense moral outrage if these young humans were being killed at a rate of seven per day! Yet we hear little about the massacre of the most vulnerable among us that goes on each day.
Some conclude that as long as abortion is legal, it must not be wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth. Remember, at one time in this country slavery was legal and that was not right. Women could not vote and that was not right. And let’s not forget that Hitler acted legally in his slaughter of millions of Jews.
Are you willing to sacrifice some of your valuable time, talent, and/or money to help overturn this terrible scourge on our society and in our own Diocese? Are you willing to do something? Could you pray each day for the safety of all pre-born children? Would you join your parish respect life committee to help restore a culture of life? If you want to help but do not know what to do or whom to contact, call the Diocesan Respect Life Office.
True?
The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI)—a special affiliate of the largest committer of abortions in this country (Planned Parenthood)—has released the results of its new survey on abortion. According to the AGI, the U.S. abortion rate declined—especially among teens. In explaining this decline, AGI said that that “three-quarters of the decrease was due to improved contraceptive use, while one-quarter was due to delayed sexual activity.” These conclusions are suspect for two reasons: 1) AGI’s figures include only surgical abortions, not medical abortions (such as RU-486 or other hormonal regimens); and 2) information known about the relationship between contraceptive use and subsequent abortions would suggest that if the number of abortions among teens is down, it is most likely related to increased decisions for abstinence before marriage.
Previous reports by AGI have admitted that 58% of all women obtaining abortions were using “contraception” in the month they conceived. What this figure is telling us is that the very means (increased contraceptive use) by which the number of abortions is purported to be reduced has in reality increased that number.
Strange But True
Malcom Potts, M.D., the former medical director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation predicted this very fact when, in 1973, he said, “As people turn to contraception, there will be a rise, not a fall, in the abortion rate.” How can this be? If couples use “contraception,” would not that prevent pregnancies and hence, lower the frequency of abortion?
The reality is that just the opposite happens—as the AGI figure of 58% demonstrates. Greater use of “contraception” leads to more sexual activity and knowing that abortion is available as a back-up, many couples become increasingly more careless with their “contraception” of choice which results in contraceptive failure—pregnancy. “Unwanted” pregnancies by contracepting couples usually end up in abortion.
Politically Correct Spin
There is no way to know how many very young human beings were killed in 2001 by the action of so-called “Emergency Contraception (EC).” Abortion groups and the secular media continue to report that “Emergency Contraception prevents pregnancy; medical abortion terminates pregnancy.” What they are unwilling to admit is that “EC” and medical abortion kills very young human beings!
Knowing the primary action of “EC” is to prevent implantation—clearly an abortifacient action—the abortion apologists are adamant about using the politically correct definition of pregnancy when they maintain that pregnancy begins at implantation. They insist that if implantation does not take place, there is no pregnancy hence, no abortion.
It is unconscionable that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the United States Department of Health and Human Services have yielded to pressure from Planned Parenthood and its ilk to endorse the conveniently invented so-called “general medical definition” which claims that pregnancy begins at implantation.
The problem with this pretext is that it causes confusion and misunderstanding among average citizens—especially among teens and young adults. Of course, this is exactly what the abortion advocates want. If they can convince people that EC does not cause abortion, then they believe these people will be more likely to utilize it—and that is what they want.
Just Tell The Truth
The long held medical definition of pregnancy states that pregnancy (and life) begins at fertilization/conception—not implantation. A visit to the U.S. National Library of Medicine finds this, “A pregnancy begins with conception, when a sperm from a fertile male joins with an ovum (egg) of a fertile female.” The 28th Edition (1994) of Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary defines pregnancy as “the condition of having a developing embryo or fetus in the body, after union of an ovum and spermatozoon.” The 1995 edition of Stedman’s Medical Dictionary, states that pregnancy is “the condition of a woman or female mammal from conception until birth.
Copyright, 2002
DREADED COMPLICATION
Life Matters —The Newsletter of the Respect Life Office of the Diocese of Rockford
September 2002
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Associate Director, Respect Life Office
Let’s be honest. Abortionists are paid to take the life of a pre-born baby. And while they hope to avoid any complications for the mother, some in the abortion business will admit that in late term abortions, the dreaded complication is a “live abortion.” As one abortionist stated, this is “contrary to what the mother wanted.”
If All Else Fails
So what does the abortionist do when the dreaded complication occurs? He has failed in his attempt to produce the desired result and now he has a live baby in his hands. One such abortionist, Kenneth Edelin of Boston City Hospital, reportedly smothered a 22 week-old baby boy who was born alive after a hysterotomy (a late term abortion procedure often called a “mini-cesarean”).
Edelin was convicted of manslaughter in 1975. At the time he was a member of the National Abortion Federation Standards Committee. Unfortunately, for future victims, his conviction was overturned on a technicality and he continued his grisly “work.”
Rewarded
A few years later Edelin was appointed Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Boston University Medical School. He was elected Chairman of the Board of Directors of Planned Parenthood Federation of America (the largest single committer of abortions in this country) in the early 90s.
This Conviction Stands
Another “dreaded complication” case that became public is that of Philadelphia abortionist, Joseph Melnick who in 1990 was convicted of allowing a thirty-two week baby girl to die after she was aborted alive. She weighed three pounds, nine ounces.
Rarely reported, there are many other cases of babies being born alive after “botched” abortions.
No one knows how many abortion survivors there are. Some survive, most do not. Some of the more well-known known abortion survivors include Gianna Jessen who survived a saline abortion; Sara Smith who survived but whose twin brother did not; and Ana Rosa Rodriguez whose right arm was torn off during a failed abortion attempt at thirty-two weeks.
Cases of “live abortions” become public knowledge only when the victims or courageous medical professionals come forward. It is only in rare cases as with Edelin and Melnick, that charges have been filed against the abortionists.
Courageous Nurse
Jill Stanek worked for a number of years as a labor and delivery nurse at “Christ” Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois. At this hospital, as well as at three other known Chicago hospitals—Lutheran General, Rush Presbyterian, and St. Luke’s—second and third term abortions (called “induced labor abortions”) are committed which may result in “live abortions.”
These abortions are not the previously described “botched” abortions. Instead, a method in which labor is induced prematurely with the intent of delivering a dead baby is utilized.
Congressional Testimony
Stanek testified before Congress that in the year 2000, sixteen abortions were performed at Christ Hospital and she had knowledge of five of those babies being aborted alive. Some of these babies were given what Christ Hospital calls “comfort care”—they were wrapped in a blanket and held until they died. Others were left on scales or metal counters in the Soiled Utility Room. One baby lived for almost eight hours.
Brings Tears to Your Eyes
What follows is a portion of Jill Stanek’s sworn testimony on July 12, 2001 before U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution:
Jill Stanek decided to stand for the truth and expose these atrocities. Not surprisingly, she was eventually fired from “Christ” Hospital while the abortionists remain on staff. There is no doubt, however, that Stanek would do it all over again even knowing that she would lose her job. Sometimes, you just have to stand up for the truth without regard for the potential personal consequences.
Persistence Pays Off
As a result of the whistle-blowing of Jill Stanek and Allison Baker, the hard work of a few congressmen, the brilliant strategizing of Professor Hadley Arkes of Amherst College, and the efforts of pro-life individuals across this country, President Bush signed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (HR 2175) into law on August 6, 2002. In addition to Stanek and Arkes, Gianna Jessen— the 25-year-old who survived an attempted saline abortion at 71/2 months and who also testified before Congress in support of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act—was present for the signing of the bill.
In his remarks, Bush stated, “[t]his important legislation ensures that every infant born alive—including an infant who survives an abortion procedure— is considered a person under federal law.” Any infant who survives an abortion must be afforded full legal rights under federal law. Hopefully, the law will be obeyed so that all born alive babies will no longer be treated as non-persons. It’s a sad commentary that this bill was even necessary. Let’s pray that the law will not be broken!
Copyright, 2002
September 2002
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Associate Director, Respect Life Office
Let’s be honest. Abortionists are paid to take the life of a pre-born baby. And while they hope to avoid any complications for the mother, some in the abortion business will admit that in late term abortions, the dreaded complication is a “live abortion.” As one abortionist stated, this is “contrary to what the mother wanted.”
If All Else Fails
So what does the abortionist do when the dreaded complication occurs? He has failed in his attempt to produce the desired result and now he has a live baby in his hands. One such abortionist, Kenneth Edelin of Boston City Hospital, reportedly smothered a 22 week-old baby boy who was born alive after a hysterotomy (a late term abortion procedure often called a “mini-cesarean”).
Edelin was convicted of manslaughter in 1975. At the time he was a member of the National Abortion Federation Standards Committee. Unfortunately, for future victims, his conviction was overturned on a technicality and he continued his grisly “work.”
Rewarded
A few years later Edelin was appointed Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Boston University Medical School. He was elected Chairman of the Board of Directors of Planned Parenthood Federation of America (the largest single committer of abortions in this country) in the early 90s.
This Conviction Stands
Another “dreaded complication” case that became public is that of Philadelphia abortionist, Joseph Melnick who in 1990 was convicted of allowing a thirty-two week baby girl to die after she was aborted alive. She weighed three pounds, nine ounces.
Rarely reported, there are many other cases of babies being born alive after “botched” abortions.
No one knows how many abortion survivors there are. Some survive, most do not. Some of the more well-known known abortion survivors include Gianna Jessen who survived a saline abortion; Sara Smith who survived but whose twin brother did not; and Ana Rosa Rodriguez whose right arm was torn off during a failed abortion attempt at thirty-two weeks.
Cases of “live abortions” become public knowledge only when the victims or courageous medical professionals come forward. It is only in rare cases as with Edelin and Melnick, that charges have been filed against the abortionists.
Courageous Nurse
Jill Stanek worked for a number of years as a labor and delivery nurse at “Christ” Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois. At this hospital, as well as at three other known Chicago hospitals—Lutheran General, Rush Presbyterian, and St. Luke’s—second and third term abortions (called “induced labor abortions”) are committed which may result in “live abortions.”
These abortions are not the previously described “botched” abortions. Instead, a method in which labor is induced prematurely with the intent of delivering a dead baby is utilized.
Congressional Testimony
Stanek testified before Congress that in the year 2000, sixteen abortions were performed at Christ Hospital and she had knowledge of five of those babies being aborted alive. Some of these babies were given what Christ Hospital calls “comfort care”—they were wrapped in a blanket and held until they died. Others were left on scales or metal counters in the Soiled Utility Room. One baby lived for almost eight hours.
Brings Tears to Your Eyes
What follows is a portion of Jill Stanek’s sworn testimony on July 12, 2001 before U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution:
One night, a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down's [sic] syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have time to hold him. I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was 21 to 22 weeks old, weighed about 1⁄2 pound, and was about 10 inches long. He was too weak to move very much, expending any energy he had trying to breathe.
Toward the end he was so quiet that I couldn’t tell if he was still alive unless I held him up to the light to see if his heart was still beating through his chest wall. After he was pronounced dead, we folded his little arms across his chest, wrapped him in a tiny shroud, and carried him to the hospital morgue where all of our dead patients are taken.
Other co-workers have told me about incidences of live aborted babies whom they have cared for. A Support Associate told me about an aborted baby who was left to die on the counter of the Soiled Utility Room wrapped in a disposable towel. This baby was accidentally thrown into the garbage, and when they later were going through the trash to find the baby, the baby fell out of the towel and on to the floor.
A nurse coworker [sic] told me about an abortion she was involved in where the baby was supposed
to have spina bifida but was born with an intact spine. She said that what actually happened was that there was an incompletely formed twin who appeared as a mass on his brother's back during an ultrasound. The nurse told me that the father came into the Soiled Utility Room to see his son, took one look and saw that he had been involved in aborting his completely healthy baby, and turned and left the room without saying a word.
Jill Stanek decided to stand for the truth and expose these atrocities. Not surprisingly, she was eventually fired from “Christ” Hospital while the abortionists remain on staff. There is no doubt, however, that Stanek would do it all over again even knowing that she would lose her job. Sometimes, you just have to stand up for the truth without regard for the potential personal consequences.
Persistence Pays Off
As a result of the whistle-blowing of Jill Stanek and Allison Baker, the hard work of a few congressmen, the brilliant strategizing of Professor Hadley Arkes of Amherst College, and the efforts of pro-life individuals across this country, President Bush signed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (HR 2175) into law on August 6, 2002. In addition to Stanek and Arkes, Gianna Jessen— the 25-year-old who survived an attempted saline abortion at 71/2 months and who also testified before Congress in support of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act—was present for the signing of the bill.
In his remarks, Bush stated, “[t]his important legislation ensures that every infant born alive—including an infant who survives an abortion procedure— is considered a person under federal law.” Any infant who survives an abortion must be afforded full legal rights under federal law. Hopefully, the law will be obeyed so that all born alive babies will no longer be treated as non-persons. It’s a sad commentary that this bill was even necessary. Let’s pray that the law will not be broken!
Copyright, 2002
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
