Reflections on Alfie’s Death

May 2, 2018

When we abandon the Judeo-Christian worldview, we lose the basis for treating others with dignity and respect. It’s the fact that we are created in the image and likeness of God, souls for whom Christ died, that gives dignity and value to every human being. This is what has been the foundation of medical care and social outreach since the Church first formed relief efforts and hospitals: people have been cared for with dignity and tenderness because they have represented the Creator, the Savior.

And Without that foundation, people become mere utilitarian objects, disposable when they lose their obvious “value.” This is what has happened with Charlie Gard, with Alfie Evans, with cancer patients in Holland and Belgium and France . . in Sweden . . . is happening now with an accident victim in France, and a 91-year old woman whose only ailment is a broken wrist, in Vermont, USA.

We must wake from our slumber! Our world is imploding in a morass of immorality! We are so much more than our utilitarian function in society. The objectification of others must be fought against, wherever it is found!


Washington State opens Can of Worms in Surrogacy Law

March 2, 2018

Sentimentalism wants all adults to be able to have children.  Katy Faust sees the dire issues, risks, and dangers of such an attitude, and of the new Washington State law allowing wholesale human trafficking under the very polite euphemism of “surrogacy”–

https://thembeforeus.com/disaster-surrogacy-cases-sanctioned-washington-states-sb-6037/


Abortion as Healthcare?!

July 20, 2011

When does the majority (or in this case a very vocal minority) get to oppress and infringe on the rights of conscience of others?  Listen to the good sister (“s’ter!”) and she will define the problem.

The entire article is at the Washington Post’s Guest Voices page.

Posted at 03:21 PM ET, 07/20/2011

Where’s the religious freedom in birth control mandate?

By Sr. Mary Ann Walsh

In this undated handout photo provided by Warner Chilcott, Femcon Fe, the first chewable birth-control method, is shown. (Anonymous - ASSOCIATED PRESS)

The hallucinogenic drug peyote is not for me, though I respect the right of Native Americans to use it in their religious rituals. Blood transfusions are not verboten to me, but I respect Christian Scientists’ right to refuse them. Health insurance programs fit into my lifestyle, yet I respect the rights of the Amish to work out non-insurance medical care programs with the hospitals they use.

Abortion, however, is horrifying to me and I shudder to think that money I pay for health insurance should fund abortion in any way at all. I shudder even more to think that the U.S. government would force me to subsidize abortion and other services in order to get health insurance from a private company. This is Big Brother at his worst and I cringe at the thought that anyone, including a church organization, might be told by government to fund a procedure through private insurance plans for their own employees. Having government decide such questions is a clear violation of conscience.

Some contraceptives, such as the morning-after pills, can cause abortions. The church objects to them because they involve taking an innocent life, however tiny it is. Some ridicule the church’s stance on contraception but the spiritual truth is that contraception deliberately deprives human sexual intimacy of an essential part of its depth and meaning. A man and woman through their sexual union express total commitment and openness to each other, including openness to conceive and nurture a new human person.

The church’s position can be supported even from a secular point of view. It is hard to deny that broad promotion of contraceptives and sterilization has made sexuality more “casual” and less meaningful for millions, or that hormonal contraceptives have had serious and sometimes life-threatening effects on some women. Others don’t have to understand or agree with this perspective; but until now, the federal government has generally been careful to allow individuals and religious organizations to purchase and provide health care without being forced to violate it.

Respect for freedom of conscience and religious liberty has a long history. Thomas Jefferson, who was not especially religious himself, said it best in 1809, when he declared that “No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of civil authority.”

That position is under threat as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) prepares to list “preventive services for women” that must be included in most private health plans under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as the Healthcare Reform Act. HHS called on the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to list such services that should be mandated in private health plans (PPACA). IOM said July 20 that everybody’s health plan should cover contraception, sterilization and patient education and counseling promoting these for all women with reproductive capacity. IOM offers no talk of religious exemption for those with moral or religious objections to some of these practices, including those that effectively abort tiny children.

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) defines itself on its Web site as an independent, nonprofit organization that works outside of government to provide unbiased and authoritative advice to decision makers and the public. As it claims independence, one can ask “independent of what? Constitutional history? American government? Basic human rights?”

Fortunately, two members of Congress, Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE) and Dan Boren (D-OK), saw it coming, and introduced the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act 2011. They and the bill co-sponsors recognize that it is wrong for government to force institutions and persons to provide procedures and drugs that violate their conscience. That includes drugs that can take innocent lives under the guise of “treating” what IOM apparently sees as a disease, i.e. pregnancy. The Fortenberry and Boren bill would prevent new mandates under PPACA from being used to discriminate against persons and institutions for acting according to their conscience on these matters – as it already respects the consciences of the Amish, Christian Scientists and adherents of Native American beliefs.

Rights are important, and citizens need to be wary of threats against them. The freedom to follow one’s conscience and to practice one’s religion is under assault today and concerned people need to push back. St. Thomas More, who was heralded in the play “A Man for All Seasons,” faced a conscience problem when England’s Henry VIII demanded an oath of allegiance to him as a self-declared head of the church. Thomas More, the king’s lord chancellor and a brilliant lawyer, refused to sign. He squared off against his government, albeit reluctantly. Before his execution at the chopping block for such treachery the husband and father voiced his allegiance to his king, but with one caveat: “The King’s good servant,” More declared himself, “but God’s first.”

It was more than 400 years ago when More said the government had gone beyond what his conscience could bear. The right to follow one’s conscience trumps other obligations, even rights claimed by the government. The message still stands today.

Sr. Mary Ann Walsh is spokeswoman for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.


Scientific Doubt

November 24, 2009

On the topic of “settled science” there was a recent (illegal) release of internal communications among the “humans have caused global warming” set.  The dialog appears to be more than just doubting and laughing at the “global warming doubters” set.  It appears to be a scheme amounting to a conspiracy to suppress science that they don’t agree with.

What does this have to do with Abortion?  I’m referring to the Abortion Breast Cancer link where one commenter here has declared “with a few exceptions, the big, well-designed, robust studies say no link, and the studies which report a link are small, design-flawed, and biased.” With the kind of suppression of science that the global warming types are doing that’s exactly what you’d see and get.  I’m no conspiracy theorist; however this revelation in the debate over Global Warming points out that people – scientists included – can see what they want to see and call their opponents names rather than seeking truth.

BEST OF THE WEB TODAY | NOVEMBER 23, 2009

Settled Science?

Computer hackers reveal corruption behind the global-warming “consensus.”

By JAMES TARANTO

“Officials at the University of East Anglia confirmed in a statement on Friday that files had been stolen from a university server and that the police had been brought in to investigate the breach,” the New York Times reports. “They added, however, that they could not confirm that all the material circulating on the Internet was authentic.” But some scientists have confirmed that their emails were quoted accurately.

The files–which can be downloaded here–surely have not been fully plumbed. The ZIP archive weighs in at just under 62 megabytes, or more than 157 MB when uncompressed. But bits that have already been analyzed, as the Washington Post reports, “reveal an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies”:

Read the entire article at:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704779704574552533758682774.html#printMode

referenced articles are at the New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=1

and the Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/21/AR2009112102186.html

Update:

Here’s an Op Ed piece from the Wall Street Journal.  Same conclusion.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574566124250205490.html?mg=com-wsj#printMode

Dec 2nd update:  More science from a reasonably eminent scientist and a small bibliography of their works:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html#articleTabs=comments#comment680436


Abortion Causes Breast Cancer?

November 15, 2009

Study: Chinese women with abortions have statistically significant 17% increased breast cancer risk

MEDIA ADVISORY, November 12, 2009/Christian Newswire

Chinese researchers Peng Xing and his colleagues conducted a case-control study in Northeast China examining reproductive factors associated with subtypes of breast cancer. They found a statistically significant overall odds ratio of 1.17 (17% increased breast cancer risk for all subtypes combined) among women with induced abortions. [1]

Earlier this year, a Turkish study reported a statistically significant 66% increased risk for women with abortions. [2] Both studies show that, when honest research is conducted outside the control of the U.S. National Cancer Institute and other Western governmental agencies or organizations tethered to abortion ideology and politics, the truth emerges that abortion raises risk. Studies reporting no abortion- breast cancer (ABC) link were proven in medical journals to be stupendously flawed (fraudulent). [3-13]

“The Chinese and the Turkish studies are relevant considering the debate over government-funded abortion through healthcare reform,” said Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer. “Government-funded abortion means more dead American women from breast cancer.”

See entire article at http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2009/11/study_chinese_w.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Prolifeblogs+(ProLifeBlogs)

An abstract of the study is at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19771534?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=1

 


Poll sparks protest against tax-funded abortions

October 11, 2009

Poll sparks protest against tax-funded abortions

Posted using ShareThis


White House Bully Tactics

August 7, 2009

White House is asking Americans to turn in critics of the proposed health care plan –Truth!  

Summary of the eRumor:  
A forwarded email from Matt Staver of the Liberty Counsel that says the White House is monitoring emails for opposing views and asking citizens to report anything “FISHY” said about the proposed health care plan.  The email includes a call to action.

The Truth:  
According to a White House Blog entry by
communications director for the White House’s Health Reform Office Linda Douglass, the White House is monitoring the Internet and said, “Scary chain emails and videos are starting to percolate on the internet, breathlessly claiming, for example, to ‘uncover’ the truth about the President’s health insurance reform positions.”  Click for White House Blog.

The blog includes a video of Douglass singling out and discussing a video sample of President Obama discussing Health Reform that was posted on the Drudge Report on Monday August 3, 2009.  

http://www.youtube.com/v/p-bY92mcOdk&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1

The YouTube Video in question that was linked on Drudge Report 8/3/09

In her White House blog, Linda Douglass said, “There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care.  These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation.  Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.”   

This post is from the noted site Truth or Fiction.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/w/white-house-informants.htm

They’re not know to suffer fools gladly.  They offend anyone but stick to those stubborn facts.