September, 2005

In The Mailbag.... Father Frank Pavone hits it right on the head... again.

Again, it's about Abortion
Fr. Frank Pavone
National Director, Priests for Life

In the confirmation hearings for Judge Roberts, many Senators have conducted themselves in exactly the way pro-life leaders said they would. Abortion, the issue that won't go away, was again at the center of their concerns. "Respect for precedent" was a code word for "Respect for Roe vs. Wade," and concerns about "privacy" were really concerns about abortion. When Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont declared that he would vote for Judge Roberts, despite many reasons that would make him vote otherwise, he explained it was because he thinks Judge Roberts will not take away a woman's "right to choose."

What Judge Roberts will do as Chief Justice Roberts, of course, is yet to be determined. But we should pause for a moment to reflect on the irony of Senators and other leaders arguing in public about whether "Roe" is "settled law." The frequency of the question answers the question in the negative, because if it were "settled," it would hardly be the center of such constant controversy. Roe vs. Wade itself, in fact, was on trial in the US Senate a few months ago when Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas led hearings on the decision and its impact on America. The plaintiff in the case, Norma McCorvey ("Jane Roe"), is now pro-life and testified against Roe at the hearings. (I was privileged to receive her into the Catholic Church in 1998.)

Now, of course, in anticipation of the process to fill the second vacancy on the Court, some voices are calling for a more "moderate" nominee, and demanding that the President keep "balance" on the Court and not move it to the "right." Again, it's about abortion, and it reminds me of the words of Justice Antonin Scalia: "Now the Senate is looking for moderate judges, mainstream judges. What in the world is a moderate interpretation of a constitutional text? Halfway between what it says and what we'd like it to say?"

There is no obligation, nor is it even appropriate, to seek to maintain the current configuration of opinions on the Court. That very effort contradicts what the Court is all about. It's not a legislature, and judges are not supposed to be politicians with platforms. But in any case, how can anyone consider support for abortion "moderate," "mainstream," or even reasonable? Roe allowed abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy. Abortionist Martin Haskell used these words to describe a legal abortion procedure, under oath:

"When you're doing a dismemberment D&E usually the last part to be removed is the skull itself and it's floating free inside the uterine cavity...like a ping-pong ball floating around ... Finally ... a nip is made out of some area of the skull that allows it to start to decompress. And then once that happens typically the skull is brought out in fragments rather than as a unified piece, the result being that sharp bony edges of the skull are exposed" (US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Case No. 98-C-0305-S).

Mainstream, indeed.

posted 9/ 27/ 05

On My Mind... Of his dissent in the 1992 Casey decision, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the Supreme Court was well within its rights to overturn the controversial decision.

"We believe that Roe was wrongly decided, and that it can and should be overruled consistent with our traditional approach to stare decisis in constitutional cases," Thomas wrote.

Why was it wrongly decided? The answer is because it was based on lies. Jane "Roe" said she'd been raped. The Truth? Norma McCorvey, the one-time anonymous "Roe", claimed rape in order to justify her planned abortion. She had not been raped --she'd been recruited by secular humanist animals with an entirely political agenda: women's right to privacy in ending an unwanted pregnancy. McCorvey never had her abortion. After participating in the hoax that has led millions to slaughter from the womb, she gave her baby up for adoption. She didn't have the heart to take advantage of the horrific law she'd helped to enact.

McCorvey has subsequently tried to get the decision overturned, but she has been thwarted by the powers on high... on high, because they tower above us on their literally mountains of slain babies. They are powerful, made so by the billions of dollars gained through the exploitation of human misery by abortion-for-profit. Yet these death mongers tremble with fear, and their lofty stand is tottering, as America and the world awaken to their hoax.
Judge Thomas is right, and Chief Justice nominee Judge John Roberts could only serve this country well. I pray he will be a strength to our judicial system and lead us away from legal abortion, the Great American Holocaust.

Breath deep, dear readers. Stand still, and see that there is a God... and know that He is watching. --Joe

posted 9/ 16/ 05

Why We Voted

Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director, Priests For Life
This week in Washington, DC, we see unfolding before our eyes the main reason so many of us voted in last year's elections: a change in the Supreme Court. With a second vacancy adding to the drama, and the current confirmation hearings focused on not simply a new Supreme Court Justice but a Chief Justice, the activities in Washington DC merit our attention, our prayers, and our voice.

I am very confident of several things. First, we elected a President who campaigned on his commitment to nominate judges who would not re-write the law but rather respect the limited role of the judiciary to apply the law as written by the legislatures. I am confident that in his nominations, he has and will continue to fulfill that promise.

Second, we can be confident that the pro-abortion factions in the US Senate will make a nuisance of themselves this week, behaving as though the confirmation hearings are a forum for some Senators to decide Supreme Court cases by making sure that only Justices who agree with their positions get confirmed. To this end, they will chant the same slogans as pro-abortion activists chant on the street, about a "woman's right to choose" and about "Roe vs. Wade," as if that decision had any claim on representing the will of the American people. In fact, it does not and never has. Roe vs. Wade established a policy that the American people never voted on and have never agreed with - a policy of abortion through all nine months of pregnancy. The more the American public learns about what that decision said, the more they will realize that it is not those who oppose it who are extreme, but rather those who support it.

Third, we can be confident that Judge John Roberts will be confirmed. This is the prevalent opinion regarding this highly qualified nominee who enjoys a great deal of favor within the legal and political communities.

Confident of these things, we should also take advantage of this moment in history to let our voices be heard. Our American system is about self-governance. We elect the people who nominate and confirm the Supreme Court Justices. As that process unfolds, therefore, they should hear from us. Our United States Senators should hear us say, one more time, that we expect a swift, fair, unbiased and dignified confirmation process in the next couple of weeks, based on the nominee's qualifications and not on ideology or politics.

Furthermore, we should speak out to our fellow citizens about the meaning of this moment and about the meaning of the Supreme Court itself. This Court, which holds such an important place in our system, is "supreme" only in reference to the other courts in the judicial branch of government, and not in reference to the other branches! The President and the Congress are just as capable of interpreting the Constitution as is the Court. In fact, they are sworn to do so.

Moreover, the Supreme Court is not supreme over the moral law. God alone has our ultimate allegiance, and what we pray for above all this week is that every judge
understand the limits of his or her authority, and the profound obligation to respect the rights - starting with life itself - that are bestowed not by any Court, but by the Creator.

posted 9/ 13/ 05

In The Mailbag... "All the kings horses and all the king's men..." -- Joe

Mayo Clinic Under Fire for Playing Down Abortion-Infertility Link
by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor
September 8, 2005

Rochester, MN (LifeNews.com) -- The prestigious May Clinic is coming under fire for telling patients that abortion does not cause infertility due to endometriosis, despite research showing the contrary. The information comes in response to a question from a patient submitted to the Q&A section of the May Clinic web site. The questioner asked the Mayo Clinic whether any documented evidence existed between abortion and endometriosis.

Responding for the clinic, an unnamed staff member said "there is no evidence of a link." "Endometriosis is primarily a disease of women who have never been pregnant," the Mayo Clinic writes. However, according to Deveber Institute in Canada, "No previous births and an earlier abortion put a woman at significant risk of post-abortion complications leading to possible infertility."

A 1986 report, "Post-Abortal Endometritis and Isolation of Chlamydia Trachomatis," published in the medical journal Obstetrics and Gynecology says that not only is it possible to contract endometriosis from an abortion, but that the risk is higher for teenagers. The report says teenagers are 2.5 times more likely than women 20-29 to acquire endometriosis following abortion.

Abortion businesses also acknowledge the risk that abortions can have in causing problems for women. In a factsheet "Abortion: Questions and Answers" prepared by the Planned Parenthood of Edmonton, Canada for prospective patients, the abortion business acknowledges the endometriosis risk. "Infections can occur from an abortion," PPE writes. "At worst the infection can become a case of endometriosis (the pelvic area becomes inflamed) and the uterus has to be removed surgically." "Most infections, however, are not serious if treated early," PPE concludes -- which leads to another post-abortion risk. Whether the Mayo Clinic's claim is true, a woman with endometriosis or an infection who has an abortion could be at a higher risk for infertility, especially if the abortion facility does not test for infections beforehand.

On 1994 study by J.L. Sorenson, published in Infection magazine, found that women who had untreated chlamydia infections at the time of their abortions had a 72 percent risk of developing pelvic inflammatory disease compared to 8 percent of women who were treated prior to their abortions. Another study, published in 1993 in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, found that women with a chlamydia infection who delayed seeking treatment for three or more days from the onset of symptoms were six times more likely to develop infertility problems than those who sought treatment right away Research also shows that abortion can lead to infertility by increasing the risk of miscarriages.

A 1986 report in the medical journal Epidemiology reveals women with a history of abortion have a greater risk of fetal loss than women who had no previous abortions. Women with two prior pregnancies carried to term and no abortions had the lowest risk, while women with two prior abortions had the highest risk. Despite those noted risks, the Mayo Clinic did not mention them and played down a risk of scarring as a result of the abortion. "It is possible — but very unusual — for an abortion to cause scarring on the inside of the uterus," Mayo added in the response. "This scar tissue could prevent conception or interfere with subsequent pregnancies. However, the scar tissue typically can be removed." Mayo admitted that abortions can increase the risk of adenomyosis, a closely related disease that causes painful periods and abnormal bleeding, but not infertility.

posted 9/ 10/ 05

In The Mailbag... Plannedparenthoodwink, is once again demonstrating their love for women and children. Their illogical thinking: If we kill all the babies, and later through breast cancer, kill the abortive mothers, then next big storm the death toll will be lower! (???) -- Joe


by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
August 31, 2005

New Orleans, LA (LifeNews.com) -- Victims of Hurricane Katrina are battling rising waters, destroyed homes and are seeking basic necessities like food, water and shelter. On Wednesday, Planned Parenthood sent an announcement to its members that the nation's largest abortion business is available to help -- with free morning after pills and birth control.
Planned Parenthood Federation of America interim president Karen Pearl lauded her group's efforts in a recent email to its supporters. "As Hurricane Katrina ripped through the southeastern United States, Planned Parenthood [is] there to offer one free month of birth control or one free emergency contraception kit to women from Louisiana and Mississippi," Peal wrote. "In past disasters, we know there has been an increased demand for [emergency contraception]," she added.

Pro-life groups say (and I agree.-- Joe) the giveaways are another example of how the abortion business doesn't understand the needs of women and families. "The world sees people in the ravaged areas desperate for food, bedding, and shelter. Planned Parenthood only sees a publicity opportunity to push its latest political football, the morning-after pill," Concerned Women for America's Wendry Wright told LifeNews.com.

"Generous Americans focus on what the suffering ask for and need, many giving anonymously, not asking for anything in return," Wright added.

According to Planned Parenthood, women seeking the morning after pills can obtain them at no cost this week at any Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas.

"There have been a huge number of evacuees who have come to Texas, especially from Louisiana," said Peter Durkin of PPHST.

"We're offering a free month's supply of birth control pills and/or emergency contraception if they have either a Mississippi or Louisiana driver's license," Durkin said of the offer. "It's an opportunity to let people know, during these calamities, sometimes you don't bring your pills with you, because you're trying to get out of there in one piece."

But Wright says Planned Parenthood should be helping fleeing residents with more pressing concerns like jobs, losing homes, and separation from loved ones.

"Planned Parenthood unloads its cheaply purchased drugs, doesn't even wait for the waters to recede before sending out a publicity statement taking advantage of the disaster, and will likely send out fundraisers later to profit off the hurricane victims' tragedy," Wright said.

This isn't the first time Planned Parenthood has given morning after pills to disaster victims needed food and water.

Planned Parenthood of New York City offered women free abortions and morning after pills to area victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks. The goal of the 12 days of free services was to "reach out to women who have been displaced and ease their fears," the abortion business said at the time.

Planned Parenthood abortion businesses in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama are closed due to the power outages, the national organization said.

posted 9/ 2/ 05