He's Just A Mormon

by Thomas A. Droleskey

 

There are times when Willard Mitt Romney, a rocked-ribbed follower of the false, American ethnocentric cult called blasphemously the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints," reveals his "Inner Mitt, which he did on Tuesday, October 9, 2012, the Feast of Saint John Leonard the Commemoration of Saints Denis, Rusticus and Eleutherius, in an interview conducted at the offices of the Des Moines Register in Des Moines, Iowa:

Mitt Romney today said no abortion legislation is part of his agenda, but he would prohibit federally-funded international nonprofits from providing abortions in other countries.

“There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda,” the GOP presidential candidate told The Des Moines Register’s editorial board during a meeting today before his campaign rally at a Van Meter farm.

But by executive order, not by legislation, he would reinstate the so-called Mexico City policy that bans U.S. foreign aid dollars from being used to do abortions, he said.

President Barack Obama dropped the policy on his tenth day in office, Romney said.

Romney has said he opposes abortion, except in instances of rape, incest and when the mother’s life is threatened.

The Obama campaign quickly seized on Romney’s abortion comments Tuesday, sending out a news release accusing Romney of contradicting himself because he has said he would appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade.

Obama’s Iowa spokeswoman, Erin Seidler argued that Romney contradicted himself because has said he supports the Hyde Amendment, which broadly bars the use of federal funds for abortions.

However, the Hyde Amendment is already part of current law. And Romney has said he would appoint justices who are not activist judges.

Romney aides rejected the idea that he contradicted himself.

Spokeswoman Andrea Saul said: “Mitt Romney is proudly pro-life and will be a pro-life president.” (Des Moines Register in Iowa).

This is what we have come to, ladies and gentlemen. This is what we have come to in the year 2012. And while I am not taking any glee in the fact that I have been telling you that this would be the trajectory of Willard Mitt Romney's campaigning and thus of his presidency, the fact remains that I have worked to the point of exhaustion to explain to provide with a detailed historical accounts of how we have come from the days of President Ronald Wilson Reagan's "pro-life" rhetoric to the "Big Tent" of the late Lee Atwater and President George Herbert Walker Bush to the "compassionate conservative," President George Walker Bush, whose anti-life record will be appended below once again for those who have short memories, to the abandonment of the issue altogether in the campaigns of Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., John Sidney McCain III and Willard Mitt Romney.

You want just a few examples of those articles? Here, have at it: No Homeland Security for the Preborn (2001), Bob Dole's Many Faces, Pope Pius XII Slams The National Not-So-Right-Life Committee and George Walker Bush and All Other So-Called "Pro-Life Pols and Blood Money Talks Loud And Clear, part two.

Some of those caught up in the current hysteria might say, "But, but, but, Romney at least will restore the 'Mexico City Policy.' So there, Droleskey. That's something."

So what? That's nothing. The "Mexico City Policy" as re-written under the administration of President George Walker Bush was a sham from beginning to end. Here's a little review for those of you who are caught in the hysteria in the rush to have a "victory" in November while closing your eyes to the simple fact that the "choice" in this year's presidential election in the United States of America is one between Barack Hussein Obama and Barack Hussein Obama Lite, Willard Mitt Romney:

The George Walker Bush version of the "Mexico City" policy, as the "gag" order that prohibited international family planning organizations from killing babies on an "elective" basis on their premises or referring women to abortuaries was called, was fraught with holes and exceptions as to make it an utter sham that convinces the average "pro-life" American that "something" is being done to save lives when the truth of the matter is that Bush's executive order permitted employees of international "family planning" agencies in foreign countries to refer for abortions on their own time in any off-site location of their choosing. In other words, the "Bush 43" "Mexico City" policy permitted an employee of the International Planned Parenthood chapter in Nairobi, Kenya, for example to say, "Look, there are things I can't tell you now. Meet me at the Nairobi McDonald's after I get out of work. I can tell you more then." The employee was then free to speak frankly about surgical abortion, to recommend the killing of a child as the only "sensible" option, to recommend a specific baby-killer and a specific place for the baby to be killed.

Here are the specific conditions outlined by the Bush executive order that re instituted the "Mexico City" policy in 2001:

1) American taxpayer funds are only denied to organizations that promote abortion as a means of "family planning." This means that direct counseling in behalf of abortion can be done if a woman claims some that she falls into one of the three usual "exceptions" (rape, incest, alleged threats to her life) for seeking an abortion.

2) Employees of international "family planning" organizations may meet with their clients off of the premises of those organizations to counsel them to use abortion as a means of "family planning" and to direct them where to kill their babies surgically.

3) International "family planning" organizations can propagate in behalf of abortion abroad as long as they "segregate" their funds. That is, such organizations must use "private" funds for promoting abortion, not the monies provided by the Federal government of the United States of America. There is, however, no accounting oversight to determine how these funds are "segregated," if they are in fact "segregated" at all.

 

Moreover, as noted above, the domestic and international "family planning" programs that were funded to the hilt by the administration of George Walker Bush and Richard N. Cheney killed untold hundreds of thousands of children each year by means of chemical abortifacients. Mrs. Judie Brown, the founder and President of the American Life League, explained it as follows on December 18, 2007:

While many are celebrating the Congressional passage of a bill that contains the Mexico City Policy, there are those of us who are not so quick to throw a party.

The policy was contained in a piece of legislation that also provides an increase in funding for Planned Parenthood. But that's not really the worst of it.

The Mexico City Policy contains exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother ... standard fare for the pro-life politicos these days. The problem is, they fail to point out that the Mexico City Policy does not and cannot prohibit our tax dollars from paying for abortion; it can only prevent our tax dollars from paying for some abortions. Why, you may ask, did I use the word "some"?

Well, the Mexico City Policy will pay for surgical abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother in addition to paying for chemical abortions caused by RU-486, the morning-after pill and the various birth control methods that can cause abortion.

Further, it is not clear what happens when an organization agrees to refrain from paying for abortion with U.S. tax dollars, but chooses to use those dollars to pay for other "services," thus freeing up other money to subsidize the killing.

In other words, the Mexico City Policy is fraught with problems that result in death.

So when some claim that America is no longer an "exporter of death," they are really not being totally honest with the public. America is still the number one exporter and subsidizer of preborn child killing, period. Of that there is no doubt. (AMERICA'S DEADLY EXPORT)

To close your eyes to the reality of Willard Mitt Romney, my friends, and enable him with your vote and then, if Romney wins enough electoral votes on Tuesday, November 6, 2012, to be assured a victory in the actual presidential election on Monday, December 17, 2012, as the electors cast their vote in their respective state capitol building, to shirk your civic duty for four years as so many did with George Walker Bush and pretend that all is rule because some "lesser evil" is in office while evil is being advanced all the while is pretty similar, although not entirely identical, to what traditionally-minded Catholics in the conciliar structures do as they keep their mouths shut about Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI undeniable acts of blasphemy, apostasy and sacrilege in order to to access to what is, at least for the most part, a simulation of a modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition and remain in "good standing" in what they think is the Catholic Church. In the meantime, of course, Ratzinger/Benedict has pressed forward with his conciliar revolution and has used the silence of the traditionalists he has sought to "resist" throughout his priesthood to foist upon them a even more modernized version of the Traditional Mass that incorporates a few of the splendid features of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service (see Next Stop On The Motu Madness Merry-Go-Round: 1969 And Beyond). It is no different with those who believe that a "President Willard Mitt Romney would ever do anything other than make the usual empty gestures that placates the "mainstream" "pro-life" leaders, most of whom are standing by their "man" after once again revealing his "Inner Mitt."

Never trust organizations such as the The National Not-So-Right-Life Committee (see also The National Right to Some Life Committee) as they are in the business of enabling one phony careerist "pro-life" politician after another, to say nothing of supporting as a matter of principle, not of legislative expediency, the direct, intentional killing of an innocent baby in his mother's womb when it is alleged that her life is endangered and take no stand in support of or in opposition to the use of contraception, which is what produced the demand for the "legalization" of surgical baby-killing in the first place. The logic is pretty inexorable here as to frustrate the realization of the conception of a child results in the belief that the conjugal gift is to exercised, whether in or out of marriage, primarily for pleasure and that a child conceived when he has not been "planned" or "wanted" is but a disposable commodity. These organizations produce worthless "voter scorecards" to indicate whether a candidate is "pro-life" while conveniently omitting legislative votes, usually an everything that pertains to contraception and on judicial nominations, that the leaders of these organizations choose not to "score" in order to burnish the credentials of one Republican Party careerist after another.

Who has killed the "pro-life" movement? "Mainstream" "pro-life" leaders and their abuse of truth by referring to men as "pro-life" who care only about getting elected while supporting the chemical assassination of the innocent preborn in all instances and the surgical assassination in some "hard" cases." This is very similar to how the "traditional" movement in the conciliar church has been killed off by the willingness of "mainstream" gatekeepers of "traditionalism" to enable the current conciliar "pontiff," Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, while they ignore the great offenses he has committed against God and man.

Do you know why the leaders of the "mainstream" "pro-life" organizations are willing to look the other way at Willard Mitt Romney's continued flip-flops? Because they like having their "place at the table" with the movers and shakers in a Republican Party presidential administration. They get briefings from White House officials. They get access to special events. How did this help the babies in the administration of President George Walker Bush? See the appendix below for the answer.

This is what I wrote on March 31, 2001, for the printed pages of Christ or Chaos that was also published online at the Griffin Internet Syndicate about those were satisfied at the "unprecedented access" they had to to the nascent war-mongering and profligate Federal spending administration of President George Walker Bush and Vice President Richard Bruce Cheney:

“Unprecedented access.” That is what a number of nationally known conservative leaders are calling their relationship with the White House of George W. Bush. On March 19 The New York Times reported that staff aides in the White House and Cabinet secretaries have weekly meetings with a variety of conservative leaders, who have recommended many of their associates for subcabinet positions (nominees for which must be confirmed by a majority vote of the Senate). The administration solicits the conservative leaders’ views on questions of public policy, giving those leaders a heady feeling of influence at the White House. Indeed, some of the leaders report that they have a level of access now with President Bush that they never had with President Reagan. There is only one little problem with all of that, however: their “unprecedented access” has much more to do with the stroking of egos and the satisfying of core constituency groups than with the actual making of public policy.

I remain very critical of President Bush, principally because of his shallow understanding of the life issue and his concomitant failure to do everything within his power to stop the killings at once (such as the immediate cessation of funding for all embryonic stem-cell research and transplantation). But one has to give the new president and his political advisors a great deal of credit. As governor of Texas, Bush demonstrated a capacity for stroking egos to protect his right flank while at the same time working with Democrats in the Texas legislature. In short, Bush is something of a Clinton clone, using the Dick Morris strategy of triangulation to make it appear as though his political base has influence with him when he is actually wheeling and dealing with moderate Republicans and “blue dog” conservative Democrats.

If you recall, Morris, who had an on- again/off-again relationship with Clinton from 1980 to 1996, was brought back in 1995 to advise the president following the Republican capture of both houses of Congress for the first time since the 1952 elections. Morris advised Clinton to talk sweet nothings into the ears of his leftist base, giving them crumbs now and then to keep them happy and make it appear as though he was really sensitive to their hopes and desires. In actuality, though, Clinton successfully outmaneuvered the Republicans, seizing the public-relations high ground on welfare reform and reduction of the deficit and the national debt. Even though Clinton was forced into those positions by the Republicans, Morris was able to portray the president as the architect of welfare reform and the economic boom (which has just come crashing to the ground). Clinton faked left while he moved to the center in order to position himself for the 1996 elections.

Bush did much the same thing when he was governor of Texas. He met quite assiduously with leaders of conservative groups, including the so-called religious right. He supported the passage of a parental-notification bill in the Texas legislature, requiring female minors seeking abortions to notify their parents before they could kill their child, which would give parents an opportunity to dissuade them from participating in the murder of an innocent baby. However, Bush also appointed three fully pro-abortion nominees to the Texas Supreme Court, each of whom voted to strike down the notification bill! He also nominated the notorious Martha Hill Jamieson, a supporter of both Planned Parenthood and the homosexual agenda, to a judicial vacancy in a Houston district court. Thus, while economic conservatives and religious conservatives felt sufficiently stroked by Bush because of his personal interest in them, the Texas governor was merely providing himself the cover to do things that would make him marketable for reelection in 1998 — and position him to run for the presidency in 2000.

The same thing is happening right now with President Bush. It is certainly the case that business leaders are getting a great deal of what they have wanted from the new president. For all the talk about the woefully inadequate tax cut, though, Bush is presiding over an increase of spending by the federal government, including, as I have noted in the past few months, a huge increase for the Department of Education, a bureaucracy that is opposed to the principle of subsidiarity and to the plain language of the U.S. Constitution. (This is yet another illustration of the flawed nature of the Constitution. A written document is meaningless when there is no ultimate arbiter of the meaning of its plain language, leaving such interpretation to judicial autocrats or careerist politicians interested in creating the impression that they are doing something for the people.)

In other words, the Bush administration is going about the business of government pretty much as other Republican administrations have — that is, by emphasizing the importance of money as the foundational principle of public policy and human existence. The only difference between the Bush administration and the previous two Republican administrations is that Bush the younger has learned the lessons that Bush the elder never learned: it is vital to stroke one’s electoral base while faking to the center in order to reach “acceptable” compromises with congressional “moderates.”

In actual point of fact, you see, the conservative leaders whose egos are being stroked so tenderly by Bush staffers do not make policy. The national budget, which is the principal determining factor for the outline of public policy, will emerge as a result of complex and protracted negotiations between the White House and leaders of both political parties in the two houses of Congress. Compromises will be reached that will be difficult for some of the conservative leaders to swallow. However, having developed a close working relationship with those leaders, Bush staffers will be able to immunize themselves against too much criticism by saying that they tried their very best but just had to compromise in the real world of give-and-take politics. The folks accustomed to access in the highest quarters of power in the White House and the Executive Branch will thus push the mute button on themselves out of fear that all of their unprecedented access will be lost, thereby vitiating what they believe to be their influence — which is nothing other than the illusion of influence created by the Bush staffers.

In order to retain their access to the White House, conservative leaders must make all manner of compromises with evil. Each of those leaders is willing to live with the fact that the Bush administration is still dragging its feet on the matter of embryonic stem-cell research and transplantation. Babies are being conceived artificially so they can be killed for the harvesting of their stem cells. Innocent lives could be saved at once by the issuance of an Executive Order to stop the funding of such research and transplantation. Instead, the ever-cautious Bush has decided to order Tommy Thompson, secretary of Health and Human Services, to create a panel of “experts” to study the matter. What is there to study? Embryonic stem-cell research and transplantation is evil. It is monstrous. Why the delay? And why is Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, so lonely in denouncing the needless delay? Why? Precisely because the so-called leaders of various conservative organizations care more about their access to the White House than they do about taking concrete measures to save innocent human lives at once.

Moreover, the human pesticide, RU-486, continues to be marketed. The United States continues to fund the killing of children abroad by means of abortifacient contraceptives. There remains a needless life-of-the-mother exception in the flawed bill to ban partial-birth abortions when even the American Medical Association has stated that it is never medically necessary to use dilatation and extraction — partial-birth abortion — to save a mother’s life. The leaders of conservative organizations are content to accept all manner of exceptions to the sanctity of innocent human life in specific pieces of legislation concerning Medicaid funding of abortions, in line with their general acceptance of such exceptions as matters of principle. And thus far there has been zero criticism of Attorney General John Ashcroft’s suggestion that Judges Ronnie White and Roger Gregory, both of whom are pro-aborts, are qualified to sit on the federal bench. Indeed, there has been no criticism of Ashcroft’s embrace of the ideologically laden concept of “diversity” (which means hiring people on the basis of skin color and ethnicity and “sexual orientation”).

Let’s face it: almost every one of the conservative leaders is willing to accept Roe v. Wade as settled law in order not to rock the boat with the Bush administration. One wonders what they will do if Bush nominates White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales — one of the judges on the Texas Supreme Court who struck down the parental-notification bill — to the U.S. Supreme Court as a means of currying favor with the growing population of Spanish-speaking Americans (who have now eclipsed blacks as the largest minority group in the country). One wonders.

Access to the halls of power can be very intoxicating. It can give a person a feeling of self-importance that blinds the intellect and weakens the will, resulting in muted tongues and spin-doctoring (when the tongues are permitted to be loosed) to promote an administration’s “talking points” on TV’s “talking-head” programs. However, such access can actually be deleterious to the cause of fundamental justice founded in the splendor of Truth Incarnate when otherwise sensible people accept the Protestant and Masonic premise that a secular, pluralistic, and religiously indifferentist society has to make protecting itself its first priority and raison d’etre rather than stopping the shedding of innocent human blood.

As I have noted on so many occasions, all of it is the fruit of the Protestant Revolt and the rise of Freemasonry. Protestantism promoted the belief that people who are saved by their mere profession of faith in our Lord can thereby be about the business of the “real world” without regard to any consequences for their immortal soul. Indeed, the Calvinist strain of Protestantism stresses the importance of wealth as one of the leading signs of a person’s predestination for Heaven. Those concepts have been secularized and embraced by Freemasonry, and their influence accounts for the creation of a secular republic dedicated to the promotion of commercialism as the principal purpose of civil government. Sadly, many Catholics have bought into it, including pro-life Catholics who continue to fear the evil more than they love the good, and who think in naturalistic, earthbound terms and actually eschew any public invocation of the Holy Name and all references to the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ.

As Catholics, we should strive to give “unprecedented access” to the social teaching of the Catholic Church — the only sure foundation for the just society. The Church’s social teaching is neither conservative or liberal. It is what it is: an effort to apply the unchanging truths of Truth Himself to the concrete circumstances of man in this fallen, fractured world. Without that teaching, a society flails about in a vain effort to find some mythical “common ground” as the basis of public policy and popular culture. As Pope Leo XIII explained so well in Immortale Dei in 1885, a society so founded degenerates sooner or later into atheism and barbarism.

It will be interesting to watch the degree to which so-called conservative leaders will permit themselves to be used as a screen for the Bush administration. In the meantime, however, the tiny fraction of us who want to give voice to the voiceless and defend the defenseless must be relentless in our prayers before the Blessed Sacrament and to the Mother of God. And we must be unceasing in our efforts to speak the truth about our current situation, no matter how much “access” to high places or friends we lose along the way. (Unprecedented Access.)

It took me another five years to come to accept the true state of the Church Militant in this time of apostasy an betrayal.

However, I have been fairly consistent when it comes to the naturalistic farce of electoral politics in the past sixteen years or so now since my "last hurrah" within the Republican Party as an active surrogate speaker for Patrick Joseph Buchanan in Iowa, Illinois, Florida, New Hampshire and New York in 1995 to 1996. Terence Jeffrey, upon following me as a speaker (my subject was the work Father Miguel Augustin Pro and Father Maximilian Kolbe) at The National Wanderer Forum in Washington, District of Columbia, told the audience that I had "moved votes" during that "last hurrah." Another operative in the Buchanan for President campaign in the 1995 to 1996 campaign cycle felt me out in 1999 about whether I wanted to serve in a similar capacity for Family Research Council president Gary Bauer, who was seeking the 2000 Republican Party presidential nomination. I declined, having recognized the futility of such exercises and determined to focus on planting the seeds for the restoration of the Social Reign of Christ the King.

Indeed, it was precisely because of having been challenged to study the encyclical letters of Popes Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Saint Pius X and Pius XI in the mid-1980s that I began the long journey of coming to recognize that the conciliar "popes" had abandoned this teaching. It was the combination of this study and a knowledge of the practical realities of an electoral system in a pluralistic nation based in one false premise after another that would lead me to investigate the sedevacantist thesis as early as 2003 and 2004, before undertaking a serious study on the matter by the end of 2005.

Making concession after concession in the political realm in order to "win a victory in November" has left all truth, even on matters of secular public policy, a casualty as campaign managers and consultants carefully stage manage their employer to "go with the issues" that "matter most" to "the people." This is what Willard Mitt Romney is doing at present, although the recent revelation of his "Inner Mitt" and the quick effort by his handlers to say, in essence, that we are to pay "no attention to that man in the mirror" certainly will exploited by the demagogues who go by the name of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetero and Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., as they have to do is to invoke Romney's October 25, 1994, debate with Edward Moore Kennedy. Here is an excerpt from that debate, including the Chappaquiddick Kid's discussion of Romney's various positions on the surgical assassination of innocent preborn children:

Q. Mr. Romney, you personally oppose abortion and as a church leader have advised women not to have an abortion. Given that, how could you in good conscience support a law that enables women to have an abortion, and even lets the Government pay for it? If abortion is morally wrong, aren't you responsible for discouraging it?

ROMNEY One of the great things about our nation, Sally [ Sally Jacobs of The Boston Globe ] , is that we're each entitled to have strong personal beliefs, and we encourage other people to do the same. But as a nation we recognize the right of all people to believe as they want, and not to impose our beliefs on other people. I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country; I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate.

I believe that Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice. And my personal beliefs, like the personal beliefs of other people, should not be brought into a political campaign. Too much has been written about religion in this race. I'm proud of my religious heritage; I am proud of the values that it's taught me. But if you want to know my position on issues, ask me and I'll tell you. I think the low point of this race was when my opponent and their family decided to make religion an issue in this campaign -- brought it out, attacked me for it. I think that's a mistake. I think the time has passed for that. John Kennedy was the one who fought that battle; let that battle live for all of us of all faiths.

KENNEDY I would agree with Mr. Romney that religion has no place in this campaign. And the best way to make sure that it doesn't is not to talk any further about it, and I don't intend to do so.

On the question of the choice issue, I have supported Roe v. Wade. I am pro-choice; my opponent is multiple choice.

I have not only introduced the freedom-of-choice legislation but I have fought -- wrote and saw successfully passed -- the clinic access bill that will permit women to be able to practice their constitutional rights in selection of abortion. And I have also led the fight against judges in the Supreme Court of the United States that refuse to permit a woman's right to choose. (THE 1994 CAMPAIGN; Excerpt From Debate By Kennedy And Romney; The Real Romney, a video clip of this exchange.)

How can Andrea Saul, Romney's spokesflack, contend that Romney is "strongly pro-life" when he supports contraception as a matter of principle even though he is opposed to Federal funding of Planned Parenthood, and supports, also as a matter of principle, the slicing and dicing of innocent children in their mothers' wombs in certain "hard" cases, which is why he disowned United States Representative Tod Akin's candidacy against United States Senator Claire McCaskill, a pro-abortion Catholic, of course, in the State of Missouri (see Blood Money Talks Loud And Clear, part two)? How can other Romney flacks contend that their boy has "always" been "pro-life" when he himself said that in 1994 that he had been "pro-choice" for the preceding twenty-four years, dating back to the time of his mother Lenore Romney's race for the United States Senate in the States of Michigan against United States Senator Philip Hart?

Remember, though, that Willard Mitt Romney is just a Mormon, a member of a blasphemous cult that believes in polytheism and makes of Our Blessed Lord and Jesus Christ a "spirit brother" of the devil, basing this blasphemy on the word of confidence man (con man) Joseph Smith, who "discovered" golden plates that only he could translate from some primitive Egyptian language by looking into a "seer stone" to make the translation over the course of three years before he returned the plates to the nonexistent figment of his scheming imagination called "the angel moroni." If you believe in this rot, my friends, you can expect others to believe almost anything you try to represent as the truth. It is pretty easy for one who believes that a lie is the truth to live in a tangled world of deception.

Romney has sought to trim his stance on the surgical assassination of children a number of times over the years, provided by a naturalist of the false opposite of the "left" who believes that Willard Mitt Romney would seek to to "weasel" his way out of the statement made to the editors of the Des Moines Register two days ago as the lefty, William Saletan, said that he had done as Governor of Massachusetts:

Romney’s whole track record on abortion is a history of feints and hedges. In 1993, he told leaders of the Mormon Church that he had to run as a pro-choicer for the U.S. Senate because, according to his campaign poll, this was the only way to get elected in Massachusetts. Then, six years later, when he was thinking about running for office in Utah, he reframed his position as pro-life. Then, when the governorship of Massachusetts opened up in 2002, he repositioned himself as a pro-choicer. Then, as he prepared to seek the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, he recast himself as a pro-lifer. At every turn, he has taken the angle that looked safest politically. And each time, he has given himself an escape clause.

If you want to understand what will happen to the no-legislation assurance Romney gave to the Register yesterday, look at what happened to the assurances he gave to voters in Massachusetts a decade ago. In 2002, as a candidate for governor, he repeatedly promised to “preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose.” After he was elected, he reinterpreted that statement as a pledge not to “change our abortion laws either to restrict abortion or to facilitate it.” This allowed him to veto pro-choice legislation. Then, as he moved on from Massachusetts and began to court pro-lifers as a presidential candidate, he reinterpreted his no-change policy this way: “Every time I faced a decision as governor that related to life, I came down on the side of life.”(Romney's abortion “agenda.")

Mr. Saletan may have provided a good history of Romney's exercises in expediency on the direct, intentional killing of innocent babies. He has, however, entirely misread Romney's real anti-life record as Governor of Massachusetts, which was crafted very carefully to maintain his "moderate" standing in the Bay State while giving himself just enough "wiggle room" to claim later that he had not "advanced" a "pro-choice" agenda as governor. The truth is contrary to this (see the appendix.)

The babies? Well, these leaders contend, the country is not "with us" now. There is so little that can be done.

Why is there so "little" that can be done? Why is the country "not with us"?

Well, in part, as readers of this site now, the answer rests in the failure of the conciliar "bishops" to discipline pro-abortion Catholic public officials in the Democratic Party, which has the support of many conciliar "bishops" because of the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist "left's" concern for the "poor" and "underprivileged," thus emboldening Catholics in the organized crime family of the naturalist "right," to take a completely pro-abortion position. All manner of Catholics, no matter where they may have fallen on the vast expanse of the ecclesiastical divide, have voted for the likes of George Elmer Pataki and Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rudolph William Giuliani and Susan Collins and Thomas Ridge and Susan Molinari and Rick Lazio, thus enabling the death of the effectiveness o the "pro-life" movement in terms of purely naturalistic considerations of realpolitik. (See also Dialectical Americanism.)

Dr. Charles E. Rice, a sedeplenist who is one of the foremost experts on the Natural Law alive, writing in the August 27, 1998, issue of The Wanderer, attempted to explain the philosophical and practical flaws of the incremental approach to politics and legislation at a time that I was opposing then United States Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato's bid for re-nomination by the Right to Life Party of the State of New York:

Sen. D'Amato will face a pro-abortion Democratic opponent in the fall. While a voter could morally vote for a pro-abortion candidate who is less objectionable on abortion than his opponent, he should not. The tactic of voting for the less objectionable of two pro-abortion candidates is a tactic of incremental surrender. The incremental strategy of accepting the legalization of abortion in some cases concedes that some innocent human life is negotiable after all. The pro-death movement is a guaranteed winner against an opposition that qualifies its own position by conceding that there are some innocent human beings whom it will allow to be directly and intentionally killed. That approach in practice has mortgaged the pro-life effort to the interests and judgment of what Paul Johnson called "the great human scourge of the 20th century, the professional politician." (Modern Times, 1985, p. 510.)

When a politician says he favors legalized abortion in life of the mother, rape and incest, or other cases, he affirms the nonpersonhood of the unborn child by proposing that he be subjected to execution at the discretion of another. The politician's pro-life rhetoric will be drowned out by the loud and clear message of his position, that he concedes that the law can validly tolerate the intentional killing of innocent human beings. Apart from exceptions, of course, Sen. D'Amato is objectionable as well for some of his other stands on abortion and for his positions on other issues, including especially the homosexual issue.

Pro-lifers could increase their political impact if they were single-issue voters, treating abortion as an absolutely disqualifying issue. Any candidate who believes that the law should treat any innocent human beings as nonpersons by tolerating their execution is unworthy to hold any public office, whether President, trustee of a mosquito abatement district, or senator. (Dr. Charles E. Rice, "Pro-Life Reflections on Sen. D'Amato, The Wanderer, August 27, 1998.)

 

Say goodnight, Willard Mitt Romney. Say goodnight.

The "lesser of two evils" mantra has simply lowered the bar of what is considered to be "good enough" to be "pro-life" in the realm of the naturalistic farce that is electoral politics here in the United States of America. The standard is so low now that Midget Mitt's pledge to "restore" the fake, phony, fraud Mexico City policy and his pledge, reiterated yesterday a day after revealing his "Inner Mitt" to the editors of the Des Moines Register in Des Moines, Iowa, to end Federal taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood even though he advanced this organization's anti-family agenda when he was the Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Some might try to "save" Romney by claiming that he just "needs to get elected," that there is such widespread acceptance of having "availability" to at least "some" slaughter of the preborn under cover of the civil law that there is little in point of truth that any president could do to stop the American genocide of babies by chemical and surgical means. Wrong. Very wrong.

A Catholic understands that he has the obligation to speak to the truth at all times. I do recall the Divine Redeemer, Christ the King, speaking these words as recorded in the Gospel according to Saint Matthew:

Then Jesus said to his disciples: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. [25] For he that will save his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall find it.

[26] For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul? [27] For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then will he render to every man according to his works. (Matthew 16: 24-27.)

Apart from being wrong in the objective order of things and counterproductive in the realm of political praxis, trimming one's sails on "controversial" issues that are only "on the table" as a result of the Protestant Revolution's overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King that has been institutionalized by the rise of all of the naturalist ideologies and "philosophies" associated with Judeo-Masonry is an irresponsible act of a citizen in public life.

Why?

Well, a Catholic who has decided to run for elective office would understand that he could do more good by speaking the truth without fear of the consequences than he could if he got elected, an outcome that is not guaranteed to those who trim their sails during a campaign. Some woman considering having an abortion might decide to save the life of her preborn child by the words, spoken with love and of a true sense of patriotism to will the good of one's country, of a candidate who challenges her to reconsider her uncritical acceptance of the the false gospel of our naturalistic, relativistic, religiously indifferentist and semi-Pelagian society. That's the benefit of speaking to the truth, over and above one's commitment before the true God of Divine Revelation, who has not revealed anything about himself on "golden plates" to a con man named Joseph Smith, as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through His Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.

Romney? He's just a Mormon after all, a man whose false religion teaches that abortion is not the killing of a human being, only the "equivalent" of doing so. Dream on. Dream on.

Perhaps Willard Mitt Romney, who will be cheered mightily by very wealthy Catholics on Thursday, October 18, 2012, at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in the Borough of Manhattan in the City of New York, New York, ought to consider the fact that the killing of even one innocent baby under cover of the civil law is a really, really "big thing" with the true God of Divine Revelation, Who has entrusted the totality of His Deposit of Faith exclusively to His Catholic Church that He founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope. The direct, intentional taking of an innocent human life is proscribed by the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. It is one of the four crimes that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, and those in public life who support the daily slaughter of the preborn have to reckon with these words contained in Pope Pius XI's Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930:

Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven. (The paragraphs that precede this one in Casti Connubii can be found in an appendix to this article below.)

 

Willard Mitt Romney simply does not understand that it is impossible to pursue the common temporal good, which must be undertaken in light of man's Last End--the possession of the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity, when those in public life pursue things that are contrary to the peace and happiness of eternity. Pope Pius XI, writing in his encyclical letter on The Christian Education of Youth, Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929, made this abundantly clear:

Whoever refuses to admit these principles, and hence to apply them to education, must necessarily deny that Christ has founded His Church for the eternal salvation of mankind, and maintain instead that civil society and the State are not subject to God and to His law, natural and divine. Such a doctrine is manifestly impious, contrary to right reason, and, especially in this matter of education, extremely harmful to the proper training of youth, and disastrous as well for civil society as for the well-being of all mankind. On the other hand from the application of these principles, there inevitably result immense advantages for the right formation of citizens. This is abundantly proved by the history of every age Tertullian in his Apologeticus could throw down a challenge to the enemies of the Church in the early days of Christianity, just as St Augustine did in his; and we today can repeat with him:

Let those who declare the teaching of Christ to be opposed to the welfare of the State, furnish us with an army of soldiers such as Christ says soldiers ought to be; let them give us subjects, husbands, wives, parents, children, masters, servants, kings, judges, taxpayers and tax gatherers who live up to the teachings of Christ; and then let them dare assert that Christian doctrine is harmful to the State. Rather let them not hesitate one moment to acclaim that doctrine, rightly observed, the greatest safeguard of the State.

While treating of education, it is not out of place to show here how an ecclesiastical writer, who flourished in more recent times, during the Renaissance, the holy and learned Cardinal Silvio Antoniano, to whom the cause of Christian education is greatly indebted, has set forth most clearly this well established point of Catholic doctrine. He had been a disciple of that wonderful educator of youth, St Philip Neri; he was teacher and Latin secretary to St Charles Borromeo, and it was at the latter's suggestion and under his inspiration that he wrote his splendid treatise on The Christian Education of Youth In it he argues as follows:

The more closely the temporal power of a nation aligns itself with the spiritual, and the more it fosters and promotes the latter, by so much the more it contributes to the conservation of the commonwealth. For it is the aim of the ecclesiastical authority by the use of spiritual means, to form good Christians in accordance with its own particular end and object; and in doing this it helps at the same time to form good citizens, and prepares them to meet their obligations as members of a civil society. This follows of necessity because in the City of God, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are absolutely one and the same thing. How grave therefore is the error of those who separate things so closely united, and who think that they can produce good citizens by ways and methods other than those which make for the formation of good Christians. For, let human prudence say what it likes and reason as it pleases, it is impossible to produce true temporal peace and tranquillity by things repugnant or opposed to the peace and happiness of eternity. (as cited by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)

 

The moral proscription of the direct, intentional taking of any innocent human life that is found in the Natural Law was explicated by some of the pagans of antiquity, including Ovid, Juvenal, and, of course, the father of modern medicine, Hippocrates himself:

Of what avail to fair woman to rest free from the burdens of war [i.e. pregnancy], nor choose with shield in arm to march in the fierce array, if, free from peril of battle, she suffer wounds from weapons of her own, and arm her unforeseeing hands to her own undoing?

She who first plucked forth the tender life deserved to die in the warfare she began. Can it be that, to spare your bosom the reproach of lines, you would scatter the tragic sands of deadly combat? -De Nuce, lines 22-23; cf. Amores 2.13 (Ovid, 43 B.C.-65 A.D.)

Poor women…endure the perils of childbirth, and all the troubles of nursing to which their lot condemns them; but how often does a gilded bed contain a woman that is lying in it? So great is the skill, so powerful the drugs, of the abortionist, paid to murder mankind within the womb. (Juvenal, c.57/67-127, Pagan Sources.)

I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art. (Hippocrates, The Hippocratic Oath.)

 

Everything contained in the Deposit of Faith, including the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law, has been entrusted by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to His Catholic Church for its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication. Everyone on the face of this earth is bound to accept every article contained in the Deposit of Faith. Every nation on the face of this earth must subordinate its pursuit of the common temporal good to the binding precepts found in the Deposit of Faith as the temporal and eternal good of souls is advanced.

Pope Leo XIII made this very clear in Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890:

But, if the laws of the State are manifestly at variance with the divine law, containing enactments hurtful to the Church, or conveying injunctions adverse to the duties imposed by religion, or if they violate in the person of the supreme Pontiff the authority of Jesus Christ, then, truly, to resist becomes a positive duty, to obey, a crime; a crime, moreover, combined with misdemeanor against the State itself, inasmuch as every offense leveled against religion is also a sin against the State. Here anew it becomes evident how unjust is the reproach of sedition; for the obedience due to rulers and legislators is not refused, but there is a deviation from their will in those precepts only which they have no power to enjoin. Commands that are issued adversely to the honor due to God, and hence are beyond the scope of justice, must be looked upon as anything rather than laws. You are fully aware, venerable brothers, that this is the very contention of the Apostle St. Paul, who, in writing to Titus, after reminding Christians that they are "to be subject to princes and powers, and to obey at a word," at once adds: "And to be ready to every good work." Thereby he openly declares that, if laws of men contain injunctions contrary to the eternal law of God, it is right not to obey them. In like manner, the Prince of the Apostles gave this courageous and sublime answer to those who would have deprived him of the liberty of preaching the Gospel: "If it be just in the sight of God to hear you rather than God, judge ye, for we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard."

Wherefore, to love both countries, that of earth below and that of heaven above, yet in such mode that the love of our heavenly surpass the love of our earthly home, and that human laws be never set above the divine law, is the essential duty of Christians, and the fountainhead, so to say, from which all other duties spring. The Redeemer of mankind of Himself has said: "For this was I born, and for this came I into the world, that I should give testimony to the truth." In like manner: "I am come to cast fire upon earth, and what will I but that it be kindled?" In the knowledge of this truth, which constitutes the highest perfection of the mind; in divine charity which, in like manner, completes the will, all Christian life and liberty abide. This noble patrimony of truth and charity entrusted by Jesus Christ to the Church she defends and maintains ever with untiring endeavor and watchfulness. . . .

But in this same matter, touching Christian faith, there are other duties whose exact and religious observance, necessary at all times in the interests of eternal salvation, become more especially so in these our days. Amid such reckless and widespread folly of opinion, it is, as We have said, the office of the Church to undertake the defense of truth and uproot errors from the mind, and this charge has to be at all times sacredly observed by her, seeing that the honor of God and the salvation of men are confided to her keeping. But, when necessity compels, not those only who are invested with power of rule are bound to safeguard the integrity of faith, but, as St. Thomas maintains: "Each one is under obligation to show forth his faith, either to instruct and encourage others of the faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers." To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe. In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind. This kind of conduct is profitable only to the enemies of the faith, for nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good. Moreover, want of vigor on the part of Christians is so much the more blameworthy, as not seldom little would be needed on their part to bring to naught false charges and refute erroneous opinions, and by always exerting themselves more strenuously they might reckon upon being successful. After all, no one can be prevented from putting forth that strength of soul which is the characteristic of true Christians, and very frequently by such display of courage our enemies lose heart and their designs are thwarted. Christians are, moreover, born for combat, whereof the greater the vehemence, the more assured, God aiding, the triumph: "Have confidence; I have overcome the world." Nor is there any ground for alleging that Jesus Christ, the Guardian and Champion of the Church, needs not in any manner the help of men. Power certainly is not wanting to Him, but in His loving kindness He would assign to us a share in obtaining and applying the fruits of salvation procured through His grace.

The chief elements of this duty consist in professing openly and unflinchingly the Catholic doctrine, and in propagating it to the utmost of our power. For, as is often said, with the greatest truth, there is nothing so hurtful to Christian wisdom as that it should not be known, since it possesses, when loyally received, inherent power to drive away error.

 

The likes of Willard Mitt Mitt Romney, steeped as he is in the diabolical sect of Mormonism, does not understand that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order, something that Pope Saint Pius X and Pope Pius XI made as clear during their pontificates as Popes Gregory XVI, Pius IX, and Leo XIII had made during theirs:

For there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

When, therefore, governments and nations follow in all their activities, whether they be national or international, the dictates of conscience grounded in the teachings, precepts, and example of Jesus Christ, and which are binding on each and every individual, then only can we have faith in one another's word and trust in the peaceful solution of the difficulties and controversies which may grow out of differences in point of view or from clash of interests. An attempt in this direction has already and is now being made; its results, however, are almost negligible and, especially so, as far as they can be said to affect those major questions which divide seriously and serve to arouse nations one against the other. No merely human institution of today can be as successful in devising a set of international laws which will be in harmony with world conditions as the Middle Ages were in the possession of that true League of Nations, Christianity. It cannot be denied that in the Middle Ages this law was often violated; still it always existed as an ideal, according to which one might judge the acts of nations, and a beacon light calling those who had lost their way back to the safe road.

There exists an institution able to safeguard the sanctity of the law of nations. This institution is a part of every nation; at the same time it is above all nations. She enjoys, too, the highest authority, the fullness of the teaching power of the Apostles. Such an institution is the Church of Christ. She alone is adapted to do this great work, for she is not only divinely commissioned to lead mankind, but moreover, because of her very make-up and the constitution which she possesses, by reason of her age-old traditions and her great prestige, which has not been lessened but has been greatly increased since the close of the War, cannot but succeed in such a venture where others assuredly will fail. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

We firmly hope, however, that the feast of the Kingship of Christ, which in future will be yearly observed, may hasten the return of society to our loving Savior. It would be the duty of Catholics to do all they can to bring about this happy result. Many of these, however, have neither the station in society nor the authority which should belong to those who bear the torch of truth. This state of things may perhaps be attributed to a certain slowness and timidity in good people, who are reluctant to engage in conflict or oppose but a weak resistance; thus the enemies of the Church become bolder in their attacks. But if the faithful were generally to understand that it behooves them ever to fight courageously under the banner of Christ their King, then, fired with apostolic zeal, they would strive to win over to their Lord those hearts that are bitter and estranged from him, and would valiantly defend his rights.'

Moreover, the annual and universal celebration of the feast of the Kingship of Christ will draw attention to the evils which anticlericalism has brought upon society in drawing men away from Christ, and will also do much to remedy them. While nations insult the beloved name of our Redeemer by suppressing all mention of it in their conferences and parliaments, we must all the more loudly proclaim his kingly dignity and power, all the more universally affirm his rights. (Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, December 11, 1925.)

 

The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity was made Man in the Virginal and Immaculate Womb of Our Lady, she who was conceived without stain of Original and Actual Sin at the moment of her Immaculate Conception, by the power of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost. The hypostatic union of the two natures in the one Person, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, took place at the moment of his Incarnation. Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ had His soul with those two natures from the first moment of His conception as He sanctified the womb of every mother while He was in the all-holy and ever-virginal womb of His Most Blessed Mother. Our Lord is in solidarity with every child in every mother's womb, no matter the condition of the conception or the condition of the child conceived, whether "normal" or suffering from some "abnormality." To attack an innocent child in the womb is to attack Our Lord Himself mystically, and this is a fact that pro-aborts in public-life and those, such as Ben Smith, who prize what they call political "moderation" must be confronted with over and over again.

There is nothing "moderate" about killing an innocent baby in his mother's womb.

Our Lord instructed Saul of Tarsus, who had just presided over the stoning of the first Catholic martyr, Saint Stephen, that an attack upon one of His least members is an attack upon Him:

And Saul, as yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest, And asked of him letters to Damascus, to the synagogues: that if he found any men and women of this way, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. And as he went on his journey, it came to pass that he drew nigh to Damascus; and suddenly a light from heaven shined round about him. And falling on the ground, he heard a voice saying to him: Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? Who said: Who art thou, Lord? And he: I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. It is hard for thee to kick against the goad. (Acts 9: 1-5.)

 

The hour is late. Nations, including our own, stand to be annihilated by the wrath of God if we do not heed Our Lady's Fatima Message and make reparation for our sins, especially we approach the ninety-fifth anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun in but two days from now. In the midst of apostasy and betrayal on every side imaginable, we must enfold ourselves in the mantle of Our Lady's Brown Scapular of Mount Carmel as our shield and use her Most Holy Rosary as our weapon to pray in reparation for our sins and those of the whole world, offering our prayers and sufferings and sacrifices to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

May that Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary come soon. Very soon!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Vivat Christus Rex!

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

 

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

Appendix A

George Walker Bush's Anti-Life Record

Although I have assessed the horrific anti-life record of the presidency of George Walker Bush a great deal in my writing between 2001 and 2009, it might be wise to review the facts (yes, just the facts ma'am) once again), leaving aside, of course, the fact that thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed, wounded or displaced from their country as a result of the "pro-life" president's attempt at regime change there to replace one set of corrupt thugs with another set of corrupt thugs who have the respectable "cover" provided them by having been elected (sort of sounds like the United States of America, doesn't it):

1) George Walker Bush said constantly in 1999 and 200 during his campaign for the Republican Party presidential nomination that abortion was a "difficult" issue about which people of "good will" could disagree. What's difficult about knowing that killing a baby is morally wrong? Would he say that people of "good will" could disagree about racism or anti-Semitism?

2) George Walker Bush support "exceptions" to the Fifth Commandment's absolute prohibitions to the direct, intentional taking of any innocent human life. When challenged by Dr. Alan Keys in a televised debate in Manchester, New Hampshire, in December of 1999 as to how he could justify the killing of preborn babies under any circumstances, the then Texas Governor grimaced, visibly annoyed at having been forced to confront his own mutually contradictory position, and said: "I can't explain it. It's just how I feel." Bush does not realize that he is not pro-life, that he is simply less pro-abortion than others in public life who are unconditionally pro-abortion.

3) George Walker Bush denied in his first debate with then Vice President Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., held on October 3, 2000, at Washington University in Saint Louis, Missouri, that he could do anything to reverse the United States Food and Drug Administration's authorization to market RU-486, the human pesticide, unless it had been determined to be "unsafe" for women. What about the fact that that pill is always deadly for baby?

BUSH: I don't think a president can unilaterally overturn it. The FDA has made its decision.

MODERATOR: That means you wouldn't, through appointments, to the FDA and ask them to --

BUSH: I think once a decision has been made, it's been made unless it's proven to be unsafe to women.

GORE: Jim, the question you asked, if I heard you correctly, was would he support legislation to overturn it. And if I heard the statement day before yesterday, you said you would order -- he said he would order his FDA appointee to review the decision. Now that sounds to me a little bit different. I just think that we ought to support the decision.

BUSH: I said I would make sure that women would be safe who used the drug.  (2000 Debate Transcript) [Droleskey comment: Uh, Mister Former President, the President of the United States of America can make appointments to the Food and Drug Administration who could indeed overturn such a decision by means of an administrative fiat.)

 

 

 

 

4) George Walker Bush said consistently throughout his eight years as President of the United States of America that he was working for the day when every child would be welcomed in life and protected by law." How can one claim that he is in favor of "welcoming every child and protecting him "by law" when he believes that the civil law licitly can permit the killing of certain children at certain times? How can one claim that he is in favor of "welcoming every child" and protecting him "by law" when he campaigned actively for politicians in his own political party who were completely pro-abortion (Rudolph Giuliani, Michael Bloomberg, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Susan Collins, Olympia Snow Arlen Specter--whom Bush endorsed over a partly pro-life/partly pro-abortion opponent, Patrick Toomey, in a Republican Party primary in 2004, et al.)? How can one claim that he is in favor of "welcoming every child" and protecting him "by law" when he appointed pro-abort after pro-abort. some of whom are listed above, to the upper echelons of his administration. Some of others over the years were Tom Ridge, Michael Mukasey, Alberto Gonzales, The Supreme Court? John Roberts and Samuel Alito? Sure. Remember Harriet Miers? If you don't, read these articles: The Triumph of Protestantism and Posturing and Preening

5) George Walker Bush was proud of the fact that his administration increased the amount of money being spent by our tax dollars on domestic and international "family planning" programs, which, of course, dispatched innocent preborn babies to death by chemical means. Here is a letter sent in behalf of then President Bush to United States Representatives Carolyn Maloney (D-New York) on May 25, 2006:

 

The Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Ms. Maloney:

Thank you for your letter to President Bush to request his views on access to birth control. The President has asked that I respond on his behalf. This Administration supports the availability of safe and effective products and services to assist responsible adults in making decisions about preventing or delaying conception.

The Department of Health and Human Services faithfully executes laws establishing Federal programs to provide contraception and family planning services. The Title X Family Planning Program and Medicaid are each significant providers of family planning services.

Additionally, this Administration strongly supports teaching abstinence to young people as the only 100 percent effective means of preventing pregnancy, HIV, and sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

I will provide this response to the other signatories of your letter.
Sincerely yours, John O. Agwunobi, Assistant Secretary for Health (Bush Supports Contraception Letter)

Contraception, of course, of its very evil nature, over and above the fact that most contraceptives serve as abortifacients that kill babies chemically or act to expel fertilized human beings from implanting in the uterus, is denial of the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage.

6) George Walker Bush made announced at 9:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 9, 2001, that he was going to permitted the use of Federal taxpayer dollars to fund embryonic stem cell research on embryonic human beings whose "lines" were created before the time of his announcement. In so doing, of course, Bush authorized the death of those human beings and at the same time justify the immoral, evil practice of in vitro fertilization while doing nothing to stop the privately funded death and destruction of such embryonic human beings on those "lines" created after the date and time of his announcement:

 

My administration must decide whether to allow federal funds, your tax dollars, to be used for scientific research on stem cells derived from human embryos.  A large number of these embryos already exist.  They are the product of a process called in vitro fertilization, which helps so many couples conceive children.  When doctors match sperm and egg to create life outside the womb, they usually produce more embryos than are planted in the mother.  Once a couple successfully has children, or if they are unsuccessful, the additional embryos remain frozen in laboratories. (Remarks by the President on Stem Cell Research.)

This is what I wrote at the time in the printed pages of Christ or Chaos:

 

Indeed, this whole controversy is the direct result of the rejection of the teaching authority of the Church on matters of faith and morals, as well as on matters of fundamental justice. For it is the rejection of the Deposit of Faith our Lord entrusted to Holy Mother Church that gave rise to the ethos of secularism and religious indifferentism, which became the breeding grounds for secularism and relativism and positivism.

A world steeped in all manner of secular political ideologies comes not only to reject the Deposit of Faith but to make war against all that is contained therein, especially as it relates to matters of the sanctity of marital relations and the stability of the family.

Contraception gave rise to abortion. Contraception also gave rise to the mentality which resulted in artificial conception. If a child's conception can be prevented as suits "partners," then it stands to reason that a child can be conceived "on demand" by using the latest technology science has to offer.

The Church has condemned artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization on a number of occasions as offenses to the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity of marital relations. Yet it is the very rejection of the Church's affirmation of what is contained in the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law which leads people, including George W. Bush, into thinking that artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization are morally licit to help couples deal with the problem of childlessness, ignoring the simple little truth that no one is entitled to a child.

Children are gifts from God to be accepted according to His plan for a particular couple. If a married couple cannot have a child on their own, they can adopt -- or they can use their time to be of greater service to the cause of the Church in the evangelization of the true Faith. No one, however, is entitled to a child.

Indeed, the whole tragedy of harvesting the stem cells of living human beings has arisen as a result of discoveries made by scientists experimenting on human beings conceived in fertility clinics to help couples conceive artificially.

That George W. Bush endorses this immoral enterprise (which is big business, by the way) and actually commends it as a way to "help" couples is deplorable.

It is as though he is saying the following: "We are not going to kill any more Jews for their body parts. We will only use the body parts of the Jews we have killed already. After all, we have people who will benefit from this research, do we not?"

Living human embryos do not have the "potential" for life, as Bush asserted on August 9, 2001. They are living human beings! To seek to profit from their destruction is ghoulish, and will only wind up encouraging the private sector to fund all stem-cell research, creating more "stem cell lines" from the destruction of living human beings. ("Preposterous," Christ or Chaos, September, 2001)

Mrs. Judie Brown, the president and founder of the American Life League, wrote a retrospective on Caesar Georgii Bushus Ignoramus's stem cell decision some years later:

 

You have probably heard that right at the top of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's agenda is the promise of "hope to families with devastating diseases."

What she is promising, of course, is a Congressional action that will result in tons of federal tax dollars being spent on failed research using the dead bodies of embryonic children.

The White House, of course, is saying "the president has made it clear he believes in stem cell research so much -- the administration has done more to finance stem cell research, embryonic and otherwise, than any administration in history."

You see, Bush never really banned research using the bodies of embryonic children, he merely curtailed how much research could be done using tax dollars. So it would appear that everyone ... Democrat and Republican ... is on the same page.

The tragic reality underlying such statements is that over the course of the last 34 years, politicians and a whole lot of pro-lifers have let the principle of personhood slide away into oblivion for the sake of winning elections. And the result is staring us all in the face. (Embryo Wars.)

8) George Walker Bush's Food and Drug Administration not only did not reverse the Clinton Food and Drug and Administration to market RU-496, the French abortion pill, the human pesticide. The Bush administration fully funded the use of RU-486 in both domestic and international "family planning" programs. Moreover, George Walker Bush's Food and Drug Administration approved over-the-counter sales of the so-called "Plan B" "emergency contraceptive" that is, of course, an abortifacient:

 

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today announced approval of Plan B, a contraceptive drug, as an over-the-counter (OTC) option for women aged 18 and older. Plan B is often referred to as emergency contraception or the "morning after pill." It contains an ingredient used in prescription birth control pills--only in the case of Plan B, each pill contains a higher dose and the product has a different dosing regimen. Like other birth control pills, Plan B has been available to all women as a prescription drug. When used as directed, Plan B effectively and safely prevents pregnancy. Plan B will remain available as a prescription-only product for women age 17 and under.

Duramed, a subsidiary of Barr Pharmaceuticals, will make Plan B available with a rigorous labeling, packaging, education, distribution and monitoring program. In the CARE (Convenient Access, Responsible Education) program Duramed commits to:

• Provide consumers and healthcare professionals with labeling and education about the appropriate use of prescription and OTC Plan B, including an informational toll-free number for questions about Plan B;
• Ensure that distribution of Plan B will only be through licensed drug wholesalers, retail operations with pharmacy services, and clinics with licensed healthcare practitioners, and not through convenience stores or other retail outlets where it could be made available to younger women without a prescription;
• Packaging designed to hold both OTC and prescription Plan B. Plan B will be stocked by pharmacies behind the counter because it cannot be dispensed without a prescription or proof of age; and
• Monitor the effectiveness of the age restriction and the safe distribution of OTC Plan B to consumers 18 and above and prescription Plan B to women under 18.

Today's action concludes an extensive process that included obtaining expert advice from a joint meeting of two FDA advisory committees and providing an opportunity for public comment on issues regarding the scientific and policy questions associated with the application to switch Plan B to OTC use. Duramed's application raised novel issues regarding simultaneously marketing both prescription and non-prescription Plan B for emergency contraception, but for different populations, in a single package.

The agency remains committed to a careful and rigorous scientific process for resolving novel issues in order to fulfill its responsibility to protect the health of all Americans. (FDA Approves Over-the-Counter Access for Plan B for Women 18 and Over .)

Where was the outrage from Catholics when this decision was announced? Where were the e-mails sent out in a frenzy to oppose this decision? Where were the voices to denounce George Walker Bush for what he was, a consummate "pro-life" fraud from beginning to end? Where? Where? Indeed, I have met Catholics, both in the clergy and laity alike, who, upon being informed of this fact, shrug their shoulders and say, "Gore or Kerry would have done worse. Obama is doing worse now " And this is supposed to exculpate one from not have denounced Bush at the time did did these terrible things? Reprehensible. Absolutely reprehensible.

9) The partial, conditional ban on partial-birth abortions remains little more than a political ruse designed to convince "pro-life" voters that something substantive was being done to stop the killing of babies. There is a needless "life of the mother" exception in the ban, meaning that babies are still being killed by this method if it can be claimed that a mother's life is endangered. Moreover, killing a baby by which is termed medically by the euphemism of "intact dilation and extraction" is no more morally heinous than killing a baby by any other method at any other age. Killing a baby by means of a suction abortion or by a saline solution abortion or by a dilation and evacuation abortion (where the baby is carved up by a butcher inside of the birth canal) is no less morally heinous than partial-birth abortion. Each is the same crime before God: willful murder, one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.

Also, as I have pointed out repeatedly since this issue came to forefront of public debate over fifteen years ago, there are two methods--the hysterotomy and dilation and evacuation--by which babies may be killed in the later stages of pregnancy. These methods can still be used to kill babies in the later stages of pregnancy with complete legal impunity. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy specifically referred to these two methods when upholding the constitutionality of the partial-birth abortion ban in Gonzales v. Carhart:

 

D&E and intact D&E are not the only second-trimester abortion methods. Doctors also may abort a fetus through medical induction. The doctor medicates the woman to induce labor, and contractions occur to deliver the fetus. Induction, which unlike D&E should occur in a hospital, can last as little as 6 hours but can take longer than 48. It accounts for about five percent of second-trimester abortions before 20 weeks of gestation and 15 percent of those after 20 weeks. Doctors turn to two other methods of second-trimester abortion, hysterotomy and hysterectomy, only in emergency situations because they carry increased risk of complications. In a hysterotomy, as in a cesarean section, the doctor removes the fetus by making an incision through the abdomen and uterine wall to gain access to the uterine cavity. A hysterectomy requires the removal of the entire uterus. These two procedures represent about .07% of second-trimester abortions. Nat. Abortion Federation, 330 F. Supp. 2d, at 467; Planned Parenthood, supra, at 962-963. (Text of the Court's Opinion; see also An Illusion of a Victory.)

10) George Walker Bush's first Solicitor General of the United States of America, Theodore Olson, submitted the following brief to the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Joseph Scheidler v. National Organization for Women to argue that the sidewalk counseling activities of pro-life champion Joseph Scheidler, the founder of the Pro-Life Action Network, constituted "banditry" under terms of the Hobbs Act of 1946 as he was depriving legitimate business, abortuaries, of their income. Can anyone say "pro-life fraud," thank you very much?

 

"It is irrelevant under the Hobbs Act whether the defendant is motivated by an economic purpose, as the lower courts that have addressed the issue have correctly recognized. The text of the Hobbs Act contains no requirement of an economic motive. As explained, when a person uses force or threats to compel a business to cede control over what goods or services the business will offer, the defendant obtains the victim's property by acquiring the power to decide how the business will be conducted. That conclusion holds true whether or not the defendant has a profit-making objective.

"A contrary conclusion would allow a defendant to hijack legitimate businesses by wrongful acts of violence, threats, or fear simply because the defendant had a non-economic objective. That result would defeat the government's strong interest in protecting interstate commerce under the Hobbs Act by prosecuting extortionists who are motivated by causes other than financial gain. For instance, an economic motive requirement would immunize a defendant from prosecution under the Hobbs Act even though the defendant threatened acts of murder against a bank that loaned money to foreign nations whose policies the defendant opposed, against a retail store that sold products to which the defendant objected, or against any other business that used its land or other valuable property for a purpose that the defendant found unpalatable.

"Those acts have deleterious effects on interstate commerce, whether or not the defendant directs the use of such property for his own financial gain. To exempt such conduct from the Hobbs Act would retreat from the Act's purpose to 'protect the right of citizens of this country to market their products without any interference from lawless bandits.' In sum, when the defendant uses wrongful force or threats to wrest control over the victim's business decisions, the defendant obtains that property interest." (Brief of United States Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson in the case of Joseph Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, December 4, 2002.)

This could go on interminably. Although wearying, I have compiled this list yet again because I know that people forget and need to be reminded of basic facts that are always fresh in my mind as this my area of study and of active personal involvement for a long time. It is important to keep these facts in mind, especially to realize that Theodore Olson, has led efforts to reverse California Proposition 8 (see Meathead Meets Meathead), believed that saving babies from death was akin to stealing money from baby-killers in violation of interstate commerce! He made this argument in behalf of the "pro-life" administration of President George Walker Bush and Vice President Richard Bruce Cheney. Don't any of you think that George Walker Bush was "pro-life." He was an indemnifier of baby-killers in this country who funded chemical baby-killing in all instances and whose administration funded surgical baby-killing in the "hard cases."

The fact that the current completely pro-abortion team of President Barack Hussein Obama and Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., are doing more terrible things should not make us pine for the "good old days" of Bush-Cheney. Those days were not so "good" for preborn babies in the United States of America and elsewhere in the world, to say nothing for innocent lives in Iraq and Afghanistan who were subject to indiscriminate American bombing or other military action and/or who have suffered from the destabilization of their countries by the American presence there.

We are dealing with false opposites of the naturalist "right" and the naturalist "left," both of whom are concerned about their own power. Why fall into their traps?

Appendix B

Willard Mitt Romney's Anti-Life Record

Take a look also at comments Romney made in 2002, eight years after his debate with Edward Moore Kennedy, when running for Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

How did this "man of principle" this " staunch defender of the inviolability of innocent human life under cover of the civil law," arrive at his pro-death position in 1994 and 2002? By pure political expediency, that's how:

 

 

In 1993, Mitt Romney was a successful businessman with an urge to enter public life and a plan to challenge Ted Kennedy for a Senate seat from Massachusetts.

Romney was also a high-ranking official in the Mormon church -- in charge of all church affairs in the Boston area -- with a dilemma over abortion. Romney was personally pro-life, and the church was pro-life, but a majority of the Massachusetts electorate was decidedly pro-choice.

How Romney handled that dilemma is described in a new book, "Mitt Romney: An Inside Look at the Man and His Politics," by Boston journalist Ronald Scott. A Mormon who admires Romney but has had his share of disagreements with him, Scott knew Romney from local church matters in the late 1980s.

Scott had worked for Time Inc., and in the fall of 1993, he says, Romney asked him for advice on how to handle various issues the media might pursue in a Senate campaign. Scott gave his advice in a couple of phone conversations and a memo. In the course of the conversations, Scott says, Romney outlined his views on the abortion problem.

According to Scott, Romney revealed that polling from Richard Wirthlin, Ronald Reagan's former pollster whom Romney had hired for the '94 campaign, showed it would be impossible for a pro-life candidate to win statewide office in Massachusetts. In light of that, Romney decided to run as a pro-choice candidate, pledging to support Roe v. Wade, while remaining personally pro-life.

In November 1993, according to Scott, Romney said he and Wirthlin, a Mormon whose brother and father were high-ranking church officials, traveled to Salt Lake City to meet with church elders. Gathering in the Church Administration Building, Romney, in Scott's words, "laid out for church leaders ... what his public position would be on abortion -- personally opposed but willing to let others decide for themselves."

By Scott's account, Romney wasn't seeking approval or permission; he was telling the officials what he was going to do. Scott quotes a "senior church leader" saying Romney "didn't ask what his position should be, nor did he ask the brethren to endorse his position. He came to explain, and his explanation was consistent with church teachings and policies."

According to Scott, some of the leaders were unhappy with Romney's plan and let him know it. "I may not have burned bridges, but a few of them were singed and smoking," Romney told Scott in a phone conversation.

In Scott's account, Romney displayed plenty of independence from church influence. But why did he feel the need to brief church leaders in the first place? The Romney campaign declined to comment on that or any other aspect of Scott's book. A Mormon church spokesman said only, "I do not know of the meeting, but it is our policy not to comment on private meetings anyway."

Scott has his own view. "[Romney] was not obliged to brief them," Scott said in an interview. "He probably was obliged to let them know as a matter of courtesy before he would take some stands on various issues that would raise eyebrows, because he was a fairly important officer of the church."

In any event, the episode points to a brief period in Romney's life in which his role as a church official and as an emerging political figure overlapped. (Romney declared his candidacy for the Senate on Feb. 2, 1994, and stepped down as a Mormon leader on March 20.)

Romney went on to lose in a campaign that featured Kennedy attacking Romney's religion. Romney pointed out the irony of Kennedy -- whose brother John F. Kennedy faced attacks on his Catholicism in the 1960 presidential campaign -- launching religion-based attacks, but to no avail.

If Romney is the 2012 Republican nominee, he will surely face similar stuff. Much of it will undoubtedly be ugly and unjustified. But there will also be simple questions about Romney's role as a church official at the start of his political career. (Mitt Romney Used Polls to Determine Campaign Position on Abortion.)

This "staunch defender" of the inviolability of innocent human life under cover of the civil law has boasted that he vetoed a bill passed by the Massachusetts General Court, the state legislature, that would have permitted the sale of the so-called Plan B emergency abortifacient to minor girls. That is not the whole story, nor does it say anything about his RomneyCare prototype of ObamaCare specifically included a provision for the appointment of a representative from Planned Parenthood on the state panel overseeing implementation of Romney's version of socialized medicine that has skyrocketed medical and insurance costs in the Bay State:

You should be quite familiar by now with the fact that Mitt Romney gave $150.00 to Planned Parenthood in 1994 when claiming he had always been pro-abortion.

You should also know that in 2004, Mitt Romney says he personally converted to the pro-life position. In fact, according to ABC News on June 14, 2007, “Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has long cited a November 2004 meeting with a Harvard stem-cell researcher as the moment that changed his long-held stance of supporting abortion rights to his current ‘pro-life’ position opposing legal abortion. But several actions Romney took mere months after that meeting call into question how deep-seated his conversion truly was.”

What was one of those actions?

Two months after his pro-life conversion, Mitt Romney appointed Matthew Nestor to the bench in Massachusetts. Romney seeming bowed to political pressure making Nestor a judge even after Nestor, according to the Boston Globe as far back as 1994, had campaigned for political office championing his pro-abortion views.

One year after his pro-life conversion, in July of 2005, Mitt Romney vetoed legislation that would expand the use of the morning after pill arguing that it would contribute to abortions. But just three months later Mitt Romney slid back and signed a bill that expanded state subsidized access to the morning after pill.

Writing in the Boston Globe on October 15, 2005, Stephanie Ebbert noted:

 

 

Governor Mitt Romney has signed a bill that could expand the number of people who get family-planning services, including the morning-after pill, confusing some abortion and contraception foes who had been heartened by his earlier veto of an emergency contraception bill. … The services include the distribution of condoms, abortion counseling, and the distribution of emergency contraception, or morning after pills, by prescription …

But that’s nothing. Two whole years after the pro-life view had settled into Mitt Romney’s conscience and a year after Mitt Romney had vetoed legislation expanding access to the morning after pill, he expanded access to abortion and gave Planned Parenthood new rights under state law. Yes, that Planned Parenthood.

Mitt Romney is really proud of Romneycare. He champions it as a great healthcare reform for Massachusetts. At one point he claimed it could be a model for the nation, though he now denies that.

According to States News Service on October 2, 2006,

 

“The following information was released by the Massachusetts Office of the Governor: Governor Mitt Romney today officially launched Commonwealth Care, an innovative health insurance product that will allow thousands of uninsured Massachusetts residents to purchase private health insurance products at affordable rates. Commonwealth Care is a key component of the state’s landmark healthcare reform law approved by the Governor in April. ‘We are now on the road to getting everyone health insurance in Massachusetts,’ said Governor Romney. … ‘Today, we celebrate a great beginning.’

 

Romney loves to take credit for it.

The law, in addition to providing healthcare coverage for the uninsured and forcing everyone to have insurance, expanded abortion services in the State of Massachusetts. It also required that one member of the MassHealth Payment Policy Board be appointed by Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts.

From Chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006:

SECTION 3. Chapter 6A of the General Laws is hereby amended by inserting after section 16I the following 6 sections: . . . Section 16M. (a) There shall be a MassHealth payment policy advisory board. The board shall consist of the secretary of health and human services or his designee, who shall serve as chair, the commissioner of health care financing and policy, and 12 other members: … 1 member appointed by Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts … (Massachusetts General Court Website, www.mass.gov, Accessed 2/5/07)

 

In 2007, Mitt Romney was still denying his healthcare plan did this.

 

 

QUESTION: “I noticed some of the conservative groups back in Massachusetts, they complain about there’s a Planned Parenthood rep mandate to be on the planning board for the health care plan. Is that something you just had to deal with in negotiating with the legislature?”

ROMNEY: “It’s certainly not something that was in my bill.”

(Eric Krol, “Full Text Of Romney Interview,” [Arlington Heights, IL] Daily Herald, 6/17/07)

Except it was. Apparently, like with Obamacare, you had to pass the bill to find out what was in it, but once passed, Romney never read it. (Mitt Romney Not Only Gave Money to Planned Parenthood, He Gave It Power; for a very comprehensive review of Willard Mitt Romney's supposed "conversion" on the issue on abortion, please see How Pro-Life Is Mitt Romney?)

Appendix C

Pope Pius XI's Discussion of Abortion in Casti Connubii (December 31, 1930)

And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act. Some justify this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish to gratify their desires without their consequent burden. Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties whether on the part of the mother or on the part of family circumstances .

But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, "Intercourse even with one's legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it."

Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: 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.

But another very grave crime is to be noted, Venerable Brethren, which regards the taking of the life of the offspring hidden in the mother's womb. Some wish it to be allowed and left to the will of the father or the mother; others say it is unlawful unless there are weighty reasons which they call by the name of medical, social, or eugenic "indication." Because this matter falls under the penal laws of the state by which the destruction of the offspring begotten but unborn is forbidden, these people demand that the "indication," which in one form or another they defend, be recognized as such by the public law and in no way penalized. There are those, moreover, who ask that the public authorities provide aid for these death-dealing operations, a thing, which, sad to say, everyone knows is of very frequent occurrence in some places.

As to the "medical and therapeutic indication" to which, using their own words, we have made reference, Venerable Brethren, however much we may pity the mother whose health and even life is gravely imperiled in the performance of the duty allotted to her by nature, nevertheless what could ever be a sufficient reason for excusing in any way the direct murder of the innocent? This is precisely what we are dealing with here. Whether inflicted upon the mother or upon the child, it is against the precept of God and the law of nature: "Thou shalt not kill:" The life of each is equally sacred, and no one has the power, not even the public authority, to destroy it. It is of no use to appeal to the right of taking away life for here it is a question of the innocent, whereas that right has regard only to the guilty; nor is there here question of defense by bloodshed against an unjust aggressor (for who would call an innocent child an unjust aggressor?); again there is not question here of what is called the "law of extreme necessity" which could even extend to the direct killing of the innocent. Upright and skillful doctors strive most praiseworthily to guard and preserve the lives of both mother and child; on the contrary, those show themselves most unworthy of the noble medical profession who encompass the death of one or the other, through a pretense at practicing medicine or through motives of misguided pity.

All of which agrees with the stern words of the Bishop of Hippo in denouncing those wicked parents who seek to remain childless, and failing in this, are not ashamed to put their offspring to death: "Sometimes this lustful cruelty or cruel lust goes so far as to seek to procure a baneful sterility, and if this fails the fetus conceived in the womb is in one way or another smothered or evacuated, in the desire to destroy the offspring before it has life, or if it already lives in the womb, to kill it before it is born. If both man and woman are party to such practices they are not spouses at all; and if from the first they have carried on thus they have come together not for honest wedlock, but for impure gratification; if both are not party to these deeds, I make bold to say that either the one makes herself a mistress of the husband, or the other simply the paramour of his wife."

What is asserted in favor of the social and eugenic "indication" may and must be accepted, provided lawful and upright methods are employed within the proper limits; but to wish to put forward reasons based upon them for the killing of the innocent is unthinkable and contrary to the divine precept promulgated in the words of the Apostle: Evil is not to be done that good may come of it.

Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven.

Appendix D

Do Not Be Deceived By Those Who Call Themselves "Pro-Life" When They Are Not This at All

From the American Life League website (Communique, May 21, 2004.)

INSIGHTS: Thomas Droleskey makes the following points, at least worthy of prayerful reflection:

Catholics who enable phony pro-life careerist politicians have a grave culpability on their souls for their participation in a cynical political game calculated to achieve only one thing: electoral survival and thus the retention of raw political power. When are pro-life Catholics going to realize the following:

1. We need to plant the seeds for the Catholicization of the United States of America.
2. We must think and speak and act as Catholics at all times.
3. No one who supports one abortion under cover of law is pro-life.
4. It is unjust and misleading to call a politician who supports even one abortion under cover of law as being "pro-life."
5. No one who supports contraception and/or funding for same is pro-life or can be called "pro-life."
6. No one who supports sex-instruction (under any of its various guises) and/or funding for same can be called "pro-life."
7. No one who supports "civil unions" while opposing sodomite marriages is pro-family or can be called "pro-family."
8. No one who supports a candidate for public office who supports abortion on demand or who is simply less pro-abortion than other candidates is pro-life or is interested in doing anything substantive to restore complete legal protection to all innocent human life from the first moment of fertilization through all subsequent stages until natural death.

(Reading Why Are We Shocked, part 1 and part two; see also Christ or Chaos)