Pope Pius XII Slams the National Not-So-Right to Life Committee and George Walker Bush and All Other So-Called "Pro-Life" Pols
Thomas A. Droleskey
An article published nine days ago now, Always Trying To Find A Way, gave a few brief examples concerning the surrender of even believing Catholics to the use of thoughtless slogans designed to blunt any and all efforts of critical thinking and analysis of the world as it is.
One of the most maddening phrases around is the "pro-life" slogan, which is meant to convey that someone is opposed to the surgical killing of innocent babies in their mothers' wombs. The slogan, however, is precisely that, a slogan. As I have tried to communicate endlessly in the past two decades or more since refusing to apply the slogan to careerist politicians of the naturalist "right" in the organized crime family of naturalism that is the Republican Party, the phrase "pro-life" is misused in the realm of partisan politics and public discourse, usually by leaders or representatives of "establishment" "pro-life" organizations such as the National Not So-Right-to-Life Committee and its state affiliates, who actually support the chemical assassination of children in all instances and who support the surgical slicing and dicing of children in what they call the "hard cases."
The National Not-So-Right-Life Committee itself, being a completely secular organization, although it grew out of the work Monsignor James T. McHugh, that notorious protege of a notorious criminal against the innocence and purity of children, Mary Calderone, who helped to devise and promote the rot of explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandment (see Origins of Classroom Instruction in Matters of Purity in Catholic Schools and The McHugh Chronicles), at the Family Life Bureau of the so-called United States Catholic Conference in the late-1960s, takes no stand against contraception and actually supports the nonexistent "right" of mothers to kill their innocent preborn children in the event that their own lives are said to be in jeopardy from carrying their babies to birth. What is thus considered to be the "leader" of the "pro-life" movement in the United States of America actually supports direct, intentional surgical abortion in cases where it is alleged that a mother's life is in jeopardy as a matter of principle, not as a matter of what they would consider to be legislative expediency.
No one should give a dime to this fraudulent organization or its various affiliated groups. No one should consider its "voter scorecards" of any use at all because, quite conveniently, the bought and paid for toadies of the Republican establishment do not "score" legislative votes on any piece of legislation or legislative action, including judicial appointments, that would cause one of their "pro-life" champions in the Republican Party to have a lower "score." This has made it possible for all manner of Republicans in the United States Senate to "preserve" their "record" even though they have put out-and-out pro-aborts on the Federal bench (Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagan on the Supreme Court of the United States of America) or to serve in various offices (such as George Walker Bush appointees Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Christine Todd Whitman, Alberto Gonzales, Michael Mukasey, Donald Rumsfeld, Tom Ridge and, among others, Michael Chertoff).
Most so-called "pro-life" Americans, including Catholics, do not think in terms of absolute truth. They do not want to think. They do not follow the details of current events or remember the little that they read, which is why I will append below for yet another time a brief summary of the actual anti-life, anti-family record of the "conservative" statist and war monger named George Walker Bush, whose record will always look bad to Christ the King, Who is Truth Incarnate, no matter how "good" it might look to facile minds who have permitted themselves to fall into the trap of seeing the world through the eyes of the false opposites of the naturalist "left" and the naturalist "right."
The leaders of these various "mainstream" "pro-life" organizations are to be found not all too infrequently, at least indirectly, on the payrolls of the politicians whose anti-life, anti-family records they indemnify at every turn. The grateful pols are more than happy to channel a few pesos over to the political action committees ("PACs") of these allegedly "pro-life" groups, thus creating quite a symbiotic (where two living organisms feed off of each other to their mutual benefit) relationship that cannot be disturbed by such inconvenient little things as truth, no less the fullness of Catholic truth.
There is even an organization called "Priests for Life," whose very existence concedes that there are priests and presbyters within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism who support the chemical and surgical assassination of children under a variety of fallacious pretexts. Shouldn't it be taken for granted that one who considers himself to be a validly ordained priest of the Catholic Church is opposed to every single direct, intentional taking of an innocent human life?
The slogan "pro-life" is applied even to "bishops" with the "hierarchy" of the conciliar church. Various "bishops" are considered to be "pro-life" if they show up once a month and lead the recitation of Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary in front of an American killing center, an abortuary. Some of these "bishops" praise career politicians who support the direct, intentional taking of innocent human life in the "hard cases," using the absolutely meaningless "pro-life" label as they do so.
Readers of this site will understand that the devil has raised up false opposites on the "left" in politics to make those on the "right" seem "good" by way comparison even though both believe in the same naturalistic, anti-Incarnational errors of Modernity and refuse to accept the truth that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order.
Similarly, the devil has raised up false opposites of "ultra-progressives" in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, to make alleged "conservatives" or "moderates" seem heroic by way of comparison even though both accept the fundamental revolutionary premises of conciliarism (the new ecclesiology, false ecumenism, religious liberty, separation of Church and State, inter-religious "prayer" services, attacks on the nature of dogmatic truth, a liturgy that is abhorrent in the sight of true God, the Most Most Blessed Trinity).
To applaud a conciliar "bishop" for going to a local abortuary once a month to pray Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary while he offends God in a horrific liturgical rite every day and promotes false doctrines and helps to further undermine the innocence and purity of the young by means of explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments is laughable. Those who offend God in these ways can help to restore the foundation of a a just social order as it is only Catholicism that can provide such a foundation, something that the conciliar "bishops," steeped in the errors of Judeo-Masonry, completely reject as the concept is entirely foreign to their poisoned minds.
There are very few conciliar "bishops," most of whom believe the the imposition of the death penalty is proscribed by the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment and that to be "pro-life" one must be posed to it, who would be so bold as to say openly, if they even believed it privately, that no one who supported the direct, intentional taking of any innocent human life at any time for any reason as a matter of moral principle could be described as "pro-life" as such a person is simply less pro-abortion that one who supports unrestricted baby-killing on demand.
No mother has any "choice" to be made between her own life and that of her preborn child. Although the improvements in medical technology have made it possible for expectant mothers with serious maladies to be treated in a manner that will permit a baby to be delivered at the point of viability, whereupon more aggressive treatment of a mother's condition can be undertaken, if possible and advised, it is still nevertheless the case that in those rare circumstances, which certainly do occur now and again, where a mother is faced with the possibility of sacrificing her own life so that her preborn baby can be born. A mother formed in the truths of the Catholic Faith knows that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ meant it when He said the following:
 This is my commandment, that you love one another, as I have loved you.  Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends. (John 15: 12)
A mother who knows the Catholic Faith understands that, as difficult as it can be to those steeped in emotionalism and sentimentality, she can, if she dies in a state of Sanctifying Grace, do more for her child from eternity than she ever could here on the face of this earth. Moreover, those who have died in a state of Sanctifying Grace are more perfectly united to us than they ever were on the face of this earth.
We must think supernaturally at all times. We must think as Catholics at all times no matter the natural pull of human emotions and heartstrings that will certainly affect each of us at various times. We are flesh and blood human beings. We would be heartless creatures if we were not torn in difficult circumstances of facing an earthly separation from our loved ones by means of what is considered to be an "early" death. We must love God's Holy Will first and foremost, praying to His Most Blessed Mother to send us graces to accept His will so that we can obey it as we observe every precept of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law.
Naturalists, of course, do not understand this, which is why almost all of those in public life who say that they are "pro-life" support the direct, intentional taking of innocent human lives in their mothers' wombs under any conditions at all. Such people cannot see the contradiction represented by claiming to be "pro-life" while supporting the direct killing of babies in some instances.
To wit, then Texas Governor George Walker Bush simply shrugged his shoulders as he smirked during a televised debate in 1999, saying the following with a sense of exasperation after Dr. Alan Keyes asked him how he could be said to be opposed to abortion while supporting it in some circumstances: "I can't explain it. It's just how I feel."
Pope Pius XII Slams the National Right to Life Committee and George Walker Bush and All Other "Pro-Life" Pols
God's law is not a matter of feeling, something that Pope Pius XII pointed out in his November 26, 1951, Address to the Association of Large Families.
Consider these very telling words from the early part of this address, begging your pardon that they are from a Google translation of the original text, which is in the Italian language:
If there is another danger that threatens the family, not since yesterday, but long ago, which, however, at present, is growing visibly, it can become fatal [to societies], that is, the attack and the disruption of the fruit of conjugal morality.
We have, in recent years, taken every opportunity to expose the one or the other essential point of the moral law, and more recently to indicate it as a whole, not only by refuting the errors that corrupt it, but also showing in a positive sense, the office the importance, the value for the happiness of the spouses, children and all family, for stability and the greater social good from their homes up to the State and the Church itself.
At the heart of this doctrine is that marriage is an institution at the service of life. In close connection with this principle, we, according to the constant teaching of the Church, have illustrated a argument that it is not only one of the essential foundations of conjugal morality, but also of social morality in general: namely, that the direct attack innocent human life, as a means to an end - in this case the order to save another life - is illegal.
Innocent human life, whatever his condition, is always inviolate from the first instance of its existence and it can never be attacked voluntarily. This is a fundamental right of human beings. A fundamental value is the Christian conception of life must be respected as valid for the life still hidden in the womb against direct abortion and against all innocent human life thereafter. There can be no direct murders of a child before, during and after childbirth. As established may be the legal distinction between these different stages of development life born or unborn, according to the moral law, all direct attacks on inviolable human life are serious and illegal.
This principle applies to the child's life, like that of mother's. Never, under any circumstances, has the Church has taught that the life of child must be preferred to that of the mother. It would be wrong to set the issue with this alternative: either the child's life or that of mother. No, nor the mother's life, nor that of her child, can be subjected to an act of direct suppression. For the one side and the other the need can be only one: to make every effort to save the life of both, mother and child (see Pious XI Encycl. Casti Connubii, 31 dec. 1930, Acta Ap. Sedis vol. 22, p.. 562-563).
It is one of the most beautiful and noble aspirations of medicine trying ever new ways to ensure both their lives. What if, despite all the advances of science, still remain, and will remain in the future, a doctor says that the mother is going to die unless here child is killed in violation of God's commandment: Thou shalt not kill! We must strive until the last moment to help save the child and the mother without attacking either as we bow before the laws of nature and the dispositions of Divine Providence.
But - one may object - the mother's life, especially of a mother of a numerous family, is incomparably greater than a value that of an unborn child. The application of the theory of balance of values to the matter which now occupies us has already found acceptance in legal discussions. The answer to this nagging objection is not difficult. The inviolability of the life of an innocent person does not depend by its greater or lesser value. For over ten years, the Church has formally condemned the killing of the estimated life as "worthless', and who knows the antecedents that provoked such a sad condemnation, those who can ponder the dire consequences that would be reached, if you want to measure the inviolability of innocent life at its value, you must well appreciate the reasons that led to this arrangement.
Besides, who can judge with certainty which of the two lives is actually more valuable? Who knows which path will follow that child and at what heights it can achieve and arrive at during his life? We compare Here are two sizes, one of whom nothing is known. We would like to cite an example in this regard, which may already known to some of you, but that does not lose some of its evocative value.
It dates back to 1905. There lived a young woman of noble family and even more noble senses, but slender and delicate health. As a teenager, she had been sick with a small apical pleurisy, which appeared healed; when, however, after contracting a happy marriage, she felt a new life blossoming within her, she felt ill and soon there was a special physical pain that dismayed that the two skilled health professionals, who watched her with loving care. That old scar of the pleurisy had been awakened and, in the view of the doctors, there was no time to lose to save this gentle lady from death. The concluded that it was necessary to proceed without delay to an abortion.
Even the groom agreed. The seriousness of the case was very painful. But when the obstetrician attending to the mother announced their resolution to proceed with an abortion, the mother, with firm emphasis, "Thank you for your pitiful tips, but I can not truncate the life of my child! I can not, I can not! I feel already throbbing in my breast, it has the right to live, it comes from God must know God and to love and enjoy it." The husband asked, begged, pleaded, and she remained inflexible, and calmly awaited the event.
The child was born regularly, but immediately after the health of the mother went downhill. The outbreak spread to the lungs and the decay became progressive. Two months later she went to extremes, and she saw her little girl growing very well one who had grown very healthy. The mother looked at her robust baby and saw his sweet smile, and then she quietly died.
Several years later there was in a religious institute a very young sister, totally dedicated to the care and education of children abandoned, and with eyes bent on charges with a tender motherly love. She loved the tiny sick children and as if she had given them life. She was the daughter of the sacrifice, which now with her big heart has spread much love among the children of the destitute. The heroism of the intrepid mother was not in vain! (See Andrea Majocchi. " Between burning scissors," 1940, p.. 21 et seq.). But we ask: Is Perhaps the Christian sense, indeed even purely human, vanished in this point of no longer being able to understand the sublime sacrifice of the mother and the visible action of divine Providence, which made quell'olocausto born such a great result? (Pope Pius XII, Address to Association of Large Families, November 26,
1951; I used Google Translate to translate this address from the
Italian as it is found at AAS Documents, p. 855; you will have to scroll down to page 855, which takes some time, to find the address.)
Let me repeat: Pope Pius XII slammed the National-Not-Right-to-Life Committee, George Walker Bush (who planned all along to invade Iraq; see his remarks at the one hour, eleven minute mark of the following video of a December 2, 1999, debate: ) and other all supposedly "pro-life" pols who support any exceptions to the inviolability of innocent human life at any time, including that for the "life of the mother."
Don't feed the money monster that is the National Not-So-Right-Life Committee. And don't put your trust in phony pro-life politicians who support the very thing that they say they oppose. They care only about one thing: the reelection as they concentrate on the "money issues" that have worsened precisely our debt clock to God keeps ticking with every innocent child that is killed, whether by chemical or surgical means.
Conciliarism's Embrace of the "Strategy" of the Conciliar "Bishops"
"Ya gotta do something. Nothing else will work."
It is upon that false premise that the conciliar "bishops" have embraced a ready acceptance of the "right to life mother exception" in legislative proposals without even attempting to pressure supposedly pro-life members of various legislatures, including those in both houses of the Congress of the United States of America, believing that doing so will help to convince "reasonable" people that they and the politicians they support are not "radicals" or "extremists," that such concessions are "necessary" to make in the realm prudence.
This is, of course, the exact same moral casuistry that gave us "natural family planning" and explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments that has corrupted what passes for Catholic moral theology in so many places that high level officials in the Vatican itself can speak of "therapeutic" abortions as being within the moral law (see So Long to the Fifth Commandment and Rotten To The Very Roots).
Some tried very hard to warn the "bishops" as early as the first years after the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 2,, 1973, that the acceptance of "exceptions" would lead to the further institutionalization of baby-killing under the cover of the civil law in the mistaken belief that some killings would be prevented.
One of those who did so was Mrs. Randy Engel, the Director of the U.S. Coalition for Life, who testified in 1974. before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments of the United States Senate Committee for the Judiciary. Mrs. Engel saw things with prophetic clarity: there could never be any compromise with the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment, and for this, of course, she has been hated by the "pro-life establishment" ever since:
I am Randy Engel, National Director of the United States Coalition for Life, an international research center and clearing-
house specializing in domestic federal anti-life programs within the Department of Health, Education and Welfare and the Agency for
International Development. Thank you for your invitation to appear
before the sub-committee today in order that I may express the
views of the Coalition, its distinguished national and international
board of advisors, some of whom have already testified at earlier
Senate hearings on the Human Life Amendment, and that of thousands of grassroots people whom we have had the honor of serving on a day to day basis since the Coalition opened its offices almost two years
Mr. Chairman, about four months ago, the Coalition filed with
your office, the transcript of a speech made by Louise Tyrer , M.D. ,
Family Planning Division of the American College of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists, before the Association of Planned Parenthood
Physicians' 12th Annual Meeting, Memphis, Tennessee on Tuesday,
April 16, 1974, on the status of the various Human Life Amendments
to the Constitution of the United States. (Attachment A)
According to Dr. Tyrer' s assessment of the Congressional scene
there are two basic approaches. One - a "state's rights" approach
which would return the power of lawmaking in the area of abortion
to the individual States. The second - which would guarantee the
full protection of the law to the unborn child from the moment of
The "State's rights" approach she states, and correctly so,
is unacceptable to the majority of Pro-Life people yet very attractive to the legislators because " it sought of takes the ones off
their backs from making any decisions."
The remainder of her talk stresses the necessity of stalling
the hearings of this sub-committee by having Planned Parenthood
physicians flood the sub-committee with requests to testify. This,
Dr. Tyrer suggests would be politically expedient and politically
NECESSARY for you Mr. Chairman, in order to keep the amendments
bottled up in sub-committee until you had gone through the election
process in the Fall.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I have no desire to embarrass you in any
manner. Not because I fell Dr. Tyrer was incorrect in her judgment
of the political realities of the Senate and House Committees dealing
with the abortion issue or her assessment that stalling these subcommittee hearings by dragging them out month by month would be
politically expedient for you and others who might prefer not to
have a roll call vote on a Human Life Amendment before election time.
But rather, because with few exceptions, almost every Senator
and Representative in Congress would like nothing better than to get
rid of the abortion issue tomorrow, if not before, or at least dump
the matter back into the lap of the State legislatures.
This is not our affair - they say.
The massive slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent
unborn children is not a federal matter - they say.
We are not responsible for the Supreme Court decision of
January 22, 1972 which is now the law of the land - they say.
Well, I am here Mr. Chairman to tell you and every other
Senator and Congressman that like it or not - Abortion IS your
affair. That the massive slaughter of unborn children in this
country IS a proper matter of federal concern. Moreover that this
Congress IS directly responsible for the almost inevitable Supreme
Court decision which stripped unborn children of their inalienable
right to life.
Congress IS responsible because over the last ten years it has
permitted an anti-life philosophy and anti-life programs and policies
to become matters of NATIONAL POLICY , promoted and supported by tax
It is the Federal Government - at all levels - Executive,
Legislative and Judicial branches - which has posed the greatest
threat to unborn children in recent years.
The Executive Branch because it has failed to correct the
anti-life abuses primarily within the bureaucracies of HEW and AID
and has permitted key anti-life leaders such as Dr. Louis Hellman
the Office of Population Affairs and Dr. R. T. Ravenholt, Director
Population Bureau for Population and Humanitarian Affairs [and the man who coined the phrase "Natural Family Planning"] to remain
The Legislative Branch, because it has authorized legislation and appropriated funds year after year to initiate, promote
and sustain anti-life programs in virtually every conceivable federal
bureaucracy including the
Office of Economic Opportunity,
Office of Environmental Education,
Office of Education,
Department of Defense
Office of Population Affairs (HEW),
National Institutes of Health, Agriculture Department, Food and Drug Administration,
Public Health Service
Social Security, MedicAID, Aid to Dependent Children, U.S. Information Agency
Contraceptive Research Branch (NIH)
Federal Communication Commission).
As I said the Supreme Court abortion decision was an inevitable one. All the cliches of that decision - terms like "unwanted children",
"a woman's right to control her own body.", the population explosion stem from the Sangerite ethic. It represented the culmination of more
than half a century of dedication and tireless efforts by the Sangerites and the Malthusians to convince the American public of the
righteousness of the CAUSE and to elevate the SANGERITE-MALTHUSIAN
philosophy to that of Public Policy .
This final achievement is portrayed quite candidly in this book Breeding Ourselves to Death - the
Story of the Hugh Moore Fund by abortion leader Lawrence Lader.
In the section on gaining Congressional Support, former N.Y.
Senator Kenneth Keating, then newly appointed National Director of
the Population Crisis Committee tells about eating in the Senate
Dining Room where he could spread the gospel of family planning among
old friends, particularly among the Republican leadership. This fight
to influence by other population control leaders in Congress goes on
But what does all this have to do with this subcommittee hearing
on the Human Life Amendment? Simply this:
For more than a year the Hogan-Helms Human Life Amendment and
similar bills have been buried in the House, where Representative Don
Edwards has refused to hold hearings, and in the Senate - hearings are
dragged out month after month to get Senators and Representatives
through the November watershed without a floor vote on such as the HLA.
Obviously there is no sense of urgency about the matter, with the
exception of a handful of dedicated men, the Congress doesn't appear to
be the least concerned that its inaction will result in the death of
hundreds of thousands of unborn children. The fact that millions of
federal tax dollars are used to promote a myriad of anti-life schemes-
from direct abortion payments (Medicaid-ADC; to the research development and promoting of new abortion techniques to the indoctrination
of young children of an anti-life ethic appears to raise no particular concern at family planning authorization or appropriation hearings.
Equally obvious is the fact that under these conditions we will
have a difficult time getting a Human Life Amendment passed by both
Houses. of Congress and on its way to the states for ratification.
My purpose here today is to point out the current commitment of the Federal Government including this Congress to the anti-life
establishment, and briefly how such a commitment was obtained and
at what price.
Mr. Chairman, this Congress OWES its vigorous support for a
Human Life Amendment which would protect Human Life from conception
until natural death to the American people. The Coalition would
agree that the Hogan-Helms Amendment or the newer Roncallo Amendment
would provide such protection.
Apart from the merit of these amendments themselves, we feel
that Congress should recognize the fact that through its indifference,
ignorance and its inability to withstand the pressures of the anti-life
movement, it must bear its share of guilt for the 1972 Abortion decision,
and its share of responsibility in seeing a Human Life Amendment is
passed to protect the unborn child.
Your responsibility, Mr. Chairman,
in this matter is very plain.
As for our part, I believe the Coalition and the Pro-Life Movement in the U. S. will continue to fight at all levels - including
the Halls of Congress and yes, even in Senate dining rooms - to educate
and to promote an ideal that is as revolutionary in our day as the
Sangerite ideal was fifty years ago.
That ideal is based on the sanctity and innate goodness of
all human life. (Full text of "Abortion : hearings before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments.)
Even though the efforts made by Mrs. Engel and others were valiant, we can see now with perfect hindsight that which was not understood by very many at the time: that these noble efforts were doomed to failure precisely because the "pro-life establishment," headed by the National Not-So-Right to Life Committee, rallied around the constitutional amendment that had been proposed by United States Senator James Buckley (C-New York; the "c" reflects Buckley's election in a three-way race in 1970 as the candidate of the Conservative Party of the State of New York) that permitted the "life of the mother" exception. Only four American bishops, Timothy Cardinal Manning of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, John Cardinal Krol of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Humberto Medeiros of the Archdiocese of Boston and John Cardinal Cody of the Archdiocese of Chicago testified against the Buckley Amendment on the grounds that the civil law could never permit the direct taking of a single, solitary innocent human life from the first moment of conception through all subsequent stages until natural death. These cardinals, however, although part of the conciliar church by that time, were opposed by the entire "pro-life" establishment whose machinations were being orchestrated, at least to a very large extent, by the then Monsignor James Timothy McHugh of the Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey. McHugh did not have a qualm of conscience whatsoever about the "life of the mother exception" as a matter of legislative expedience or as a core moral principle of the National Right to Life Committee his work at the then named Family Life Bureau of the United States Catholic Conference helped to launch.
No, the well-intentioned efforts of Mrs. Engel and her associates were doomed from the start as, unbeknownst to them, a false church had arisen filled with men who had lost the Catholic Faith, men who had surrendered to the prevailing ethos of Judeo-Masonry, a surrender that has devastated the world in which we live and that must be considered nothing other than one of the worst chastisements of our time for neither Popes Pius XI or XII consecrating Russia collegially to Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart with all of the world's bishops. Treasonous priests and their leftist apparatchiks and toadies worked against efforts to provide full constitutional protection. And this is what must happen when men who claim to be Catholic make their "reconciliations" with the anti-Incarnational principles of Modernity.
It is no wonder that "conservatives" and even tradtionally-minded priests and presbyters praise the late "Bishop" James Timothy McHugh for his "pro-life" work as they have become so accustomed to the moral casuistry of conciliarism and of its embrace of the ethos of naturalism that they are incapable of seeing Catholic truth clearly, less yet of embracing it openly as the one and only foundation of personal and social order.
Where the Moral Casuistry of Family Planning, Including "Natural" Family Planning, and "Exceptions" Must Lead: to Death, Temporal and Eternal
The ethos of conciliarism's "reconciliation" with false premises of the Protestant Revolution's overturning of the Social Reign of Christ the King that gave the scions of Judeo-Masonry a chance to exploit the "wars of religious conflict" to call for a putting aside of "useless debates about religious dogma" in the name "toleration" as men of "good will" attempt to pursue the common good leads to the embrace of one "mental reservation" after another to "achieve" some kind of mythical goal, thereby resulting in the redefining of what constitutes "pro-life" politicians and "pro-life" legislation. And it is what has resulted in such an almost complete and utter corruption of what is called the Catholic healthcare system that moral theologians today, who are but the ideological descendants of those who tried to deconstruct Pope Pius XII's October 29, 1951, Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, can justify outright baby killing in "Catholic" hospitals without too many "bishops" giving them a word of rebuke:
FRONT ROYAL, Virginia, July 29, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com)
- When a child is delivered stillborn, a small flower or other token
often marks the door of the mother’s recovery room to help staff
recognize the loss.
According to one Catholic doctor, the same symbol was used in at
least one Catholic hospital where doctors routinely induced labor to
hasten the death of a child diagnosed with a genetic defect - a practice
she says occurs in “a handful” of Catholic hospitals across the United
Dr. Lorna Cvetkovich told a bioethics conference at Christendom
College in Virginia this month about her experience at one Catholic
hospital she declined to name, where she says abortions had been
routinely performed on disabled children for twenty years. Cvetkovich
currently works at the pro-life Tepeyac Family Center and is medical
director of Sanctity of Life Ministries in Fairfax, Virginia.
“They would place a little flower on the door of a woman to her room
to indicate the baby had died - except they also placed a flower on the
door of a woman who was being induced with a live baby,” Cvetkovich told
the audience. “Most of these were hydrocephalics, or genetic anomalies,
that kind of thing.”
Cvetkovich said the hospital’s policies and procedures allowed for
the procedure, but were written such that “you really had to read it
with a fine-toothed comb to figure out that this was allowable.”
Soberingly, Cvetkovich said the hospital claimed the protocol had
even been approved by the local ordinary. “One of the hardest situations
I’d ever went through was sitting in the MD’s office and having him
tell me, ‘I only did what your bishop told me I could do,’” she
“It’s hard to have a response to that.”
The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care
Services, a document promulgated by the U.S. Bishops’ Conference,
defines abortion as “the directly intended termination of pregnancy
before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable
fetus,” something that is “never permitted.”
http://www.usccb.org/bishops/directives.shtml The document also
prohibits contraception and sterilization.
According to Cvetkovich, faithful doctors must be a “sign of
contradiction” even within an ostensibly Catholic system, which have
been taken over by modern sexual values and even disregard for unborn
“Most Catholic hospitals, their networks, their clinics, even on the
labor delivery floor, do allow prescription of contraceptives. Some also
allow sterilization ... sometimes even elective sterilizations,” she
said, adding that “a very few, I think a handful” perform abortions.
“On our labor delivery floor, you could go after delivery and punch
in an order for depo-provera, and that is not too unusual,” she said.
After the lecture, Cvetkovich told LifeSiteNews.com that the moral
theologian at her facility had justified elective sterilizations as a
means of keeping patients’ business for the sake of helping other
low-income patients. “He was trying to tell me that amount of money is
what’s going to be their commitment to serve the poor,” said
Cvetkovitch. “It’s just hogwash.”
The doctor also lamented that the problem of abortions and other
immoral practices at Catholic hospitals is “very intractable” because
bishops have been erroneously led to believe they lack power to reform
“The bishops have been convinced that they have no control over the
Catholic hospitals because they are usually owned by a religious group
whose authority line goes to the Vatican, not the diocese,” she said.
“But that’s not really true, because there’s a canon law that says they
really are responsible for every catholic entity in their diocese.”
Cvetkovich pointed to the example of Bishop Thomas Olmsted of
Phoenix, who took severe national criticism last year for cutting an
abortion-performing hospital out of the diocese, as proof that such
action is rare.
“They [U.S. bishops] will not move against Catholic hospitals,” she said.
In a world where even Catholic hospitals push abortion on their staff
- Cvetkovitch recalled watching a head nurse “roll her eyes” when a
lower nurse asked to be excused from a procured abortion - the medical
doctor had dire predictions for the future of conscience rights.
“We will have the choice to either practice anti-Hippocratic,
pro-choice type medicine and keep our jobs - or practice Hippocratic,
Catholic, pro-life medicine and lose our jobs,” she said.
LifeSiteNews.com in 2008 uncovered that the chief ethicist for the diocese of London, Ontario admitted
that its St. Joseph Catholic Hospital had performed early-induction
abortions on disabled children for twenty years, and that the procedure
had been approved by the bishop. (‘Flower on the door’ used to mark abortions at Catholic hospitals: doctor .)
As noted earlier in this commentary, men who participate in a liturgical sacrilege and who blaspheme God by perverting and misrepresenting the immutable truths contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith will, at least in some instances, come to lose all understanding of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as to justify even the hideous actions described in the news story above from Lifesite.com. There is a direct connection between defects from Catholic Faith and Worship and open support for crimes that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.
This just didn't "happen," something that I tried to explain on Monday, August 1, 2011, in Planting Seeds of Revolutionary Change. The next major article, and that last of its type for a little while as I concentrate on trying to generate the means to support my family that are not being generated by the work of this site, will explore more of the historical background as to how the heresy of Americanism led directly to conciliarism's embrace of the world and thus of the corruption of Catholic Faith, Worship and Morals.
What is happening in Catholic hospitals today is the result of all of that rationalization and moral casuistry found in those old 1940s and 1950s ethics textbooks whose authors were trying to "find a way" to accommodate the desire of Catholic married couples to "limit" the size of their families without restoring to contraception. Compromise begets compromise to such an extent that one might as well be an open disciple of the devil.
The fight we are fighting is not, as we should know by now. It is
principally spiritual. We are fighting the forces of darkness. This is a fight we
cannot win on our own. It is a fight we can win only if we are serious about
building up the Kingdom of Christ in our own hearts and souls by means of
Eucharistic piety and total consecration to Him through Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate
Heart. If we are assiduous about doing this, we will be empowered from on high
to plant the seeds for the conversion of our fellow citizens and our nation to the
Social Kingship of Jesus Christ and the Queenship of His Blessed Mother as the fruit of the Triumph of that same Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Nothing is impossible with God. The subordination of men and their nations to
the Social Reign of Christ the King is the absolute precondition to the right
ordering of human law to the binding precepts of the Divine positive law and the
natural law, and abortion, as horrible as it is, is merely the consequence of the revolution against the Divine Plan that God instituted to effect man's return to Him through the Catholic Church that was begun by Martin Luther and taken advantage of to the fullest extent possible for the agents of naturalism found in the various nooks and crannies of Judeo-Masonry.
We must speak Catholic truth
clearly and without equivocation, also keeping in mind, however, that we may not see
the fruit of our efforts in our lifetimes. We must plant the seeds, however, that
might result, please God and by His ineffable grace, in the restoration of
Pope Pius XII warned us about the "life of the mother" exception. Why do so few listen?
Then again, so few listen as the conciliar authorities before that they have the right to make "exceptions" to the truths contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith that Christ the King entrusted exclusively to His Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication.
Vivat Christus Rex!
Our Lady of the Snows, pray for us!
Saint Joseph, Patron of Departing Souls, 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
A Brief Summary of George Walker Bush's Actual 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
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 babies?
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
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)
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
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
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
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
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.)
7) 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
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
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
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)
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
- 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.
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
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
"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?
The Work of George Walker Bush and Other "Pro-Life Pols" to Undermine the "Pro-Life" Cause in the Realm of Electoral Politics
Partisans of President George Herbert Walker Bush, such as the man
who succeeded Lee Atwater as Chairman of the Republican National Committee
following Atwater’s death, Richard Bond, blamed Bush’s defeat on the pro-life
plank in the Republican party platform, to say nothing of the “intolerant” speech
given by Patrick Joseph Buchanan at the party’s national nominating convention
in Houston, Texas, in 1992. Thus, completely pro-abortion candidates were
embraced by the Republican Party around the nation (Christine Todd Whitman
for Governor of New Jersey in 1993; Rudolph Giuliani for Mayor of the City of
New York in 1993; Richard Riordan for Mayor of the City of Los Angeles in
1994; George Pataki for Governor of the State of New York in 1994; Tom Ridge
for Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 1994; Susan Collins for
U.S. Senator from Maine in 1996; Olympia Snowe for U.S. Senator from Maine
in 1994; Susan Molinari and Rick Lazio for seats in the House of Representatives
in the 1990s, and on and on and on). These completely pro-abortion Republican
candidates were enabled at almost every turn by the National Right to Life Committee’s political action committee and the political action committees of its
state affiliates. Candidates of conscience were condemned as being tools of the
pro-aborts to keep “good” Republicans out of office. Those attempting to keep
the life issue alive in the context of electoral politics were denounced as
unrealistic dreamers who did not live in the real world and who did not want to
accept the imperfections of American party politics. In essence, a Republican pro-abort
was better than a Democrat pro-abort.
Indeed, the betrayal of the pro-life cause within the ranks of the
leadership of the Republican Party was quite vast as early as 1990. It was in that
year that Herbert London, a professor of public administration at New York
University, sought the Republican Party nomination for Governor of the State of
New York. As an observant Jew, London did make the life of the mother
exception. However, his opposition to abortion on demand even with that
immoral and unnecessary exception was thought to be a political liability by then
Senator Alfonse M. D’Amato. According to what London told me in 1998 when I
was challenging D’Amato for the Senatorial nomination of the New York State
Right to Life Party, D’Amato told him the following: “Herb, change your position
from pro-life to pro-choice and you’ll be this party’s nominee for governor.”
D’Amato denies such a conversation took place. London stands by his account,
which I believe is true. Rejecting London, the Republican Party chose a nonentity
pro-abort by the name of Pierre Rinfret, who barely finished second in the
statewide voting in November of 1990, just 22,000 votes ahead of London, who received the nomination of the Conservative Party. Mario Cuomo got a free pass
back to a third term as Governor of New York. My own vote that year, four years
after I had run for Lieutenant Governor on the Right to Life Party line with
Nassau County District Attorney Denis Dillon, went for the Right to Life Party
Determined not to take any chances with the life issue in 1994, D’Amato
groomed a little known State Senator, George Pataki, who had once been
rhetorically “pro-life,” and presented him as the man who could finally get
Cuomo out of the governor’s mansion in Albany, New York. Many pro-life
activists took leave of their senses at this time, convincing themselves that Pataki
just “had” to say he was “pro-choice” in order to beat Cuomo. I posed the
following question to these folks when I spoke with them: Why should I vote for
a liar who is afraid to defend the truth? Of course, I also raised what turned out to
be the real truth of the matter: what if Pataki really has changed what little mind
he possesses? What if he really is pro-abortion? Doesn’t that matter to you. Sadly,
it did not. And Pataki, who has governed in such a way as to make Cuomo’s
twelve years look like an exercise in fiscal conservatism, has used the pulpit
provided him by the governorship of New York to support abortion and
contraception and sodomy, marching proudly in the so-called “Gay Pride Parade”
down Fifth Avenue each year. Amazingly, a man who had run for Mayor on the
Conservative and Right to Life Party lines against Rudolph Giuliani and David
Dinkins in 1993, George Marlin, was one of the first to jump on the Pataki
bandwagon, contradicting the very rationale for his own candidacy against
Giuliani by doing so. And it should not be overlooked that Pataki, along with
D’Amato, were among the fiercest demagogues smearing Patrick Joseph
Buchanan with the charge of anti-Semitism when he ran for President in 1996.
As all of this was going on within the Republican Party at the state and
local levels, Republican Senators enabled Bill Clinton’s anti-life policies at
almost every turn between in 1993 and 1994. Apart from voting for the chemical
abortion of babies by means of “family planning programs” (something that was
in force during the Reagan and Bush I years), all but three Republican Senators
(Bob Smith, Jesse Helms, Don Nickles) voted to confirm the notorious pro-abort,
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, to the United States Supreme Court in 1993. Some people
told me at the time that Republicans had to vote for Ginsburg lest they be accused
of being opposed to a Jewish woman! Never mind babies. Never mind truth. No,
human respect and political expediency mattered more than anything else. It came
as no surprise, therefore, that all but eight Republican Senators voted to confirm
the pro-abortion Stephen Breyer in 1994. Almost all of Clinton’s 180 pro-abortion
nominees to the Federal judiciary between 1993 and 1996 were
confirmed by so-called “pro-life” Republican Senators.
Furthermore, then Senate Minority Leader Robert Joseph Dole told CSPAN
in January of 1993 that he proudly supported Clinton’s Executive Order to
permit fetal tissue experimentation, something that he voted to support on the
floor of the Senate one month later (along with the “pro-life” junior Senator from
New York, Alfonse M. D’Amato). The so-called Freedom of Access to Clinic
Entrances Bill (FACE) passed with the overwhelming support of allegedly “prolife”
Republicans in both houses of Congress in 1994. And Republicans did
nothing to try to reverse Clinton’s Executive Order authorize the United States Food and Drug Administration to conduct tests on the human pesticide, RU-486.
Indeed, Republicans were silent in 1995, when they actually controlled both
houses of Congress, as a report in The New York Times indicated that women
were getting pregnant deliberately in order to participate in the tests of the French
Sadly, most pro-life Americans have very short and selective memories,
placing their trust repeatedly in career politicians who fail the cause of the babies
over and over and over again. Thus, there was great enthusiasm in 1994 when
Republicans captured control of both houses of the United States Congress
simultaneously for the first time since the election of 1952. That enthusiasm,
again, was misplaced. Then Representative Newt Gingrich, who became Speaker
of the United States House of Representatives in January of 1995, and Bob Dole,
who once again became Senate Majority Leader that same month, had no
intention of moving the agenda of the sanctity of innocent human life. Indeed,
they desired to play politics with the issue of life in order to energize the pro-life
political base for the 1996 elections. The principal means by which they did this
was by emphasizing the issue of partial-birth abortions. Let me explain.
It is sometimes the case that the enemies of life and of truth make true
statements. For example, Vladimir Lenin was not wrong when he said that “the
capitalists will sell us the rope we will use to hang them.” That is, in their
shortsighted desire to make money, capitalists usually ignore the fact that selling
goods to potential enemies might wind up in those goods being used against them
in war. In like manner, you see, the pro-aborts were not wrong in 1995 when they
asserted that the issue of partial-birth abortions was being used for the political
advantage of Republicans. It was. Where the pro-aborts were absolutely wrong,
however, was in asserting that Republicans were trying to use the issue of partial-birth
abortions as a “wedge issue” so as to limit all abortions. Most of the
Republicans involved in the effort to conditionally ban partial-birth abortions
believed in 1995 and 1996 that that effort would be the end of the abortion issue
in electoral politics forever. As such a broad consensus had developed in the
nation in opposition to this form of child-killing, careerists could claim that they
had done all they could do in the context of the realities of “popular culture.” The
only thing we could do after that, many believed at the time, was simply to
persuade women not to have abortions, that the culture “was not ready” for a total
ban on all abortions without exception, something that the culture will never be
“ready for” without leadership in the pulpit and courage from those who run for
and serve in public office.
The procedure referred to as partial-birth abortion was devised by a
baby-killer in 1992 to be a less invasive way to a mother of killing a child in the
later stages of pregnancy. Technically called intact dilation and extraction,
partial-birth abortion was meant to be a replacement for the child-killing
procedure known as dilation and evacuation, a gruesome process by which a child
is carved up within his mother’s birth canal. The “advantage” of partial-birth
abortion for a baby-killer is that its breach of the baby in the birth canal permits
him to be partially delivered so that the baby-killer can reach in to pierce the
baby’s skull with scissors without threatening to perforate the mother’s birth
canal, something that happens all the time in the dilatation and evacuation method
It is important to review (once again) these horrible, gruesome facts.
Why? For this simple reason: even if a complete and total no-exceptions ban on
all partial-birth abortions had been enacted by Congress and sustained eventually
by the United States Supreme Court, it would not have likely saved one baby as
the other procedures to kill a baby in the later stages of pregnancy would remain
perfectly legal (dilation and evacuation, hysterotomy, saline solution abortions).
While the debate over partial-birth abortions did help to illustrate the particular
brutality of one form of child-killing, it also misled even a lot of well-meaning
pro-lifers into thinking that partial-birth abortion was more of a crime morally
than methods of baby-killing used in the earlier stages of pregnancy. Child-killing
is child-killing. Suction abortions are just as heinous morally as partial-birth
abortions. Many people, however, have lost sight of this fact.
The emphasis on conditionally stopping partial-birth abortions reduced
the definition of the term “pro-life” to only being conditionally opposed to one
form of child-killing in the later stages of pregnancy. As Judie Brown of the
American Life League has noted so frequently, this has resulted in the “dumbing
down” of the term “pro-life.” Indeed, as has been demonstrated from 1996 to this
day, even those who are absolutely committed to the horrific and unjust decision
of the Supreme Court of the United States in Roe v. Wade are considered by the
National Right to Life Committee and by Priests for Life as being legitimately
“pro-life” as long as they express some limited opposition to partial-birth
abortions. Thus, Bob Dole, who was enabled by those two organizations and the
Christian Coalition, only spoke about partial-birth abortions in his quest for the
Republican presidential nomination in 1996–and only spoke about that during the
general election that year before safe Catholic audiences. He mumbled the phrase
“partial birth” once as a throw away line in one of the debates he had with
President Bill Clinton, careful not to use the word “abortion” after the words