Mississippi Becomes Case Study for Reducing Abortions Through Legislation

Evidence that the "supply-side" approach to ending abortion can and is working. Still waiting on the evidence that the "demand-side" approach works better.

Jackson, MS (LifeNews.com) -- Doing what was thought impossible, the state of Mississippi has found a way to significantly reduce the number of abortions despite the fact that the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision allowing abortions still stands. Thanks in part to a plethora of pro-life legislation, that has helped lead to the closing of all but one abortion business in the state, abortions in Mississippi have decreased by half in the last decade. After peaking at 8,814 in 1991, the number of abortions in 2002 fell to just 3,605. Even one abortion is too many for pro-life groups that have been working in the state, but the sharp decline is cause for celebration. 'We don't need to wait for the Supreme Court to outlaw abortion,' says Pat Cartrette, executive director of Pro-Life Mississippi. Mississippi has a sweeping conscience clause allowing any medical professional to opt out of participating in an abortion, it is one of two states that requires both parents to give consent before an abortion, and it requires abortion practitioners to tell women about abortion's risks and alternatives. The state also passed an unborn victims law that targets criminals such as Scott Peterson who kill or injure an unborn child as a result of attacking a pregnant woman. Those laws have contributed to the abortion decline, according to an attorney with Americans United for Life. 'The dramatic decrease in abortions shows that life-affirming laws and public policy can save lives,' said Nikolas T. Nikas, general counsel for Americans United for Life, explained. Other states such as South Carolina and Kentucky have seen a similar decrease in the number of abortions performed following the passage of numerous pro-life laws. Read the complete story.

"Bless Me, Bishop, For I Back Sinning."

As Domenico Bettinelli reports on the always informative Bettnet, Albany County, NY, District Attorney David Soares defeated the pro-life incumbent, DA Paul Clyne, in the Democrat Party primary with the enthusiastic endorsement of the radical feminists of the National Organization of Women (NOW) and the pro-abortion advocates of NARAL. [Watch the video.]

Soares also gained the backing of other degenerate elements, including organized drug abusers and homosexual activists. [Caution: Link is to homosexual newspaper Web site.]

Michele E. Morgan Bolton describes the inauguration in yesterday's Albany Times Union:

David Soares took on his new job during an unusual, ecumenical ceremony at Albany's Wilborn Temple. A steady drone of police pipes and drums led the former Albany County assistant district attorney down a center aisle as he and clerics of many denominations moved through the cavernous church packed with well-wishers.

To his credit, Clyne did not attend the honors for his anti-life successor. So, as Bettnet asks—and Bolton answers—guess who participated in Soares' swearing-in "by giving him a blessing?"

Bishop Howard Hubbard, of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, joined Protestant, Jewish and Muslim leaders in bestowing blessings on the new district attorney.

"You are a man who offers to us a new vision and fresh alternatives," Hubbard said.

"A new vision"—precisely what is needed in the Albany episcopacy. Or rather, an old and even ancient one.

P.S.—By the way, that's David and Tina Soare's 4 year-old-son, Jack, in the top picture. Fortunately, for him, Mom didn't practice what Dad preaches!

2004 in Review: A Catholic List of Significant Events

You will see many reviews of events in 2004 and even predictions of events for 2005. I won't make any predictions, but here is my own view of the most significant events of the year that is rapidly coming to an end. I list them in what seems to me to be their order of significance.

1. Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ: I put this event above the presidential election--which is a close second--only because cultural trends are always more important that election results. In my opinion, the movie marked a new assertiveness by traditional Christianity that is not inhibited or ashamed of its "old-time religion." Gibson put the core of Christianity out there without bowing to the irate policemen of cultural correctness. He took the heat; and the public, both Catholic and Protestant evangelical, responded enthusiastically. We are not hiding our beliefs anymore.

2. The Reelection of George W. Bush: As said before on this site, the election of quintessential Cafeteria Catholic John Kerry would have been disastrous for the New Evangelization in the United States. A dissident Kerry would have made a mockery of the call to renewed orthodoxy in American Catholicism. On the positive side, George W. Bush is, like Gibson, a man who is not afraid to be who he is in spite of the astounding hatred focused on him by the media and others. It was and is a hatred and contempt that is reminiscent of that suffered by Lincoln during his presidency.

3. The Pope's Challenge to Bishops: Late in the year, I finally got the chance to read the Pope's latest book published in 2004, Rise, Let Us Be On Our Way. I was surprised to find in the book a very strong challenge to bishops urging them to stop being silent in the face of evil. During the year, I do not remember reading any headlines in or out of the Catholic media taking note of the Pope's strong language challenging, even, in a way, reprimanding, bishops for being too silent. I follow the media closely, and saw no mention of this noteworthy development anywhere. But whether covered or not, for those of us who manage to discover the Pope's comments in his book, the comments are highly significant.

4. The Leadership of Archbishop Burke of St. Louis: Among several other outspoken bishops, Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis (formerly bishop of the Diocese of LaCrosse, Wisconsin) stands out for the courage with which he said the obvious: no Holy Communion for pro-abortion politicians. He acted out of love for the truth, not out of any desire for notoriety. What more can be said but that we were privileged to see an Apostle in action. For my part, his courage shames me into speaking out more boldly and not pulling back in the face of personal attacks.

5. The Longevity of John Paul II: We do not know what will happen in 2005, but not many would have expected that JPII would still be writing books, planning trips, and celebrating Mass at the end of 2004. He is still there. He is still leading. This fact is a significant event in itself. May he be with us throughout 2005, because we still need him. The orthodox renewal in the Church that he began in October of 1978 is not over.

Those are the five significant events from my humble perspective. Compare them with other lists and make up your own list. Any readers who wish to share their own list of noteworthy events of 2004 are invited to post a Comment below.

As to 2005, I don't have a clue, and can say only that it is all in God's hands and that He will draw good out of everything, even evil.

Democratic Party Post-Mortem

While the deep concern of a woman bearing an unwanted child merits consideration and sympathy, it is my personal feeling that the legalization of abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life. Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain right which must be recognized -- the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old.

Find out which famous Catholic politician said this in "Bob Casey's Revenge" (First Things 149 (January 2005): 6-8), in which New York Post writer William McGurn conducts a post-mortem examination of the Democratic Party's sellout to Planned Parenthood and NARAL resulting in the loss of the 2004 presidential election:

In the aftermath of Senator Kerry's defeat the Democrats are wondering how it is that the first Catholic nominee for President since 1960, a man who spoke glowingly of rosary beads and his days as an altar boy, lost the Catholic vote, lost the Mass-going Catholic vote by an even larger margin, and lost it by larger margins still in key swing states such as Florida and Ohio.

They have much to ponder, as do all Americans who truly care about life, for it should be clear that a Democratic Party in its current shape is not healthy for America. We need pro-life Democrats to be able to breathe again. This means that we need a Democratic leadership that doesn't demand that Democrats vote against, among other things, judicial nominees whose only crime is their "deeply held" personal beliefs or a suspected skepticism toward the one dogma in the Democratic Party: that while all other Supreme Court decisions are malleable and must bend to the social and political agenda of the day, RoeCAv. Wade is holy writ.

Via Bettnet.

"You Will Know the Truth and the Truth Will Set You Free"

I highly recommend, this pastoral letter from the Most Rev. Samuel J. Aquila, Bishop of Fargo.

In it he notes that many Catholics "are more influenced by the secular culture in which we live than by the teachings of Jesus Christ," and stated that many Catholics have "an inadequate understanding of the Catholic faith."

He suggests that though there are exceptions, catechetical formation for the last 30 years has failed to hand on the faith. He says it was clear during the media discussion of Catholic teachings and voting during the elections that "many of the faithful have not read the Catechism, the encyclicals of Pope John Paul II, or the documents of Vatican II."

What a wonderful shepherd!

Catholic Senator appointed to Judiciary Committee

Senator Sam Brownback has been appointed to Judiciary Committee.

Brownback, from Kansas, is a leading pro-life lawmaker known for sponsoring the total ban on human cloning.

He also is proposing legislation next session, the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, that would require abortion practitioners to inform women considering late-term abortions that unborn children feel intense pain during the procedure. The mother would be asked if she wants to allow the babies to receive anesthesia before the abortion.

Ratzinger: "The Child Knocks" -- but will we listen?

The Word became flesh. Alongside this Johannine truth there has to be put also the Marian truth as rendered by Luke. God has become flesh. This is not only an immensely great and remote happening, it is something very close and human. God became a child who needed a mother. He became a child, someone born with tears on his cheeks, whose first utterance is a cry for help, whose first gesture consists in outstretched hands searching for protection. God became a child.

Nowadays we also hear it being said, in contrast, that this, after all, would be nothing but a sentimentality better put aside. Yet the New Testament thinks differently. For the faith of the Bible and the Church, it is important that God desired to be such a creature who has to depend on a mother, on the sheltering love of humans. He wished to be dependent in order to awaken in us love that purifies and redeems. God became a child, and every child is dependent. To be a child thus contains already the theme of the search for shelter, the elementary motif of Christmas. And how many variations has this motif seen in our history!

In our days we experience this anew and in disturbing ways: the child knocks on the doors of our world. The child is knocking. The search for shelter is profound. There is indeed an atmosphere of hostility toward children, but is this not preceded by an attitude that altogether bars any child from entering this world because there would be no more room for him? The child knocks. If we would receive him we are to rethink thoroughly our own attitude toward human life. Here we are dealing with fundamentals, with the very concept of what it means to be human: to live in grandiose selfishness or in confident freedom that knows its vocation to be united in love, to accept one another.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

p. 404, Co-Workers of the Truth: Meditations for Every Day of the Year

The Joy of Innocence Regained

From the pages of Times Against Humanity . . .

There is no Christmas without Angels. On this day we feel as if one with them, participating in the eternal joy which fills them. Our canticles seek to imitate theirs. We see Heaven open before us, and grace raising us even now to a supernatural order where joy surpasses the expectations of the human heart.

We know that with Christmas begins the defeat of sin and death. We know that Christmas is the first step on a path that will lead us to the Resurrection and to Heaven.

On Christmas we sing of the joy of innocence regained, the joy of the resurrection of the body, the joys of joys which is the eternal contemplation of God. That is why there is a holy joy on earth every time the Christmas bells ring.

Prof. Plinio Correa de Oliveira, Catolicismo, 1951

Wishing you and your loved ones a Blessed Christmas Season and a Holy New Year!
—Earl E. Appleby, Jr. and Family

Pro-Life Democrat Seriously Considering Party Chair Bid

Looks like former Congressman Tim Roemer, a Catholic pro-life politician is running for the DNC chair being vacated by Terry McAuliffe. Though party leaders, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have urged him to run, I wonder if they truly will support him or if their vocal support now is just a disingenous way to "show" that Democrats too can be pro-life or at least accepting of pro-lifers in the party. This is a campaign Catholics in the Public Square will be watching.

Additional reading: The Dem's Pro-Life Gambit, The American Spectator.

UPDATE: Though some party leaders "seem" to be supportive of Roemer, abortion advocates are not. Read here for more.

The Tipping Point: Hispanic Males Voted 46% for Bush

Today's N.Y. Times has a tiny news brief with data from the National Annenberg Election Survey showing that 46% of Hispanic men voted for Bush in 2004. The figure for all Hispanics is 41% for Bush in 2004--compared to 35% in 2000. The lesson: culture is thicker than past party loyalties.

Not surprisingly, the conservative Washington Times ("Hispanic Men Moved to Bush," 12/22/04) thought this data worth a full news article in contrast to the N.Y. Times "footnote" coverage of the same data.

Arnold's Base Idea Will Not Build G.O.P. Base

From the pages of Times Against Humanity . . .

In an interview with the German newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) declared that he believes the Republican Party should move "a little further left" to attract new voters and build the G.O.P. base. "Schwarzenegger said he sees a clear line of demarcation between the Republican and Democratic Party," Jimmy Moore reports for Talon News.

"The Republican Party currently covers only the spectrum from the right wing to the middle, and the Democratic Party covers the spectrum from the left to the middle," Schwarzenegger explained in the newspaper interview. "I would like the Republican Party to cross this line, move a little further left and place more weight on the center."

"This would immediately give the [Republican] party 5 percent more votes without its losing anything elsewhere," Schwarzenegger claimed, displaying the liberal tunnel vision that typifies his Hollywood co-stars or, as Karen England, head of California's Capitol Research Institute put it, "his 'extreme arrogance and total ignorance' about the core constituents of the Republican Party."

"Schwarzenegger has spent too much time in Hollywood," England remarked in a statement. "He needs to start mingling more with mainstream Californians."

To be sure, this is scarcely "man-bites-dog" news. Since his election in 2003, Moore writes, the California governor "has openly shown his support for liberal social issues such as gay marriage and abortion, among others." No wonder pro-life, pro-family Republicans like England are upset.

We are outraged that Schwarzenegger has the audacity to misspeak for the millions of Republicans in this country who believe that abortion is murder and that the life of a child should come before the mere convenience of a woman. We are outraged that Schwarzenegger would turn his back on two-thirds of Californians, many Democrats included, who voted just four short years ago to protect traditional marriage in this state.

Writing to supporters, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said that he is "surprised when elected officials seem to forget what voters want, even when it has only been just a few weeks since an election."

Every time voters are given a chance to speak out, they vote to uphold marriage and traditional moral values. . . . Unfortunately, too many political leaders appear to be morally deaf.

Schwarzenegger is not only morally deaf; he is tone deaf politically. The United States is not Hollywood -- or even California -- and following Arnie's half-baked idea of pandering to his fellow pro-abort, pro-perversion liberals will not build the G.O.P. base. It would, however, show the door to Catholic and evangelical voters who re-elected President Bush on the basis of such moral issues as the defense of life and marriage.

"If Schwarzenegger thinks that the majority of the G.O.P. base will stick with the Republican Party on fiscal issues alone, then he has a lot to learn about the makeup of his own party," England exclaimed.

After all, even a liberal columnist like the Racine, WI, Journal Times' Rachel Campbell concedes:

Now simply isn't the time. If proud conservatives are going to go bananas every time you say "Happy holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas," you can imagine their reaction to easing restrictions on gay marriage.

Let's pray that Conan the Liberal's moldy idea stays in the fetid imagination of the Culture of Death and that the Stupid Party does not have to learn its lesson the hard way.

Supplemental Reading:

• See also "My Governator Offers Some Bad Advice," Jimmy Akin, Defensor Fidei.

John Paul on Episcopal Courage

Earlier this year, John Paul II published a book of reflections aimed at his fellow bishops, Rise, Let Us Be on Our Way (Warner, 2004). But the book is well worth reading by all Christians. The title comes from Christ's words to his apostles as they leave Gethsemane and are faced with the approach of Judas accompanied by an armed crowd (Mk 14:42).

And the Pope has words indeed for his fellow bishops, words he quotes from the late Cardinal Wyszynski of Poland in 1946:

Lack of courage in a bishop is the beginning of disaster. Can he still be an apostle? Witnessing to the Truth is essential for an apostle. And this always demands courage.

Rise, Let Us Be On Our Way, pp. 189-90 (quoting Wyszynski).

The Pope quotes at length from later comments by Cardinal Wyszynski:

The greatest weakness in an apostle is fear. What gives rise to fear is lack of confidence in the power of the Lord: this is what oppresses the heart and tightens the throat. The apostle then ceases to offer witness. Does he remain an apostle? The disciples who abandoned the Master increased the courage of the executioners. Silence in the presence of the enemies of a cause encourages them. Fear in an apostle is the principal ally of the enemies of the cause. 'Use fear to enforce silence' is the first goal in the strategy of the wicked.

Rise, p. 190 (quoting Wyszynski; emphasis added).

The Pope adds his own comments to the above quotations:

Here there is no room for compromise nor for an opportunistic recourse to human diplomacy. We have to bear witness to the truth, even at the cost of persecutions, even to the shedding of our blood, like Christ Himself.

Rise, pp. 190-91.

Inevitably, I think of a blonde Canadian-born Michigan governor, with a soft, seductive voice, who claims to be Catholic, who claims to venerate Mother Teresa of Calcutta, but who is in fact a radical proponent of the killing of the innocent unborn and partially born. Then I think of the other numerous supporters of abortion, in and out of politics, who also claim to be Catholic. The silence of too many bishops merely encourages them; and, in the words quoted by the Pope, this silence is "the beginning of disaster."

Profile: Representative Chris Smith of New Jersey

Chris Smith - "the lion of life on Capitol Hill"

Congressman Chris Smith was born in Rahway, NJ, and is a resident of Hamilton, NJ. He has enjoyed a long career of public service representing NJ's Fourth Congressional District since 1981, when he was sworn into office at the age of twenty seven. During his years in office he has earned worldwide recognition in the areas of veterans' affairs and human rights, "from children forced to toil in sweatshops to women kidnapped and sold into lives of prostitution to unborn children whose very chances to live are threatened."

Among his many achievements is the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Law, the nation's first to specifically address the issue of human trafficking in the U.S. and overseas, providing resources for government prosecutors as well as assistance to women helping them rebuild their lives (originally signed by Pres. Clinton and re-authorized under Pres. Bush in 2003). He has also played a role in various healthcare issues, co-chairing the Congressional Alzheimer's Task Force, Coalition for Autism Research and Education, and Congressional Spina Bifida Caucus.

Regarding his service in defense of the unborn, Christopher Smith currently co-chairs the bi-partisan Congressional Pro Life Caucus. In January 2004 he Silent No More at the 31st Annual March For Life.

In March 2004 he delivered a speech to the House defending Unborn Victims of Violence Protection Act, which was signed by President Bush the following month.

Smith has recently joined Senator Sam Brownback (R.-KS) in sponsoring the latest pro-life legislative effort: The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act (S. 2466; H.R. 4420). The Act would require that abortionists, prior to the procedure, convey to patients who are twenty weeks or more into their pregnancy both verbally and in print (via brochure), notification that an abortion inflicts pain on an unborn child, and that they have the option to anesthetize the baby. As Smith says in his introduction to the bill (May 20, 2004): "Women have the right to know the facts about the medical development of unborn children and that they have the option to minimize or eliminate the pain an unborn child would feel during an abortion."

The nature of the bill is such that skeptics might question the purpose of "eliminating a child's pain" by anasthesia before killing it -- is this simply another means to salve the guilty conscience? It might appear that way, if you listened to the endorsement of Francis Kissling of 'Catholics for Free Choice'. But the motivation of Senator Brownback and Rep. Smith is clearly different. In the same manner as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act gives legal recognition to the humanity of the unborn when a "child in utero" is injured or killed during commission of a federal crime, so would the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act advance the recognition of the humanity of the unborn. These may be relatively small pieces of legislation, but they are by no means insignificant in the process of restoring the recognition of the humanity of the unborn -- an integral step to establishing a "culture of life" in our nation.

In an interview with the National Catholic Reporter during the 2004 election, Smith spoke to Joe Feuerherd on the need for Catholics to speak out in defense of the unborn and challenged the doublespeak of Senator Kerry:

The church needs to be willing to bend into the wind, even if it is a hurricane force, and risk being profoundly hated by society" as it pursues its antiabortion agenda, says New Jersey Republican Christopher Smith. If such a stance makes the hierarchy "persona non grata with The New York Times, it's worth it."

"If the actual deed of abortion is what I and Catholics and Protestants and so many others say it is -- an act of violence against children -- then why wouldn't you want to treat it as a severe act of child abuse and exploitative of women, rather than something you can disregard?

"If Kerry or someone like him were to say 'I am for abortion' then they would have my opposition and I will argue against them, but I will at least respect them," Smith told NCR. "But I find it very hard to respect someone who says I'm against it, but I'm going to vote for it, I'm going facilitate it, I'm going to defend it, I'm going to fund it [and] I'm going to try to make it reach the four corners of the globe by repealing the Mexico City policy [which restricts U.S. foreign aid funds to countries with liberal abortion laws]."

Asks Smith: "How hard would any of us fight if it was our child at risk? Well, these are our children. We are our brothers' and sisters' keepers."

Source: "Abortion is a fundamental issue, says House pro-life leader", by Joe Feuerherd. National Catholic Reporter July 2, 2004.

RenewAmerica columnist Paul Weyrich has mentioned that Smith's "admirable devotion to the cause has won him the accolade 'the lion of life on Capitol Hill.'" Smith's solid pro-life voting record and 0% rating by NARAL leads me to conclude that he certainly merits the title.

It may be too soon to contemplate prospects for the 2008 presidential race, and I don't know whether Rep. Smith has any political ambitions beyond the House, but I believe he would make a great candidate for the presidency -- a Catholic that we can all be proud of. If such were the case, the fact that he had the highest rating of any Republican (72.7%) on the "Catholic Scorecard" devised by the Democrats should calm the fears of any KerryCatholics.

Catholic Republican challenges China's Forced Abortion Program

Two United States Congressmen are attempting to draw world awareness to China's practice of coerced abortions by calling for the cancellation of 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing unless it halts its oppressive "one child" population control policy. Robert B. Bluey reports for Human Events Online:

Representatives Chris Smith (R.-N.J.) and Tom Tancredo (R.-Colo.) made the demands on China at a congressional hearing called Tuesday to shed light on the case of Mao Hengfeng, who was forced to undergo an abortion and is currently being subjected to torture. Mao's pregnancy 15 years ago violated China's family planning policy, and her protests since then landed her in one of the country's "re-education through labor" camps.

"One of the few things we have available to us right now is this issue of the Olympics," Tancredo said. "We could draw a lot of attention, even if we could get the movement started. Whether it's successful or not, if there was actually a real threat to China, perhaps the world might step away from this because of the ugly kind of press and attention it's getting . . ." [READ MORE].

As Vice-Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, Chris Smith told Human Events that he intends to "propose a resolution at the beginning of the 109th Congress addressing this situation in China." Rep. Smith joins Arther E. Dewey, assistant secretary for population, refugees and migration at the U.S. State Department, in protesting the reluctance of certain members of the United Nations and the human rights community to include forced abortion and sterilization among its list of human rights violations.

Many people are aware of China's "one child" policy (I myself can recall learning about it in college). What is little known, says Smith, is the devastating emotional toll it has on China's women. According to Smith, "a State Department human rights report shows that 500 women commit suicide in China every day because of the coercive population control program. "As a matter of fact," Smith said, "the report points out that 56 percent of the world's female suicides occur in the People's Republic of China." (Source: Keith Peters, Family News In Focus).

• "Congressmen Warn China: Stop Abuses or Lose 2008 Olympics", by Robert B. Bluey. Human Events Online. Dec. 15, 2004.
  
• Statement of Chris Smith on China's Human Rights Violations and Coercion in One Child Policy Enforcement, Dec. 14, 2004.
  
• Testimony of Ma Dongfang, Victim of Planned Birth Policy. Committee on International Relations, U.S. House of Representatives. December 14, 2004 Dec. 14, 2004.
  
• "Better Ten Graves Than One Extra Birth: China's Systemic Use of Coercion to Meet Population Quotas", soon-to-be-published English translation of the 2003 Chinese expose by the Laogai Research Foundation (LRF).
  

Representatives Chris Smith (R.-N.J.) is Catholic. Tom Tancredo (R.-Colo.) is Presbyterian. Both are staunch pro-life Republicans and have earned the scorn and 0% rating by NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) -- A mark of honor, in my book.

What's Happening with Nancy Keenan?

It's been several weeks since Catholics in the Public Square reported on Nancy Keenan's appointment (in late November 2004) as President of NARAL ("National Abortion Rights Action League"). According to her bio on NARAL's website, "[Keenan] showed the force of her pro-choice commitment and the strength of her personal leadership when she stood up to a public effort to excommunicate her from the Catholic Church."

It took several weeks for the Diocese of Helena to respond to the allegation. On December 3, Diocesian spokesman Eric Schiedermayer "denied there was any attempt to kick Nancy Keenan out of the Church." Schiedermayer also told Cybercast News Service that Bishop George Thomas "may speak about the Keenan incident in the future and clarify what happened and the church's position."

Domenico Bettenelli pondered in turn:

". . . what is the formal status of the head of the nation's most vocal pro-abortion group? If she presents herself for Communion to the bishop in either her native Montana or her new home in the Arlington, Virginia, diocese, will she be allowed to receive? How close does material cooperation have to be?"

And my co-editors and I were left wondering whether there would be more of an "abortion feud" between the Bishop and the new Catholic president of NARAL.

In the meantime, Nancy Keenan has found time to occupy herself. As Earl reported, she attending a secret meeting with Senator Kerry and Democratic Party loyalists AFL-CIO headquarters a week after Thanksgiving, where she registered her discontent with Senator Kerry's suggestion that Democrats should moderate their defense of abortion and welcome more pro-life candidates into the party.

More recently, Nancy Keenan rallied NARAL's pro-abortion troops to combat President Bush's likely nomination of Justic Antonin Scalia in the event of current Chief Justice William Rehquist retirement.

And what is Helena's new bishop up to? -- we learn from his November column that he has been conducting visitations to various parishes in his diocese, meeting with priests and leaders to understand their needs. "As I continue on this mission journey," says Bishop Thomas, "I have been deeply touched by the inspiring commitment of our clergy, the dedication of religious women and men, and the collective desire of the laity to build upon the vigorous and healthy Church that is already in place."

I do not claim to understand for a moment the tremendous responsibilities of a bishop, and the various tasks that must be carried out upon one's installment in a new diocese. But it seems to me that "the vigorous and healthy Church that is already in place" in Helena is tarnished by the fact that a former resident is heading one of the most vigorous and militant defenders of "abortion rights" in the United States today, and that news of her appointment would warrant at least a mention by the bishop.

Hillary White of LifeSiteNews investigated the story as well, and was told by Fr. Robertson (Chancellor of Keenan's home diocese of Helena, Montana), that "the current bishop of Helena, Bishop George L. Thomas, would want to review all the facts of the situation before making any public statement. Bishop Thomas, who was appointed in June of this year, was not available for comment." -- perhaps he still needs time?).

According to this profile in the Billings Gazette, Nancy Keenan now resides in Washington DC, which -- correct me if I'm wrong -- would put her in the jurisdiction of Cardinal McCarrick. Given McCarrick's rather tepid response to Senator Kerry -- a Catholic politician who merely allied himself with NARAL during the 2004 election -- expecting a firm response to Nancy Keenan may be too much to ask.

Will Pro-abort Gasp Spell Last Gasp for Party of Death?

The week after Thanksgiving, dozens of Democratic Party loyalists gathered at AFL-CIO headquarters for a closed-door confab on the election. John Kerry dropped by to thank members of the liberal 527 coalition America Votes. When Ellen Malcolm, president of the pro-choice political network EMILY's List, asked about the future direction of the party, Kerry tackled one of the Democrats' core tenets: abortion rights. He told the group they needed new ways to make people understand they didn't like abortion. Democrats also needed to welcome more pro-life candidates into the party, he said. "There was a gasp in the room," says Nancy Keenan, the new president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

Thus Debra Rosenberg, Deputy Chief of the Washington Bureau, begins her report "Anxiety Over Abortion" in the December 20, 2004, Newsweek.

It is ironic that Ellen Malcolm asked the question. Just three days after the 2004 election, Salon staff writer Farhad Manjoo asked Malcolm, who heads EMILY's List and the liberal vote drive ACT (Americans Coming Together), "Why had ACT failed?"

"Malcolm didn't want to talk about failure," Manjoo advises us in his December 15, 2004, analysis, "The Revolution That Failed."

Malcolm's answer was unsatisfying; given the totality of the loss it seemed disingenuous to call what happened on Election Day a success. But when I pressed her on it, asking in several different ways what had gone wrong, she was unmoved. "You're not listening to what I'm saying," Malcolm finally snapped. ACT hadn't failed.

Indeed, in the view of Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood, it was Senator Kerry who failed. "He did not help the cause," Feldt whined, echoing the complaints of "many [abortion] advocates who blame Kerry for not talking about abortion enough—especially the Supreme Court."

Now, here he was confessing that that the Democrat Party's rigid and zealous stand in favor of every and all abortions cost votes. No wonder, advocates of baby-killing like Nancy Keenan, who regard the Democratic Party as their political lackey gasped in shock and disbelief.

"It might have sounded shocking," Rosenberg conceeds, "but John Kerry isn't alone in taking a new look at how the party is handling the explosive topic of abortion."

As Democratic strategists and lawmakers quietly discuss how to straddle the nation's Red-Blue divide, abortion has become a prime target. "The issue and the message need to be completely rethought," says one strategist. Along with gay marriage, abortion is at the epicenter of the culture wars, another example used by Republicans to highlight the Democrats' supposed moral relativism.

There's nothing "supposed" about it, of course. While polls constantly show that most Americans "favor some restrictions [on abortion], particularly after the first trimester," Rosenberg observes:

Democratic lawmakers have found themselves boxed in by a pro-choice orthodoxy that fears the slippery slope -- the idea that allowing even the smallest limitation on abortion only paves the way for outlawing it altogether. As a result, most Democrats opposed popular measures like "Laci and Conner's Law" -- which makes it a separate federal crime to kill a fetus -- and a ban on the gruesome procedure called partial-birth abortion.

With pro-life Sen. Harry Reid newly installed as Senate minority leader, Democrats are eager to show off their big tent," Rosenberg concludes. Given the rabid resistance to the slightest concession to reason and, yes, morality by the Feminazis, any widening of the Democrat Party's tent in terms of pro-life Democrats and their views is apt to be a carnival sideshow: big on promise and short on delivery.

In that case, Keenan's pro-abort gasp will have prevailed, but it may well prove to be the last gasp of the Party of Death.

Wlll Abortion-Enhanced Baby Gap Sound Death Knell for Dems?

"Despite the endless verbiage expended trying to explain America's remarkably stable division into Republican and Democratic regions, almost no one has mentioned the obscure demographic factor that correlated uncannily with states' partisan splits in both 2000 and 2004," Steve Sailer begins his cover article in the current issue of The American Conservative.

Voters are picking their parties based on differing approaches to the most fundamentally important human activity: having babies. The white people in Republican-voting regions consistently have more children than the white people in Democratic-voting regions. The more kids whites have, the more pro-Bush they get.

Sailer focuses on Caucausians, who voted for Bush over Kerry 58-41, because "whites remain the 800-pound gorilla of ethnic electoral groups, accounting for over three out of every four votes."

The National Center for Health Statistics reported that in 2002 the average white woman was giving birth at a pace consistent with having 1.83 babies during her lifetime, or 13 percent below the replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman. This below-replacement level has not changed dramatically in three decades.

States, however, differ significantly in white fertility. The most fecund whites are in heavily Mormon Utah, which, not coincidentally, was the only state where Bush received over 70 percent. White women average 2.45 babies in Utah compared to merely 1.11 babies in Washington, D.C., where Bush earned but 9 percent. The three New England states where Bush won less than 40 percent—Massachusetts, Vermont, and Rhode Island—are three of the four states with the lowest white birthrates, with little Rhode Island dipping below 1.5 babies per woman.

Bush carried the 19 states with the highest white fertility (just as he did in 2000), and 25 out of the top 26, with highly unionized Michigan being the one blue exception to the rule....

In sharp contrast, Kerry won the 16 states at the bottom of the list, with the Democrats’ anchor states of California (1.65) and New York (1.72) having quite infertile whites.

The bottom line?

Among the 50 states plus Washington, D.C., white total fertility correlates at a remarkably strong 0.86 level with Bush's percentage of the 2004 vote. (In 2000, the correlation was 0.85.) In the social sciences, a correlation of 0.2 is considered "low," 0.4 "medium," and 0.6 "high."

As Emily observes on After Abortion:

It was poignant in the last days of the presidential election to see film celebrities and hard-left activists like Michael Moore visiting campuses around the country urging young people to vote. Approximately 20,000,000 people who otherwise would have been able to vote in this election weren't there to have their vote gotten-out because they were aborted between 1973 and 1986. Although conservatives, Republicans and pro-life advocates do have abortions, the rate of abortion in these groups is lower than it is among liberals, Democrats and reproductive rights advocates. The missing voters, in the aggregate, would have tended in Kerry's direction.

And now for the $64,000 (pre-inflation) question. "So white birthrates and Republican voting are closely correlated," Sailer concludes, "but what causes what?"

For the answer, read the rest of Sailer's informative analysis, but before you do, here's a hint: "The arrow of causality seems to flow in both directions."

Supplemental Reading:

• Graphs and data tables, along with reader responses and additional information, are available here.

• See also "Fertile Red States," Noam Scheiber, The New York Times, December 12, 2004.

Communion Is Not a "Happy Meal"

"My friend Yvonne walked out of a Catholic church in Charleston and slammed the very heavy door behind her recently. The priest just had told the congregation that worshipers voting for candidates who support abortion rights should not receive communion," Bess Villeponteaux begins her guest column in Columbia, SC's The State.

Writing after her "first trip back home since the bishop of Charleston, Robert Baker, announced that politicians who support abortion rights could not receive communion in South Carolina," Villeponteaux continues:

Not one of the dozen or so bishops who have chosen to use communion as a political weapon prompted me to reconsider my vote for Sen. John Kerry. But Bishop Baker's announcement did make me reconsider the practice of my faith.

When I first heard that some Catholic bishops were denying communion to select politicians, I was dismayed....When I read about Bishop Baker's statement, I was horrified....

And we who are horrified can only wonder, should we stay?...

Villeponteaux is a graduate student in journalism at the University of North Carolina. Given her screed in The State, it would appear she has a promising career ahead of her in the propaganda organs of the DMC (dominant media culture) they call newspapers.

"This is an example of why the pope is saying that we need to keep faith and praxis together," Michael Dubrueil aptly observes on Annunciations.

When you get down to it the common view doesn't even fit the "club" mentality for you would presume if you are a member of a club that you agree with the club's membership requirements. What I think is at issue for most Catholics who fantasize that communion is being used as a weapon by some bishops is their notion that "communion" has nothing to do with Communion—that we are free to remain individuals with our own opinions about everything and then just present ourselves at the take-out rail for Jesus—without any conversion on our part!

Michael concludes with a prescient note on lost sheep who strike the shepherd to further scatter the flock:

In some cases we haven't done enough to seek out the lost, in other cases we haven't done enough to make some people aware that they are lost.

Profile: West Virginia Governor-Elect Joe Manchin

"On the eve of the presidential election, Democrats here could practically taste victory for Senator John Kerry," James Dao wrote in the November 16, 2004, New York Times. "

All that remained was for Democrats, who outnumber Republicans in this state by two to one, to do what they have done so many times before: vote the party line. But they did not. President Bush trounced Mr. Kerry by 13 percentage points, doubling his margin of victory in West Virginia from 2000 and becoming the first Republican since William McKinley to win this once reliably Democratic state twice.

"The Democrats' bad news did not end there," Dao continued. "Drawn by a powerful conservatism on issues like abortion, gun control and same-sex marriage," he added, "voters are leaving the Democratic Party in substantial numbers."

To be sure, the Republicans did not score a clean sweep. The Democratic candidate for governor, Secretary of State Joe Manchin, won with more than 60 percent of the vote. But in many ways, Mr. Manchin was the exception that proved the rule: He is one of the most conservative Democrats to win the job in decades, staunchly opposing abortion, gun control and gay marriage.

Carrie Hedges had offered a similar assessment of Manchin's victory in the November 3, 2004, USA Today. "Democratic Secretary of State Joe Manchin pulled together a diverse coalition of support that included abortion opponents, the National Rifle Association, organized labor and small business to beat his Republican opponent," she observed. "Manchin was able to win over many Republicans with his conservative principles."

That same day, Bob Withers reported for Huntington, WV's Herald-Dispatch:

For Bob Ray of Milton, morality was a key factor in the campaign. "I voted for Manchin because of his stance on moral issues," said Ray, who is a Baptist pastor. "He is against abortion." Ray said that was the litmus test he used for every candidate. "This country is drifting away from morality," he said. "If American doesn’t regain its moral heading, it stands in danger of Godly judgment."

Thus, the Baptist preacher voted for the Catholic Democrat. Nor was Manchin a sudden convert to his pro-life convictions, as West Virginians for Life affirmed in announcing their endorsement.

Joe Manchin was on the front lines fighting for the right to life at a time when it was not popular, when pro-abortion leadership ruled the WV legislature. He helped us and championed our cause when we were not as large as we are now, and he paid a political price. Bills with his name on it would be deliberately ignored in retaliation for his pro-life efforts. He has earned our endorsement.... In keeping with our long-standing and effective policy of continued support of candidates with pro-life voting records, the Board endorsed Joe Manchin based upon his 100% pro-life voting record

That record included the following votes in the West Virginia state legislature:

• Voted to stop taxpayer funding of abortion. (1987, 1988, 1990, 1992)
• Voted to transfer funds for abortion to programs to help pregnant mothers. (1987)
• Voted in favor of requiring parental consent for a minor's abortion. (1990)
• Voted in favor of informed consent for any abortion. (1990)
• Voted against the pro-abortion "Freedom of Choice Act." (1993)

During the election, Slate's William Saletan visited the Cargo gas station in Hinton, WV, to take the local political pulse. Here's what he discovered:

To find out what the Cargo crew thinks about morals, just glance at the station window. "Pray for our troops," says one sticker displayed there. "I proudly pledge allegiance to one nation under God," says another. A third says "Marriage = " followed by a stick-figure man and a stick-figure woman. Customers don't seem to mind—certainly not the woman who has hand-written "Jesus Loves You" on her truck. The men who come through the station, all of them from Democratic families, speak wistfully of the days when everyone went to church. They want paddling back in schools. Even the most liberal of them thinks abortion should be illegal. They're outraged at a report in the local paper that Bibles sent to soldiers in Iraq by their families have been returned for violating Muslim sensibilities.

I'm outraged too. Reckon that's because I, too, am a West Virginian.

Profile: Colorado Senator-Elect Ken Salazar

Midst the nationwide losses in the 2004 election, Democrats are celebrating the victory of Ken Salazar in Colorado, who beat Republican beer executive Pete Coors in the race for the Senate.

The Catholic debate over Ken Salazar on the state level mirrored the nationwide controversy of Catholic Senator Kerry's bid for the presidency. Both "pro-choice Catholics," Salazar and Kerry hold similar views in opposition to the Church:

Ken Salazar, a Roman Catholic who once studied to be a priest, supports abortion rights and opposes a federal ban on gay marriage. But he is also a big supporter of the death penalty, traditionally a GOP tenet (Associated Press Nov. 12, 2004)

According to Coloradans Against the Death Penalty, Salazar developed his position "after working on heinous murder trials such as that of Gary Davis, who was convicted of abducting, sexually torturing and killing Virginia May of Byers. Davis' 1997 execution was the first in Colorado in 30 years."

Jim Tankersley profiled Ken Salazar and his brother John in the Rocky Mountain News ("Sorrow of Good Friday, joy of Easter recalled" April 9, 2004). As children they grew up in a home rich with Catholic devotion and imbued with the spirit of the fraternal order of Penitentes, "known for their deep piety and Holy Week rites that at one time included carrying heavy crosses and self-whipping." Both brothers have also been recipients of Catholic education:

Ken Salazar left his family ranch for two years at a Franciscan seminary in Ohio, for college and law school, for private practice, the attorney general's office and now, a run for U.S. Senate. . . . John, a state representative running for Congress, say their Catholic traditions shaped them as men and as politicians. John Salazar joined the Penitentes for five years in the late '70s, long after the whipping practices stopped.

But for all their pious devotions, they appear to have adopted a thoroughly modern -- or postmodern -- conception of faith and obedience, as illustrated in this interview with the Boulder Weekly:

Boulder Weekly: How do you respond to Archbishop Charles Chaput’s recent comments criticizing pro-choice Catholic politicians like yourself?

Ken Salazar: I respect Archbishop Chaput’s right to speak on matters of religion, but he and I have very different views of the proper relationship between church and state under the U.S. Constitution. I subscribe to the vision of John F. Kennedy:

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute–where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act… I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish . . . where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials–and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all."

And the Denver Post reported that "in a speech to Denver County Democrats in May [2004], Salazar emphasized his support for abortion rights, saying the decision is made between a woman and "her God"" -- "choice for me but not for thee": that of the child, nor the other parent, having any say in the matter.

In the race for the Senate, Colorado voters were given the choice between two Catholics. On one hand, the personable Ken Salazar (Democrat), who "grew up in the cradle of Colorado Catholicism, studied for the priesthood as a teen and keeps a Bible at his bedside," and yet remained staunchly pro-choice in opposition to his bishop and the teachings of his faith. On the other, Peter Coors, "who adopted the faith of his wife after a process that began with accompanying his family to Mass and culminated at World Youth Day in Denver 11 years ago . . . [and] who says he can't find much about Catholic teaching he disagrees with." ("Where the Candidates Stand" COADP.org).

Apparently, the strongly-worded admonitions of Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput and Colorado Springs Bishop Michael Sheridan that Catholics could not in good conscience vote for pro-abortion candidates had little effect. According to exit polls, Catholic voters elected Salazar 53% to 46% (Source: ACIJ), according to exit polls, which came as a suprise given that Colorado Catholics voted for President Bush by a similar ratio of 52% to 46% (Source: CNN).

Chris Gates, the Colorado Democratic Party chairman, said the Catholic result shows "you can't touch Ken Salazar."

"You can't doubt his faith; his faith is personal, it is lifelong, and efforts to try to make those hits on him, which happened early on, completely failed," Gates said.

Sergio Gutierrez, the Denver archdiocese's spokesman, declined to analyze poll results but said the election shows it's "important for people of faith to be involved and speak out in the political process, even though people have tried to keep them from speaking out and marginalizing their point of view." (Denver Post Nov. 4, 2004)

Some have hoped that Salazar's victory would prompt the Colorado bishops to soften their criticism of pro-choice legislators, but Archbishop Charles Chaput is standing his ground, reports M.E. Sprengelmeyer of the Rocky Mountain News:

He has not backed down from the statements, and said it's important to continue a dialogue about the role of religion in public life now that Election Day has passed.

"It's important for the bishops' conference to keep talking about this issue so it doesn't appear to be doing election-year gymnastics," Chaput said, alluding to a discussion scheduled on Wednesday's agenda.

"Marriage Bill in Drag" Moves Towards Final Passage in New Zealand

Debate in the New Zealand parliament is intense this week as a controversial bill to give legal recognition to same-sex and de facto relationships reaches its third and final reading in the country's single chamber legislature," Angie Knox reports for the BBC.

Despite the opposition of the nation's Catholic bishops, as previously reported on Catholics in the Public Square, the bill passed its second reading last week by a vote of 65 to 55 in New Zealand's 120-seat unicameral parliament.

Within parliament, opponents of the Civil Union Bill have accused the government of trying to undermine the status of marriage. The centre-right New Zealand First Party is calling for a public referendum on the issue; other opponents want the bill amended to cover people in non-intimate relationships, such as siblings.

Most opposition MPs from the main centre-right National Party and the smaller Act Party have voted against the bill. One National MP, Nick Smith, told parliament the legislation was a gay marriage bill in drag. Another MP in the same party, Brian Connell, said: "This is the hard-sell of the homosexual community. This is a recruitment drive."

All eight MPs in the United Future Party, which supports the minority Labour government in confidence and money supply votes, have also rejected the bill. One of the party's MPs has been on a fast in protest against the proposed legislation.

Outside parliament, opposition to the bill has been intense. A parliamentary select committee has received a record 6,419 submissions on the Civil Union Bill, most of which opposed the measure.

"Opposition to the bill has been spearheaded by the churches," Knox observes.

Last week the Catholic Church—which is deeply opposed to any form of homosexual union—took the unprecedented step of urging its parishioners to consider how their MPs voted on the Civil Union Bill when deciding who to vote for in the next general election, due to be held in 2005.

Catholics, of course, are not the only Christians opposing the anti-marriage measure. Last August, Brian Tamaki, charismatic leader of what the BBS describes as "the fast-growing fundamentalist Destiny Church," rallied 5,000 supporters in a march on parliament to protest the bill, "which the church says undermines morality and the sanctity of marriage."

Mr Tamaki has said the bill represents all that is wrong with New Zealand society, and that the government is trying to legitimise an abnormal, unnatural sexual practice.

Mr. Tamaki, of course, is right. Stay tuned to Catholics in the Public Square for the final outcome. In the meanwhile, please join me in praying that New Zealand may yet be spared this abomination.

Supplemental Reading:

See also "Civil Union Opponents Fight Losing Battle," New Zealand Herald, December 8, 2004.

Labour's transsexual MP Georgina Beyer led the charge against them, saying arguments against the bill were based on "pious moral grounds with a very strong religious overtone."

"While much of our tradition may be based on the Christianity ethic, in the modern world there are a number of other beliefs," she said. "Should we all live under the tyranny of the majority of the so-called Christian believers in this country?"

"Natalists": Kids First

I have to say that N.Y. Times columnist David Brooks has been doing quite well by his readers lately. His latest column, "The New Red-Diaper Babies" (Dec. 7, 2004), makes the point that in the fastest growing areas of the country families are having more kids and making kids central to their lifestyle.

These areas are also the "reddest" areas, that is, the areas that are most pro-Bush. Brooks' observations bolster the view that the pull of traditional moral values exerted a major influence on the 2004 election, even though some, on the same op-ed page, have voiced doubts about that theory.

Brooks points out what many of us have experienced: once we start having kids, we tend to move out of disorderly neighborhoods with graffiti, loitering, loud cursing by after school crowds of students trudging home in packs, unacceptable noise levels, and, of course, crime. It is almost an instinctive reaction. I recall, like a lightning bolt, moving out of a declining New Orleans neighborhood--that up to that point seemed quite tolerable--upon the birth of my first child.

Leaving my hometown was also motivated in part by not wanting to raise children in a city that glorifies vulgar hedonism and excess as its major tourist attractions. I wanted a serious place for the serious and important business of life that I was now embarking on.

Brooks' observations are a welcome sign that maybe the contraceptive mentality is slipping. Just maybe, we are seeing the first signs that more and more people are realizing that procreation is probably the most significant thing any of us will ever do. Children focus the mind on what really matters and on the quality of one's surroundings. After a certain point, the variety of restaurants and bars available in a locale steeply falls in importance as a measure of livability, while safety and order zoom to the top of the list.

But, of course, many are not able to flee unpleasant surroundings. That's why police, courts, schools, and even libraries in urban areas have to stop looking the other way in the face of disorderly and anti-social behavior. That's why school vouchers to parochial schools that instill orderly behavior are a boon to urban neighborhoods.

Yet, the so-called champions of social justice--some of whom live quite comfortably in far-off, safe neighborhoods-- self-assuredly deny these solutions to those stuck in declining neighborhoods. You'll find many Kerry supporters among those blind "champions of social justice."

New Zealand Bishops Oppose Marriage Perversion

The United States is, of course, not the only country where obscene parodies of marriage are being peddled by practitioners of perversion and their political stooges. Thus, Ruth Berry reports in Saturday's New Zealand Herald that Members of Parliament are facing "unparalleled lobbying" on the bill establishing legally sanctioned "civil unions" between homosexual pairings.

Catholics in the public square are speaking out. "The Catholic Church is urging its members to take note of the way their MPs vote on the Civil Union Bill," Berry reports, "when deciding who to support at the next election."'

The pressure from a Church deeply opposed to homosexual marriage, comes as Parliament prepares for the second reading debate on the bill.

Catholic bishops have sent their unprecedented message in a letter to parishes, to be read from pulpits....In the letter, the bishops say they feel obliged to take their action because of the grave implications of the legislation

Earlier Berry had reported that National leader Don Brash had withdrawn his support for bill," as intensive lobbying of MPs continues. "

The decision came as a slap in the face for the Government, which had calculated his support would help undercut conservative opposition to its bill....Dr Brash's announcement came as a significant blow to the Government, several of whose MPs were still confident of his vote just hours before.

Campaign for Civil Unions spokesman Cameron Law threatened Dr Brash with the loss of the lavender vote if he did not support the bill.

A far wiser source of advice, however, asks, "What doth it profit a man to gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his soul?"

It is a question that every Member of Parliament should ask before voting on this legislative assault on marriage and every citizen should ask before voting in the next election, as the bishops rightly remind us.

(Courtesy of A Catholic Soul)

Supplemental Reading:

See also "Catholic Threat to Civil Union Bill," Tracy Walker, The Dominion Post.

Frances Kissling's Attempt at "Compassion for Fetal Life"

The defeat of Senator Kerry in the 2004 Presidential election, and the growing suspicion among liberals that John Kerry's support of partial-birth abortion may have played a part, has prompted Francis Kissling of Catholics for Free Choice to further reflection, according to Julia Duin of the Washington Post ("Pro-Choicers Told to Re-Think" Dec. 6, 2004):

"I am deeply struck by the number of thoughtful, progressive people who have been turned off to the pro-choice movement by the lack of adequate and clear expressions of respect for fetal life," she writes.

Such people "have felt forced to defend what appears to be an absolute right to abortion that brooks no consideration of other values -- legal or moral. This often means a reluctance to even consider whether or not fetal life has value."

Joe Starrs, spokesman for the American Life League, agreed with Mrs. Kissling's reservations and said he hoped that they would bring about a change of heart.

"If Frances Kissling continues on this path, logically she would end up as pro-life," he said. "I don't see any intellectually honest option available to her.

"She's admitting a lot of the pro-abortion arguments don't make sense," Mr. Starrs said. "They've failed to capture the hearts and minds of the American people because they are way too radical."

Ms. Kissling did have some harsh words for the bishops, as well:

"The bishops claim that abortion is the greatest moral issue of our time, that Catholics cannot vote for candidates who are pro-choice and that pro-choice Catholic legislators are committing a grave sin by supporting legal abortion. This is a weak rhetorical response to 'murder.'

"How can any bishop or parish priest justify spending one penny on anything discretionary rather than on helping the many women who would continue their pregnancies if they had the resources to bear and raise a child? No dinners, no business-class plane tickets, no vacations, no flowers on the altar as long as one penny is needed to prevent abortions."

You can read the full text of Frances Kissling's essay here.

Not all readers are as hopeful as Joe Starrs, however. Responding on Catholic World News' blog "Off The Record", Diogenes observes:

Kissling's profound intellectual dishonesty defeats her in every paragraph. She begins each argument by trying to concede some tiny measure of good will to her adversaries, but her ideological demons overmaster her, and the fetus she claims to "value" is sacrificed to her hatred -- that is, her hatred of the possibility that pro-lifers might be right.

A particularly good illustration of Frances' enslavement to the ideology of choice is the culmination of her article in the advocacy of fetal anesthesia as a symbol of pro-choicer's "respect for fetal life":

Treating the fetus humanely during the termination of its life would be seen as an important human value -- more important than the extra cost factor [of paying for anesthesia]. . . . This is one more opportunity to assure the public that we do value fetal life. We are concerned about the possibility that fetuses may feel pain and are committed to ensuring that abortion services are delivered in a way that respects a woman’s right to choose, and that provides her with all available information about the abortion procedure and its risks. To the extent possible, abortion should be a humane and compassionate procedure and although it involves the termination of fetal life, we approach that termination with respect and compassion. Thus, we would recommend that those who provide abortion provide the option of fetal anesthesia.

Nice try, Frances, but no cigar. One could easily imagine the enlightened minds that hatched "The Groningen Protocol" making a similar recommendation in the "mercy killing" of those deemed expendable.

The Gronigen Protocol: A Crime Against Humanity In the Making

Inasmuch as the Culture of Death is a global campaign in which crimes committed in Holland today will be perpetrated in the United States tomorow and inasmuch as infanticide has been practiced in the United States for some time, I bring you the following report from the pages of Life Matters! . . .

"Four times in recent months, Dutch doctors have pumped lethal doses of drugs into [critically ill] newborns," Matthew Schofield reported for the Knight-Ridder on October 11, adding:

The children's deaths, and the possibility that the protocol will become standard practice throughout the Netherlands, have sparked heated discussion about whether the idea of assisting adults who seek to die should ever be applied to children and others who are incapable of making, or understanding, such a request.

Under the so-called "Groningen protocol," doctors have the authority to end such children's life. "The protocol is likely to be used primarily for newborns, but it covers any child up to age 12," Schofield advises.

A parent's role is limited under the protocol. While experts and critics familiar with the policy said a parent's wishes to let a child live or die naturally most likely would be considered, they note that the decision must be professional, so rests with doctors.

The protocol was written by hospital doctors and officials, with help from Dutch prosecutors. It's being studied by lawmakers as potential law.

The protocol, Hugh Hewitt observes in The Weekly Standard, "should enter the history books as shorthand for an appalling brutality, so appalling in fact, that the Groningen Protocol could have been an entry on the agenda at the Wannsee Conference." On November 30, the Associated Press published a follow-up account. "The protocol is already in effect, and at least four babies had been deemed disposable and killed," Hewitt advises, concluding:

This is either a low point, or a point of no return. The establishment of "independent committees" to dispatch nonconsenting humans is nothing but a death penalty committee for innocents. Once begun, it is impossible--simply impossible--to limit the concept with any bright line....If the "severely retarded" may be killed upon appropriate motion, second, debate, and majority vote, why not the moderately retarded? Why not the mildly retarded? Why not, in fact, anyone the "independent committee" deems as usefully dispatched.

The Hollanders were the victims of the German occupation during the Nazi tyranny of the Twentieth Century. Now, the Netherlands is a victimizer nation, implementing the anti-life protocols of the TAB tyranny of the Twenty-First.

Tragically, their own infants among the most defenseless victims of the Culture of Death, as it "turns yet another blood-stained page in its long and malevolent history. The Allies liberated Holland in 1945. Who will free the victims of today's crimes against humanity in the Netherlands?

Some Votes Count More Than Others

As published by National Review Online, courtesy of Live Not By Lies:

A Pro-Choice Party No More
If every vote counts, why does the Democratic party ignore pro-life Democrats?

by Kristen Day
Executive Director, Democrats for Life of America

Senator John Kerry and the Democratic party focused on changing the direction of America this election cycle, and people listened. The Kerry camp waged a serious campaign, but the fact is that America wanted a lot of things to stay the same. A perfect example of this was on "moral issues." On Election Day, Democrats and Republicans alike sent a clear message to Washington: Protect our values.

Pro-life Democrats are not surprised by the outcome of this year's election. In fact, pro-life Democrats have been pleading with their party to be respectfully included. Unfortunately, the "big-tent" Democratic party has allowed itself to be controlled by pro-choice forces and suffered as a result. For the past 25 years, pro-life Democrats have been leaving the party over the issue of abortion.

• Twenty-five years ago, the Democrats held a 292-seat majority in the House; 125 of those seats belonged to pro-life Democrats.
  

• Twelve years ago, Democrats held a 258-seat majority with about 50 pro-life Democrats. Subsequently, we lost the majority in the House and the number of pro-life Democrats dwindled to 35.
  

• Two years ago, Democrats lost the majority in the U.S. Senate. Many attributed the loss to three key seats in strong pro-life states such as Georgia, Missouri, and Minnesota.
  

• In December of 2003, a Zogby poll found that 43 percent of Democrats are opposed to abortion.
  

• In June, a CBS poll found that "almost twice as many Democratic delegates as Democratic voters think abortion should be permitted in all cases."

• Three weeks before the election, another poll indicated that President Bush's pro-life position gave him an eight-percent advantage over Senator Kerry.

Why is the national party ignoring these trends? The truth is that some pro-choice forces in the Democratic party would rather lose than run a pro-life candidate. But the national party is stronger when pro-life Democrats are embraced and encouraged. Today, too many pro-life Democrats do not feel welcome in their own party. Reagan Democrats left in the 1980s and did not return; many pro-life Democrats also migrated to the Republican party after the 1994 GOP tidalwave election year. Meanwhile, pro-life Democrats are winning races because they withstand the pressure of the national party and represent the values of their local communities.

For example:

• Pro-life Democrat Joe Manchin won the governor's race in West Virginia despite the fact that George Bush carried the state.
  


• Due to the leadership of Minority Leader Pat Murphy in recruiting pro-life Democrats to run in pro-life districts, the Iowa senate is now tied and the Iowa house has moved closer to a Democratic majority.


• In Minnesota, a pro-life Democratic candidate won in an "unelectable" seat that had been deemed Republican.

• In Maryland, a pro-life Democrat was told that the state party would not support him because he was pro-life. He ran anyway and won.

If Democrats are going to be a majority party again, Democrats must embrace pro-lifers and encourage them to come back. To do that, we first have to prove that we're sincere in our openness and that we stand behind our "big tent" policy of welcoming those with differing views on issues such as abortion.

Our issues have been hijacked by the Republican party. As Democrats we should take them back and lead an effort to protect life at all stages by ensuring freedom from violence, a livable wage, affordable health care, an opportunity to live and raise a family, and social security for retirees.

Every vote counts—including those of Democrats committed to protecting the rights of the unborn. Let's not forget that in 2006 and, more important, in 2008.

Editor's Note:

WV Governor Joe Manchin, is not only a pro-life Democrat, he is a pro-life Catholic in the public square.

Nor is he the only pro-life Democrat that my home state has contributed to the nation. Two of the Mountain State's three Representatives are pro-life Democrats: Alan Mollohan and Nick Rahall.

The third is my Representative, pro-abort Shelly Capito (R-WV), who won re-election because the Democrats insisted on nominating an even more radically anti-life candidate to oppose her. Hopefully, they won't make the same mistake in 2006.

Update, December 6, 10:00 p.m.:

See also "Life of the Party," National Review Online, October 28, 2004 (courtesy of Irish Elk, scroll down to "A pro-choice party no more.").

The Church and Nancy Keenan -- there ought to be a feud.

Following up on Nathan's post ("Nancy Keenan - President Death" Nov. 22), the Catholic Church in Montana has challenged NARAL president (and "pro-choice Catholic") Nancy Keenan's claims that she "stood up" to pressure from her bishop after she spoke publicly at a pro-abortion rally fifteen years ago. Cybercast News Service reports:

[Diocese of Helena, MO spokesperson] Eric Schiedermayer
told CNSNews.com that the Church had merely tried to "help [Keenan] understand" its disapproval of her public support for abortion rights.

Following the 1989 rally, according to Schiedermayer, Bishop Elden Curtiss offered to meet with Keenan and a colleague of hers to discuss their views on subjects such as abortion.

Keenan met with the bishop in her office on Nov. 28, 1989, Schiedermayer said, during which time Curtiss submitted to her a list of exploratory questions regarding her pro-abortion views. These questions were reportedly an effort to show Keenan how she had deviated from Catholic Church teachings.

Schiedermayer said he is unsure whether Keenan ever replied to the questions privately, but he added, "Certainly not publicly." . . .

Despite the disagreement, Schiedermayer said there was no public or official excommunication of Keenan. "Publicly, all of the statements are not anywhere near threats of excommunication. In fact, there are no threats of sanctions at all," he said.

Source: NARAL Leader May Have Exaggerated Abortion Feud With Church, Cybercast News Service. Dec. 3, 2004.

Apparently the new bishop of Helena, George Thomas, is expected to address the Keenan incident and clarify the Church's position. Which prompts Domenico Bettinelli to ask:

". . . what is the formal status of the head of the nation's most vocal pro-abortion group? If she presents herself for Communion to the bishop in either her native Montana or her new home in the Arlington, Virginia, diocese, will she be allowed to receive? How close does material cooperation have to be?"

To echo Domenico's disappointment, I think it's safe to say that all the co-editors of this blog wish there was, more of a "abortion feud" between Montana's Catholic Church and the president of NARAL.

Battle Lines Drawn for Supreme Court Campaign

As the continued absence of Chief Justice William Rehnquist from Supreme Court sessions heightens consideration of the likelihood of his retirement, the battle lines over his potential successor are already taking shape.

"Senate Republicans are preparing to implement a sophisticated, multipronged plan to confirm President Bush's expected nomination," Alexander Bolton reports in yesterday's issue of The Hill, while "well-funded liberal groups are also ramping up their efforts to block any conservative nominee."

"The groups on the center-right are prepared to mobilize at a moment's notice," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, a group with 600,000 active members. "There have been a series of meetings with a lot of the Senate staff. The bulk of the effort is focusing on the Senate side."

In the summer of 2003, when it seemed that Rehnquist or another Justice might retire, a strategy was devised by Manuel Miranda, then serving as senior aide on judicial strategy for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN).

Under the Miranda plan, as soon as Bush nominated a justice, Republicans and conservatives would issue press releases pre-emptively to deflect liberal efforts to define the nominee. Conservative groups would issue their own information packets while selected Republican senators would make statements and floor speeches.

While the nomination was reviewed in committee, Republican senators would speak publicly to counter expected negative coverage by newspapers such as The New York Times and The Washington Post.

Once the nomination reached the Senate floor, the majority leader and majority whip would take over and mobilize the entire conference behind the nominee....

Outside groups would also be involved. Organizations such as Coalition for a Fair Judiciary would handle grassroots work while The Federalist Society would provide substantive arguments for use in Senate and media debates.

Of course, the anti-life, anti-family opposition is scarcely standing on the sidelines.

On the other side of the judicial battlefield, liberal groups led by People for the American Way and the Alliance for Justice are preparing a multimillion-dollar effort to publicize the record of whomever Bush taps for the high court....

Other traditional Democratic allies including the Sierra Club, NARAL Pro-Choice America, the AFL-CIO and Human Rights Campaign will likely join the effort against a conservative nominee.

"More than a thousand organizations are interested and involved in judicial nominations," boasts Alliance head, Nan Aron, who adds their ranks include groups, such as Indian tribes, not previously involved in Supreme Court nomination battles. "Aron said that her group and allies have met Senate Democratic staff members."

Ralph Neas, head of People for the American Way,...said that his organization has researched possible nominees since 2000, when Bush praised Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the most conservative, textualist members of the court.

Aron said her group has researched hundreds of potential nominees, producing such a volume of material that it must be stored outside of the group's headquarters.

The left-wing lobby has amassed a considerable war chest, with People for the American Way raising between $15 and $20 million a year for the past four years.

A coalition of conservative groups is forming to oppose the message of People for the American Way and other liberal groups, but conservative strategists and Republican aides said those right-wing groups lack the resources to match the left wing.

The Committee for Justice, headed by former White House counsel C. Boyden Gray, which will take a leading role in a Supreme Court fight, has existed for just two years.

And so the battle lines form. Stay tuned to Catholics in the Public Square for future field reports.

Tortured reasoning

Tom at Disputations takes a look at an article by a public Catholic on a Catholic site.

After the New York Times revealed that the "Red Cross has charged ... that the American military has intentionally used psychological and sometimes physical coercion 'tantamount to torture' on prisoners at Guantánamo Bay," Scrappleface countered with an article headlined, "Red Cross: Al Qaeda May Violate Geneva Conventions."

I suppose tu quoque is good enough for a satirical website. But what's good enough for a columnist writing on a website "endeavoring to evangelize the world via the Internet with the Good News of Jesus Christ in the Catholic Church in obedience to Pope John Paul II's call for a 'Springtime of World Evangelization'"?

What if, for example, we had captured one of the terrorists who held Nick Berg captive while Berg was still alive? Would we have been justified in using whatever means necessary, if he might have led us to rescue Berg?

... The ICRC does not appear to have uncovered anything approaching real torture. But perhaps it's time we put aside our squeamishness on this issue and opened a genuine debate about exactly what methods a humane society is justified in using to save innocent lives.

We have a prominent public figure publicly wondering whether the ends might justify the means and criticizing the squeamish for their reluctance to talk about the difference between evil torture and good torture.

Mark Shea who is also a Catholic Exchange author comments on this article in their roundtable section.

Note the progression of thought.

a. Hey! That wasn't really torture.

b. "Would we have been justified in using ***whatever means necessary***, if he might have led us to rescue Berg?" (Translation: the ends justify evil means.)

c. Get over your squeamishness.

I fear the Right is girding itself intellectually to become the advocates of Empowering Caesar to Take Drastic Measures for the Greater Good.

and also in reply to another commenter:

What is under discussion is not "punishment". Punishment is a legitimate function of the State. What is under discussion is Chavez' subtle urging to consider using *torture*. She writes sentences like, "And if such methods are "torture," is the United States justified in using them anyway?... Would we have been justified in using ****whatever means necessary****, if he might have led us to rescue Berg?"

If she were asking those questions in order to offer a definitive Catholic "NO!!!" then it would be one thing. For the teaching of the Church in answer to those questions is, indeed, definitive:

CCC 2297 Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.

And St. Paul is frighteningly clear: Those who argue "Let us do evil that good may result" are, in his words, "justly condemned" (Romans 3:8).

Of course there has to be a finding of good cause to believe the person is involved and knows the information -- which should involve a presentation of evidence to a court, otherwise known as due process. This punishment cannot be used as a mere fishing expedition. I think it is something we have to talk about.

All of which would be relevant if that was what Chavez was saying. She wasn't. She was cushioning her plea to consider exploring the Torture Option by saying a) "Hey! It wasn't really torture, so we aren't as bad as they say" follow by b) "And if such methods are "torture," is the United States justified in using them anyway?"

A Catholic answer to that question would be "No. Period. End of story. No nation, not even us righteous Americans, is *ever* justified using torture because it is contrary to God's law."

But instead of saying, this Chavez urged us to consider the possibility of using "whatever means necessary".

That's why I'm glad Catholic Exchange pulled the piece. They did the right thing.

I am not quite sure that they have pulled the piece yet. It is still available on it's original page and is still linked under Linda Chavez's columns.