About that Romney Speech . . .

Fr. Neuhaus loved it:

It was a powerful speech powerfully delivered. I don’t do political endorsements but am on record as saying that I think Mitt Romney is in many ways well qualified to be president. There is nothing in the speech that prompts a change of mind on that. . . .

Very notably, Romney did not do a JFK at Houston. He did not distance himself from his faith. “Some believe,” he said, “that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it.” A bold statement–almost Luther-like in its “Here I stand” resonance.

Fr. Sirico didn't:

Mitt Romney is right that religion and morality are core convictions in American society. Our freedom depends on this, I completely agree. Without the ability to manage our lives morally, the state steps into the vacuum, both in response to public demand and to serve the state’s own interests in expanding power.

But soon after spelling this out, in part, he makes this bold claim, which I believe repeats John F. Kennedy’s error: “Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.”

Speaking of Kennedy, CNN interviewed Theodore Sorensen, who assisted Kennedy in drafting his speech addressing his Catholic faith and the separation of church and state.

Dissenting Catholics Back Obama

Obama Advisor is Well Known Dissenting Catholic - Deal Hudson InsideCatholic.com. December 7, 2007:

Marshall Ganz, a Harvard sociologist, was a major force behind organizing Voice of the Faithful (VOTF), a dissenting Catholic organization devoted to "structural" change in the Church. VOTF, you may recall, used the occasion of the priest sex scandals to call for changes in Catholic doctrine such as the addition of a married priesthood and popularly-elected bishops.

Ganz is a nationally known expert in political organizing. In 2004 he was an adviser to Howard Dean -- Ganz now advises Democratic presidential candidate, Barak Obama. . . .

So what is Obama's attitude toward Catholics?

In his speech last summer to the Call to Renewal Conference he explained, "The majority of Catholics practice birth control because they, like all Americans, 'intuitively' recognize religious teachings that are 'more culturally specific' and may be modified to accommodate modern life."

Birds of a feather.

The Mockery of the Good: "Purity Dances"

The Sunday Chicago Tribune had a front page article on the national phenomenon of "purity dances" among conservative Christians. These are formal social occasions where fathers take their daughters to formal dances, where daughters pledge themselves to sexual abstinence before marriage, and where fathers embrace the role of protectors of the purity of their daughters. If you're a young man, listen up: there is new hope here for you, for finding a pure woman to marry, even in these United States. If you're a young man, here's a great motivator for you yourself to abstain from premarital sex: be worthy of the pure woman who has saved herself for you.

Of course, the article is full of the mockery, cynicism, sarcasm, and disdain for the truly good that our present-day social customs aim at any idealism in the realm of sexuality. That mockery is, in my view, a reflection of the jaded who no longer believe in any romantic or chivalrous idealism in sexual relations. That mockery is also the terror of the guilty who don't want to see anyone achieve what they so cavalierly threw away forever. The saying is that misery loves company. In many areas of life, it is also very true, deep in the psychology of many, that mediocrity loves company. Mediocrity in sexual matters and in other matters wants to level the playing field so that excellence is flattened. Mediocrity reacts with envy, anger, and sarcasm when someone is going for the brass ring in life because, when someone else shines, they are obviously and emphatically left in the dark. The rational solution is to get out of the dark yourself, not to drag others into it.

Yet, in spite of the mockery in the article, the very fact that the article had to be written, especially in an elite, national newspaper, is very good. Some people even in our debauched United States are waking up to reality. Christians believe that we have a God-given human nature. Sin and the incessant social embrace of sin blind, deaden, and paralyze many of our natural, healthy human instincts. Ironically, in this post-Freud age, the widespread culture of promiscuity represses the truly human instinct for sexual purity. There is a natural human yearning for a pure spouse who has reserved the sexual act for marriage. We have repressed that instinct for so long in the United States that this idealistic yearning seemed all but dead and fictional, a concoction of another age, a caricatured "patriarchal" age of oppression. But nature has a way of making its comebacks because we are hardwired for the good. As an old commercial used to say, "it's not nice to fool mother nature." When we try to fool mother nature, reality bites back--hence so much widespread chaos and turmoil today in relations between men and women.

Part of the mockery of chastity comes in the classic attack that abstinence does not work--that even teenagers who pledge themselves to abstinence end up engaging in premarital sex. These critics also like to make the point that, once the teens break the abstinence pledges, they are more likely to engage in "unsafe" sex because they know nothing--or at least nothing "accurate"--about contraception. Let's take this bromide apart, step by step. First, as noted by one of the conservatives quoted in the article, virtually all teens know about contraception in today's America. Just walk into any drugstore; and you will see the products lined up in open shelves in a bewildering, vibrantly capitalistic array of colors and labels. Second, as also noted by a quoted conservative in the article, why not respect the full freedom of the teen by laying out all the alternatives, which include abstinence? As in the abortion debate, social liberals have a great fear of presenting alternatives, of presenting options other than those celebrated in the media. You have heard of politically correct thinking--well, we have among many social liberals, sexually correct thinking: you should not take seriously the option of abstinence before marriage.

But there is a more fundamental and radical critique that can be made against the argument that teens who break abstinence pledges are more likely to end up pregnant. This radical critique says that there is nothing wrong with preserving the natural link between cause and effect in sexuality: the undeniable (though not exclusive) purpose of sex is to reproduce. If x, then y. That causal connection is a big red flag: if sex leads to kids, it's a great sign that sex should be reserved for that person judged by you worthy to be a parent. When we find that person worthy of parenting our kids, we want to claim them permanently so that they stick around for the arduous task of raising and educating the kids. That arrangement is marriage. We have just reinvented the wheel for a society that thinks itself too clever to need the wheel. An unwanted pregancy is surely a great problem, especially for those in economic hardship; but we can address the problem by social compassion, by alternatives such as adoption, by re-teaching the need for abstinence before marriage, without cutting the natural, healthy link between sex and babies. Once we try to fool mother nature, we are the ones who end up as fools. Many can testify to that result.

Neutered

A recent front page article in the N.Y. Times had this headline that is supposed to elicit great civic concern on our part: "Big Rise in Cost of Birth Control on Campuses." In my experience, the story on which a journalist is focused is often not even close to being the most significant story involved in a particular set of facts. We have the "official" news story, and then we have the "real" news story. The role of analysis is to uncover the "real" news story. The ostensible "official" news story here is that college students [read: female college students] are having to pay more for their monthly contraceptive fix (whether birth control pills or various barrier devices). The "official" story goes on to discuss some arcane government regulations that, apparently, for years had the effect of subsidizing fornication on college campuses. Even I, as a lawyer, found the regulatory discussion foggy and off-putting. But the arcane legal regulations are not the real story.

Yet, even the "official" story found this social welfare program a bit odd: "Not everyone is troubled by the price increases. Some people said they wondered why college students, many of whom manage to afford daily doses of coffee from Starbucks and downloads from iTunes, should have been given such discounted birth control to begin with, and why drug companies should be granted such a captive audience of students" (N.Y. Times, Nov. 22, 2007, at above link).

What struck me as the real story are the prominent photos of two attractive female college students. The photo spreads explicitly identify their full names and their colleges of attendance. My friends, I admit it: I am shocked that these young women are willing to advertise in one of the most prominent newspapers in the world that they are sexually active outside of marriage. And not just episodically ready for sexual activity, but always ready to fornicate based on their regular monthly subscription to birth control pills. That reality is not surprising today, but I thank God that I still am capable of being shocked. One of the students even notes that she discussed with her mother how to get a better deal on contraceptives. They should rather be discussing why her attractive daughter, at a young age full of so many good possibilities, needs to be ready, always and continuously on a month-to-month basis, to have contraceptive sex.

What also struck me is how these young women and millions of others have evacuated sex of any meaning whatsoever. Once we neuter ourselves, we take any meaning out of the sexual act: we have "neutered" the sexual act. It is no longer about finding the special person whom you judge worthy to be a lifelong partner. It is no longer about finding someone you're willing to have as the father of and role model for your child. It's no longer about heroically and courageously giving one's life to another. The sexual act becomes as "neutered" as the females with a monthly subscription to contraceptives: empty of all meaning, ending up as sound and fury signifying nothing. And we wonder why marriage is delayed for so long or even skipped altogether or why marriages don't last like they used to last. Sex becomes a passionless, routine aerobic exercise dispensed at will. They have strangled a great gift to humanity, a great gift that they could have really possessed and really enjoyed for life. Forget about the official news story. That's the real news story.

Henry Hyde "The Father of the Modern Pro-Life Movement"

President Bush on Congressman Henry Hyde (to whom he awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom):

“He used his persuasive powers for noble causes. He stood for a strong and purposeful America — confident in freedom's advance, and firm in freedom's defense. He stood for limited, accountable government, and the equality of every person before the law. He was a gallant champion of the weak and forgotten, and a fearless defender of life in all its seasons. Henry Hyde spoke of controversial matters with intellectual honesty and without rancor.”

See also: A Life for Life: Henry Hyde's Legacy National Review Symposium with Robert P. George, Kate O'Beirne, Tom DeLay, Carl Anderson, Helen Alvare and others.

The National Right to Life has a lengthy tribute - heralding him as "the father of the modern pro-life movement for his introduction and sponsorhip of the amendment which bears his name:

Perhaps Hyde's best-remembered commentary on the issue of abortion is this quote:

When the time comes as it surely will, when we face that awesome moment, the final judgment, I've often thought, as Fulton Sheen wrote, that it is a terrible moment of loneliness. You have no advocates, you are there alone standing before God – and a terror will rip through your soul like nothing you can imagine. But I really think that those in the pro-life movement will not be alone. I think there will be a chorus of voices that have never been heard in this world but are heard beautifully and clearly in the next world – and they will plead for everyone who has been in this movement. They will say to God, 'Spare him because he loved us,' – and God will look at you and say not, 'Did you succeed?' but 'Did you try?'

It is safe to say that Congressman Henry Hyde not only tried to save the most defenseless among us, but that he has succeeded on a level of which most can only dream. His efforts, his victories, his leadership and his friendship are deeply appreciated by the National Right to Life Committee and by pro-life citizens across this nation.

Crisis' Tribute to Rick Santorum

Lightning Rod: The Return of Rick Santorum, by Joan Frawley Desmond. Crisis June 2007:

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania) knew he had lost his re-election fight at 5 p.m. on Election Day. After receiving the news, he joined his wife, Karen, and their six children at their hotel suite. The Santorums always planned to “finish well.” Now, that meant taking their children with them when they voted at the Penn Hills polling station. The Santorums capped the evening with the celebration of Mass. They included Rick’s winning opponent, State Treasurer Bob Casey, in their prayers, as they had every day during that long campaign. One attendee remembers “a beautiful Mass, filled with grace.”

At 8 p.m., Rick Santorum officially lost the election and congratulated Casey on his victory. Soon after, television personality Sean Hannity called to express his regrets. Santorum responded, “Why?” He felt at peace. . . .

What an inspiring way to end a political race. Would that all of our candidates had that kind of class! -- This from good article from Crisis (yes, I'm catching up on old issues) on the post-election doings of former Senator Rick Santorum. He is now working for the Ethics and Public Policy Center, heading their Program to Protect America's Freedom "to identify, study, and heighten awareness of the threats to America and the West from a growing array of anti-Western forces and states that increasingly cast a shadow over our future and that violate religious liberty around the world."

The article addresses' Santorum's controversial decision to back Sen. Arlen Specter during the 2004 presidential race:

Santorum’s willingness to make choices that run counter to his own self-interest has even hurt him with his natural allies—the GOP’s conservative base. Back in 2004, his decision to endorse Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania), a pro-abortion stalwart poised to command the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee, rather than Rep. Pat Toomey, his pro-life challenger, angered many conservatives. But those close to him say he believed he had no choice. At the time, he was certain that Bush would have a chance to nominate a justice for the nation’s highest court, but the party lacked the Senate majority it needed to confirm a nominee. The conservative base mistrusted Specter, but he could win in a general election. Toomey could not. When Specter’s victory at the polls was confirmed, recalls one friend, “Rick felt nothing. He turned off the television and went to bed. As a Senate leader, he needed Specter’s vote; he needed to get this done.”

The internecine party fight embittered pro-life Republicans, though most concede that Specter performed well during the recent Supreme Court confirmation battles. The deeper problem is that conservative activists believe that the GOP leadership exploits its political networks during election time but doesn’t work hard enough to secure vital anti-abortion and pro-marriage legislation. The irony, of course, is that no one accomplished more for the pro-life movement during his Senate career than Rick Santorum. He played a critical role in the passage of several key bills: the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Sponsorship of these bills reflected an incremental pro-life strategy to ban abortion by reclaiming the moral high ground—exposing the brutality of abortion procedures and affirming the fundamental dignity of unborn human life. On the Senate floor, Santorum was the undaunted general of the campaign.

The article goes on to cite Santorum's 1999 exchange with Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer of California, which encapsulates the perverse irrationality of the Democratic Party's position on abortion:

Santorum: What we are talking about here with partial birth, as the senator from California knows, is a baby is in the process of being born—

Boxer: “The process of being born.” This is why this conversation makes no sense, because to me it is obvious when a baby is born. To you it isn’t obvious.

Santorum: Maybe you can make it obvious to me. So what you are suggesting is if the baby’s foot is still inside of the mother, that baby can then still be killed.

Boxer: No, I am not suggesting that in any way!

Santorum: I am asking.

Boxer: I am absolutely not suggesting that. You asked me a question, in essence, when the baby is born.

Santorum: I am asking you again. Can you answer that?

Boxer: I will answer the question when the baby is born. The baby is born when the baby is outside the mother’s body. The baby is born.

Santorum: . . . But, again, what you are suggesting is if the baby’s toe is inside the mother, you can, in fact, kill that baby.

Boxer: Absolutely not.

Santorum: OK. So if the baby’s toe is in, you can’t kill the baby. How about if the baby’s foot is in?

Boxer: You are the one who is making these statements.

Santorum: We are trying to draw a line here.

Boxer: I am not answering these questions! I am not answering these questions.

Henry Hyde - Tireless Defender of the Unborn, RIP

Rep. Henry Hyde, a Catholic from Illinois who recently received the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his tireless work in Congress to protect the unborn, has passed away.

Requiscat in pace.

(Hat tip: Alexham at Vox Nova)


UPDATE
National Review's editorial on Rep. Hyde's passing: "The Honorable Mr. Hyde":

... He will be most remembered for the Hyde Amendment. First passed in 1976, when Hyde was new to Washington, it bans the public funding of abortions though Medicaid. The year before it passed, the federal government had financed 300,000 abortions for low-income women. Afterward, this number dropped essentially to zero — the women either found another way to pay for their abortions or chose life for their unborn children. The National Right to Life Committee has estimated, conservatively, that the Hyde Amendment has prevented at least one million abortions. That’s one million Americans who are alive today because of Henry Hyde.

The Hyde Amendment has proven remarkably durable, undergoing only one important revision. In 1993, Congress added rape and incest exceptions to the life-of-the-mother clause that had been in place from the start. It is without question the most important piece of pro-life legislation ever to pass Congress...

UPDATE # 2
More from National Review on Rep. Hyde's passing, this time from David Freddoso writing at The Corner:

Hyde at Notre Dame
Everyone remembers the famous [ED.: rather, infamous] Mario Cuomo speech at Notre Dame, in which he urged Catholics to keep right and wrong to themselves when it comes to abortion. But how many people remember that shortly after his speech, conservatives at Notre Dame invited Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) to speak on the topic of religion in public life?

The Associated Press covered his speech on September 24, 1984, as true today as it ever was ...

[More]

Boston Globe: Cardinal O'Malley's Criticism "Met With Silence"

The Boston Globe examines Massachusetts' Democrats reaction -- or lack thereof -- to Cardinal O'Malley's criticism of their pro-abortion platform:

In 1935, Governor James Michael Curley was pushing hard for a bill to create a state lottery. The bill looked like it would sail through the Legislature. But on the eve of the vote, the afternoon papers carried stories of Cardinal William Henry O'Connell denouncing it.

"The next morning, it went down to crashing defeat," said James O'Toole, a history professor at Boston College.

It is the "mirror image," he observed, of the dynamic now. Last week, after Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley said the support of church members for Democrats "borders on scandal" because of the party's support for keeping abortion legal, most of the state's leading Catholic Democrats responded with silence.

John Walsh, chairman of the Democratic Party, declined to comment, as did Senators Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry, Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino, and nearly all of the state's Democratic Catholic congressmen, on both sides of the abortion issue. The few who did have something to say - House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi, who spoke to reporters on a separate issue Thursday, and US Representative Michael E. Capu ano, whose office provided a statement when asked for comment - respectfully disagreed with the church.

As they have for years, most Catholic Democrats in Massachusetts are likely to continue to disagree with the church on abortion without worrying much about the consequences for them or their party. If Catholic voters punished their politicians for opposing church views on abortion - or gay marriage, or any other subject - the response might be quite different, political experts said last week. But they haven't. . . .

Rich Leonardi examines "The Pro Lifer's Dilemma" next Fall and the suggestions of Russel Shaw, George Weigel and Archbishop Chaput:

What say you? Could you explain pulling the lever for a "President Guiliani (or Romney)" to Christ and abortion's 47 million victims?

USCCB: "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship"

Here is the document in question:

• Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States [.pdf format]
  
• The Challenge of Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship summary statement Bulletin Insert. November 14, 2007.
  

It asks four essential questions:

1. (1) Why does the Church teach about issues affecting public policy? -
   
2. Who in the Church should participate in political life?
   
3. How does the Church help the Catholic faithful to speak about political and social questions?
   
4. What does the Church say about Catholic social teaching in the public square?
   

What did you think? -- Read and discuss.

Why the Democrats are Blue

How did the Democratic Party lose the support of the working-class and Catholic voters who were once its stronghold?

In his book Why the Democrats Are Blue: How Secular Liberals Hijacked the People's Party, Mark Stricherz argues that the change from the "people's party" to a party of secular-elite values can be traced to a particular political moment -- and one that few people would think. Deal W. Hudson sat down with Stricherz to talk about what he calls "the greatest untold story in American politics."

Cardinal O'Malley: Catholics Backing Pro-Abortion Democrats "Borders on Scandal"

(Hat tip: Opinionated Catholic)

The Boston Globe reports:

BALTIMORE - Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley of Boston, saying the Democratic Party has been persistently hostile to opponents of abortion rights, asserted yesterday that the support of many Catholics for Democratic candidates "borders on scandal."

In his sharpest comments about the political landscape since he was installed as archbishop of Boston four years ago, O'Malley made clear that, despite his differences with the Republican Party over immigration policy, capital punishment, economic issues, and the war in Iraq, he views abortion as the most important moral issue facing policymakers.

"I think the Democratic Party, which has been in many parts of the country traditionally the party which Catholics have supported, has been extremely insensitive to the church's position, on the gospel of life in particular, and on other moral issues," O'Malley said.

Acknowledging that Catholic voters in Massachusetts generally support Democratic candidates who are in favor of abortion rights, O'Malley said, "I think that, at times, it borders on scandal as far as I'm concerned."

"However, when I challenge people about this, they say, 'Well, bishop, we're not supporting [abortion rights],' " he said. "I think there's a need for people to very actively dissociate themselves from those unacceptable positions, and I think if they did that, then the party would have to change."

[Read the whole thing]

(emphasis added)

Los Angeles Times: "During his visit to the U.S. in April, Benedict XVI could learn the value of separation of church and state."

The Los Angeles Times' editorial begins at the height of condescension:

Pope Benedict XVI will be preaching on his visit to Washington and New York next April, his first trip to the United States as pope. That's part of a pope's job description. But many American Catholics hope that the papal visit will double as what politicians in this country call a "listening tour." They know that, erudite as this former theology professor may be, he still might be able to learn something from their experience in a pluralistic country where the Catholic faith has flourished despite -- or because of -- the separation of church and state. . . .

Earlier this year, Benedict seemed to endorse the hard-line view, answering "yes" when asked if he agreed with the idea that Mexican legislators who voted to legalize abortion should be excommunicated. But a spokesman later issued a clarification that, while reasserting church teaching against abortion, left unclear whether the pope would deny Communion to pro-choice politicians.

When Benedict comes to the United States, he is likely to be importuned by conservative Catholics to side with the hard-liners. He would be wiser to listen to other Catholics, laypeople as well as clergy, who know what mischief would be caused by a decree that would seem to force some Catholic officials to choose between their responsibility to their constituents or the Constitution and their standing in the church. These American Catholics believe, as President Kennedy said in 1960, 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, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote."

Give me a break. After all, we are talking about the same Pope Benedict XVI who once remarked:

The modern idea of freedom is thus a legitimate product of the Christian environment; it could not have developed anywhere else. Indeed, one must add that it cannot be separated from this Christian environment and transplanted into any other system, as is shown very clearly today in the renaissance of Islam; the attempt to graft on to Islamic societies what are termed western standards cut loose from their Christian foundations misunderstands the internal logic of Islam as well as the historical logic to which these western standards belong, and hence this attempt was condemned to fail in this form. The construction of society in Islam is theocratic, and therefore monist and not dualist; dualism, which is the precondition for freedom, presupposes for its part the logic of the Christian thing. In practice this means that it is only where the duality of Church and state, of the sacral and the political authority, remains maintained in some form or another that the fundamental pre-condition exists for freedom.

Where the Church itself becomes the state freedom becomes lost. But also when the Church is done away with as a public and publicly relevant authority, then too freedom is extinguished, because there the state once again claims completely for itself the justification of morality; in the profane post-Christian world it does not admittedly do this in the form of a sacral authority but as an ideological authority – that means that the state becomes the party, and since there can no longer be any other authority of the same rank it once again becomes total itself. The ideological state is totalitarian; it must become ideological if it is not balanced by a free but publicly recognized authority of conscience. When this kind of duality does not exist the totalitarian system is unavoidable.

(Excerpted from "Theology and the Church’s Political Stance" in Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: Church, Ecumenism and Politics: New Essays in Ecclesiology (NY: Crossroad, 1988).

Perhaps the Los Angeles Times should consider whether the Church should remain "a public and publicly relevant authority" to those who profess the Catholic faith and yet obstinately and publicly repudiate her very teaching by their legislative actions?

Here's an introductory primer on what the Pope thinks about issues of Church and State.

Deal Hudson says I'm still searching for the words to express my disappointment in Fred Thompson's "Meet the Press" interview from last Sunday. (You and me both):

For Thompson to repudiate the pro-life plank of the Republican Party is, well, it has to be said, political suicide.

He entered the race with the advantage of a 100 % pro-life record.

Thompson was supposed to be the one candidate who could unite social and religious conservatives because he didn't have the "complications" of the other candidates.

Thompson just created a major complication for himself by doing exactly what he should not have done: Give pro-lifers a reason to support another candidate.

Unbelievable.

See Also: National Right to Life Endorsement of Fred Thompson Has Some Concerned: Questions about his opposition to Human Life Amendment and poor response to Schiavo case, by John Connolly. LifeSiteNews. November 14, 2007.

Henry Hyde to Get Presidential Medal of Freedom for Opposing Abortion

(Hat tip: PewSitter.com)

From LifeNews.com:

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Former member of Congress Henry Hyde will receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom next Monday for his work opposing abortion. For decades, after his landmark Hyde Amendment stopped federal funding of virtually all abortions, Hyde became the pro-life movement's elder statesman on Capitol Hill.

Hyde was first elected to the House in 1974 and served as chairman of the House International Relations Committee and the House Judiciary Committee from 1995 to 2001.

In those positions, Hyde advanced pro-life legislation and worked to stop using taxpayer dollars to subsidize abortions in other countries.

Hyde's lasting legacy will be the federal Hyde amendment, which has prevented federal tax dollars from being used to fund almost all abortions since 1976. The Supreme Court heard a case in 1980 challenging the law and upheld it as constitutional.

[More]

Awakenings: The Schiavo case revisited, by Wesley J. Smith
The Weekly Standard 11/05/2007, Volume 013, Issue 08:

On October 19, only months after being nearly dehydrated to death when his feeding tube was removed, Jesse Ramirez walked out of the Barrow Neurological Institute in Phoenix on his own two legs. Ramirez is lucky to be alive. Early last June, a mere one week after a serious auto accident left him unconscious, his wife Rebecca and doctors decided he would never recover and pulled his feeding tube. He went without food and water for five long days. But then his mother, Theresa, represented by lawyers from the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, successfully took Rebecca to court demanding a change of guardianship on the grounds that Rebecca and Jesse's allegedly rocky marriage disqualified her for the role.

The judge ordered that Jesse be temporarily rehydrated and nourished. Then Jesse regained consciousness. Now, instead of dying by dehydration, he will receive rehabilitation and get on with his life--all because his mother rejected the reigning cultural paradigm that a life with profound cognitive dysfunction is not worth living.

Ramirez is only the latest instance of an unconscious patient waking up after being consigned to death by dehydration. . . .

Louisiana Goes Republican: Katrina Destroys Democratic Hold on Governorship

There was an historic election in Louisiana last Saturday. My home state got a new Republican governor. Yes, in the state of Katrina, which the liberal media has falsified into a "Bush-caused catastrophe," the state went Republican--and not just Republican, but with a highly conservative, pro-life Republican. Let it be clear: many of those from Louisiana knew right off the bat that the Katrina disaster was the product of years of insitutionalized Democratic mismanagement and corruption in New Orleans and Louisiana politics. Yet, the liberal media, oblivious to the facts, boldly projected their anti-Bush obsession onto the disaster and gave the nation a false picture of the cause of the disaster. Much the same is happening with the exaggerated emphasis on global warming.

A new generation is taking over in Louisiana. The new Governor-elect Bobby Jindal is at 36, the youngest governor in the nation. But note that youth is not enough--what makes Jindal special is that he combines youth with an entirely new approach, because there are young clones of the mentality that gave us years of Democratic mismanagement and mediocrity in Louisiana politics. Jindal is also an enthusiastic convert to Catholicism from Hinduism. His parents were born in India. He is a graduate of Brown University and was a Rhodes Scholar. And another great plus: he is not a lawyer! So, a lot of false assumptions fell yesterday: that Katrina would be a Democratic political boon, that Louisianians would not vote for a "non-white" governor, that Louisianians are satisfied with corrupt business as usual, that Louisiana is berefet of intelligent political talent. The skinny, non-lawyer, Republican Rhodes Scholar with roots in India is now the face of Louisiana politics. That's about as different from past Louisiana political figures as you can get. Saturday may finally have been the day that Louisiana really joined the Union. Now, the hard task becomes how the liberal media can spin the facts away and somehow transform this eruption of reality into some kind of evil that can be ascribed to President Bush. (For further details, see this Wikipedia link.)

Congratulations to Bobby Jindal on his election to Louisiana Governor.

Catholics Against Rudy has a new petition, by which you can express your public opposition to the candidacy of "pro-choice Catholic" Rudy Giuliani:

We are Catholics who will not vote for Rudy Giuliani in the GOP primary. The purpose of this petition is to allow faithful Catholics to speak out against Rudy Giuliani's abysmal record on non-negotiable "Culture of Life" issues (e.g., abortion, embryonic stem cell research) and traditional marriage, and to publicly oppose his candidacy for the GOP presidential nomination.

"Hillary Shares Your Vision for the Common Good"

"We are starting a conversation with Catholics across America and hope you will join us. Hillary shares your vision for the common good -- quality, affordable health care for all Americans, better educational opportunities for our children, and a plan for peace and stability from Baghdad to Darfur. Together we can make this vision a reality."

... Excluding, of course, those not yet born.

Senator Clinton launched a "National Catholic Steering Committee" to garnor support amongst Catholics for her presidential campaign. Ad Majorem Dei Gloria has the details.