By Denise M. Burke, Esq.

In 2012, voters have been given a clear choice:  will they stand in defense of life or will they turn a collective blind eye to the destruction being wrought on our nation by current anti-life laws and policies.  The differences between the two major political parties couldn’t be more stark or revealing.

The Democrat Party is doubling down on its support for
unrestricted abortion-on-demand, even turning its convention into a radical pro-abortion spectacle.  Among the  speakers at next week’s events in Charlotte, North Carolina are Cecile Richards, the President of Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider and
a key proponent of the HHS contraceptive mandate that baldly violates First Amendment freedoms of conscience and religious expression; Nancy Keenan, the President of NARAL Pro-Choice America; and Sandra Fluke, the former Georgetown  law student who gained notoriety arguing that American taxpayers should be forced to provide free contraception to those who want it. 
 
Both President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, a Catholic, unequivocally support abortion-on-demand and increased 
federal funding for Planned Parenthood which already receives more than $1.3 million dollars per day from American taxpayers. Both have received near perfect ratings from national pro-abortion groups like NARAL.

On a related issue, late last week, a federal appeals court sided
with the Obama Administration and ruled that the federal government can continue to fund immoral and destructive research on human embryos despite the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, a long-standing federal prohibition on such funding.

In contrast, the Republican Party platform continues to support a human life amendment protecting unborn children, increased federal protections for conscience, and prohibitions on taxpayer funding for abortion and destructive embryo research.

Notably, this year – for the very first time – the GOP Platform 
acknowledges that, in addition to taking the lives of unborn children, abortion hurts women.

This is inclusion is both historic and critical because abortion was legalized in 1973, in large part, because of two "big lies."  
 
The first lie was that abortion does not involve the killing of an unborn child; rather, it is the termination of a “potential life”
and the simple removal of a “blob of cells.” Medical evidence (including that garnered through the use of ultrasound technology), embryology, and the tenacity of the pro-life movement have already effectively refuted this "big lie."  

Today, virtually no one – save unrepentent pro-abortion extremists – offers this lie in support of abortion-on-demand.  Rather, abortion advocates rely almost exclusively on the second “big lie”: abortion is good for women and women have come to rely on abortion to secure their places in society.

This is a potent lie that must be refuted, and it is the ultimate exposure of this harmful and calculated falsehood that will eventually bring about the demise of Roe  v. Wade and abortion-on-demand in America.  Many Americans, despite increasing reservations, continue to support abortion because they have come to believe that is beneficial to women.  Once these well-intentioned Americans come to realize the truth about abortion, they will support its eradication.

Medical and sociological research continues to document the harms
that abortion has inflicted on women – harms that the abortion industry has attempted to hide while continuing to profit from this destructive procedure.  
 
Clearly, the pro-life movement must continue to speak out in defense of women and must fully expose the dangers and risks inherent in
abortion.  The new pro-woman plank in the GOP’s pro-life platform is undoubtedly helpful in this regard.

Finally, in contrast to the Democrat Party’s standard bearers, the GOP has nominated Rep. Paul Ryan, a staunchly pro-life Catholic, for Vice President and has nominated Mitt Romney for President.  It is important to note that, while governor of Massachusetts, Romney vetoed legislation permitting and funding human cloning and destructive embryo research and legislation requiring hospital emergency rooms –including those at Catholic hospitals – to provide access to so-called “emergency contraception” (in reality, abortifacient drugs).

The evidence for each party’s stance of life couldn’t be clearer  and so too is the choice facing American voters in November.

The following is from a homily by St. Bede the Venerable concerning St. John the Baptist,

"Since death was ever near at hand through the inescapable necessity of nature, such men considered it a blessing to embrace it and thus gain the reward of eternal life by acknowledging Christ's name. Hence the apostle Paul rightly says: You have been granted the privilege not only to believe in Christ but also to suffer for His sake. He tells us why it is Christ's gift that His chosen ones should suffer for Him: The sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed in us."

Now, far be it from me to try to add to anything that the Venerable Bede has written. But I would like to emphasize a particular point that he makes and what I think it means. The first sentence of this passage concerns the mortality of every man that is ever conceived. We cannot escape death. And St. Bede points out that St. John the Baptist, and others like him, recognize that to such an extent that they willing give their entire lives to the service of Christ. And, they give their lives to such an extent that they witness to Christ by giving up their lives for Him.

I know that not many Christians are called to be martyrs but we could all learn a lesson from what the Venerable Bede has to say about St. John the Baptist. We should all recognize our own mortality in this world and stop concerning ourselves with the things of this world. After all, we can't take any of it with us when we die. Instead, we should be more sincere in our pursuit of Christ and the everlasting life that He won for us. And, if need be, witness to it by giv

Fr. Namby Pamby, in his homily for this morning's Mass had the following to say about the Gospel:

"Jesus says to the rich young man this morning, 'If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.' (Matt 19:21) By this we can see that social justice is the way to heaven. It is the path laid out for us by our Lord to follow."

And he goes on and on with this drivel. Apparently, Nam, as he likes to be called by his parishioners (he did away with title Father because he felt it was too patriarchal), didn't read the entire Gospel. If he had been paying attention he would have noticed a few things.

First of all, Jesus said to the young man, "If you would enter life, keep the commandments." He didn't tell the young man to go alleviate injustice. Now I will admit that works of social justice are a part of the commandments that Jesus is speaking about when He says, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." But social justice isn't the whole story. Now at this point Fr. Pamby (notice the use of his title in order to annoy him) would probably want to argue, "But Jesus told him to go and sell all he owned and give it to the poor. That means social justice is the main focus of this lesson." It is at this point I must tell my misguided colleague that he is wrong.

If we look at Matt 19:22 we are told, "When the young man heard (what Jesus said) he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions." Jesus could see into this young man's soul and He knew that the young man put too much trust in his wealth. If this isn't true then why didn't he happily go along with what Christ said? He was sorrowful because his possessions meant more to him than his own soul. Jesus told him to get rid of everything because if the young man, or in fact any man, wants Christ then there is room for nothing else. We must be willing to get rid of anything that keeps us from Christ if we want to inherit eternal life. Christ gave up everything for us and we must be willing to do the same for Him.

So you see, this isn't a lesson in social justice. It is a lesson about the salvation of a soul and not just that of the rich young man but yours, mine and everyone else that has ever cared about something else more than they care about God.

(All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.)

By Denise M. Burke, Vice President of Legal Affairs, Americans United for Life

Most media commentators and pundits believe that  so-called “social issues” such as abortion and same-sex marriage will have  little or no impact on the outcome of this year’s elections.   “Voters will vote their pocketbooks,” they argue.

But, as the recent Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day showed, American voters still care about “social issues.”   If they are willing to “vote with their pocketbooks” and financially support Chick-fil-A at a time when the organization is facing an onslaught of criticism and threats from supporters of“gay marriage,” we can safely predict that the life issues – most notably, abortion – will also be important to American voters come November.

Despite the increasingly dubious claims of the abortion industry and its allies in Congress and the media, Americans are not supportive of the current regime of abortion-on-demand. A slim majority of Americans (around 51 percent) self-identify as “pro-life”and only 1 in 6 Americans believes that abortion should be unrestricted.

Meanwhile, a much more sizable majority (more than 80 percent) supports common-sense limitations on abortion including bans on late-term abortions, prohibitions on taxpayer funding for abortion, and parental involvement requirements for minors considering abortion.

 The Obama Administration’s unwavering support for unrestricted abortion-on-demand and for Planned Parenthood, the nation’s abortion mega-provider, is well-documented and clearly does not reflect the values and beliefs of most Americans.

 In an election cycle in which voters will focus significantly on financial issues, it is important to remember that public support for abortion is also an issue of fiscal stewardship.  For example, the Obama Administration has used taxpayer dollars to, among other things:

 ·  Subsidize Planned Parenthood.  Currently, the abortion behemoth receives approximately $1.3 million dollars a day from American taxpayers.
 ·  Support international organizations like the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) that help sustain coercive abortion policies in countries like China.     

Clearly, in 2012, abortion is a “pocketbook” issue and one that voters will consider when casting their ballots in November.

by Thomas Howard (see post below for explanation)

No doubt the best-known remark ever made about Truth is Pontius Pilate’s laconic “What is truth?” It’s hard to know how he meant it. Was he being cavalier? Cynical? What? Or was there some rag of earnestness lurking there? Had he begun to realize that the man he was speaking with was not one to be trifled with? We can’t know.

But what is Truth? (We might as well capitalize the word.) A man says he was at the picnic and we know he wasn’t. So: no truth there. Or again, a political party makes promises: perhaps there is no bald lie here: but none of us would suppose that we are being hailed by Truth. Or yet again, a global movement (the “sexual revolution”) sweeps all before it in the l960’s: in this case, the question of Truth touches, not so much upon the veracity of statements or promises as upon the nature of Reality (the moral order, that is). Actually one element was true: it was a revolution. But the picture of freedom, fulfillment, and bliss for all was fraudulent. Under the radiant scrutiny of Truth, we would find that any such “freedom” leads to a sacrilege, “fulfillment” to disenchantment, and “bliss” to sorrow. In this case then, we would have the Truth that belongs to Reality itself being destroyed.

We are obliged, then, to acknowledge the truth about Truth. Yes, it can be a property of statements, in so far as they correspond to the external situation (the man wasn’t at the picnic), or of expectations (politics ordinarily sidesteps the brute Truth), or of the Nature of Things (sex that does not acknowledge the joyous and solemn order that presides over the whole Creation leads to squalor and tragedy).

The sexual realm is a domain in which we see how the Nature of Things can be violated. For example, the act of fornication would be false since it does not correspond to the Truth of things. The physical union of a man and a woman in Holy Matrimony is a case in point, under the species of our human flesh, of a Truth that streams ultimately from the fruitful and blissful mutual self-donation whose fountainhead is the Most Holy Trinity. Self-donation asks the gift of one’s entire being; and ultimately it entails bliss. The Father’s love “begets” the Son; the Son eternally offers Himself to the Father; and the Holy Ghost is the [means? seal? agent?-- words fail us in those precincts] of that Trinitarian self-giving. In the physical Creation, the mystery of that fruitful unity is enacted under two genders which each bear the stamp of the Maker under these two noble modes: hence the Jewish and Christian understanding of fornication, adultery, sodomy, and any other variation on the theme, as a confusion: the act itself, on that accounting, would violate the Truth of the matter. In each case the nuptial prerequisite is missing—the nuptial bond which alone hallows this Sacrament which, like all Sacraments, bespeaks Truth.

This understanding of what is True is now under assault. We hear news of Christian ministers in various countries having been imprisoned for teaching their congregations, inside their churches, about these sacred mysteries. More than fifty years ago, Flannery O’Connor remarked that the inevitable end of Liberalism is the guillotine. . . .

The book to the left is one that changed my life. Actually, what I should say is that meeting the man that wrote the book changed my life.

I've got the timeline of my conversion written down somewhere, but I don't know where it is at this moment. Suffice it to say that I was most fortunate to meet Dr. Thomas Howard approximately 7 years ago.

I was at a meeting of like minded Episcopal priests to which Dr. Howard had been invited to speak. During the lunch at the meeting there happened to be an empty seat next to me. Dr. Howard walked up and asked if he could join me. At the time I did not know anything about him except that he was a convert to the Catholic Faith. As we talked we discovered our mutual love of C.S. Lewis. Next, I found out that Dr. Howard had also written several books of his own. One of the books he mentioned was the one pictured above: Evangelical Is Not Enough. The lunch ended and it was time for him to speak to the group of Episcopal priests that was assembled. But, before doing so, he was gracious enough to give me his contact information and we have kept in touch ever since that time.

After that meeting I went back to the parish and was speaking to the pastor in his office. Glancing at the books on his bookcase I noticed Dr. Howard's book: Evangelical Is Not Enough. He let me borrow it and I immediately started reading it. I have never read any other book faster than that book. Reading that book was the beginning of the end of my time as an Episcopal priest.

I feel that I owe a great deal to Dr. Howard because he was a significant help in my conversion to the Truth of the Catholic Church. For that I can never thank him enough. And now there is something else for which I must thank him. He has written for this blog an excellent post on the nature of Truth. I hope that after you read it you will pass it on to others and I also hope that you will pick up some of his books. It would be worth your time to do so.

by Denise Burke, Vice President of Legal Affairs, Americans United for Life

We woke this morning to news that Mitt Romney has selected pro-life Catholic Rep. Paul Ryan as his vice presidential running mate. Much will be made in the coming days of Rep. Ryan’s leadership on budget and fiscal issues and his plan to keep America from falling into a financial abyss.  However, as a nation, we are not just facing a fiscal crisis. We are also facing very real and growing threats to our First Amendment right to religious freedom and our freedom of conscience.  In a relatively short span of time, the Obama Administration has

·       Forced an unpopular and anti-life healthcare law down the throats of Americans.  “Obamacare” includes an “abortion-premium mandate” that will effectively force millions of Americans to violate their consciences by being enrolled into healthcare policies (principally, through the law’s new state health insurance exchanges) that will require direct personal payment into a special insurance fund set up to pay for other people's elective abortions.  Individual enrollees will not be permitted to opt-out of paying this “abortion-premium mandate.”
·        As of August 1, 2012, required many employers and religiously affiliated organizations to provide and pay for insurance policies that cover contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs – also known as the “HHS mandate” or the “contraceptive mandate.”
·        Argued before the U.S. Supreme Court that churches do not maintain the right to hire only those who share their beliefs and that federal authorities such as the Labor Department have a say in who churches hire and fire.
·        Through rulings by the National Labor Relations Board, taken it upon themselves to determine which Catholic colleges and universities are truly “Catholic enough” to be exempt from certain labor laws governing unions and unionization.

And this is only the tip of the iceberg of what the Obama Administration has in store for America and the Church.

In this dangerous climate, we must gratefully recognize Rep. Ryan’s praiseworthy leadership in the defense of religious freedom.  From the debate over “Obamacare” to more recent battles over the HHS contraceptive mandate, Rep. Ryan has strongly defended both religious liberty and freedom of conscience, noting: “The President's policy continues to contradict the core principles of our nation. His decision [on the contraceptive mandate] disrespects not only the religious community, but it also disrespects the Constitution. By treating our rights as revocable privileges from our government, instead of inalienable gifts from our Creator, the President has put his personal political philosophies above the principles upon which this nation was founded. I will continue to monitor this issue closely and will work to see that this policy is reversed.”

Notably, Rep. Ryan is a cosponsor of H.R. 1179, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. This piece of federal legislation would amend the President's healthcare law to permit health insurance plans to decline coverage of specific items and services that infringe upon religious beliefs and freedom of conscience.

There will be new contributors to this blog starting today. Denise Burke, Vice President of Legal Affairs for Americans United for Life is the author of the next post on this blog. She is a member of Our Lady of the Atonement Catholic Church (where I serve) and has graciously agreed to give her thoughts on her field of expertise: Pro-Life and the government. Coming early next week will be a post from Catholic author Thomas Howard.

Earlier today I saw a car with a 2012 sticker. Unfortunately, there is nothing strange about that. The ironic part is the other bumper sticker on the car which stated, "Save a life, adopt a pet." Does that make sense to any of you? How on earth can anyone be concerned about saving the life of an animal and yet support a man that has done more to aid the destruction of unborn babies than anyone else since Roe vs. Wade? What is wrong with this country?

If you are Catholic and have one of these on your car -

- then you are a bad Catholic. And here is why: you cannot in good conscience vote for the person that this sticker represents because of his stance on abortion and homosexuality. That being said I am sure there would be many Catholics  that would complain about this by saying, "But Fr. Namby Pamby down at St. Karl Marx Catholic Church said that I could vote for him as long as I don't support his position on abortion. I know abortion is bad but this man is going to bring change to our country through works of social justice. And the Church supports social justice, right? And even if I believe that homosexuality is wrong, Fr. Namby Pamby says I can't support the legislation of morality through governmental laws. After all, it wouldn't be fair to limit someone else's freedom just because I don't approve of their behavior."

In response to Catholics who would answer in such a way let me start with the last statement first. So, you're worried about limiting people's ability to do anything they want in the name of freedom. Does that mean you would want to do away with all the laws against murder? After all, someone might not like the way you look and want to shoot you in the face. Do you want to allow him the freedom to do that? No, I don't think you do. But in response to that another Catholic might say to me, "But you're talking about someone doing harm. Homosexuals don't do any harm to anyone so why should there be laws against them?" My response - actually they have done a great deal of harm to our country by promoting the breakdown of the family and the severe weakening of sexual morals. But that is just in addition to the fact that the Catholic Church, of which you claim to be a part, says that homosexuality is wrong! Therefore, if you are truly in communion with the Church, then you also must stand against such moral perversions as homosexuality, which includes being in agreement with laws that condemn it.

Now for abortion. You claim to be in favor of all the so-called acts of social justice that the person in question (see bumper sticker above) says he wants to do. If so then please answer this: how can there be any true justice for mankind if we don't even have the right to be born? How is it just to deny that basic right to anyone? As another bumper sticker states: