Monday, August 29, 2011
From Catholic San Francisco:
Archbishop Niederauer recovering from heart surgery
August 29th, 2011
SAN FRANCISCO, Aug. 29 -- After experiencing some chest discomfort over the weekend, San Francisco Archbishop George Niederauer was taken to the emergency room at Long Beach Memorial Hospital Aug. 28 by Cardinal William Levada, the archdiocese announced. They had been in the final days of their vacation in Southern California. The archbishop was given an angiogram and his doctors recommended he stay overnight at the hospital for observation.
This morning, at the recommendation of his cardiologists, the archbishop underwent successful cardiac double bypass surgery. Cardinal Levada has relayed the doctors’ report that Archbishop Niederauer is doing well and is in good condition in the intensive care unit at Long Beach Memorial. "We are encouraged by this initial report," the archdiocese said in a statement. "However, the doctors have informed us that the next 24 hours are critical. Prayers are requested from the priests, deacons, religious and laity of the archdiocese."
Dear Lord, be with His Excellency and may he recover soon!
Monday, August 22, 2011
At last years trial, both the Governor and Attorney General of the state refused to do their jobs and defend the majority-passed initiative. They left the citizens of California in the lurch and so the citizens stepped up.
But behold: the enemies of marriage said the citizens did not have a right to defend their own case. That's what the CA Supreme Court will decide: whether the people have a right to defend their own laws or whether a special interest can override self-government in the state of California.
Of course, the special interest has the money--that's what makes them special.
But YOU can help. Go to http://www.protectmarriage.com/ and make a donation to help preserve marriage in the state of California!
Nobody should be surprised. When you embrace non-reality, as supporters of counterfeit "marriage" do, you have to do things like this. The embracing of non-reality engenders totalitarianism, because once you embrace non-reality you can never let truth, which challenges the non-reality, have a hearing. And since truth is everywhere, you end up having to censor or lie about everything.
A perfect example is given in an article in the Orlando Sentinel by a woman named Lauren Ritchie, which is subheaded "Jerry Buell, Mount Dora teacher of the year, posted on Facebook that homosexuals make him want to vomit."
Now, as a simple matter of fact Mr. Buell never said anything like that. It is a flat-out lie. It's good to see a number of the commentors on Ms. Ritchie's column called her on it. But, as we say, nobody should be surprised.
There is a Facebook page supporting Mr. Buell here.
Pro-Life heroine Abby Johnson will host a nationwide webcast tomorrow night at 9PM EST, 6PM PST:
Click here to register for the FREE webcast, where you’ll be among the first to discover:
•Why a Planned Parenthood clinic director and “employee of the year” changed sides to become an outspoken pro-life advocate
•The shocking truth about Planned Parenthood that was revealed through Abby’s high-stakes legal battle with the abortion giant
•The abortion industry’s #1 greatest fear — and how YOU can help make it come true
Sign up to attend the FREE webcast. But act quickly, because space is extremely limited for the online event, and spaces are filling rapidly!
Register NOW to attend the August 23 webcast -- it's FREE!
"Pope Benedict XVI challenged nearly 2 million young people to be 'apostles of the 21st century,' as he closed World Youth Day (WYD) ceremonies in Madrid on August 21.
“'There is no reason to lose heart,' the Pope told WYD participants. He assured them that their contemporaries will respond to the Gospel message, as idealistic young people invariably respond 'when one proposes to them, in sincerity and truth, an encounter with Jesus Christ.' In the final remarks of his 4-day visit to Spain, the Pontiff said that the WYD participants would return to their own homes as 'missionaries of the Gospel.'”
Friday, August 19, 2011
Today, the Chicago Tribune reported on Judge John Schmidt's ruling that the state of Illinois is not obligated to renew its foster care contract with Catholic Charities of Illinois. The sticking point, of course, was that the state now requires that foster children be placed in same-sex households--something Catholic Charities will not do:
"In discussions after the civil union bill went into effect in June, Catholic Charities told the state that accommodating prospective foster parents in civil unions would violate Catholic Church teaching that defines marriage between a man and a woman.
Pointing to a clause in the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act that they believe protects religious institutions that don't recognize civil unions, the agencies said they would refer those couples elsewhere and only license married couples and single parents living alone.
But lawyers for the Illinois attorney general said that exemption only shields religious clergy who don't want to officiate at civil unions. The policy of Catholic Charities violates state anti-discrimination laws that demand couples in civil unions be treated the same as married couples, they said"
Well, if that's the current law, then that's the current law, and Judge Schmidt seems to say it is. It would also seem to indicate the need for Catholic Charities to disentangle itself from the government. I looked at the financial statement for Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Chicago, just to see to what level they are a government organization. I'd though Catholic Charities CYO of San Francisco was bad-- for the fiscal year ending in June 2010 they got over 73% of their revenue in the form of government/contract revenue.
But CCCYO is nothing compared to Catholic Charities of Chicago. Out of a total revenue of over $171 million for FY 2010, over $148 million, or 86.6% is from "fees/grants from government agencies." In other words, 86.6% of Catholic Charities of Chicago's revenue is not charitable donations at all--it comes from the taxpayers.
Catholic Charities (in Chicago or San Francisco or wherever) could remain Catholic, and accept government contracts, so long as the government was sufficiently in agreement with Catholic teaching. But once a government is in opposition to Catholic teaching, Catholic Charities either has to abandon Catholic teaching, or forgo government contracts. (The perverse genius of CCCYO consisted in its first abandoning Catholic teaching, and then foregoing the government contract anyway.)
The Chicago Tribune article also quoted one foster parent, who seems to understand the situation more clearly than the lawyers for Catholic Charities of Illinois: "'If the state doesn't respect our morals, then we don't want to do work for them,' Casey Teckenbrock said." That seems right to me. Catholic Charities can be true to their name by forgoing government contracts. Then they will have no worries about being Catholic, and they will be forced to once again become a charity. But in disentangling themselves from the government the biggest hitch will be what to do with all their staff: according to GuideStar, Catholic Charities of Chicago has 1,452 full-time and 1,221 part-time employees.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
The great Ed Whelan writes:
"A Sixth Circuit panel affirmed that the 'ministerial exception' to employment-law litigation was 'rooted in the First Amendment’s guarantees of religious freedom,' but held that a church’s firing of a teacher did not fall within the scope of the ministerial exception."
This has the potential to be a very important case for churches, and many religious organizations have filed briefs in support of Hosanna-Tabor. But Mr Whelan then notes the ominous fact that the Depatment of Justice has filed a brief that challenges the "ministerial exception" on principle:
"As law professor Rick Garnett wrote about the Court’s grant of review, “The question in the Hosanna-Tabor case is not so much whether the exception exists—it does, and it should—as how it should be understood and applied.”
But two weeks ago, the Department of Justice filed an opposition brief that dramatically raises the stakes in Hosanna-Tabor. Rather than simply arguing that the ministerial exception should not extend to the teacher under the facts of this case, DOJ’s brief disputes the general existence of the ministerial exception. (It instead acknowledges only that the Establishment Clause might bar a court order reinstating a minister or litigation that requires a court to resolve a dispute over religious doctrine. See Brief at 32-36. It opposes recognition of any “prophylactic categorical exemption,” and argues, only as a fallback, that if the Court nonetheless recognizes such an exemption, the exemption should be very narrowly limited to those employees who perform “exclusively religious functions.” See Brief at 48-51.)
DOJ’s position—which is even more hostile to the ministerial exemption than the amicus brief filed by Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the ACLU—thus threatens to expose churches and other religious institutions to a broad array of employment-discrimination claims that the ministerial-exception has long shielded them from."
If the Justice Department's position became law it is easy to imagine those opposed to church teaching, such as homosexual activists, finding employment in a church, then acting in opposition to church teaching, while the church would be prevented from firing them.
Friday, August 12, 2011
The Canadian pro-life news organization has ruffled many feathers with their exposes of "Development and Peace" (Canada's version of Catholic Relief Services) which we have followed here, and the exposure of wacky Canadian priest Fr. Raymond Gravel, which we have followed here. Recently, they have been covering the activities of His Excellency Raul Vera Lopez, of Saltillo, Mexico.
Read the full article here, and follow the provided links to learn more.
Confirmed: Vatican calls Mexican Bishop to Rome over ties to pro-abortion/gay groups
SALTILLO, August 12, 2011 - Bishop Raul Vera López of the Diocese of Saltillo, Mexico, will be meeting with Vatican officials in late August or early September to discuss his affiliation with a homosexual organization that embraces the 'gay' lifestyle and condones homosexual relationships.
The diocese’s spokeswoman, Maria Arriaga, confirmed the meeting yesterday to the French Press Agency (AFP).
The bishop will travel to Rome to 'respond to questions that they will ask him about the work that he carries out currently with the community of San Aelredo,' Arriaga told the agency.
She added that 'up to now, this will be the only motive of the visit. Perhaps when he is there it is possible that other topics will be discussed.'
Arriaga also claimed that Vera López 'has denied that he has pronounced in favor of abortion, as his critics hold, who question him for asking for clemency for poor indigenous women incarcerated for abortions in certain Mexican states,' the AFP reports.
The statement appears to be a response to recent LifeSiteNews articles exposing the bishop’s leadership of two groups that participate in a pro-abortion 'human rights' network and whose names appear on documents calling for the decriminalization and government provision of abortion..."
You can support LSN by going here.
Here's what the law boys over at Volokh & Legal Insurrection, etc, have to say about this. The ruling is apparently 300 pages long.
UPDATE: here is Jonathon Adler over at The Corner, on what today's ruling means:
"Today’s Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the individual mandate is unconstitutional is tremendously significant. (I’ve posted excerpts here.) It reifies the seriousness of the anti-mandate arguments and makes Supreme Court review of the mandate’s constitutionality that much more likely. Unless the federal government seeks en banc review, and the full Eleventh Circuit reverses the panel decision, the Supreme Court will take a mandate case.
Since the beginning, mandate supporters have been busy working the refs, doing everything possible to suggest that arguments against the mandate’s constitutionality were well outside the legal mainstream. The idea was to suggest that no one but a partisan hack or ideologue could believe the mandate exceeds the federal government’s enumerated powers. Today’s decision will make such arguments that much more difficult to make. The two Circuit Courts to have considered the question have come to opposite conclusions, each by a 2-1 margin. Moreover, in each case a judge ruled against type — casting a vote contrary to what one might predict based upon the party affiliation of the President who appointed him. In the Sixth Circuit, Bush nominee Jeffrey Sutton voted to uphold the mandate. In the Eleventh Circuit, Clinton nominee Frank Hull voted to strike it down. This further illustrates that the constitutionality of the mandate is an open question, not clearly dictated by existing precedent. At the same time, as I note here, the argument championed by many academics that the mandate is a constitutional exercise of the taxing power has yet to be accepted by a single federal judge, let alone by a court."
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Left: Brian Cahill with openly homosexual San Francisco Supervisor Bevan Dufty, who acted as a "consultant" on the CCCYO/Family Builders by Adoption partnership.
When news that the partnership was to be dissolved was made public back in 2008, due to outside pressure by the likes of us, Mr. Cahill stated:
"CCCYO officials told Catholic San Francisco that, as planned, the agency’s placing of two full-time employees at California Kids Connection will end in June 2009. 'The action is completely consistent with our 2006 announcement on adoption. At that time, we said that our plan was for a three-year partnership with California Kids Connection. That period concludes in June of 2009,' [CCCYO Executive Director Brian] Cahill stated."
We demolished the assertion that CCCYO had ever planned the partnership to be three-year deal in a post we wrote back on October 21, 2008. Today, Mr. Cahill finally comes clean and shows he was not telling the truth (which, to repeat, we showed at the time) in 2008. From today's column:
"When the collaboration was announced, we had a positive response from our local government partners and from the secular press, but the reaction of the conservative Catholic press was scathing in its criticism and condemnation. In spite of the archbishop's support of the program, there was strong conservative pressure to end the program.
Why would that matter if the program was only for three years? If that was the case, it was due to end anyway. Mr. Cahill's very next sentence:
"As the recession hit, the Catholic Charities budget deficit forced some painful choices. I retired at the end of 2008, the collaboration with Family Builders ended in 2009..."
"Forced" implies that it was budgetary constraints (coupled with the "conservative" pressure) that caused the dissolution of the partnership. But if Mr. Cahill was telling the truth back in 2008, nothing was "forced"--everything was moving along a pre-planned timeline. As he wrote then:
"At that time, we said that our plan was for a three-year partnership with California Kids Connection. That period concludes in June of 2009..."
But he was not telling the truth in 2008. He's a heck of a lot more honest now. Check out Mr. Cahill's column, as well as his previous NCR column, to see what Mr. Cahill really thinks. It's a condemnation of the culture at Catholic Charities that such a man can serve in a leadership position.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
You're not the only one, Excellency!
From Father Z comes a remarkable post from the blog of His Excellency Chris Coyne, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Indianapolis. He was attending a Saturday morning Mass as a visitor to a parish. If this is how daily Mass is celebrated in that parish, I won't imagine what the Sunday Mass is like.
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Why I Didn't Go to Confession Today.
This morning I attended Mass rather than concelebrated Mass. Earlier in the week I was unable to find a Saturday morning Mass anywhere in the area so I was pretty much going to have to miss Mass today. But late last night on the internet I found a church abut a half an hour away that had an 8:00 AM Mass. This was doubly good for me because I wanted to celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation if the priest had time after Mass since it and been a few weeks since my last confession. But it was a little late to make any arrangement for concelebration.
I left around 7:15 AM and got there in plenty of time to spend some time preparing for Mass and, hopefully, the Sacrament of Reconciliation. When Mass began, the priest, a guy about my age, came out and said, "Hello," and then proceeded with the Mass. The only problem was he had forgotten the Sign of the Cross. Well, maybe he was just a little distracted. I think we did the penetential rite but I'm not sure. There was no "Gloria" so I was beginning to think we weren't going to be celebrating the Feast of the Transfiguration since it hadn't been mentioned yet but eventually we got there when he "prayed" a spontaneous opening prayer that did mention the Transfiguration.
Things kind of went downhill from there. I'll spare you the details. I will say I'm pretty sure it was still a valid Mass even though he changed the words of the Eucharistic institution - a lot, not just a few. There is a theological practice of the Church called "Ecclesia supplet" ("the Church provides") where if a priest inadvertently forgets some of the words of the ritual form or changes them, the "Church" recognizes the good faith of those gathered and their right to valid celebration of the sacraments and provides sacramental validity in the case of a human error or priestly malpractice. This is done for the sake of the people of God and not as an excuse for the sloppy or 'creative' celebration of the priest or bishop. Even though the priest went way over the the line in terms of his 'creativity' this morning, I think the intention of those us who came to Mass was to celebrate the Eucharist as the Church intends and so it was.
As "Mass" progressed I was both disappointed and annoyed. I wasn't angry. I learned the trick long ago of moving into emotional "cruise control" when this stuff starts to happen. I also began to wonder if I should say something to the priest afterwards. I mean, I was just there as a visitor not as his bishop or vicar general. I was also on vacation so ... Nevertheless, I didn't let it go. What I did or did not do, I will leave between me and the priest. I hope it was helpful.
I do know one thing. I certainly wasn't going to ask him to hear my Confession. If he changed the words of the Institution Narrative, there's no telling what he might do with the words of Absolution. I suppose I could have asked him before we began the sacrament if he would be so kind as to use the Church's rite and not his own but then that opens a whole can of worms. So I didn't go to Confession. I'll try and make an appointment with a priest and go Monday. But isn't it a shame that I couldn't go to Confession?
Every time people ask my why some in the Church have a desire for the "extraordinary rite," the traditional Latin Mass, I guess I can give them at least one good reason. Masses like this. When one attends the Mass according to the Tridentine Rite, you know what you are going to get. There is no one being 'creative,' no one making up their own prayers or rite, and no question of validity. I am a chid of Vatican II. From the time I was old enough to understand what was happening at Mass, it has been the Mass of Pope Paul VI. I have been formed in it. I have studied it. I love it. Out of it, I have been ordained a deacon, a priest, and a bishop to celebrate it for the people of God. I have no desire to celebrate the Tridentine Rite but any time I hear people criticize those who want the "traditional" Mass, I am more inclined to understand why they want this form of the Mass. Perhaps if each priest were committed to the correct celebration of the present Mass of Paul VI - the Church's rites and not the rite of Fr. X - then maybe there would be less clamor for the "traditional" rite. Just a thought.
Friday, August 5, 2011
ROME, August 4, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Top officials at the Vatican are throwing their support behind pro-life Catholic leaders campaigning against dioceses allowing pro-abortion politicians receive Holy Communion, says one such leader.
American Life League President Judie Brown spoke with LifeSiteNews yesterday about her recent trip to Rome, where she spoke with Vatican officials about Communion for pro-abortion politicians and the changing pro-life landscape in America.
Cardinal Raymond Burke told Brown to be “persistent” in her campaign to have Canon 915 enforced, she said."
I think this is important--and not just for pro-abortion politicians. In the state of New York we have county clerks, like Laura Fotusky, forced to quit their jobs because their rightly formed Catholic conscience will not allow them to participate in counterfeit "marriage."
In response, Governor Andrew Cuomo said: “When you enforce the laws of the state, you don’t get to pick and choose which laws...You don’t get to say, ‘I like this law and I’ll enforce this law, or I don’t like this law and I won’t enforce this law’ - you can’t do that...So if you can’t enforce the law, then you shouldn’t be in that position.”
Fair enough--that makes sense. But I ask that the responsible Bishops apply that same sensible reasoning to membership in the Catholic Church. Here we have a man, Cuomo, claiming to Catholic, but unfaithful to the rules of the Church, using his power to make sure a truly faithful Catholic loses her livelihood, precisely because she is faithful to the Catholic Church. What are other faithful Catholics to think when the Church does nothing protect its sons and daughters?
Archbishop Dolan, where do you stand? With Andrew Cuomo, or with Laura Fotusky?
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Showdown: 4,000 families threaten to leave Toronto Catholic schools over gay equity policy
by Patrick B. Craine
"TORONTO, Ontario, July 29, 2011 – The Coptic Orthodox Churches in Toronto are threatening to withdraw 4,000 families from the Toronto Catholic District School Board if it does not amend its controversial equity policy to protect Catholic teaching in the schools. According to one expert in Ontario education, if the threat were carried out, the board could lose upwards of $40,000,000 in annual public funding, and over 150 teachers.
If the board implements its policy, wrote Fr. Jeremiah Attaalla on June 22nd, “we will not hesitate to withdraw our children at once from attending any Catholic school within Toronto or [the Greater Toronto Area].”
The equity policy, passed earlier this year as part of the Ontario government’s sweeping equity and inclusive education strategy, has sparked an unprecedented mobilization of parents who fear that it will give homosexual activists a foothold in order to further subvert already weak Catholic sexual teaching in the schools."
Of course it will. That's the whole point. The article also has contact information for the Catholic hierarchy of Toronto, should you wish to make your opinion known.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
The wesbite for the repeal effort is http://stopsb48.com/
Congress, represented by former solicitor general Paul Clement, has filed two briefs in one of the cases challenging the Defense of Marriage Act in a federal court in New York. One is a memorandum providing legal reasons the court should deny the ACLU’s motion for summary judgment. The second is a memorandum with reasons the court should grant the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group’s motion to dismiss.
The opposition brief argues that “sexual orientation” is not analogous to race because, among other things, all federal circuit courts have rejected this idea, and gays and lesbians are not politically powerless (especially given that the state of New York and the federal government are supporting the ACLU position in the case). The brief also notes that the federal government has been involved in the definition of marriage in the past. A representative quote: “Plaintiff appears oblivious to the irony of maintaining that homosexuals have limited political power in a case in which her position is supported by both the State of New York and the United States Department of Justice. In light of the latter’s longstanding duty to defend the constitutionality of federal statutes, its decision to decline to defend the constitutionality of DOMA, and instead adopt the very position advocated by Plaintiff, is particularly telling.”
Emphasis added. The only thing homosexual actvisits do have is political power--or more precisely the power to strategically influence politicians. Whenever the people have their say, the homosexual activists have lost. Mr. Duncan continues:"The memo supporting the motion to dismiss makes the foundational argument that DOMA is entirely consistent with constitutional guarantees. It argues that same-sex marriage is not a fundamental right deeply rooted in history and tradition, and that it does not discriminate on the basis of sex or sexual orientation. The brief also explains that Congress is justified by government interests in avoiding creation of “a social understanding that begetting and rearing children is not inextricably bound up with marriage” and in fostering marriages that provide mothers and fathers for children. It argues that any redefinition of marriage should be left to the democratic process. Representative quote: “Indeed, most sexually-active opposite-sex relationships have an inherent ability to produce children whether or not the spouses are seeking to do so at any given time. And the fact that opposite-sex relationships produce unplanned and unintended pregnancies is at the heart of society’s traditional interest in promoting the institution of marriage and providing incentives for these unplanned offspring to be raised in the context of a traditional family unit. Whatever else is true of the procreative potential of same-sex couples, the phenomena of unplanned and unintended pregnancies is limited to opposite-sex couples."
"Congress rationally could have concluded that a special legal category was necessary to recognize the special concerns that face a couple who must take account of this inherent possibility of their relationship, and to support and incentivize such relationships despite the increased responsibility they place upon the spouses.”
"O'Care Truth Sinks In."
The first ideological tentacles of ObamaCare began snaking their way into the pocketbooks of private insurers and the consciences of religious Americans when, on Monday, the Department of Health and Human Services issued new guidelines requiring insurers to provide free birth control -- including 'morning-after' abortion pills -- in the name of 'women’s health.'
'These historic guidelines are based on science and existing literature and will help ensure women get the preventive health benefits they need,' said HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Insurers will have to provide the services without deductibles, co-pays or any other charges.
In other words, the federal government -- choosing sides in the culture war -- now considers 'unplanned' pregnancy to be a preventable disease.
Not the most fundamental mystery of human existence. Not the fullest expression of love between a man and a woman. Not a deeply personal human activity that lies at the heart of religious moral teaching.
A disease -- and cause for a new government giveaway.....
This is just another case where the critics in the debate over ratifying ObamaCare are being proved right -- with the defenders exposed as liars or dupes.
The 'antis' warned that 'universal health care' would inevitably leave the feds ruling on a host of charged moral issues; the 'pros' denied it -- though many doubtless saw it as a feature, not a bug."
Winters, Keehan, are complaining now, but it's too late. From the moment Obamacare came on the scene the subhead of this blog has read: "Obamacare = Publicly funded abortion. If you support the Health Plan you are supporting publicly funded abortion." Those people supported Obamacare and they share responsibuility for the perfectly predictable results.
Here's Zombies take:
"Not aborting fetuses will soon be a crime in San Francisco.
At least that’s what the city government is pushing for in its bizarre new attack on pregnancy counseling centers.
Actually, 'bizarre' is too mild a word to describe San Francisco’s latest outburst; even from my pro-choice perspective, the city’s attempt to essentially banish any counseling center which doesn’t encourage or perform abortions is simply beyond belief."
Well, we can't agree with that. Nothing that happens in San Franciso politics is beyond belief. Anyway, Zombie then brings us to the point:
"Hold on just a moment. Everybody freeze. What exactly is 'First Resort' accused of doing wrong? Buying a Google ad? Let’s look at the specifics.
If you scour First Resort’s Web site, nowhere do they claim that they provide abortions, or even advocate for abortions. In fact, quite the opposite: they use various code words like 'values' and 'adoption' which make it pretty clear they’re coming from a 'keep the baby' perspective in their counseling.
So what’s the problem? San Francisco’s municipal government apparently had a conniption fit over the placement of First Resort’s Google ad. In particular, if you Google the words 'abortion' and 'San Francisco,' the very top result is a listing for the First Resort clinic.
Does the ad itself say that First Resort provides abortions? No. Does it even mention abortions? No. It just says 'First Resort – Unplanned Pregnancy.' Nothing more. But gosh darn it, the ad pops up if someone does a Google search!...
This could be a legal first. Has any other business or organization ever been sued over their Google search ranking? Because that’s what this is all about. Remember that neither First Resort’s Web site nor the ads linking to their Web site make any claims about providing abortions. No, the only basis for a 'false advertising claim' against them is not the content of their advertising, but the placement of it."
Zombie concludes (and remember, he is "pro-choice"):
"Here is the nightmare scenario that San Francisco is trying to prevent: A woman gets pregnant, isn’t sure whether or not she wants to keep the baby, does a Google search and blindly clicks on the top link simply because it’s at the top, ignores all the clues on the company’s Web site ('values,' etc.), goes in for an appointment — and (horrors!) the counselor she meets with convinces her to keep the baby, or even give it up for adoption, rather than 'terminating' it.
It’s quite obvious that the city simply wishes these kinds of 'values-based' counseling centers didn’t exist at all; but lacking any other way to legally boot them out of town, they latched onto the flimsy “false advertising” charge, simply as a method to drive them away (or underground) with nuisance lawsuits.
Remember, no one is accusing First Resort or the other centers of forcing anyone to not have an abortion. No, their only crime is to have 'values'-based conversations with pregnant women.
Like New York and Baltimore, I believe the city will lose this case. But that is not their point. As we said yesterday their point is using public money to harass crisis pregnancy centers. If they lose, who cares? You, the citizens of San Francisco, are paying for it. And they force First Resort, et al, to use resources that otherwise might go to helping pregnant women.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
The laws in Baltimore and New York have already been overturned/put on hold by judges, on First Amendment grounds. We'll see if this one gets overturned too, or if they have crafted it more craftily.
Now, helping crisis pregnancy centers would seem to be a sensible thing to do, but not in a one-party ideological state such as San Francisco. The real purpose of the proposed ordinance is twofold: first, to harass the crisis pregnancy centers at public expense. That's because they threaten the Democrats' sacred cow, Planned Parenthood. It's just a fact that every baby born represents a financial loss for Planned Parenthood, and centers such as First Resort and Alpha Pregnancy help babies to be born and raised. Secondly, Dennis Herrera is running for mayor, and he thinks this will help his campaign.
Here's today's story, from LifeNews:
"Officials in San Francisco are launching a new campaign to target pregnancy centers in the city that help women find abortion alternatives with a new law similar to ones passed in Baltimore and New York.
Supervisor Malia Cohen and City Attorney Dennis Herrera have spent months on an ordinance that would, if passed, require the pro-woman centers to disclose whether they are abortion alternatives agencies that, supposedly, don’t provide comprehensive health care. The pair have made erroneous claims that the centers are engaging in misleading counseling and advertising.
The two announced the new initiative at a press conference — where pro-life advocates participated and asked them questions challenging their assumptions."