Stop the Senate Bill in its tracks. Right now it looks like the "Motion to Proceed" will be voted on this Saturday. Go to http://www.Senate.gov or call 202-224-3121 to ask your senators to vote NO on the "Motion to Proceed."
Our post title is Steve Ertelt's headline in this morning's LifeNews:
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- House Republican Leader John Boehner says the new health care bill Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid unveiled yesterday contains a monthly abortion premium that taxpayers will be forced to pay. His analysis follows that of pro-life groups that say the bill contains massive abortion funding.
"Just like the original 2,032-page, government-run health care plan from Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s massive, 2,074-page bill would levy a new 'abortion premium' fee on Americans in the government-run plan," he notes....
"Section 1303(a)(2)(C) describes the process in which the Health Benefits Commissioner is to assess the monthly premiums that will be used to pay for elective abortions under the government-run health plan and for those who are given an affordability credit to purchase insurance coverage that includes abortion through the Exchange. The Commissioner must charge at a minimum $1 per enrollee per month," Boehner said today.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Senate Healthcare Bill Unveiled: Barbara Boxer Loves It
LifeSiteNews reports:
"'Senator Reid did an excellent job of crafting language that maintains the decades long compromise of no federal funds for abortion,' gushed Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA). Boxer has a consistently 100% pro-abortion rating from NARAL."
So does Lois Capps:
"'Rep. Capps, another 100% NARAL-approved legislator and author of the House's phony compromise, praised Reid's language and noted that it 'closely mirrors my language' in the original House bill.
The same legislators had lambasted the Stupak language as 'illogical, discriminatory, and unnecessary' (Capps) and a 'very radical amendment which would really tear apart compromise" (Boxer)."
"'Senator Reid did an excellent job of crafting language that maintains the decades long compromise of no federal funds for abortion,' gushed Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA). Boxer has a consistently 100% pro-abortion rating from NARAL."
So does Lois Capps:
"'Rep. Capps, another 100% NARAL-approved legislator and author of the House's phony compromise, praised Reid's language and noted that it 'closely mirrors my language' in the original House bill.
The same legislators had lambasted the Stupak language as 'illogical, discriminatory, and unnecessary' (Capps) and a 'very radical amendment which would really tear apart compromise" (Boxer)."
SF Archdiocesan Paper Whitewashes SF's CCHD Scandal
The November 20 issue of Catholic San Francisco, the official newspaper of the Archdiocese of San Francisco, has both an article about the CCHD's funding missteps and a long letter to the editor from Ms. Monica Landeros, associate director of the Office of Public Policy and Social Concern at the Archdiocese. The article is on the front page and Ms. Landeros letter is on page 12.
You will read the entire article and letter without learning that two of the most egregious examples of CCHD-funded groups are right here in San Francisco. You would also not learn from Catholic San Francisco that the two groups, the Young Workers United and the Chinese Progressive Association made national news. You would also not learn that the CCHD was forced to pull its grants from these groups only a few weeks ago. In fact, from reading Catholic San Francisco, you would never learn anything about the Young Workers United and the Chinese Progressive Association at all. They are not mentioned in any issue of the newspaper.
That's using a newspaper to try and hide news instead of publishing news. It's a foolish strategy in the age of the internet.
Ms. Landeros letter to the editor is even worse. She repeats the CCHD's "For the Record" talking points which have already been debunked, but we will gladly do so again. Ms. Landeros states:
"All grant applicants are thoroughly screened and funds are only provided to those groups and projects with objectives that are clearly in line with the moral teaching of the Catholic Church. If evidence of non-compliance is discovered at any point during the term of an organization’s grant, they will be defunded immediately, and all monies will be returned to the Campaign."
Obvious question: if all groups are "thoroughly screened" how did the Young Workers United and the Chinese Progressive Organization end up getting funding? And Ms. Landeros cannot simply blame the CCHD. The CCHD's guidelines, published on November 11, 2008, clearly state:
"CCHD’s current (emphasis in original) criteria and guidelines prohibit partisan activity and funding of any group that engages in activities contrary to Catholic moral teaching, whether or not those activities are funded by CCHD."
So someone at the Archdiocese did not do their job in properly vetting the Young Workers United and Chinese Progressive Association. Instead of writing a self-justifying letter, Ms. Landeros should be apologizing to the parishioners whose hard-earned money ended up going into the collection basket for such groups.
Ms. Landeros could say, well, we made a mistake. But she doesn't. Addressing the issue of unacceptable local groups receiving CCHD funding, she writes:
"Locally, the Campaign has been attacked for funding two of our organizations."
But wait. Are those organizations the two we have mentioned, which were defunded? No. Nowhere in her letter is there an apology for funding, or even a mention of, the Young Workers United and the Chinese Progressive Organization. The two groups Ms. Landeros chooses to mention are one called "Nuestra Casa" and the San Francisco Organizing Project. And with her mention of the San Francisco Organizing Project Ms. Landeros goes into fantasy land:
"The San Francisco Organizing Project (SFOP) is a community organizing group that has always maintained a strong relationship with our office and the Archbishop. SFOP has not engaged in any activities contrary to Church teaching. Most recently, SFOP has worked to expand access to health care to children and low-income communities. SFOP is fully aware of the Catholic Church’s position on health care, and they in no way support or endorse funding for abortion or any other life issue that would be contrary to the Church’s teaching."
That's not only false, it's stupid, because the falsehood has already been exposed. We repeat that last sentence:
"SFOP is fully aware of the Catholic Church’s position on health care, and they in no way support or endorse funding for abortion or any other life issue that would be contrary to the Church’s teaching."
1) Simply visit the webpage of the San Francisco Organizing Project. It's "Healthcare" page boasts of "winning" $200,000 for the Mission Neighborhood Health Center.
2) Now simply visit the "Youth Services" page of Mission Neighborhood Health Center. It boasts that its Teen Clinic offers "emergency contraception," which will sometimes be abortion, to young women. (Added bonus: follow the links to "Reliable Health Information" at the bottom of the "Youth Services" page).
3) Just in case anyone is a little slow, that means: yes, the SFOP does support funding for abortion and other life issues contrary to the Church's teaching. Not only do they support it, they delivered it.
_________________________________________________________
There were other letters on this issue sent to the editor of the CSF this week. None were published. I know this, because one of them was from me. Here it is:
"Editor:
On October 30, 2009, every parish in the United States was sent a letter by the US Catholic Bishops regarding HR 3962, the healthcare bill passed on November 7. The letter directly requested that priests and parishioners tell their representatives that unless the bill specifically removed funding for abortion, the bill must be opposed. The Bishops thus articulated a clear moral hierarchy--healthcare is good, but if the cost of healthcare is funding abortion, the evil outweighs the good.
Unfortunately, that same moral clarity is not being applied within Catholic institutions. On the weekend of November 21-22, the Archdiocese has mandated a second collection for the California Campaign for Human Development. For the past 5 years, right here in San Francisco, the CCHD has funded a group called the San Francisco Organizing Project. The website of the SFOP lists 20 Catholic Churches, and the Archdiocese itself, as either “organizing committees” or “partners.” The same SFOP website also boasts that it “won $200,000 for the “Mission Neighborhood Health Center.” Well, the MHNC offers “emergency contraception”-- which, depending on the circumstances, may in fact be abortion. The MNHC also offers referrals to other “reliable” health organizations, the first of which is called the “Center for Young Women’s Health,” whose “contraception” webpage directs young women to Planned Parenthood. Other referrals are to equally objectionable organizations.
The Archdiocese is obligated to apply the same clear moral standards to its own behavior that it applies to members of congress. Why then are they partnering with, and devoting parishioner’s money to, a group that supports “emergency contraception”? Why is the CCHD, which for five years has funded the SFOP, being allowed to take up a second collection from parishioners?"
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
You will read the entire article and letter without learning that two of the most egregious examples of CCHD-funded groups are right here in San Francisco. You would also not learn from Catholic San Francisco that the two groups, the Young Workers United and the Chinese Progressive Association made national news. You would also not learn that the CCHD was forced to pull its grants from these groups only a few weeks ago. In fact, from reading Catholic San Francisco, you would never learn anything about the Young Workers United and the Chinese Progressive Association at all. They are not mentioned in any issue of the newspaper.
That's using a newspaper to try and hide news instead of publishing news. It's a foolish strategy in the age of the internet.
Ms. Landeros letter to the editor is even worse. She repeats the CCHD's "For the Record" talking points which have already been debunked, but we will gladly do so again. Ms. Landeros states:
"All grant applicants are thoroughly screened and funds are only provided to those groups and projects with objectives that are clearly in line with the moral teaching of the Catholic Church. If evidence of non-compliance is discovered at any point during the term of an organization’s grant, they will be defunded immediately, and all monies will be returned to the Campaign."
Obvious question: if all groups are "thoroughly screened" how did the Young Workers United and the Chinese Progressive Organization end up getting funding? And Ms. Landeros cannot simply blame the CCHD. The CCHD's guidelines, published on November 11, 2008, clearly state:
"CCHD’s current (emphasis in original) criteria and guidelines prohibit partisan activity and funding of any group that engages in activities contrary to Catholic moral teaching, whether or not those activities are funded by CCHD."
So someone at the Archdiocese did not do their job in properly vetting the Young Workers United and Chinese Progressive Association. Instead of writing a self-justifying letter, Ms. Landeros should be apologizing to the parishioners whose hard-earned money ended up going into the collection basket for such groups.
Ms. Landeros could say, well, we made a mistake. But she doesn't. Addressing the issue of unacceptable local groups receiving CCHD funding, she writes:
"Locally, the Campaign has been attacked for funding two of our organizations."
But wait. Are those organizations the two we have mentioned, which were defunded? No. Nowhere in her letter is there an apology for funding, or even a mention of, the Young Workers United and the Chinese Progressive Organization. The two groups Ms. Landeros chooses to mention are one called "Nuestra Casa" and the San Francisco Organizing Project. And with her mention of the San Francisco Organizing Project Ms. Landeros goes into fantasy land:
"The San Francisco Organizing Project (SFOP) is a community organizing group that has always maintained a strong relationship with our office and the Archbishop. SFOP has not engaged in any activities contrary to Church teaching. Most recently, SFOP has worked to expand access to health care to children and low-income communities. SFOP is fully aware of the Catholic Church’s position on health care, and they in no way support or endorse funding for abortion or any other life issue that would be contrary to the Church’s teaching."
That's not only false, it's stupid, because the falsehood has already been exposed. We repeat that last sentence:
"SFOP is fully aware of the Catholic Church’s position on health care, and they in no way support or endorse funding for abortion or any other life issue that would be contrary to the Church’s teaching."
1) Simply visit the webpage of the San Francisco Organizing Project. It's "Healthcare" page boasts of "winning" $200,000 for the Mission Neighborhood Health Center.
2) Now simply visit the "Youth Services" page of Mission Neighborhood Health Center. It boasts that its Teen Clinic offers "emergency contraception," which will sometimes be abortion, to young women. (Added bonus: follow the links to "Reliable Health Information" at the bottom of the "Youth Services" page).
3) Just in case anyone is a little slow, that means: yes, the SFOP does support funding for abortion and other life issues contrary to the Church's teaching. Not only do they support it, they delivered it.
_________________________________________________________
There were other letters on this issue sent to the editor of the CSF this week. None were published. I know this, because one of them was from me. Here it is:
"Editor:
On October 30, 2009, every parish in the United States was sent a letter by the US Catholic Bishops regarding HR 3962, the healthcare bill passed on November 7. The letter directly requested that priests and parishioners tell their representatives that unless the bill specifically removed funding for abortion, the bill must be opposed. The Bishops thus articulated a clear moral hierarchy--healthcare is good, but if the cost of healthcare is funding abortion, the evil outweighs the good.
Unfortunately, that same moral clarity is not being applied within Catholic institutions. On the weekend of November 21-22, the Archdiocese has mandated a second collection for the California Campaign for Human Development. For the past 5 years, right here in San Francisco, the CCHD has funded a group called the San Francisco Organizing Project. The website of the SFOP lists 20 Catholic Churches, and the Archdiocese itself, as either “organizing committees” or “partners.” The same SFOP website also boasts that it “won $200,000 for the “Mission Neighborhood Health Center.” Well, the MHNC offers “emergency contraception”-- which, depending on the circumstances, may in fact be abortion. The MNHC also offers referrals to other “reliable” health organizations, the first of which is called the “Center for Young Women’s Health,” whose “contraception” webpage directs young women to Planned Parenthood. Other referrals are to equally objectionable organizations.
The Archdiocese is obligated to apply the same clear moral standards to its own behavior that it applies to members of congress. Why then are they partnering with, and devoting parishioner’s money to, a group that supports “emergency contraception”? Why is the CCHD, which for five years has funded the SFOP, being allowed to take up a second collection from parishioners?"
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
A Response to the CCHD’s “For the Record” Report
The recent exposes of the funding missteps by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development have provoked the organization to issue a November 13 “For the Record” response. We reported on the CCHD’s funding problems in the Archdiocese of San Francisco on September 22 and November 11. In responding to the CCHD’s report, we confine ourselves to those instances we had previously covered.
We begin by quoting from the CCHD’s own funding guidelines, specified in the very first paragraph of the “For the Record” report:
“All grant applicants are carefully screened and funds are provided only to projects with objectives and actions that are fully in accord with the moral teaching of the Catholic Church. The local CCHD diocesan director and national grants staff evaluate every proposal. Every project recommended for funding requires endorsement by the local bishop.”
But it is obviously not true to say: “All grant applicants are carefully screened and funds are provided only to projects with objectives and actions that are fully in accord with the moral teaching of the Catholic Church.“ If that were true, the CCHD would not have to write on page 4 of the report:
“ALLEGATION: The Catholic Campaign for Human Development funded Young Workers United and the Chinese Progressive Association, both of whom produced voter guides which took a position contrary to Church teaching.
FACT: After a joint investigation with the Archdiocese of San Francisco, CCHD determined both organizations in question had in fact produced voter guides that included positions contrary to Church teaching. CCHD immediately cancelled both grants, and both organizations returned all of the funding they received from CCHD.”
Here the CCHD is trying to spin the issue, and doing so in an embarrassingly inept manner. First, that the CCHD funded the Young Workers United and the Chinese Progressive Association, is not an “allegation,” it is fact, printed on the CCHD’s own 2009-10 “Grantees” page. Secondly, examine the “Fact” entry: “A joint investigation"? What they mean is, somebody from the CCHD or the Archdiocese of San Francisco looked at the groups’ websites. We did that “investigation” ourselves--it took about 90 seconds. But note that the CCHD admits it did fund groups not “fully in accord with the moral teaching of the Catholic Church,” thus giving the lie to their statement in the report’s very first paragraph.
We all make mistakes. The point is to learn from them. Is there any sign the CCHD has done so? No. Examine the entry for the ongoing funding of the San Francisco Organizing Project on page 3. The CCHD justifies the ongoing funding with this non-sequiter:
“The Archdiocese of San Francisco strongly supports the work of the San Francisco Organizing Project (SFOP) to expand access to health care to children. Both Archbishop Levada and Archbishop Niederauer have spoken at SFOP events; SFOP has met regularly with Archdiocesan staff to coordinate work on health care access and other issues that affect the poor and immigrant families.”
Consider: two groups funded based on a recommendation from the Archdiocese of San Francisco just had to have their grants pulled. And what does the CCHD use to justify its ongoing funding of the SFOP? A recommendation from the Archdiocese of San Francisco. Nobody is that stupid by accident.
But worse than that, the statement is deliberately deceptive. It does not even mention the reason why CCHD’s funding of the SFOP was newsworthy. It does not mention that the SFOP, funded by the CCHD, “won” $200,000 for the Mission Neighborhood Health Center-- an organization which, right on its webpage, tells young women it will provide them with “emergency contraception.” Once again, the CCHD is violating its own funding guidelines.
Why such a transparent whitewash? Simple: The CCHD’s nationwide second collection is this weekend, and they want to squeak through.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
We begin by quoting from the CCHD’s own funding guidelines, specified in the very first paragraph of the “For the Record” report:
“All grant applicants are carefully screened and funds are provided only to projects with objectives and actions that are fully in accord with the moral teaching of the Catholic Church. The local CCHD diocesan director and national grants staff evaluate every proposal. Every project recommended for funding requires endorsement by the local bishop.”
But it is obviously not true to say: “All grant applicants are carefully screened and funds are provided only to projects with objectives and actions that are fully in accord with the moral teaching of the Catholic Church.“ If that were true, the CCHD would not have to write on page 4 of the report:
“ALLEGATION: The Catholic Campaign for Human Development funded Young Workers United and the Chinese Progressive Association, both of whom produced voter guides which took a position contrary to Church teaching.
FACT: After a joint investigation with the Archdiocese of San Francisco, CCHD determined both organizations in question had in fact produced voter guides that included positions contrary to Church teaching. CCHD immediately cancelled both grants, and both organizations returned all of the funding they received from CCHD.”
Here the CCHD is trying to spin the issue, and doing so in an embarrassingly inept manner. First, that the CCHD funded the Young Workers United and the Chinese Progressive Association, is not an “allegation,” it is fact, printed on the CCHD’s own 2009-10 “Grantees” page. Secondly, examine the “Fact” entry: “A joint investigation"? What they mean is, somebody from the CCHD or the Archdiocese of San Francisco looked at the groups’ websites. We did that “investigation” ourselves--it took about 90 seconds. But note that the CCHD admits it did fund groups not “fully in accord with the moral teaching of the Catholic Church,” thus giving the lie to their statement in the report’s very first paragraph.
We all make mistakes. The point is to learn from them. Is there any sign the CCHD has done so? No. Examine the entry for the ongoing funding of the San Francisco Organizing Project on page 3. The CCHD justifies the ongoing funding with this non-sequiter:
“The Archdiocese of San Francisco strongly supports the work of the San Francisco Organizing Project (SFOP) to expand access to health care to children. Both Archbishop Levada and Archbishop Niederauer have spoken at SFOP events; SFOP has met regularly with Archdiocesan staff to coordinate work on health care access and other issues that affect the poor and immigrant families.”
Consider: two groups funded based on a recommendation from the Archdiocese of San Francisco just had to have their grants pulled. And what does the CCHD use to justify its ongoing funding of the SFOP? A recommendation from the Archdiocese of San Francisco. Nobody is that stupid by accident.
But worse than that, the statement is deliberately deceptive. It does not even mention the reason why CCHD’s funding of the SFOP was newsworthy. It does not mention that the SFOP, funded by the CCHD, “won” $200,000 for the Mission Neighborhood Health Center-- an organization which, right on its webpage, tells young women it will provide them with “emergency contraception.” Once again, the CCHD is violating its own funding guidelines.
Why such a transparent whitewash? Simple: The CCHD’s nationwide second collection is this weekend, and they want to squeak through.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Bishops Release Letter on Marriage
And they get right to the heart of the objection to same-sex "marriage": "Attempting to redefine marriage to include [same-sex] relationships empties the term of its meaning," it says. Thus, "It would be a grave injustice if the state ignored the unique and proper place of husbands and wives, the place of mothers and fathers, and especially the rights of children, who deserve from society clear guidance as they grow to sexual maturity."
"Indeed," the letter continues, "without this protection the state would, in effect, intentionally deprive children of the right to a mother and father."
An identical point was made last year in the "Marriage Matters to Kids" video.
The full document is here.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
61% Say NO to Taxpayer-Funded Abortions: CNN
Monday, November 16, 2009
To Stop Federally Funded Abortion, We've got to Stop the Senate's Bill
There may be enough votes to prevent the Senate's heathcare bill from proceeding this week, but there will not be enough votes to add a Stupak-like amendment, once the bill has proceeded to the amendments stage.
That's the analysis by Steve Ertelt at LifeNews and by the Family Research Council.
Hence the best, and perhaps only chance to prevent federally funded abortions, paid for by you, is to stop the bill at the "Motion to Proceed" stage.
From Steve Ertelt's article:
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The first vote on the Senate version of the government-run health care bill, which is expected to include massive abortion funding, has been pushed back to later in the week. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will need 60 votes for his Motion to Proceed, which will begin the health care debate in the Senate.
The Motion to Proceed is needed to proceed with consideration of the Senate bill, which will be substituted for the House version as soon as the motion as approved....
Sen. Tom Harkin, an abortion advocate whose committee adopted one of two Senate health care bills that funds abortions and that Reid will merge into one final bill, which has yet to be unveiled, predicted Reid will get his 60 votes.
However, instead of a Tuesday vote, Harkin said the motion would be pushed back to Thursday or Friday.
As a result, Harkin said senators will not begin considering amendments to the health care bill until lawmakers return from the Thanksgiving recess next week.
When they do finally vote, they will likely consider an amendment similar to the Stupak amendment in the House that would de-fund virtually all abortions under the bill.
However, as LifeNews.com has reported, it appears the pro-life side will not have enough votes for the amendment, which Harkin's and another committee defeated. As a result, pro-life lawmakers and groups will likely shift to a strategy of trying to delay and defeat the bill outright.
In an alert emailed to its members this afternoon, the Family Research Council warned that "the Senate could begin debate on the health care bill this week without any guarantee the government will not pay for abortions."
FRC fears Reid will not keep the Stupak amendment in the Senate version of the bill.... "
"ACTION: Go to http://www.Senate.gov or cal 202-224-3121 to ask your senators to vote no on the Motion to Proceed."
We completly agree.
That's the analysis by Steve Ertelt at LifeNews and by the Family Research Council.
Hence the best, and perhaps only chance to prevent federally funded abortions, paid for by you, is to stop the bill at the "Motion to Proceed" stage.
From Steve Ertelt's article:
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The first vote on the Senate version of the government-run health care bill, which is expected to include massive abortion funding, has been pushed back to later in the week. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will need 60 votes for his Motion to Proceed, which will begin the health care debate in the Senate.
The Motion to Proceed is needed to proceed with consideration of the Senate bill, which will be substituted for the House version as soon as the motion as approved....
Sen. Tom Harkin, an abortion advocate whose committee adopted one of two Senate health care bills that funds abortions and that Reid will merge into one final bill, which has yet to be unveiled, predicted Reid will get his 60 votes.
However, instead of a Tuesday vote, Harkin said the motion would be pushed back to Thursday or Friday.
As a result, Harkin said senators will not begin considering amendments to the health care bill until lawmakers return from the Thanksgiving recess next week.
When they do finally vote, they will likely consider an amendment similar to the Stupak amendment in the House that would de-fund virtually all abortions under the bill.
However, as LifeNews.com has reported, it appears the pro-life side will not have enough votes for the amendment, which Harkin's and another committee defeated. As a result, pro-life lawmakers and groups will likely shift to a strategy of trying to delay and defeat the bill outright.
In an alert emailed to its members this afternoon, the Family Research Council warned that "the Senate could begin debate on the health care bill this week without any guarantee the government will not pay for abortions."
FRC fears Reid will not keep the Stupak amendment in the Senate version of the bill.... "
Mr. Ertelt closes his article with:
"ACTION: Go to http://www.Senate.gov or cal 202-224-3121 to ask your senators to vote no on the Motion to Proceed."
We completly agree.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Obama Reveals True Colors: Federally Funded Abortion on Demand!
We've been saying right from the beginning that ANY healthcare "reform" coming out of THIS Congress and THIS Administration will result in federally funded abortion. Congress passed the Stupak amendment passed, but it's like nothing ever happened.
From Steve Ertelt at LifeNews:
Obama Will Remove Abortion Funding Ban From Health Care Bill, Advisor Says
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Top Obama advisor David Axelrod on Sunday confirmed what pro-life advocates already suspected would happen. He said President Barack Obama will work with congressional Democrats to remove the abortion funding ban the House approved in its version of the government-run health care bill.
Axelrod says that, because the Stupak amendment allegedly goes beyond the status quo under the Hyde amendment (which bans abortion funding under Medicaid), Obama will make sure the amendment is yanked during the conference committee....
"The only thing that will prevent the health care bill from being 'an abortion bill' is precisely the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, as the House of Representatives recognized by a 46-vote margin," (Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee) said.
"The phoniness of Obama's claim that he has been trying to preserve the 'status quo' on abortion policy should be evident to any observer by now. In reality, the White House and top Democratic congressional leaders have been working hard to create a national federal government health plan that would fund abortion on demand, just as Obama promised Planned Parenthood," Johnson added.
Coverage from other news sorces can be found here.
From Steve Ertelt at LifeNews:
Obama Will Remove Abortion Funding Ban From Health Care Bill, Advisor Says
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Top Obama advisor David Axelrod on Sunday confirmed what pro-life advocates already suspected would happen. He said President Barack Obama will work with congressional Democrats to remove the abortion funding ban the House approved in its version of the government-run health care bill.
Axelrod says that, because the Stupak amendment allegedly goes beyond the status quo under the Hyde amendment (which bans abortion funding under Medicaid), Obama will make sure the amendment is yanked during the conference committee....
"The only thing that will prevent the health care bill from being 'an abortion bill' is precisely the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, as the House of Representatives recognized by a 46-vote margin," (Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee) said.
"The phoniness of Obama's claim that he has been trying to preserve the 'status quo' on abortion policy should be evident to any observer by now. In reality, the White House and top Democratic congressional leaders have been working hard to create a national federal government health plan that would fund abortion on demand, just as Obama promised Planned Parenthood," Johnson added.
Coverage from other news sorces can be found here.
Washington DC & Catholic Charities: Just Say NO!
We've been a little behind on covering the story out of Washington DC.
DC is telling Catholic Charities that if it does not (as Fr. Z says) "do things which are morally repugnant and contrary both to Scripture and the natural law" DC will no longer be willing to do business with Catholic Charities. Liberals are trying to spin this as if Catholic Charities is willing to deny help to the poor.
I don't think if DC city funding dries up, DC Catholics will all of a sudden stop helping the poor.
But speaking from our experience in San Francisco, we'd advise the Archdiocese of Washington DC to "just say NO" to the city's money, and tell them we'll take care of the poor on our own, thanks. We rehash for the umpteeth time the San Francisco experience, because it is an excellent lesson:
• In 1997 Catholic Charities of San Francisco (CCCYO) acceded to providing domestic partner benefits in order to keep city contracts.
• By 2000, CCCYO was placing adoptive kids to same-sex households.
• By 2005, CCCYO had an openly homosexual Director of Programs and Services, who was also serving on the board of Family Builders by Adoption, (PDF 1MB) "the gayest (adoption) agency in the country" (their words).
• By 2006, CCCYO, in order to keep city funding, partnered with Family Builders, thus staffing and funding a group committed by contract to increasing the number of children placed in LGBT households.
• By 2007, CCCYO had (and still has) an openly same-sex married lesbian serving on their board, and as their treasurer.
• In June 2009, responding to ongoing protests, CCCYO cancelled the partnership with Family Builders and no longer engages in any adoptions work. In August, 2009 CCCYO's erstwhile partner Family Builders was caught advertising for adoptive "dads" on the s/m & porn pages of homosexualist websites.
None of this just randomly happened. In 2006-07 CCCYO got over 60% ($20,525,272) of it's operating revenue in the form of government contracts. When that happens, you'd better believe politicians will call the tune. That does not mean CCCYO disagreed with the tune. It does mean that pressure from the outside coupled with strategically placed decision makers on the inside produced results like domestic partners benefits and homosexual/ transgender adoptions.
We hope the Archdiocese of Washington DC and every other Diocese in the country will learn from the San Francisco experience.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
DC is telling Catholic Charities that if it does not (as Fr. Z says) "do things which are morally repugnant and contrary both to Scripture and the natural law" DC will no longer be willing to do business with Catholic Charities. Liberals are trying to spin this as if Catholic Charities is willing to deny help to the poor.
I don't think if DC city funding dries up, DC Catholics will all of a sudden stop helping the poor.
But speaking from our experience in San Francisco, we'd advise the Archdiocese of Washington DC to "just say NO" to the city's money, and tell them we'll take care of the poor on our own, thanks. We rehash for the umpteeth time the San Francisco experience, because it is an excellent lesson:
• In 1997 Catholic Charities of San Francisco (CCCYO) acceded to providing domestic partner benefits in order to keep city contracts.
• By 2000, CCCYO was placing adoptive kids to same-sex households.
• By 2005, CCCYO had an openly homosexual Director of Programs and Services, who was also serving on the board of Family Builders by Adoption, (PDF 1MB) "the gayest (adoption) agency in the country" (their words).
• By 2006, CCCYO, in order to keep city funding, partnered with Family Builders, thus staffing and funding a group committed by contract to increasing the number of children placed in LGBT households.
• By 2007, CCCYO had (and still has) an openly same-sex married lesbian serving on their board, and as their treasurer.
• In June 2009, responding to ongoing protests, CCCYO cancelled the partnership with Family Builders and no longer engages in any adoptions work. In August, 2009 CCCYO's erstwhile partner Family Builders was caught advertising for adoptive "dads" on the s/m & porn pages of homosexualist websites.
None of this just randomly happened. In 2006-07 CCCYO got over 60% ($20,525,272) of it's operating revenue in the form of government contracts. When that happens, you'd better believe politicians will call the tune. That does not mean CCCYO disagreed with the tune. It does mean that pressure from the outside coupled with strategically placed decision makers on the inside produced results like domestic partners benefits and homosexual/ transgender adoptions.
We hope the Archdiocese of Washington DC and every other Diocese in the country will learn from the San Francisco experience.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Friday, November 13, 2009
Chicago Archdiocese Complains About CCHD Critics
Today Matt C. Abbot published a letter from the Archdiocese of Chicago Office of Peace and Justice and the Campaign for Human Development. The full letter can be found here. The authors (Rey Flores, Program Director, Catholic Campaign for Human Development; Nicole Wooldridge, Program Assistant, Catholic Campaign for Human Development; Nicholas Lund-Molfese, Director, Office for Peace and Justice; and Adrienne Curry, Program Director, Catholic Relief Services) object to the recent revelations about CCHD’s funding practices. The content of the letter, if that word can be used, can be summed up in this excerpt:
“Recently, CCHD has come under attack from certain groups whose motivations and objectives are rooted in partisan politics, rather than faithfulness to Catholic teaching and concern for the poor."
Putting the judgment of motives in the first clause of that sentence aside, we note that the letter itself has no substance--it is simply a complaint so vague as to be meaningless. “Certain groups"--but no one is named. The letter also describes objections to CCHD’s funding practices using the words “erroneous, inflammatory, deceitful, lies”--but no erroneous, inflammatory, deceitful, or lying statements are ever quoted. The letter is simply wind. Read it for yourself. As we will show, that’s quite a contrast to those of us who have been working on the CCHD story.
Let’s recap:
Our first article on CCHD funding appeared in the California Catholic Daily on September 22, 2009. On the same day, we covered the story on “A Shepherd’s Voice.” We had discovered, independently of the more comprehensive investigation by the Bellarmine Veritas Ministry, that the Catholic Campaign for Human Development had been funding two groups here in San Francisco who supported and engaged in activities contrary to the teaching of the church, and thus in violation of the CCHD’s own funding guidelines. Those groups were the Young Workers United and the Chinese Progressive Association. We named these groups, exactly described the objectionable activities in question, showed where they violated the CCHD’s own funding guidelines, and indicated to readers where they could examine the evidence themselves. We also PDF’d the original documents, and will be happy to send them to anyone who asks. Subsequent to our and the BVM’s report, the CCHD stopped funding these two groups.
The Bellarmine Veritas Ministry’s more comprehensive report uncovered other examples of CCHD funded groups engaged in activities in opposition to church teaching, and thus in violation of the CCHD’s own funding guidelines. There was nothing insubstantial about their work: they were not “making charges,” they were providing incontrovertible documentary evidence. Names, dates, activities. Nothing vague about it, anyone can check it.
This week, they uncovered another group right here in San Francisco, the PICO affiliated “San Francisco Organizing Project” which “won” $200,000 for the Mission Neighborhood Health Center, a group that provides “emergency contraception.” Following the BVM’s lead, on November 11, we covered the story in the California Catholic Daily, followed by a slightly longer version the same day in "A Shepherd's Voice." In addition to the information uncovered by the BVM, we had learned that the Mission Neighborhood Health Center, through their “reliable health information” page, directs young women to a site that recommends Planned Parenthood. We also showed that the MNHC’s “reliable health information” page also directs young people to websites thoroughly in conflict with Catholic teaching. Once again, we provided links, so that any reader could see the evidence themselves.
Quite a contrast to the letter from the Chicago Archdiocese.
h/t "Curt Jester"
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
“Recently, CCHD has come under attack from certain groups whose motivations and objectives are rooted in partisan politics, rather than faithfulness to Catholic teaching and concern for the poor."
Putting the judgment of motives in the first clause of that sentence aside, we note that the letter itself has no substance--it is simply a complaint so vague as to be meaningless. “Certain groups"--but no one is named. The letter also describes objections to CCHD’s funding practices using the words “erroneous, inflammatory, deceitful, lies”--but no erroneous, inflammatory, deceitful, or lying statements are ever quoted. The letter is simply wind. Read it for yourself. As we will show, that’s quite a contrast to those of us who have been working on the CCHD story.
Let’s recap:
Our first article on CCHD funding appeared in the California Catholic Daily on September 22, 2009. On the same day, we covered the story on “A Shepherd’s Voice.” We had discovered, independently of the more comprehensive investigation by the Bellarmine Veritas Ministry, that the Catholic Campaign for Human Development had been funding two groups here in San Francisco who supported and engaged in activities contrary to the teaching of the church, and thus in violation of the CCHD’s own funding guidelines. Those groups were the Young Workers United and the Chinese Progressive Association. We named these groups, exactly described the objectionable activities in question, showed where they violated the CCHD’s own funding guidelines, and indicated to readers where they could examine the evidence themselves. We also PDF’d the original documents, and will be happy to send them to anyone who asks. Subsequent to our and the BVM’s report, the CCHD stopped funding these two groups.
The Bellarmine Veritas Ministry’s more comprehensive report uncovered other examples of CCHD funded groups engaged in activities in opposition to church teaching, and thus in violation of the CCHD’s own funding guidelines. There was nothing insubstantial about their work: they were not “making charges,” they were providing incontrovertible documentary evidence. Names, dates, activities. Nothing vague about it, anyone can check it.
This week, they uncovered another group right here in San Francisco, the PICO affiliated “San Francisco Organizing Project” which “won” $200,000 for the Mission Neighborhood Health Center, a group that provides “emergency contraception.” Following the BVM’s lead, on November 11, we covered the story in the California Catholic Daily, followed by a slightly longer version the same day in "A Shepherd's Voice." In addition to the information uncovered by the BVM, we had learned that the Mission Neighborhood Health Center, through their “reliable health information” page, directs young women to a site that recommends Planned Parenthood. We also showed that the MNHC’s “reliable health information” page also directs young people to websites thoroughly in conflict with Catholic teaching. Once again, we provided links, so that any reader could see the evidence themselves.
Quite a contrast to the letter from the Chicago Archdiocese.
h/t "Curt Jester"
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Italians to European Union: "CHI VI CREDETE DI ESSERE!"
Or: Who do you think you are?
The decision by a court of the European Union to order Italian schools to remove the crucifix from classrooms is producing some happy results. How our Lord turns all things to good! On November 10, Antonio Gaspari published an article in Zenit.org called "In Defense of the Crucifix, Italy Awakens!" Signor Gaspari reports on the response that is sweeping Italy, with just a few examples (translating from Italian):
• In Montecchio Maggiore in the province of Vicenza, Mayor Milena Cecchetto and the council bought and installed a one-meter high crucifix in city hall.
• In Cittadella in the province of Padua, Mayor Massimo Bitonci placed an ancient wooden cross in city hall.
• In Florence, city councilwoman Mark Cordone visited a clssroom with "a flashy crucifix" around her neck and a t-shirt saying "do not touch the crucifix!"
• In Leonessa in the province of Rieti, Mayor Paolo Trancassini signed an order forcing all classrooms to display the crucifix.
• In Piacenza, Mayor Fabio Callori did the same.
• In Gavirate, a businessman named Giorgio Feraboli got together with his employees and they spent $1,200 Euros to build and install a twenty foot high cross in the factory courtyard. They also added lighting so it could be seen at night.
• In Tuscany, a students organization contructed 100 crucifixes and placed them in every classroom.
• The Archbishop of Bologna said to remove the crucifix is to remove "the chance to marvel at man's dignity and a sure sign the barbarians have returned."
These insane actions of the EU will end up forcing Europeans to start thinking about Christianity again. Lovely to see the devil's tools being used against him!
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
The decision by a court of the European Union to order Italian schools to remove the crucifix from classrooms is producing some happy results. How our Lord turns all things to good! On November 10, Antonio Gaspari published an article in Zenit.org called "In Defense of the Crucifix, Italy Awakens!" Signor Gaspari reports on the response that is sweeping Italy, with just a few examples (translating from Italian):
• In Montecchio Maggiore in the province of Vicenza, Mayor Milena Cecchetto and the council bought and installed a one-meter high crucifix in city hall.
• In Cittadella in the province of Padua, Mayor Massimo Bitonci placed an ancient wooden cross in city hall.
• In Florence, city councilwoman Mark Cordone visited a clssroom with "a flashy crucifix" around her neck and a t-shirt saying "do not touch the crucifix!"
• In Leonessa in the province of Rieti, Mayor Paolo Trancassini signed an order forcing all classrooms to display the crucifix.
• In Piacenza, Mayor Fabio Callori did the same.
• In Gavirate, a businessman named Giorgio Feraboli got together with his employees and they spent $1,200 Euros to build and install a twenty foot high cross in the factory courtyard. They also added lighting so it could be seen at night.
• In Tuscany, a students organization contructed 100 crucifixes and placed them in every classroom.
• The Archbishop of Bologna said to remove the crucifix is to remove "the chance to marvel at man's dignity and a sure sign the barbarians have returned."
These insane actions of the EU will end up forcing Europeans to start thinking about Christianity again. Lovely to see the devil's tools being used against him!
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Abortion-Breast Cancer Link Strongly Indicated in New Chinese Study
I've been hesitant to comment on the long debated abortion-breast cancer link because the science is over my head, so I would never know how to weigh the competing claims. But two recent studies have changed my mind. The first was a study in Turkey published earlier this year. It showed that women who had abortions had a 66% increased risk for breast cancer.
Today, another study, this one from China, shows that women in China who have abortions have a 17% higher incidence of breast cancer. From Steve Ertelt at Life News:
"Beijing, China (LifeNews.com) -- Chinese researchers have issued a new study indicating women who have had abortions face a 17 percent higher chance of contracting breast cancer than women who carried their pregnancy to term. One leading American scientist says he believes the increased risk is even higher.
Peng Xing and his colleagues conducted a case-control study in northeast China examining reproductive factors associated with subtypes of breast cancer.
They found a statistically significant overall odds ratio of 1.17 (17% increased breast cancer risk for all subtypes combined) among women who had induced abortions.
The study excludes the possibility of a flaw called "report bias" because abortion isn't stigmatized in China. Communist officials frequently require women who violate the one-child family planning policy there to have abortions so Chinese women are considered reliable reporters of their abortion histories.
Xing and his colleagues also found an increased risk of breast cancer for women who delayed their first full-term pregnancy, a frequent phenomenon among women who have an abortion of their first baby.
Professor Joel Brind of Baruch College maintains that the Chinese study underestimates the risk of abortion because of its high prevalence in China.
In his review of 10 prospective studies on the ABC link for the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons in December, 2005, Professor Brind explained that it's hard to do an epidemiological study accurately in communist countries where exposure to abortion affects most of the study population.
"In the study, the prevalence of abortion is quite high at about 56% overall in this population," he said.
"Because abortion is so prevalent in the population, women in the small, unexposed population (the comparison group) are a minority group and do not represent a typical population," he explained. "Rather, they're atypical because they represent a high-risk subgroup."
"Women without abortions in China are more likely to be childless or to have late first full-term pregnancies, which are accepted risk factors for breast cancer," Brind added.
Earlier this year, a Turkish study reported a statistically significant 66% increased risk for women contracting breast cancer after having an abortion."
The Turkish study was published in the World Journal of Surgical Oncology, here. The LifeNews story continues:
"Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, says both studies show that, when honest research is conducted outside the control of the U.S. National Cancer Institute and other Western governmental agencies or organizations tethered to abortion ideology and politics, the truth emerges that abortion raises risk.
"The Chinese and the Turkish studies are relevant considering the debate over government-funded abortion through healthcare reform," she told LifeNews.com. "Government-funded abortion means more dead American women from breast cancer."
Malec says studies reporting no abortion- breast cancer link have been proven in medical journals to be stupendously flawed.
Reference:
Xing P, Li J, Jin F. A case-control study of reproductive factors associated with subtypes of breast cancer in Northeast China.” Humana Press, e-publication online September 2009."
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Today, another study, this one from China, shows that women in China who have abortions have a 17% higher incidence of breast cancer. From Steve Ertelt at Life News:
"Beijing, China (LifeNews.com) -- Chinese researchers have issued a new study indicating women who have had abortions face a 17 percent higher chance of contracting breast cancer than women who carried their pregnancy to term. One leading American scientist says he believes the increased risk is even higher.
Peng Xing and his colleagues conducted a case-control study in northeast China examining reproductive factors associated with subtypes of breast cancer.
They found a statistically significant overall odds ratio of 1.17 (17% increased breast cancer risk for all subtypes combined) among women who had induced abortions.
The study excludes the possibility of a flaw called "report bias" because abortion isn't stigmatized in China. Communist officials frequently require women who violate the one-child family planning policy there to have abortions so Chinese women are considered reliable reporters of their abortion histories.
Xing and his colleagues also found an increased risk of breast cancer for women who delayed their first full-term pregnancy, a frequent phenomenon among women who have an abortion of their first baby.
Professor Joel Brind of Baruch College maintains that the Chinese study underestimates the risk of abortion because of its high prevalence in China.
In his review of 10 prospective studies on the ABC link for the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons in December, 2005, Professor Brind explained that it's hard to do an epidemiological study accurately in communist countries where exposure to abortion affects most of the study population.
"In the study, the prevalence of abortion is quite high at about 56% overall in this population," he said.
"Because abortion is so prevalent in the population, women in the small, unexposed population (the comparison group) are a minority group and do not represent a typical population," he explained. "Rather, they're atypical because they represent a high-risk subgroup."
"Women without abortions in China are more likely to be childless or to have late first full-term pregnancies, which are accepted risk factors for breast cancer," Brind added.
Earlier this year, a Turkish study reported a statistically significant 66% increased risk for women contracting breast cancer after having an abortion."
The Turkish study was published in the World Journal of Surgical Oncology, here. The LifeNews story continues:
"Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, says both studies show that, when honest research is conducted outside the control of the U.S. National Cancer Institute and other Western governmental agencies or organizations tethered to abortion ideology and politics, the truth emerges that abortion raises risk.
"The Chinese and the Turkish studies are relevant considering the debate over government-funded abortion through healthcare reform," she told LifeNews.com. "Government-funded abortion means more dead American women from breast cancer."
Malec says studies reporting no abortion- breast cancer link have been proven in medical journals to be stupendously flawed.
Reference:
Xing P, Li J, Jin F. A case-control study of reproductive factors associated with subtypes of breast cancer in Northeast China.” Humana Press, e-publication online September 2009."
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
