Thursday, December 28, 2006

Same sex or single sex?

The idea of co-educational schooling is actually a recent development of the past 100 years or so. Before then, most education, specifically higher education, was conducted in gender separate environments. Recent studies promoted by such organizations as National Association for Single-Sex Public Education have shown that boys and girls learn in different ways, therefore single sex classrooms, or dare I say classrooms segregated by gender, are the best learning environment.

On the other hand, gays continue to shove their agenda down the throats of innocent bystanders by their influence in the media. Using words such as, "same sex," "homosexual" and "gender equality," they try to promote their perversions as normal, not deviant. News stories of the attacks on traditional marriage are heartbreaking as the word "marriage" is now used to refer to any sexual contact between "consenting adults," not the sacred union of man and woman as God intended it from the beginning.

To continue their brainwashing, the media is now using the term "same sex" to refer to any gender separate environment. WRTI news sponsored by Temple University recently highlighted the fight for gender separate education which the ACLU calls discrimination by referring to this type of education as "same sex" as if it were actually a class on how to be a gay activist, not learning in a gender separate environment.

Action item: if your news source begins to use this language, call them on it! Let them know you don't appreciate promoting an agenda in lieu of giving the news updates.

For more info on the fight for gender separate education, see this story.

Friday, December 1, 2006

Birth control concoction for men

ABC News reported today that doctors have come out with a birth control pill for men. With all seriousness, they revealed that the drug is a combination of two drugs already in widespread use: one used to treat high blood pressure and the other to treat schizophrenia. Seriously?

First of all, the ability of a man to bring forth new life during the marital embrace (the appropriate name for "sexual intercourse") is a sign of his health not a disease to be treated with medicine. To be unable to father a child is a sign of a lack of health, and it's called infertility. Many men suffer with this disease, and it has devastating effects on many marriages where the couple expected that they would be able to have and raise children. This is why any barrier contraceptive (condoms, diaphragm) and surgical sterilization are a violation of marriage.

Although these clever researchers say their male pill won't be on the market for 4 or 5 years, I wonder whether it will every catch on. Are men really willing to jeopardize their long-term health in order to satisfy their sexual kicks without the accepting the responsibility of parenthood?

I also want to know what kind of sick researcher would combine blood drugs with mental health drugs to ruin a man's fertility. That's sick.

Friday, August 25, 2006

A terrible Plan

A terrible Plan: The morning-after pill will be sold over the counter. There are many reasons to reverse that decision.

BY: Mary Worthington

Plan B... emergency contraception... the "morning-after pill." Phrases such as these have been much in the news lately as the Food and Drug Administration and Barr Pharmaceuticals battle over whether to make this drug available over the counter (OTC). Yesterday, that battle came to an end when the FDA approved Plan B for over-the-counter sale to women 18 and older. Girls 17 and younger will still need a prescription.

This bad move, we're told, is being made "in the name of women's health." That's appalling, especially when the facts are considered. If we really want to prevent women from being hurt, we should shove Plan B back behind the counter.

Plan B consists of two pills taken 12 hours apart within three to five days of sexual intercourse. The dosage of contraceptive drug in these pills is 12 to 15 times that of a regular contraceptive pill. Remember: Plan B is now cleared to be sold OTC, yet the lower-dose conventional Pill still requires a prescription. Odd. Never before has a higher dose of a particular drug been made available OTC while a lower-dose preparation still requires a prescription. And that could lead to potentially risky situations. Women who cannot obtain a prescripton for the Pill because of health concerns such as high blood pressure may now have access to Plan B and may assume it is safe for use.

Unlike with a prescription, the person purchasing Plan B over the counter may not necessarily be the one taking it. Whatever guidance the pharmacist might give with the sale may never reach the woman who plans to take the drug. Because purchasing the drug will now be easier, anyone from a parent to a sexual predator could purchase Plan B for a minor, possibly putting her health at risk (scientific studies have not established the degree to which Plan B is safe for teens) as well as increasing chances for sexual abuse.

Plan B makers and advocates purport that the drug is to be used only in emergency situations - defining emergency very loosely. In promotional information and on its Web site (, Barr Pharmaceuticals, maker of Plan B, says the drug is intended for use "after known or suspected contraceptive failure or unprotected intercourse." Many purchasers will disregard the term emergency and use the drug as they themselves see fit.

With easy access to Plan B, some women might take the drug several times a month. That seems most likely with teens (who could get older people to buy it for them) and college-age women. If complications arise, these might go untreated or be seen merely as side effects. Without immediate physician supervision at the time they take the pills, girls and women risk side effects, drug interactions, and overdosing. Indeed, the maker and promoters warn against the latter.

There are also statistics and studies to be considered. In Scotland, the morning-after pill has been available OTC since the early 1990s. True, we can make no simplistic post hoc correlations here between access to a drug and wholesale sexual behavior, but it's at least worth considering that since OTC morning-after pills have been available in Scotland, rates of sexually transmitted disease (STD) have skyrocketed as well as the number of abortions. A 2004 British study found an increase in STDs and no decrease in the number of abortions after easy access to Plan B among teens. A January 2005 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed that after easy access to Plan B, abortion rates did not decrease.

These and other studies suggest that easy access to Plan B is not an effective way to decrease the rate either of sexually transmitted diseases or of abortions. The FDA has made a mistake in according over-the-counter status to Plan B. Here's hoping the policy is revised or ended soon.

Contact Mary Worthington at Mary Worthington is a staff member of the nonprofit group Generation Life.

LOAD-DATE: August 25, 2006 in the Philadelphia Inquirer. Click here for link to article on original website.

Wednesday, May 17, 2006

Happy Birthday, Blog!!

Today is the first anniversary of my blog! I am quite excited to celebrate this birthday even though I have not kept up on my blog recently.

God bless you!

Tuesday, May 9, 2006

Friends- Please be sure to check out where I have continued to post on the topic of contraception and the pro-life movement.

God bless you!

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

Temporary retirement

My dear readers,

Because I have simply become so busy with my new outreach, the No Room for Contraception Campaign, this blog will be entering temporary retirement. I hope this only lasts for a few months. Please visit the site of the No Room for Contraception campaign for the latest news, articles, resources and information regarding the harms that contraception brings to marriage, society and women's health. Please also consider a small contribution to help the work of the No Room for Contraception Campaign. Details on that site.

Compliments of a seminarian I know, I leave you with this article on Pope Benedict XVI. He speaks about the connection between respect and justice, especially in light of the tragedy of abortion. After all, abortion is the greatest human rights abuse and the greatest injustice that has ever been: an entire segment of society been denied personhood and subsequently suffered the loss of hundreds of millions of lives. This means hundreds of millions of women with their femininity and identity shattered and hundreds of millions of men with their masculinity shredded.

Benedict said:

These injustices can adopt many faces… For example, the face of disinterest or disorder, which can even go so far as to damage the structure of that founding cell of society that is the family; or perhaps the face of arrogance that can lead to abuse, silencing those without a voice or without the strength to make themselves heard, as happens in the case of today's gravest injustice, that which suppresses nascent human life.

Please pray for me and for the success of the No Room for Contraception Campaign. God bless you!

Wednesday, March 15, 2006

So-called "Family Planning" pushed on Jamaicans

Yesterday, the Ministry of Health of the country of Jamaica issued a statement encouraging contraception based sexual health at the reopening of a "family planning" clinic that Jamaicans are urged to take advantage of.

Ironically, Minister of Health John Junor claims that this new campaign to encourage the use of artificial contraceptives will reduce poverty, child and maternal mortality, and the spread of AIDS. All three of these claims have already been shown completely baseless by many pro-life experts, such as Steve Mosher of the Population Research Institute and Chuck Donovan and Bob Marshall in their book, Blessed are the Barren.

They claim that the clinics will provide pre- and post-natal care, which is perhaps where their claim of reducing child and maternal mortality comes from, but this is doubtless. Most likely, the Ministry of Health has bought the lies of the Planned Parenthood who works closely with Jamaica's "FAMPLAN" organization.

"Studies have outlined that in developing countries, success in family planning programmes occur when the responsibilities are shared among governments and non-government organizations and that is the kind of partnership we intend to maintain," Junor stated in the article.

First, I'd like to see those studies…

Next, I'd like to point out that if this the collaboration between FAMPLAN and Planned Parenthood is what he is referring to, Planned Parenthood is not a non-government organization. It's a very powerful federally funded machine of the US Government to spread the idea of eugenics, abortion, promiscuity, contraception and irresponsibility on individuals, families and societies around the country.

So, people of Jamaica, steer clear of the advances of these schemes. If you truly seek to rise from this horrid poverty, turn to Natural Family Planning. Turn away from improper sexual relations. The same things that they say are keeping you in poverty are driving people around the world into poverty and societal suicide. Don't let that happen to your country.

Monday, March 13, 2006

Some interesting days to commemorate

I compiled this interesting list of dates to commemorate, celebrate, protest or use to educate. It's certainly not exhaustive, and most of the dates apply only to 2006, but I hope they give you some good ideas for pro-life work!

January- Cervical Health Awareness Month
January- National Birth Defects Prevention Month
January 15- Martin Luther King Day
February- Black History Month
February, week of ValentineÂ’s day- National Condom Week
March- Women in History Month
March 8- International Women's Day
March 9- Day of Invitation to Abortion Providers
March 10- AbortionistsÂ’ Appreciation Day
April- Sexual Assault Awareness Month
April- National Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD) Awareness Month
April 6- A Day to End Sexual Violence
April 3-9- National Public Health Week
April 7- World Health Day
May- Older Americans Month
May- National Trauma Awareness Month
May 4- Mother's Day Comes Early for Too Many of Our Nation's Teens Day
May 7- Prevent Teen Pregnancy Day
May 14-20- National Women's Health Week
May 16- Sex Differences in Health Awareness Day
May 18- HIV Vaccine Awareness Day
July- Health Care Month- state of Illinois
Week surrounding July 25 (anniversary of Humanae Vitae)- Natural Family Planning awareness week.
August 1-7 World Breastfeeding Week
September- Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month
September- PCOS (Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome) Awareness Month
September- Prostate Cancer Awareness Month
September 10-World Suicide Prevention Day-
September 25th, 2006 (date varies year-to-year)- Family Dinner Day info at
October- Breast Cancer Awareness Month
October- Pornography Awareness Month
October- National Family Sexuality Education Month
October- Hispanic History/Heritage Month
October- National Gay and Lesbian History Month
November- National Hospice Month
November- National Adoption Month
November- National Family Caregivers Month
November 21- Pre-maturity Awareness Day
December 1- World AIDS Day

Sunday, March 12, 2006

Three cheers for the South Dakota task force report on abortion

Various pro-life, pro-choice, political, church-related and other groups and individuals continue to register their comments on the recent ban on abortion in South Dakota. Some say that the timing is not right. Others say that it is a threat to women's health. Still others praise it endlessly knowing that it will eventually end up in the Supreme Court with a chance for the court to revisit and hopefully overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

We cannot forget that much of the reason why the SD ban was such a glowing success was because last year, they conducted a task force study on abortion, which was submitted to the governor and legislature in December 2005. A key group in making this task force happen was South Dakota Right to Life, and you can download the 70+ page report from their site.

With my area of interest being contraception, I was most interested in the last footnote on the last page of the document. It's long winded, but worth quoting in full. They began by making one of the 14 recommendations in order to "lessen the loss of life and harm caused by abortion" a call for sexuality education that "include[s] a definition of sexual abstinence and a statement that abstinence education in South Dakota is to exclude contraceptive-based sexuality education." They call this a part of "character development education" (and rightly so).

Here is the text of the footnote (footnote number 50) that immediately followed:

Although the Task Force was not mandated to discuss and make recommendations regarding sexuality education, this issue was brought to the attention of the Task Force throughout the testimony, and was discussed extensively. It is clear that sexuality education and abortion are undoubtedly connected. We find that abstinence until marriage education based upon character development is foundational in decreasing unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases including HIV/AIDS. The state of South Dakota through its various entities has campaigned to educate our youth to "Just Say No" to harmful activities, such as smoking and drugs, and if the minor is participating in such a harmful activity to simply stop. This message given to our youth is clear, concise, and without contradictions. We find that almost everyone can agree that sexual activity for minors is harmful. To promote a message of "comprehensive sex education" (i.e. sex education based upon the promotion of contraception) is confusing and dangerous. It is inconsistent with the message of "Just Say No" since abstinence from sexual activity is the only completely reliable means of preventing pregnancy and disease. The message communicated to youth by contraceptive-based sex education is that they are not capable of controlling their emotions and instincts, thus the need for contraception. Further, contraceptive sex education instills a mentality that abortion is a "back up" for failed contraception, thus the promotion of "emergency contraception" drugs which can act as early abortifacients.

No objective studies of contraceptive sex education programs have proven to result in the reduction of unplanned pregnancies and abortions. Conversely, studies have shown that contraceptive sex education results in an increase in sexual activity.

Notice that they point out the irony between the "just say no" campaigns for drugs and alcohol, but self-destructive behavior such as pre-marital sex is not only tolerated, but encouraged through contraception-based education, which the task force calls "confusing and dangerous." Notice what they say: "The message communicated to youth by contraceptive-based sex education is that they are not capable of controlling their emotions and instincts, thus the need for contraception." Clearly through all of their contraception based sex education, the Planned Parenthood is not looking to prevent pregnancies, but as Jim Sedlack of STOPP says, they are looking to sexualize our children.

It's called "sexuality education" which should include an honest explanation of God's meaning for human sexuality based on how we are created, but the Planned Parenthood, SIECUS and others have twisted it's meaning so that everyone know thinks it means instructions on how to have sex with no strings attached, as often as you'd like, with anyone or no one. That is not what sex is, and when kids are taught that in schools, that's not only a perversion of human sexuality, but a prevision of education itself.

The SD task force also calls contraception-based sex education to task on the fact they it in fact does not decrease unplanned pregnancy or abortion precisely because it increases sexual activity at a younger age. Looking at the statistics, it is clear that not only has teen pregnancy and abortion skyrocketed since the lat 1960s, but so have sexually transmitted disease. Once called venereal disease, they became known as sexually transmitted disease as premarital and extramarital affairs became more commonplace. In order to downplay the fact that no chemical contraceptive prevents STD's, the Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers now call them sexually transmitted infections in order to make these diseases sound less scary and less taboo.

So, if this task force and subsequent report can lead to the banning of abortion in South Dakota, perhaps it can lead to the banning of Planned Parenthood's twisted ideology being taught in our schools and funded with our tax dollars.

Thursday, March 9, 2006

Decoding the Komen Foundation

Though most of their events are held in October (breast cancer awareness month), as springtime approaches, the Susan G. Komen foundation is starting to hold more and more of their “Race for the Cure” events around the country. Registration is beginning, and therefore it is vital that you know the truth about Komen and their close ties to the Planned Parenthood as well as their deceptive lies that there is not a link between contraceptives, abortion and breast cancer.

It is irresponsible that they attempt to claim that abortion is not linked to breast cancer when there is plenty of research that confirms this. Furthermore, Komen in many states is a direct funder of the Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider.

The best information on the link between abortion and breast cancer is from the Coalition for Abortion/ Breast Cancer and the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute. Together, they have a very nicely done DVD called "Abortion Breast Cancer Link: What every woman has the right to know." Let's take a look at some of the things they have to say regarding abortion and breast cancer.

The risk factors of estrogen exposure and breast immaturity can also act in concert with one another, causing greater risk. For example, if a teenager, who has not had a full-term pregnancy (she is nulliparous), takes birth control pills, her risk of breast cancer is much higher than it is for a woman who has had several children and then takes birth control pills. A woman who gets pregnant increases her estrogen level 2,000 percent by the end of the first trimester. If her pregnancy goes to full term, she will have lower breast cancer risk by developing full breast maturity. If it ends before 32 weeks, by very premature birth or induced abortion, she will have increased risk as she will not get the benefit of full breast maturation, but instead be left with more places for breast cancer to start. Spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) in the first trimester do not increase breast cancer risk because they are associated with low estrogen levels.BCP Institute

Also, don't forget that the birth control pill has been declared carcinogenic to humans by World Health Organization.

An IARC Monographs Working Group has concluded that combined estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives and combined estrogen-progestogen menopausal therapy are carcinogenic to humans (Group 1), after a thorough review of the published scientific evidence…

The Working Group concluded that combined oral contraceptives alter the risk of several common cancers in women. They increase a woman's risk of cervical cancer, breast cancer, and liver cancer. World Health Organization

With all of the financial support and media attention that the Planned Parenthood and Komen have from many angles, it is easy for them to spread their propaganda. The Planned Parenthood does NOT exist to give pap smears and basic gyn care. They exist to spread promiscuity, birth control, premarital sex and abortion. They only provide these other services in a vain attempt to give credibility to their deadly agenda. Furthermore, though abortion is legal, very few ob/gyn's perform them. Most abortions are performed at Planned Parenthood clinics or at free-standing abortion clinics. Free-standing clinics do not offer any other services except birth control and abortion. This shows how intimately connected these two moral evils really are.

Organizations like the Coalition for ABC and the BCP Institute need voices of compassionate people who are sad and grieving over the devastation of breast cancer to loudly proclaim their message. You can get this message to the media through letters to the editor or by inviting a speaker such as Charnette Messee to your area and widely advertising it, especially to the media through press releases. You can also boycott or picket the Komen walk; many pro-life groups have done this in the past. You could also help organize or promote a Silent No More Awareness Campaign event in your area.

Last but not least, please keep all women with breast cancer and their families in your prayers.

Tuesday, March 7, 2006

Separation of what?

For as much barking they like to do about separation of Church and state, the 55 Democrats who produced what they call the "Historic Catholic Statement of Principles" certainly seem to contradict their own principles.

Thirty-three of these 55 voted against the ban on partial birth abortion in 2003 (meaning 22 of them could be considered pro-life), so it's hard to tell that this statement is actually about overlooking the importance of bringing an end to abortion. This statement is about making themselves into authors of doctoring of the Catholic Faith!

Since when is it the place of politicians to make declarations about Catholic Faith? They are supposed to follow declarations of Catholic Faith made by Bishops and the Vatican, not rewrite them according to their dumbed down, cafeteria style version of what they think the Church's teachings ought to be.

Most know that I do not like politics at all, but in reality, we must understand that Christians and Catholics do have to be politically responsible and put the attitude and spirit of the Faith into their everyday lives. That means that politicians are supposed to protect the lives of each and every human person, no matter what the state or any group within the state says regarding whether they are actually persons or not. That means that since we can biologically, we can determine that a completely separate human person exists at the very moment of conception, then politicians who merely say that abortion is "undesirable" are missing the whole point. They are actually cowards who are not willing to protect the lives of those most oppressed. Here's what they say:

"We envision a world in which every child belongs to a loving family and agree with the Catholic Church about the value of human life and the undesirability of abortion—we do not celebrate its practice."

In fact, the phrase "every child belongs to a loving family" is almost an exact copy of the Planned Parenthood propaganda slogan, "every child a wanted child" which they use to promote abortion! That's sick!

So… while these 55 congressmen package their doctrine under separate of Church and state, their statement is actually one of dissent form the Catholic Faith.

Here's an action item: if you know a priest or if you are a priest, please sign the statement being sponsored by Priests for Life called "An appeal to our public officials."

Friday, March 3, 2006

A plan for reducing so-called unintended pregnancies

The abortion lobby, carefully guided by every American's worst nightmare Planned Parenthood, is scared. They know that they cannot win the abortion battle any longer. They know the days are numbered for legal abortion, so their focus is turning more and more to availability of contraception, especially Plan B emergency contraception.

But, of course, they comfort us by saying that the widespread use of contraceptives will reduce the need for abortions.

Clearly, improving use among couples who rely on contraception and persuading nonusers to adopt a method would reduce the number of unintended pregnancies—and therefore abortions.

Not so, in reality however. Out of the other side of their mouth, they attribute 1.3 million abortions per year to failed contraception. "About half of unintended pregnancies occur among couples who were using a contraceptive method in the month the woman became pregnant; either the method did not work properly or the couple did not use it consistently or correctly," states a recent report.

Despite these contradictory statements, the report also states that their goal is to reduce so-called "unintended" pregnancy by up to 40% by 2010, and their means for achieving this goal is contraception. But, if contraception is so reliable for reducing the need for abortion, why is its everyday use so, well, unreliable?

They also state a goal for "ensuring universal access to contraceptives" in addition to their "educational" programs on its use. To me, this is sounding more and more like the coercive one-child per couple policies of China.

Let's not forget that the last time contraception was so vigorously promoted in America, it was a failed pursuit. In fact, the widespread use of contraception is the reason why abortion became legal in the first place, and the US Supreme Court reiterated this point in the Casey decision.

[F]or two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail. (505 U.S. 833, 857)

I have an idea for reducing "unintended" pregnancies: treat children as welcomed blessings as the result as sexual union and reserve sexual union to marriage. Only then will children be wanted and welcomed.

Thursday, March 2, 2006


My dear readers, please forgive me for not posting recently. I promise to get back to posting soon... however I am currently consumed with another very important project...! My prayers are with all of you.

Wednesday, March 1, 2006

More comments on Carl Djerassi

Last week, I mentioned contraception pill innovator, Carl Djerassi. He has some interesting things to say about changing ideas of what constitutes a family in today's society. In an article announcing a play he wrote about lesbian lovers who conceive invitro using each others' brothers' sperm, Djerassi said:

Assumptions that marriage must be heterosexual and that a child cannot have two parents of the same sex were never even considered assumptions, because they were beyond questioning. All of these terms have become destabilised, their meanings blurred, their range extended.

Some would blame technology during the past three decades for these developments, but in actual fact major social and cultural changes were even more responsible for the monumental shift that has caused so much fear and antagonism, especially among the ever increasingly strident fundamentalists in the USA. So why not write a play about a situation where family and parent have assumed disturbingly fuzzy meanings.

Might I argue that perhaps it is the very invention of these birth control technologies that allowed people to divorce in their minds the idea of procreation from sexual or married relationships? Chemical birth control could very well have caused these "major social and cultural changes." This certainly seems like a likely correlation to me.

Stephanie Coontz agrees, and in an article she said this:

Heterosexuals were the upstarts who turned marriage into a voluntary love relationship rather than a mandatory economic and political institution. Heterosexuals were the ones who made procreation voluntary, so that some couples could choose childlessness, and who adopted assisted reproduction so that even couples who could not conceive could become parents. And heterosexuals subverted the long-standing rule that every marriage had to have a husband who played one role in the family and a wife who played a completely different one. Gays and lesbians simply looked at the revolution heterosexuals had wrought and noticed that with its new norms, marriage could work for them, too.

Read my article "Did contraception lead to homosexuality?" on No Room for Contraception- click here.

Monday, February 27, 2006

Website Exposes Dangers of Contraception to Marriage and Society

A national campaign to expose the negative aspects of contraception launched today. The web-based campaign, originating out of New York, is called "No Room for Contraception."

Issues surrounding so-called emergency contraception have brought the issue of birth control to the political forefront. In order to contribute to this ongoing debate, the No Room for Contraception team has launched a website to point out the often under-exposed negative effects of widespread contraception use.

"For decades, very few people of reproductive age were aware of negative side aspects of birth control," said Ruben Obregon, co-founder of the campaign. "The campaign will highlight the negative effects of contraception, including emergency contraception."

On the issue of emergency contraception, Obregon said, "Pharmacies should not be forced to fill prescriptions for so-called emergency contraception, especially since these drugs potentially prevent the implantation of a newly created human being. Companies like Wal-Mart need to think twice before caving into the pressure of the abortion rights movement to stock these drugs."

The issue of emergency contraception is just one aspect of a larger campaign to change society's dependence on contraception.

"More and more women are coming forward with stories of regret for the use of artificial contraception and surgical sterilization, stating that it had negative effects on their marriage." said Mary Worthington, the other co-founder of the campaign "No Room for Contraception is dedicated to exposing these stories along with the growing amount of scientific and sociological research showing contraception's adverse side effects."

The campaign's website can be found at

Friday, February 24, 2006

An impossible Pill to swallow

Packaged as reproductive freedom, the birth control pill has been triumphed for decades as the means by which women were able to rid themselves from the bondage of fertility and be able to enjoy sexual relations for mere bodily pleasure. But, a closer look at chemical birth control suggests that maybe it is more of a burden on women than a redeemer.

The irony is that birth control is almost always a sort of necessary evil for women. In exchange for this "freedom," a woman must remember to take a daily pill, replace a weekly patch or a monthly ring, or otherwise keep up with a regular regimen that suppresses her health and fertility. She must suffer the adverse sexual and medical side effects, and she is usually stuck with the financial expense of the chemicals, devices and doctor's visits. Certainly looks like a burden to me.

So where are men here? The only two options for men are condoms or vasectomy. While equally as morally offensive as chemical contraceptives, they do not carry the baggage that women's contraceptives do. Dozens of versions of female chemical contraceptives are available, but where are these options for men?

From the 1940s-1960s while researchers were developing the birth control pill, there were formulas for making both a men's version and a women's version, but ultimately, the women's version was the only one to hit the market. Men noticed in the trials that their pill had adverse physical side effects. Women in the trials died from their pill. The men's version was discontinued, and the dosage of the women's version was reduced.

One of those researchers was Carl Djerassi, and he commented today on the ideology behind this lack of consistency in reproductive destruction.

In an interview published in the Portuguese magazine, "Sabado," Djerassi admitted that medicine is certainly capable of developing such a pill, but said that, "The problem is that men are afraid to lose their virility. Even if taking a pill carries only a remote chance of impotence, they won't take the chance." He also stated that men "don't want to lose [the] privilege" of becoming fathers even into their 60s and 70s.

According to Djerassi's comments, bearing a child is a prized privilege for a man, but the fertility of a woman becomes a disposable and sickening aspect of her.

Here's some more surprising news. In 2002, several researchers were given a $9.5 million dollar grant by the National Institutes of Health for creating a male chemical contraception. No results yet, and that was my tax dollars at work. I'm not surprised.

That would be a hard pill for any man to swallow. Why have so many women been subjecting themselves to this for so long?

Thursday, February 23, 2006

Beautiful new song to Mary from Pope Benedict's encyclical

Catholic from Down Under, Nihal D’Silva has sent the prayer to the Blessed Mother at the end of Pope Benedict XVI’s first encyclical, "Deus Caritas Est"

The lyrics are verbatim from the encyclical, and they are as follows:

Holy Mary, Mother of God,
you have given the world its true light,
Jesus, your Son – the Son of God.
You abandoned yourself completely
to God's call
and thus became a wellspring
of the goodness which flows forth from him.
Show us Jesus. Lead us to him.
Teach us to know and love him,
so that we too can become
capable of true love
and be fountains of living water
in the midst of a thirsting world.

The song in mp3 format is free for you to download.

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Happy Birthday Donum Vitae!!

Today is the 19th anniversary of the promulgation of the document Donum Vitae. This document by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith addresses in detail the problem of in vitro fertilization.

Equally as urgent as the problem of contraception is the problem of artificial procreation. Both of these acts separate the generation of life from the sexual act, cheapening the sexual act and making children into a commodity. In reality, however, children are a responsibility to be accepted lovingly from God as a result of the sexual expression of marital love. If by God's design the procreation of a child is not possible, no sin or offense against nature has taken place, yet if permanent or temporary sterilization is sought, a grave offense against marriage, God and nature has happened.

On the other hand, when procreation is not possible because of God's design, a couple ought not believe that it is their right or privilege to create a child artificially because technology makes it possible. This technology is actually an abuse of life, not at life's service.

IVF is also not medically safe. Babies created through IFV have a greater susceptibility to health problems. Mothers who undergo IFV treatment have a more difficult pregnancy, more difficult post-partum depression and more difficulty with bonding with the child.

Another problem of IVF is that there are often too many babies created than can be prudently brought to term. These tiny persons are then frozen into a physical limbo state and present an ethical dilemma. The options are: keep the babies frozen; donate them to research; defrost them and allow them to die; or allow other couples to "adopt" them and bring them to term, which is called snowflake adoption. None of these options seem morally acceptable except maybe the last. (The Catholic Church has not yet made a decision about the last option, in case you are wondering.)

Donum Vitae is presented in a user-friendly question and answer format. Enjoy!

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

Ugandan bishops get to root of abortion problem

In late January, the bishops of Uganda gave an open letter addressing their concerns about the UN "Protocol to the African Charter on Human Rights and People's Rights: On the Rights of Women in Africa." This charter would basically assure unrestricted abortion within the African nations that adopted it.

To the defense of life, the bishops cite the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda that assures the right to life of the unborn, therefore condemning abortion. "Abortion is always a defeat of humanity" and a "fundamental evil," the bishops stated. They go on to say, "In the history of humanity, never has such an objective evil been presented and approved as a right."

The bishops even take a hit at the so-called "hard cases" of pregnancy, which are usually result in abortion due to physician influence, social pressure, and legal allowance. "The situations of severe distress… (rape, incest, sexual assault) cannot create the right to suppress an innocent life." The reason for this is simple: abortion after these sad abuses do NOTHING to solve the problem rape, incest and sexual assault. In fact, they only serve to help the oppressor, driving the victim into further despair.

After outlining the drastic measures that the charter takes, especially in a broad definition of "women's health," the letter addresses the continued need for a respect for human sexuality.

In conclusion, we say to our fellow Ugandans: the greatest gift of the Creator to humanity is the gift of life. Accepting that gift means also welcoming the beautiful gift of human sexuality, through which the Creator has chosen to channel His gift of new life. Only a full understanding of the precious, yet complex, gift of human sexuality, and the consequent efforts to protect and value it, can build a healthy society. The legislation of our country cannot be ambiguous on this point. This is the task we all have.

These bishops have it right: understanding the complexity of the gift of human sexuality is the only way to build a healthy society!

Monday, February 20, 2006

It's finally here!!

Friends, please visit a new website, No Room for Contraception!! This is what I have been working on for the past week, hence the lack of regular posts. Regular posting will resume this week.

God bless you!

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

Special project in progress!

I am currently working on a special project to be announced soon. Posting will resume next week!

God bless!

Friday, February 10, 2006

Hunger strike or stricken with hunger?

Another situation like Terri Schiavo's happened in Florida last week. A New York man named Ted Stith died after 8 days without food or water in a Port Charlotte hospice facility. On the opposite end of the spectrum, officials at a detention facility in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba have been developing strategies recently to prevent detainees from engaging in suicide-bound hunger strikes.

A small newspaper in rural New York has followed the heartbreaking and cruel story of Mr. Stith's death. Mr. Stith, a 73 year old farmer, left his home near the Finger Lakes last month for a short vacation in Florida and while there suffered a stroke. His son immediately traveled to Florida and ordered that his father be given no rehabilitation, medication, food or water. According to reports, he then took his father's wallet and headed back to New York, leaving his father to die.

He did die. He died alone in a place far from home, and as he was dying, his son was auctioning off his belongings in the auction house that he owned and used to make a living. A place where he used to give to other families in need, especially through food donations. Read a complete story of his death, which includes links to previous stories.

In Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, prisoners on hunger strike have been force fed through feeding tubes to prevent vomiting, and prevent their own suicide as a protest for their detention. The efforts have been successful, and the number of strikers has dropped from 84 to 4. Ironically, the interventions to keep these detainees from committing suicide has been called "most brutal and inhumane types of treatment" and "a disgrace" by a Washington based lawyer who is "representing" some of the detainees.

So, with this sad story of Mr. Stith fresh in my mind, when I heard of the hunger strikers, it was an occasion for reflection for me. The "quality of life" argument that is frequently used to justify acts of suicide, abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide just doesn't seem to make sense anymore. How can one say that the quality of life of a prisoner is any better or worse than the quality of life of the elderly, a child with a disability or a child conceived despite the protests (ie, use of contraception) of his mother and father?

Yet, while selfish people are fighting to kill the disabled, elderly and unborn, US military officials are concerned that the detainees do not succeed in killing themselves. Who steps in to criticize? A silly group of lawyers who say that it is inhumane to strap down a prisoner to feed him. Did it ever occur to these lawyers that if the hunger strikers had succeeded in their suicide plans, they'd be out of a job? I guess so-called human rights are that important.

Dr. William Winkenwerder Jr. recently questioned the moral complexity of feeding tubes by saying, "Do you allow a person to commit suicide? Or do you take steps to protect their health and preserve their life?" Of course, Dr. Winkenwerder was speaking about the life of a prisoner, but what if physicians, families, social workers and other specialists had this attitude toward those who feel tempted or pressured to commit suicide or to allow euthanasia in the face of severe illness? Do we allow them to commit suicide? Or, do we preserve their lives?

Tuesday, February 7, 2006

Discerning two plans

Abortion testimonies, especially those of women who are abortion-bound but still pregnant, are riddled with the idea that adoption is the most painful and least rewarding decision that can be made. Why? Adoption is presented in such bad light thanks to America's domestic terrorists- the abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood. These organizations are so firmly convinced that the "liberation" of an abortion is a far better decision than adoption that they have created this mentality and instilled it in the youth of America.

A testimonyon the Priests for Life site from a woman who had experienced both abortion and parenting before her current pregnancy. Knowing that she could neither handle the despair of another abortion nor the challenges of parenthood, she turned to a counselor who helped her to devise two plans: one for parenting and one for adoption. The counselor also helped to guide her in her decision making, respecting her decisions.

Let's take a look at an excerpt of her testimony:

The first person I called was my ex and his first suggestion ...abortion. It looked like I was in for another lonely, depressing pregnancy. Here I was again, scared, ashamed, disappointed confused. What in the world was I going to do? That was my question to God as I sat in the back of the sanctuary sobbing, feeling completed humiliated. The Lord was merciful. That very day, He answered that question with just one word, ADOPTION. "When, who, how, where?" I thought.

When I finally confided in a lady I met at the women's retreat, she directed me to a counselor at church. She lovingly, but firmly discipled me and helped me to develop two plans. One for adoption, another for parenting. The next nine months were spent praying, crying, researching, studying, crying, talking, growing, and crying some more. God became very real to me. His hand was as clearly involved in the whole adoption process than mine was. He led us every step of the way, from deciding on what avenue to use, to what family, to the name.

This is an encouraging testimony! From a seemingly impossible situation with the cloud of discouragement from the father of the child looming overhead, she was able to find hope and peace in an adoption plan simply because she was able to consider both options side by side.

Recommended reading: Real Choices: Listening to Women; Finding Alternatives to Abortion by Frederica Matthewes-Green. Available on her website.

Monday, February 6, 2006

Post-contracption syndrome

Ever since Janet Morana, the co-founder of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign publicly gave her testimony of the grief caused by contraceptive use, more and more people are beginning to realize the complexity of grief after contraceptive use. While Christians must grieve for any sin that is committed, grieving for the sin of contraception is especially important because a woman does not know whether she has inadvertently aborted a child.

Along with Dr. Theresa Burke, the director of Rachel's Vineyard retreats for post-abortion healing, Janet has written a book called “The Contraception of Grief.” It explains in detail the devastation caused by extended contraception use or sterilization.

When abortion first became legal and many women subjected themselves to this horror, little was known about post-abortion grief or suffering. Many women who were obtaining abortions were not aware that their child was growing and developing or that they were even pregnant with a child. This is a sad reality of the public knowledge of unborn life: women were (and still are) encouraged to abort a child while at the same time being told that it is not even a child yet.

The same is true of the use of chemical contraceptives. When “The Pill” was first invented, women were kept in ignorance as to the functioning of the chemicals contained in it. Through medical research and honest physicians, educators and ministries, women are beginning to realize exactly how devastating the use of contraceptives has been, and that they most likely have aborted one or more children while on the pill. This is the cause of much grief, and that grief needs to be recognized. As long as the Planned Parenthood and mainstream medical practice are lying to women, the pro-life movement needs to step forward to recognize their hurt and help them come to peace and healing in Jesus Christ.

Yes, all mortal sins are to be mourned. Along with that mourning should also come the realization that human life was destroyed through the sin, and this loss should be mourned as well.

Friday, February 3, 2006

Slang medical terms and pharmacists' rights

The debate regarding pharmacists' rights to refuse to fill a prescription is heating up, and with that comes lots of confusion over terminology, legal rights, right to life issues and more. This whole mess revolves around dangerous birth control drugs and emergency contraception that many pharmacies have an uneasy conscience about dispensing. What exactly is "emergency contraception?" Though there are many things to discuss on this topic, I am going to discuss the confusing terminology created by slang words for medical terms.

But, before we get to that, let's look at a few of these instances in the news lately.

So much for the props I gave to Target in an earlier post; on Monday, a woman broke the news that she had been fired for refusing to provide a referral for the drug. Irony is that her employer didn't even stock the drug!

This new national controversy was egged on by the governor of Illinois who I mentioned in an earlier post on his new program that requires all pharmacies and all pharmacists to fill birth control and emergency contraception. Three pharmacists from a Walgreen's in Illinois were fired for refusing to fill prescriptions, and now the American Center for Law and Justice (a pro-life legal association) is suing them.

Another major chain, Wal-Mart, is being sued by three women in Massachusetts, likewise for refusing to dispense emergency contraception.

So, now that we understand the buzz about pharmacists' rights, let's look at terminology. Many people think that emergency contraception is synonymous with the abortion pill RU-486. The mainstream media has done a good job confusing all of us, because that is not accurate. Emergency contraception refers to "Plan B," a pill taken literally the morning after sex to "prevent" pregnancy.

The morning after pill and RU-486 are two distinct pill regimens. The one that has been deemed a requirement for all Illinois pharmacies is the morning after pill. This is a super-dose of the birth control pill, and the non-generic name for it is Plan B. It is meant to prevent both ovulation and implantation. It can result in a very early abortion (when a newly conceived human being is prohibited from implanting in the wall of the uterus, this is called the abortifacient effect), but only the pro-life movement recognizes that. The abortion movement insists that it does not prevent implantation of a newly formed human being, and even if it does, that's okay because to them, pregnancy doesn't start until implantation and an unborn child isn't a human person with rights until… well, whenever they decide.

The morning after pill is taken with no regard to actual risk of pregnancy. The manufacturers and the abortion providers insist that all women must always take the pill immedietly after all "unprotected sex," however injecting one's body with these dangerous chemicals is extremely dangerous. The abortion providers never inform women that she can actually only get pregnant a few days out of the month, and therefore taking this after every time she has "unprotected sex" is far from necessary. This is one reason why Natural Family Planning is a much safer bet- even if just for women's health.

RU-486 is actually an abortion pill that can be taken up to about two months into a pregnancy. This is usually not available at a pharmacy, but only at health clinics like the abortion provider, Planned Parenthood. RU-486 is a two-pill regimen; the first pill kills the child, and the second causes him to be expelled from the womb. At least four women have died in the US as a direct result of taking this regimen of pills.

This pill regimen may only be taken in the instance of confirmed pregnancy with the primary purpose of killing the child that actually is there.

As the pro-life movement continues to thrive on our adrenaline rush from the March for Life, Justice Alito's confirmation and other events, the abortion movement is going to try harder and harder to promote and popularize these chemical methods of abortion.

The pro-life movement has been focusing for a long time on using graphic images of aborted babies to prove the point that abortion is wrong. We've succeeded all-right, but only in the area of surgical abortion, where gory, yucky photos can actually be shown.

Now with these dangerous abortion-causing pills on the rise, there is no convincing or brutal picture to argue our point. It is only a proper understanding of personhood and human sexuality that will survive the test of time and really promote the pro-life message- that life begins at the union of sperm and egg. This is why the pro-life movement must be firm in opposing not only abortion, but also, and of equal importance, contraception.

Wednesday, February 1, 2006

Can't make history without people

Schools, libraries non-profits and other groups celebrate February as Black History Month. Though Americans of every color- white, black, brown, red, whatever- are created equal, I'd like to highlight the disproportionally high rate of abortion among black women as we celebrate their heritage and history this month.

The statistically reliable organization, Guttmacher Institute, which is also an arm of the Planned Parenthood, has statistics showing that "black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion." This means that of the 1.3 million abortions in the US last year, roughly .5 million were black women and black babies.

Despite this sad evidence, there are few leaders, let alone activists in the pro-life movement from within the black community. Dr. Alveda King, Rev. Clenard Childress, Charnette Messe, LeShawn Barber, Lillie Epps to name a few… Let's take a look at each of these black pro-life leaders.

Dr. Alveda King widely popular presentations center on her family's involvement in the Civil Right's Movement of the 1960s and her own personal abortion story. That's right, she is the niece of Martin Luther King, Jr. Attending one of Alveda's talks is special because she will often make us stand together and lock arms and sing the freedom march songs from the Civil Rights movement.

Pastor Childress is the director of the Life Education and Resource Network, which is an effort to expose the agenda of the Planned Parenthood against blacks and other minorities. His work is an invaluable asset to the pro-life movement.

Charnette Messe's abortion experience led her to a battle with breast cancer, and now she is dedicated to exposing the link between these deadly horrors. "I love this scar" is how she starts her testimony, given at many Silent No More Awareness Campaign events. She and her husband are a dynamic duo in the pro-life movement. Her husband is a physician in the US Navy, and has been firm to the point of jeopardizing his position about not prescribing contraceptives.

LeShawn Barber is a free-lance writer, speaker and avid blogger. At the March for Life where I met her for the first time, she expressed her concern for the lack of black activists in the pro-life movement. I agree, but if anyone is going to influence a young black person to become active in the pro-life movement, it is going to be her!

Lillie Epps of Care-Net spoke about the lack of pro-life leadership and involvement in a recent article that I highly recommend reading. This article gives many reasons for the lack of black activists in the movement, such as the fact that the main face of the movement is young white people. It also spoke about the fact that most of the photos splashed on the media of the March for Life were white kids, not minorities.

But, on a happy note, the Family Life/ Respect Life office of the NYC Archdiocese brought almost 400 youth from the South Bronx to the March for Life. Sporting bright green scarves and mingling with the Sisters of Life and CFR sisters and brothers, these kids were a great sign of encouragement to myself and others. I have also see so many young black and Hispanic teens come to the monthly vigils held by the Helpers of God's Precious Infants in Brooklyn and Queens. These vigils are the largest I've been to outside of my experience at college, and the young people fill the entire Church. Very, very encouraging.

Happy Black History Month- please keep making history!!

Monday, January 30, 2006

Abandoned baby in Brazil makes international news

Brave and noble citizens rescued a baby girl who had been thrown in a lagoon in Brazilian city northeast of Sao Paulo. The child was dressed in a pink dress and bound in a black plastic bag along with a wooden board to prevent drowning. The girl is about two months old, and the story remains a mystery to authorities; her survival has been called a miracle.

In the above CNN article, there is a 2-minute video of the rescue (click on "Watch shocked rescuers open bag and find a crying infant -- 1:50" in the third paragraph). The video is very moving. Here are two men with a long stick attempting to fish a black bag from the lagoon, thinking a kitten is inside. The bag sinks under water a few times, and these are not even quick dunks, but submersions. Yet, the child survives. Immediately after being rescued, she appeared bluish and sickly, yet after she arrived at the hospital, she appeared to thrive, interacting with the nurse and suckling from a bottle.

So, what's the problem here? This child was purposefully bound in a bag and abandoned. Because of the board, it is clear that those who tossed her did not want her to drown. Why would a mother do this to her child? Baby girls are routinely abandoned, aborted or killed through infanticide in China by parents who prefer a boy (couples are only allowed by state mandate to have one child- no exceptions). But, in Brazil, there are no such state mandated stipulations regarding the number of children a couple can have, and abortion is not legal.

Is there a solution to problems like this? Many people are not aware, but there is a growing legalization of "safe haven" laws in the US, and these should be implemented worldwide. These laws make it possible for a mother to abandon her child legally within the first few months of the child's life. The laws vary from state to state with regard to the age of the child and the approved venues for bringing the child, but it is completely without consequence for the mother. On the other hand, if she is discovered abandoning her child at a non-approved location or not in compliance with laws, there are penalties. Although some people say that these laws create, not solve problems, the legalization of the programs continues to grow.

Friday, January 27, 2006

Chemical contraceptives kill her sex drive

A study in the Journal of Sexual Medicine this month highlights the negative effects of hormonal contraception on the sex drive of a woman. Hoping to get a copy of this paper (and wanting to save $39 that it would cost to purchase), I went to the National Library of Medicine in DC this weekend. Sadly, the issue is too new and has not been received by the library, so I am finally reporting to you on 3-week old news, and I don't even have all of the information I wanted to give you on the study. Hopefully, I will get a copy of the paper soon and give a more thorough update.

The only information I was able to secure is the abstract of the article, and from it, the conclusion says that that while there is a link between chemical contraceptives and a decreased sex drive. They concludes, however that more evidence is needed for an accurate correlation to be seen.

Let me just say that I am not surprised at all. I have read hundreds of testimonies from women and men who attest that the use of contraceptives mysteriously changed their sex lives. It is one reason why women do not like to take the pill. So, if the pill is causing such trauma and stress in the lives of women, why is it promoted as the be-all, end-all for worry-free sexual relations?

Our culture is obsessed with sex, and Pope John Paul II said once that our culture is afraid of sex. We are afraid of the reality of babies and commitment, so we have allowed our selves to be spoon-fed the rhetoric of the contraception movement.

Getting back to the harms that contraception brings, let's address two things.

First of all, chemical contraceptives work primarily in suppressing ovulation. As a natural part of biology, however, a woman naturally will feel a stronger urge to have conjugal relations during when she is ovulating, for this is her fertile time. It is only during those 3-7 days that pregnancy can be achieved. If a woman is not ovulating, it is because her body is not producing the proper chemicals for ovulation. When using chemical contraceptives, the body's natural hormones are suppressed and there is a chemical imbalance. Because this chemical imbalance is purposefully induced, there is no wonder that there is a decreased desire to have sex.

Secondly, if a woman is suffering from a sexual dysfunction, there is no reason to believe that this dysfunction would not permeate ever aspect of her marital life. This will result in frustration of their conjugal life both in fertile and non-fertile times. Because of the use of hormonal contraceptives, men are equipped with the means to abuse women. On the other hand, if a couple is using Natural Family Planning, the couple must carefully chart the precise times that the woman is ovulating and work with that naturally bodily element.

In his 1960 book, Love and Responsibility, Karol Wojtyla (who later became Pope John Paul II) wrote of the need for men to work with the natural biology of a woman's fertility cycle.

Male continence must therefore adapt itself to the indications which the woman's organism provides… The marital relationship demands on his part tenderness, and understanding for the feelings of the woman. In this sense responsibility for planned motherhood rests mainly on the man, for only continence on his part makes it possible to capture the correct biological rhythm in marriage. (Ignatius Press edition- 1993, p. 283-284)

So, the conclusion is that it is quite irresponsible for physicians, social workers, educators, clergy, etc to be promoting a drug in the name of liberation of women which actually brings her more harm and increases her chances of being abused by her intimate partner (hopefully, that man is her husband). It is inconsistent with the message of the feminists that men are able abuse women more by the very ideals the feminists are promoting.

Thursday, January 26, 2006

"God is Love"

Pope Benedict XVI's first encyclical letter, "Deus Caritas Est," was published today by the Vatican. The title means, "God is Love," and Pope Benedict begins by quoting the words of scripture from 1 Jn 4:16: "God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him." The entire document is 18 pages single-spaced with 10 pt. font, so it may be a few days before you see a thorough analysis from me of the document, but I want to quickly introduce you to it. I encourage you to read it, pray with it, share it with others, and find ways to implement it.

Yesterday, a very interesting comment was left on a previous post, and I would like to respond to it here because something of what Pope Benedict says in the beginning of his encyclical helps to answer this question. The comment was:

What is the basis for you assuming that homosexuality is morally wrong? Abortion and guns brings obvious harms to society whereas homosexuality does not. This is so clear that even teens can see it. Please explain yourself.

This is a good question, and I am glad it is worded the way it is. This individual calls the harms that guns and abortion bring "obvious" and "clear" while at the same time

A basic precept of morality is that every action has an effect on another person, particularly when that action is sinful. Homosexual relationships are considered sinful because they are a prevision of the good of sexual relations, which are meant for the purpose of procreation of children and union of spouses. When two men or two women engage in sexual acts without the commitment of marriage or the common goal of procreation, they are using their sexuality in an improper way. Thus, there is no way that their relationship can be a good for themselves or the other.

Pope Benedict says the following in paragraph 5 of his new encyclical; though long-winded, it is a fitting explanation of the respect that must be given to the body and the proper purpose of sexuality.

Nowadays Christianity of the past is often criticized as having been opposed to the body; and it is quite true that tendencies of this sort have always existed. Yet the contemporary way of exalting the body is deceptive. Eros, reduced to pure “sex”, has become a commodity, a mere “thing” to be bought and sold, or rather, man himself becomes a commodity. This is hardly man's great “yes” to the body. On the contrary, he now considers his body and his sexuality as the purely material part of himself, to be used and exploited at will. Nor does he see it as an arena for the exercise of his freedom, but as a mere object that he attempts, as he pleases, to make both enjoyable and harmless. Here we are actually dealing with a debasement of the human body: no longer is it integrated into our overall existential freedom; no longer is it a vital expression of our whole being, but it is more or less relegated to the purely biological sphere. The apparent exaltation of the body can quickly turn into a hatred of bodiliness. Christian faith, on the other hand, has always considered man a unity in duality, a reality in which spirit and matter compenetrate, and in which each is brought to a new nobility. True, eros tends to rise “in ecstasy” towards the Divine, to lead us beyond ourselves; yet for this very reason it calls for a path of ascent, renunciation, purification and healing. (p. 5)

"Exploited at will," the Holy Father says. Sexuality has thus become an object that is not seen as a good, but only as a means to the end of arousal and passion. No thought is given to the demand for commitment (marriage) or the natural, biological good of children (procreation).

Through this disrespect of the body (both of self and other), man "himself becomes a commodity." This is precisely what homosexuality does to man: makes him a "commodity."

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Reflection on the March for Life

Hopefully most of you were able to attend the March for Life in Washington, DC or another pro-life event this past weekend to commemorate the 33rd anniversary of Roe v. Wade. I attended the March for Life, and I saw many old friends, met new friends, learned new things and helped others to become more effective in their own pro-life work. It was a productive and busy weekend!

At a great Irish breakfast with a friend from high school that I only get to see at the March and one of his friends, we pondered the idea of what we pro-life activists will do once abortion is illegal. The March for Life provides an opportunity to see those friends that are only e-mail correspondence or short phone conversations for the rest of the year. But, being Catholic (as is true for any Christian) gives me the hope that we will all be united again in heaven where we will have the eternal March for Life with Our God and all the angels and saints throughout time.

I have noticed that the biggest response from the March has been the question "How do I get more involved?" In lieu of delving into a deep topic (which I will do tomorrow in covering the release of Pope Benedict's first encyclical document), I want to provide you with some action items to keep up the pro-life spirit throughout the year.

First of all, pray for the end to abortion. A weekly holy hour is a simple way to stay focused on prayer in addition to Mass daily and personal prayer time.

Fr. Frank Pavone has a great list of action items from his "Defending Life" and "Gospel of Life" shows. Some of these are quite simple, so no excuses!

College students and young people, I invite you to participate in Crossroads pro-life walk next summer. This will be the second summer of three cross-country walks from May-August. Pray, raise awareness of the pro-life movement, meet fellow pro-life activists across the country, and more!

Every state has a state pro-life group sponsored by National Right to Life. Contact them, and ask how you can help.

On the website for the OptionLine, find the nearest pro-life pregnancy resource center and ask them how you can help their organization. Some ways they will need help are through fundraising, advertising, volunteering, baby drives and more.

If you are Catholic, your diocese should have a pro-life committee that always needs additional help to spread the pro-life message within the Church. Diocesan pro-life work is in union with the Secretariat of Pro-life Activities of the USCCB.

Host a campaign event to expose post-abortion pain through the Silent No More Awareness Campaign.

And, finally, read an article that quotes me on UPI. This article is about the impact of blogging on the pro-life movement. My focus in blogging is to keep the "average Joe" connected, informed and activated. Enjoy!

Thursday, January 19, 2006

Project Prevention pumps up eugenics program

Project Prevention announced Friday that they are more vigorously going on a search and destroy mission to sterilize or provide an IUD for women who are drug addicts or alcoholics. Citing the reason as preventing both birth defects and children who would end up in state-sponsored care, their goal is actually nothing new. It's just good old-fashioned eugenics, and something sanctioned by the US Supreme Court in the early 20th century.

One of my favorite priests cited a 1927 case in a recent homily, and I was totally surprised that I had not heard of it until now. It is the case of Buck v. Bell (274 US 200). This case made it legal for a physician to forcibly sterilize a patient of a mental institution without the patient's consent.

It is in the best interest of the patients and of society that an inmate under his care should be sexually sterilized, he may have the operation performed upon any patient afflicted with hereditary forms of insanity, imbecility, etc., on complying with the very careful provisions by which the act protects the patients from possible abuse. (274 US 200, 206)

Here, the state is determining what is in the best interest of the individual with her consent and against her protests. Nothing is said about the patient's own desires in the sterilization, but only that it must not be done in order that abuse may be perpetuated upon the person because of the sterilization. They never mention that this involuntary sterilization in itself is an abuse of human rights. By sterilizing a woman, nothing is done to protect her from an abuser, but it only serves to protect the abuser from being found out. Sterilization also provides her with additional psychological and emotional trauma.

The facts of the case stated that the Carrie Buck is the daughter of a feeble-minded woman and mother of a feeble-minded daughter. Therefore, her feeble-mindedness is hereditary and she ought not reproduce any longer. These facts, which were upheld by the court, state the following:

[Carrie Buck] is the probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring, likewise afflicted, that she may be sexually sterilized without detriment to her general health and that her welfare and that of society will be promoted through her sterilization. (274 US 200, 207)

So too with Project Prevention's program. This program was begun in 1998 by Mrs. Barbara Harris after she suffered defeat in California when she attempted to passed legislation that would have made birth control or sterilization mandatory for drug addicts and alcoholics in that state. Upon this failure, Mrs. Harris delved into the grassroots, seeking a pity party from those who see the worst evil in this world as a child who she thinks should have never even been conceived.

"Nothing positive comes from an addict giving birth numerous times only to
have her children taken away," said Mrs. Harris. She claims expertise in this area because she has adopted four of eight siblings born of a drug addicted mother. She claims that having to give one's child up do to inability to raise them as some that "only sends the addict deeper into her addiction because of the guilt felt in losing yet another child."

Sadly, Mrs. Harris has many friends in her eugenics campaign. John Novick is a major "investor" in this campaign, and he stated, "Long term birth control is the only proven means of preventing substance-exposed births."

I'm sorry Mr. Novick, that is quite an ignorant statement. If you want to help a woman who is addicted, don't pay her to destroy her life even more; give her hope and healing through resources to heal her from the pains of her past and the pains of her addictions.

Perhaps the last line from the Nazi-like predecessor of Project Prevention, the Buck v. Bell case, speaks the most of the backwardness of this program. According to what they are saying, the natural course of fertility is really this dangerous to society!

"The operations enable those who otherwise must be kept confined to be returned to the world, and thus open the asylum to others, the equality aimed at will be more nearly reached" (274 US 200, 208).

This, too, is quite an ignorant statement.

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

300 Millionth American

An article in last week's New York Times on the upcoming arrival of the 300 millionth American in October 2006. Though the article claims that the child will most likely be born in the mid-west by a Hispanic or Anglo couple, the 300 millionth American could very well arrive across the border, not the birth canal. Knowing his biology, though, the author of the article is careful to note that the child will be conceived this month, but of course, will only become an American, let alone a person, once he or she is born.

The article highlights the demographic changes that America has endured since the birth of the 100 millionth American in 1920 and the 200 millionth American in 1967 and includes some interesting statistics. First of all, America's population is the third largest of any nation, behind China and India, who each have over one billion in habitants. Second, there are about 11,000 births daily in the US; the article fails to mention, however, that there are about 4,000 abortions in the US per day in the US as well. Third, the growth rate for America right now is about 1 percent annually.

The best statistics, however, concern the way in which the population growth is happening:

The [Census] bureau estimates that with a baby being born every 8 seconds, someone dying every 12 seconds and the nation gaining an immigrant every 31 seconds on average, the population is growing by one person every 14 seconds.

Right, America is a land of immigrants. Most of the population are decedents of immigrants of the past 300 years, unless they have moved to the US within their lifetime. However, in his weekly briefing on Dec 29, 05, Joe D’Agostino of the Population Research Institute, a pro-life group that focuses on debunking the over-population myth, stated the following concerning the rapidly declining native birthrate in Italy, a concept that applies nicely here:

This is death by another method—-replacement of a country’s native population with unassimilated, largely Muslim foreigners. The UN Population Division has said that countries such as Italy will have to increase their already-high immigration rates by an astonishing 15 times to maintain the same worker-to-retiree ratio that she had in the 1990s. This is what is called an unsustainable development.

Unsustainable development? Yes, when a country kills itself through contraception and abortion like the US, Italy, Japan and many others are doing, it must rely on the immigration or illegal assimilation of a population from another source.

I must say, however, that I was mostly impressed with the tone of this article as well as the content. The article does not mention the over-population scare that has all by died recently, though it does mention "crowding" in certain areas. The over-population scare is mentioned as just that- a scare. Popular during the latter part of the 20th century, it is now clear that there is not an over-population scare, but an under-population scare. The article even mentions the fact that Japan is now suffering from a declining population due to lack of immigration.

(On that note, I am increasingly impressed with many things coming from the NY Times recently, such as this article on post abortion syndrome and healing. Though slanted, the article at least mentions the fact that PAS exists, and that is a very important step for women and the entire pro-life movement.)

(Another NY Times article of interest is from Sunday's NY Times Magazine on a phenomenon known as "hikikomori," wherein mostly young men will shut themselves in their rooms for months and years on end due to excessive social and personal pressure.)

Monday, January 16, 2006

Women's health- real concerns or scare tactics?

An article in today's LA Times outlines the increase in cesarean section births over vaginal births, especially with attention to the risks of vaginal birth. Though a valiant attempt is made to keep the article neutral, the case is certainly made for cesarean section births, especially at the request of the mother, not by means of any medical necessity. As noted in the article, this is due to many reasons, most notably the fear of pain and in order to lessen the chance of a lawsuit from a vaginal birth complication.

The case for voluntary c-section birth is very dangerous to women's health and to the health of the newborn child. While this procedure is necessary and life-saving in many instances, it can have many harmful effects. The article touches on a few of these, most notably the fact that c-sections reduce the positive stress on the child. This positive stress is vital for the respiratory system's proper functioning.

But, what the article doesn't say about bonding is most frightening. A natural chemical reaction happens between the mother and child in order to trigger the onset of labor. The release of oxytocin is one of the key chemical elements to create bonding between a mother and child. The article lowers the idea of bonding to a simple function that can be achieved by framing pictures of pre-natal ultrasounds. (In fact, too many ultrasounds is harmful for the unborn child's development.) This is complete bogus. Bonding is a deep psychological, emotional, spiritual and physical phenomenon. Bonding is further helped by breastfeeding which produces the same oxytocin chemical in the mother. This is nature's way of bonding babies with their mothers.

It is also noteworthy that oxytocin is the same chemical that is released when a women has sex. This chemical reaction bonds her mate with a life-long physical, emotional, psychological and spiritual bond. This is one more reason why individuals should remain chaste and monogamous in marriage.

Alarming statistics show that 30% of births are c-section births. This is up from 5% of births in 1970. One neglected reason given for the increase in c-sections that is not mentioned in the article is abortion. Abortion harms the cervix and makes it less likely to function properly during delivery. The cervix is a muscle that naturally opens and closes during the monthly period as well as during birth. This muscle is almost always damaged during an abortion because the abortion doctor must force the cervix open in order to remove and destroy the child. A damaged cervix results in miscarriage and still-birth and the necessity for a c-sections delivery of subsequent children.

Conclusion? There may be real concerns regarding vaginal births, however forgoing vaginal birth voluntary hardly seems beneficial for women or their babies. On the contrary, women should be taught proper health during pregnancy, lamas breathing, breastfeeding and proper natural pain relief. After all, women have been having children of hundreds of thousands of years. This hardly seems a matter of personal choice.

Friday, January 13, 2006

The meaning of art

Art is meant to lift a person to a greater understanding of God and appreciation for His blessings in our lives. One of the greatest pieces of art in the world is the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican. Commissioned by Pope Julius II and painted by Michelangelo, the entire ceiling took from 1508-1512 to complete.

By far, the most significant part of the ceiling is where God stretches his hand out to Adam in a symbol of the creation of man. In the first story of creation, we read:

God created man in his image, in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them saying: "Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth…"

God looked at everything he had made, and he found it very good.

This painting, thus, has a profound meaning for the understanding of human sexuality and God's plan for humanity. God does not imply in any way that part of "subduing" the earth is destroying the capacity to procreate. In fact, one sentence earlier, God commanded the male and female to "be fertile and multiply" and to "fill the earth!"

So, it is hardly shocking then that America's domestic terrorist and most perverted organization, the Planned Parenthood, has used this sacred painting as a means to spread the contraception lie. Making little key chains to hold a condom, one of them features this beautiful picture with a meaning that is the polar opposite: God handing Adam a condom. The message of the painting is twisted into meaning that God wishes for the man and woman to erase fertility, the first command given to mankind, from the beautiful expression of sexuality.

On the occasion of the completion of the restoration of these paintings, Pope John Paul II stated the following of the masterpiece known as the Sistine Chapel:

The frescoes that we are contemplating here introduce us into the world of the contents of the Revelation. The truths of our faith speak to us here from all sides. From them human genius took its inspiration undertaking to clothe them in forms of incomparable beauty.

But, in other news on a related topic, Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix, Arizona recently declared that all couples who marry in the diocese must go through a Natural Family Planning (NFP) instruction class prior to the marriage. Bishop Olmsted is the third bishop in the United States to make such a decree, following his brother bishops in Denver, Colorado (Archbishop Charles Chaput, OFM Cap.) and Fargo, North Dakota (Bishop Samuel J. Aquila).

Thursday, January 12, 2006

More on "iPledge: an agenda?"

Tonight's post is a brief follow-up to my Aug 22 post, iPledge- an agenda?. An article in today's New York Times reveals the festering conflict within the medical community about the use of the drug and the continued fear of pregnancy during its use.

The article quotes even from the March of Dimes, an organization that purports to defeat birth defects (though the pro-life movement is largely wary of their policies because of their history of recommending abortion). In the article, Dr. Nancy Green, medical director of the March of Dimes, said, "We've been advocating since 2000 for F.D.A. to take this kind of step. Is this the perfect solution? We'll have to wait and see. We are cautiously optimistic that this is the right way to go." But, wouldn't it make more sense for an organization so passionate about avoiding birth defects that they would either recommend against the dangerous Accutane drug or insist on abstinence from relations while on the drug?

Oddly enough, the article also mentions a similar campaign during the 19th century where prescriptions were only granted under the condition of attempting to prevent pregnancy at all costs. The drug, thalidomide, was used to treat and prevent morning sickness, and carried the same stipulation: two forms of birth control. However, I know of hardly any cases where a woman suffers morning sickness apart from pregnancy, and morning sickness is most dramatic during the first trimester of pregnancy, which happens to be the time during which most birth defects manifest themselves.

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Mainstreaming pastoral care and abortion providers

In a disturbing conversation recently with a seminarian friend of mine, he revealed to me his perception of the pro-life movement: we are narrow-minded. While I'm not surprised to hear that, I was surprised to hear it from a seminarian. In his opinion, activists of every movement are over-zealous about their cause to the detriment of the over-all good of any situation. He cannot find a good reason why his seminarian studies and pastoral preparations should include the life issues. "We don't all need a PhD in pro-life work," were his words.

He blamed me for having a narrow focus on the Gospel and the Church because of my passion of pro-life work, but the reality is that the most hotly disputed issues in the Church are her teachings on marriage, human sexuality, abortion, euthanasia and the rest of the life issues. These are also the places where the greatest pastoral need lies. One recent example is a fervent parish youth group where two of the members recently proclaimed that they are gay, and the pastor was unable to give any practical direction to the youths about programs available for sexually disturbed teens that convey the Church's teachings. The youth of the group are now confused and hurt.

It has been 75 years since the landmark encyclical letter of the Catholic Church, Castii Connubii where Pope Pius XI warned sternly of the need for the "pastors of souls" to be prepared for attacks against human life, sexuality and marriage. Even with this, seminarians and priests have found it very difficult to "mainstream" these issues into their pastoral care.

On the other hand, the medical community is continuing to mainstream abortion into private medical practice. One key example of this is the influential presence of Medical Students for Choice on the campuses of many medical schools. Students are empowered to become tomorrows abortion providers. Even more ironic, there are even several abortion clinics that provide "clergy" counseling on-site.

So, as our future seminarians are skirting the life issues, the medical community is spreading their influence so much that abortion clinics are closing by the dozens as the procedure is mainstreamed into private practice. With this disturbing fact, why are our seminarians reluctant to at least know of the resources available in their area?

Monday, January 9, 2006

"The purpose… is not to encourage sexual activity among teens"

So says a spokesperson for the California Family Health Council, Inc today in a release announcing a new campaign to make teens aware of the easy accessibility of contraception and abortion services in their areas, most notably emergency contraception. This campaign launched today.

The group is airing 30-second video spots on major cable channels such as MTV, Spike and Comedy Central, especially late at night across California. The spots feature sob stories of teen sexual behavior and how the "threat" of pregnancy would be the worst outcome of their irresponsibility. It is most notable that sexually transmitted diseases are not prevented by the use of emergency contraception, but the dangerous pill regime only decreases the instance of achieving pregnancy. This message seems quite inconsistent, especially since these contraception centers and programs also focus on helping teens receive treatment for sexually transmitted disease.

With this inconsistent and dangerous message to give to teens, the campaign features a website,, where teens can view movies, find a contraception center or program in their area, link with other teens who will "mentor" them, learn false information about human sexuality, and more. Clearly those who have formed this program do not have the best interest of teens, their families or society in mind as they launch a program whereby parents are never informed of their teen's behavior or health.

Ron Frezieres is the director of research for the California Family Health Council, and it is his quote that appears above. He goes on to say "the bottom line is that today many young people are sexually active, and while we would hope that they have taken steps to prevent unplanned pregnancy, the reality is that accidents happen, and Emergency Contraceptives offer a safe and effective method of contraception for those who need it."

In reality, the program states that they will "encourage obtaining EC pills ahead of time." This in no way will prevent teen sexual behavior, but only feed it. The desire to submit to raging teen hormones and passions will only be greater now that teens know the most dreaded of side effects, the natural and right outcome of sexual relations, will be less of a "threat."

These new efforts to push the availability of EC also serve a political purpose as the FDA continues to debate whether to grant over-the-counter status to the drug. It's not surprising that a "poll" on the website asks teens "Should Emergency Contraception be made available over the counter?"

It is also not surprising that groups such as Planned Parenthood are quick to join the campaign. One of the featured groups on the website has a six-minute movie on the new "T-ROC" program they have formed. This program, as with all of the programs, uses teens themselves to educate other teens on birth control, sexuality and sexually transmitted diseases. "They are very committed to what they do because they care about other people their age," the website insists. "They believe that teens and young adults have the right to have free, confidential, quality health services… [in a] non-judgmental… [and] comfortable environment."

If, as Frezieres insists, that the point of the clinic is not to encourage teen sexual behavior, then why is the slogan of the T-ROC center, "Got condoms?"

Friday, January 6, 2006

Teen opinion poll on abortion, homosexuality and gun rights

Hamilton College teamed up with Zogby Polling Company in order to conduct a new public opinion survey of high school seniors from across the country on abortion, gun rights and homosexuality.

According to the poll, the majority of students believe that abortion is wrong, and they would support limitations to its legality. Furthermore, 70% of the females stated that if pregnant, they would not abort the child.

The full report of the poll reveals more specific information, but I would like to comment on the sadness of the inconsistency in morality seen in this poll. These seniors, while recognizing the inappropriateness of abortion, are more tolerant of deviant sexual behaviors, namely homosexuality. The majority of these seniors say they would support giving legal recognition to their unions. This is very sad; while the pro-life movement is trying hard to save the lives of unborn babies, somehow the entire philosophy of our message, a message of hope, honor and love, has been lost. We are loosing the souls of teenagers in regards to homosexuality while winning their hearts to the pro-life message.

I also found it peculiar that together with these two issues, they also polled on opinion on gun control rights. These three things were lumped together in one poll because they are all "hot button" issues. I follow the news fairly well, and I have not see controversy surrounding bearing arms lately. Furthermore, there actually is a constitutional amendment that protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, where there is not a constitutional right allows homosexual unions or abortion.