THE LIFE IS A GIFT OF GOD

What Is Gendercide?

2009-06-01T16:21:00.000-07:00

What Is Gendercide?
[n.b. A number of the case-studies referred to here are currently under construction; our aim is to have the full complement in place in the first half of 2001.]

Gendercide is gender-selective mass killing. The term was first used by Mary Anne Warren in her 1985 book, Gendercide: The Implications of Sex Selection. Warren drew "an analogy between the concept of genocide" and what she called "gendercide." Citing the Oxford English Dictionary definition of genocide as "the deliberate extermination of a race of people," Warren wrote:

By analogy, gendercide would be the deliberate extermination of persons of a particular sex (or gender). Other terms, such as "gynocide" and "femicide," have been used to refer to the wrongful killing of girls and women. But "gendercide" is a sex-neutral term, in that the victims may be either male or female. There is a need for such a sex-neutral term, since sexually discriminatory killing is just as wrong when the victims happen to be male. The term also calls attention to the fact that gender roles have often had lethal consequences, and that these are in important respects analogous to the lethal consequences of racial, religious, and class prejudice.
Warren explores the deliberate extermination of women through analysis of such subjects as female infanticide, maternal mortality, witch-hunts in early modern Europe, and other atrocities and abuses against women. Gendercide Watch includes all three of these as case-studies of gendercide. In addition, we include cases of mass rape of women followed by murder, as has occurred on a large scale in recent decades (see the case-studies of gendercide against both women and men in Nanjing in 1937-38 and Bangladesh in 1971). We also feature a case-study of the Montreal Massacre (1989), a gender-selective mass execution of young women that is indelibly imprinted in the memories of millions of Canadians, and which shocked many others worldwide.

The difficulty with Warren's framing of gendercide, though -- and this is true for the feminist analysis of gender-selective human-rights abuses as a whole -- is that the inclusive definition is not matched by an inclusive analysis of the mass killing of non-combatant men. Gendercide Watch was founded to encourage just such an inclusive approach. We believe that state-directed gender-selective mass killings have overwhelmingly targeted men through history, and that this phenomenon is pervasive in the modern world as well. Despite this prevalence of gendercide against males -- especially younger, "battle-age" men -- the subject has received almost no attention across a wide range of policy areas, humanitarian initiatives, and academic disciplines. We at Gendercide Watch feel it is one of the great taboos of the contemporary age, and must be ignored no longer.

We offer case-study treatments of gendercide against men in political, military, and ethnic conflicts over the last century-and-a-quarter. If the case-studies numerically outweigh those of mass killings of women in wars and other conflicts, this reflects our conviction that men are, indeed, generally the victims of the most severe gender-selective atrocities in such situations.

Case-studies range from The Paraguayan War of 1864-70 to the gendercides in Kosovo and East Timor in 1999. Other cases of gendercide against men include the Indonesian genocide of 1965-66, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kashmir/Punjab/The Delhi Massacre, Sri Lanka, Burundi, Colombia, and the Anfal Campaign in Iraqi Kurdistan (1988). We analyze little-known gendercides such as the Nazi murder of 2.8 million Soviet prisoners-of-war in just eight months of 1941-42 -- possibly the most concentrated mass killing of any kind in human history. The ambiguous case of Stalin's Purges in the USSR receives case-study treatment because of the sheer scale of the gender-specific killing (tens of millions of men). It is harder to say whether Stalin's mass murders were intentionally gender-selective, in the manner of the Serbs in Kosovo or the Nazis in Occupied Russia. Should they truly be considered acts of "gendercide"? Where such difficulties and ambiguities arise, we will do our best to acknowledge them and open them for discussion.

As feminists have sought to move beyond traditional political-military framings of conflict and violence, we seek also to understand institutions rooted deep in human history that have consistently been "gendercidal" in their impact on men. Four of these institutions have been discussed alongside "non-traditional" institutions that overwhelmingly or exclusively target women. For men, the case-study institutions are: corvée (forced) labour, military conscription, incarceration/the death penalty, vigilante killings, and violence against gay men.

Part of our educational brief is to encourage a re-examination of certain "classic" cases of genocide through a gender-inclusive lens. Our case-study of the Jewish holocaust, for example, points to little-appreciated but strongly-gendered "phases" leading up to the eventual root-and-branch extermination of European Jews. Similar trends are found in the Armenian genocide of 1915-17 and the genocide against Rwandan Tutsis in 1994. In none of these cases do we claim that the gendering of the atrocities was all (or even primarily) one-way. Nor do we suggest that the gender dimension of the Jewish holocaust, or the Armenian or Rwandan genocides, is the dominant or most important dimension of these horrific events, which swept up all sectors of the targeted populations. But policymakers, humanitarian workers, and scholars of genocide have worked to identify reliable indicators of the onset of genocide, as a means of intervening promptly and effectively to suppress it. We feel the inclusive analysis of gender throws fresh and important light on these global crises and issues. Our goal is a world that is safer for women, men, and their children.

Note: Gendercide Watch executive director Adam Jones has published a comparative and global-historical treatment of the gendercide theme, entitled "Gendercide and Genocide", in the Journal of Genocide Research. Interested visitors are invited to link to it on this site.

© Gendercide Watch 1999-2002. All rights reserved.
Copyright-cleared for educational and other non-profit use
if source is credited

http://www.gendercide.org/what_is_gendercide.html

Female Infanticide

2009-06-01T16:19:00.000-07:00

Case Study:
Female Infanticide
Focus:
(1) India
(2) China

Summary

The phenomenon of female infanticide is as old as many cultures, and has likely accounted for millions of gender-selective deaths throughout history. It remains a critical concern in a number of "Third World" countries today, notably the two most populous countries on earth, China and India. In all cases, specifically female infanticide reflects the low status accorded to women in most parts of the world; it is arguably the most brutal and destructive manifestation of the anti-female bias that pervades "patriarchal" societies. It is closely linked to the phenomena of sex-selective abortion, which targets female fetuses almost exclusively, and neglect of girl children.

The background

"Female infanticide is the intentional killing of baby girls due to the preference for male babies and from the low value associated with the birth of females." (Marina Porras, "Female Infanticide and Foeticide".) It should be seen as a subset of the broader phenomenon of infanticide, which has also targeted the physically or mentally handicapped, and infant males (alongside infant females or, occasionally, on a gender-selective basis). As with maternal mortality, some would dispute the assigning of infanticide or female infanticide to the category of "genocide" or, as here, "gendercide." Nonetheless, the argument advanced in the maternal mortality case-study holds true in this case as well: governments and other actors can be just as guilty of mass killing by neglect or tacit encouragement, as by direct murder. R.J. Rummel buttresses this view, referring to infanticide as

another type of government killing whose victims may total millions ... In many cultures, government permitted, if not encouraged, the killing of handicapped or female infants or otherwise unwanted children. In the Greece of 200 B.C., for example, the murder of female infants was so common that among 6,000 families living in Delphi no more than 1 percent had two daughters. Among 79 families, nearly as many had one child as two. Among all there were only 28 daughters to 118 sons. ... But classical Greece was not unusual. In eighty-four societies spanning the Renaissance to our time, "defective" children have been killed in one-third of them. In India, for example, because of Hindu beliefs and the rigid caste system, young girls were murdered as a matter of course. When demographic statistics were first collected in the nineteenth century, it was discovered that in "some villages, no girl babies were found at all; in a total of thirty others, there were 343 boys to 54 girls. ... [I]n Bombay, the number of girls alive in 1834 was 603."
Rummel adds: "Instances of infanticide ... are usually singular events; they do not happen en masse. But the accumulation of such officially sanctioned or demanded murders comprises, in effect, serial massacre. Since such practices were so pervasive in some cultures, I suspect that the death toll from infanticide must exceed that from mass sacrifice and perhaps even outright mass murder." (Rummel, Death by Government, pp. 65-66.)

Focus (1): India

As John-Thor Dahlburg points out, "in rural India, the centuries-old practice of female infanticide can still be considered a wise course of action." (Dahlburg, "Where killing baby girls 'is no big sin'," The Los Angeles Times [in The Toronto Star, February 28, 1994.]) According to census statistics, "From 972 females for every 1,000 males in 1901 ... the gender imbalance has tilted to 929 females per 1,000 males. ... In the nearly 300 poor hamlets of the Usilampatti area of Tamil Nadu [state], as many as 196 girls died under suspicious circumstances [in 1993] ... Some were fed dry, unhulled rice that punctured their windpipes, or were made to swallow poisonous powdered fertilizer. Others were smothered with a wet towel, strangled or allowed to starve to death." Dahlburg profiles one disturbing case from Tamil Nadu:

Lakshmi already had one daughter, so when she gave birth to a second girl, she killed her. For the three days of her second child's short life, Lakshmi admits, she refused to nurse her. To silence the infant's famished cries, the impoverished village woman squeezed the milky sap from an oleander shrub, mixed it with castor oil, and forced the poisonous potion down the newborn's throat. The baby bled from the nose, then died soon afterward. Female neighbors buried her in a small hole near Lakshmi's square thatched hut of sunbaked mud. They sympathized with Lakshmi, and in the same circumstances, some would probably have done what she did. For despite the risk of execution by hanging and about 16 months of a much-ballyhooed government scheme to assist families with daughters, in some hamlets of ... Tamil Nadu, murdering girls is still sometimes believed to be a wiser course than raising them. "A daughter is always liabilities. How can I bring up a second?" Lakshmi, 28, answered firmly when asked by a visitor how she could have taken her own child's life eight years ago. "Instead of her suffering the way I do, I thought it was better to get rid of her." (All quotes from Dahlburg, "Where killing baby girls 'is no big sin'.")
A study of Tamil Nadu by the Community Service Guild of Madras similarly found that "female infanticide is rampant" in the state, though only among Hindu (rather than Moslem or Christian) families. "Of the 1,250 families covered by the study, 740 had only one girl child and 249 agreed directly that they had done away with the unwanted girl child. More than 213 of the families had more than one male child whereas half the respondents had only one daughter." (Malavika Karlekar, "The girl child in India: does she have any rights?," Canadian Woman Studies, March 1995.)

The bias against females in India is related to the fact that "Sons are called upon to provide the income; they are the ones who do most of the work in the fields. In this way sons are looked to as a type of insurance. With this perspective, it becomes clearer that the high value given to males decreases the value given to females." (Marina Porras, "Female Infanticide and Foeticide".) The problem is also intimately tied to the institution of dowry, in which the family of a prospective bride must pay enormous sums of money to the family in which the woman will live after marriage. Though formally outlawed, the institution is still pervasive. "The combination of dowry and wedding expenses usually add up to more than a million rupees ([US] $35,000). In India the average civil servant earns about 100,000 rupees ($3,500) a year. Given these figures combined with the low status of women, it seems not so illogical that the poorer Indian families would want only male children." (Porras, "Female Infanticide and Foeticide".) Murders of women whose families are deemed to have paid insufficient dowry have become increasingly common, and receive separate case-study treatment on this site.

India is also the heartland of sex-selective abortion. Amniocentesis was introduced in 1974 "to ascertain birth defects in a sample population," but "was quickly appropriated by medical entrepreneurs. A spate of sex-selective abortions followed." (Karlekar, "The girl child in India.") Karlekar points out that "those women who undergo sex determination tests and abort on knowing that the foetus is female are actively taking a decision against equality and the right to life for girls. In many cases, of course, the women are not independent agents but merely victims of a dominant family ideology based on preference for male children."

Dahlburg notes that "In Jaipur, capital of the western state of Rajasthan, prenatal sex determination tests result in an estimated 3,500 abortions of female fetuses annually," according to a medical-college study. (Dahlburg, "Where killing baby girls 'is no big sin'.") Most strikingly, according to UNICEF, "A report from Bombay in 1984 on abortions after prenatal sex determination stated that 7,999 out of 8,000 of the aborted fetuses were females. Sex determination has become a lucrative business." (Zeng Yi et al., "Causes and Implications of the Recent Increase in the Reported Sex Ratio at Birth in China," Population and Development Review, 19: 2 [June 1993], p. 297.)

Deficits in nutrition and health-care also overwhelmingly target female children. Karlekar cites research

indicat[ing] a definite bias in feeding boys milk and milk products and eggs ... In Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh [states], it is usual for girls and women to eat less than men and boys and to have their meal after the men and boys had finished eating. Greater mobility outside the home provides boys with the opportunity to eat sweets and fruit from saved-up pocket money or from money given to buy articles for food consumption. In case of illness, it is usually boys who have preference in health care. ... More is spent on clothing for boys than for girls[,] which also affects morbidity. (Karlekar, "The girl child in India.")
Sunita Kishor reports "another disturbing finding," namely "that, despite the increased ability to command essential food and medical resources associated with development, female children [in India] do not improve their survival chances relative to male children with gains in development. Relatively high levels of agricultural development decrease the life chances of females while leaving males' life chances unaffected; urbanization increases the life chances of males more than females. ... Clearly, gender-based discrimination in the allocation of resources persists and even increases, even when availability of resources is not a constraint." (Kishor, "'May God Give Sons to All': Gender and Child Mortality in India," American Sociological Review, 58: 2 [April 1993], p. 262.)

Indian state governments have sometimes taken measures to diminish the slaughter of infant girls and abortions of female fetuses. "The leaders of Tamil Nadu are holding out a tempting carrot to couples in the state with one or two daughters and no sons: if one parent undergoes sterilization, the government will give the family [U.S.] \\$160 in aid per child. The money will be paid in instalments as the girl goes through school. She will also get a small gold ring and on her 20th birthday, a lump sum of $650 to serve as her dowry or defray the expenses of higher education. Four thousand families enrolled in the first year," with 6,000 to 8,000 expected to join annually (as of 1994) (Dahlburg, "Where killing baby girls 'is no big sin'.") Such programs have, however, barely begun to address the scale of the catastrophe.

Focus (2): China

"A tradition of infanticide and abandonment, especially of females, existed in China before the foundation of the People's Republic in 1949," note Zeng et al.. ("Causes and Implications," p. 294.) According to Ansley J. Coale and Judith Banister, "A missionary (and naturalist) observer in [China in] the late nineteenth century interviewed 40 women over age 50 who reported having borne 183 sons and 175 daughters, of whom 126 sons but only 53 daughters survived to age 10; by their account, the women had destroyed 78 of their daughters." (Coale and Banister, "Five Decades of Missing Females in China," Demography, 31: 3 [August 1994], p. 472.)

According to Zeng et al., "The practice was largely forsaken in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s." (Zeng et al., "Causes and Implications," p. 294.) Coale and Banister likewise acknowledge a "decline of excess female mortality after the establishment of the People's Republic ... assisted by the action of a strong government, which tried to modify this custom as well as other traditional practices that it viewed as harmful." (Coale and Banister, "Five Decades," p. 472.) But the number of "missing" women showed a sharp upward trend in the 1980s, linked by almost all scholars to the "one-child policy" introduced by the Chinese government in 1979 to control spiralling population growth. Couples are penalized by wage-cuts and reduced access to social services when children are born "outside the plan." Johansson and Nygren found that while "sex ratios [were] generally within or fairly near the expected range of 105 to 106 boys per 100 girls for live births within the plan ... they are, in contrast, clearly far above normal for children born outside the plan, even as high as 115 to 118 for 1984-87. That the phenomenon of missing girls in China in the 1980s is related to the government's population policy is thus conclusively shown." (Sten Johansson and Ola Nygren, "The Missing Girls of China: A New Demographic Account," Population and Development Review, 17: 1 [March 1991], pp. 40-41.)

The Chinese government appeared to recognize the linkage by allowing families in rural areas (where anti-female bias is stronger) a second child if the first was a girl. Nonetheless, in September 1997, the World Health Organization's Regional Committee for the Western Pacific issued a report claiming that "more than 50 million women were estimated to be 'missing' in China because of the institutionalized killing and neglect of girls due to Beijing's population control program that limits parents to one child." (See Joseph Farah, "Cover-up of China's gender-cide", Western Journalism Center/FreeRepublic, September 29, 1997.) Farah referred to the gendercide as "the biggest single holocaust in human history."

According to Peter Stockland, "Years of population engineering, including virtual extermination of 'surplus' baby girls, has created a nightmarish imbalance in China's male and female populations." (Stockland, "China's baby-slaughter overlooked," The Calgary Sun, June 11, 1997.) In 1999, Jonathan Manthorpe reported a study by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, claiming that "the imbalance between the sexes is now so distorted that there are 111 million men in China -- more than three times the population of Canada -- who will not be able to find a wife." As a result, the kidnapping and slave-trading of women has increased: "Since 1990, say official Chinese figures, 64,000 women -- 8,000 a year on average -- have been rescued by authorities from forced 'marriages'. The number who have not been saved can only be guessed at. ... The thirst for women is so acute that the slave trader gangs are even reaching outside China to find merchandise. There are regular reports of women being abducted in such places as northern Vietnam to feed the demand in China." (Jonathan Manthorpe, "China battles slave trading in women: Female infanticide fuels a brisk trade in wives," The Vancouver Sun, January 11, 1999.)

Since the first allegations of widespread female infanticide in China connected to the government's "one-child" policy, controversy has raged over the number of deaths that can be ascribed to infanticide as opposed to other causes. Zeng et al. argued in 1993 that "underreporting of female births, an increase in prenatal sex identification by ultrasound and other diagnostic methods for the illegal purpose of gender-specific birth control, and [only] very low-level incidence of female infanticide are the causes of the increase in the reported sex ratio at birth in China." (Zeng et al., "Causes and Implications," p. 285.) They add: "Underreporting of female births accounts for about 43 percent to 75 percent of the difference between the reported sex ratio at birth during the second half of the 1980s and the normal value of the true sex ratio at birth" (p. 289). The authors contended that "sex-differential underreporting of births and induced abortion after prenatal sex determination together explain almost all of the increase in the reported sex ratio at birth during the late 1980s," and thus "the omission ... of victims of female infanticide cannot be a significant factor." Moreover, "Both the social and administrative structure and the close bond among neighbors in China make it difficult to conceal a serious crime such as infanticide," while additionally "Infanticide is not a cost-effective method of sex selection. The psychological and moral costs are so high that people are unlikely to take such a step except under extreme circumstances" (p. 295). They stress, however, that "even small numbers of cases of female infanticide, abandonment, and neglect are a serious violation of the fundamental human rights of women and children" (p. 296). (2002 update: A recent article by John Gittings of the UK Guardian cites national census results released in May 2002 that show that "more than 116 male births were recorded for every 100 female births," but claims the cause is overwhelmingly sex-selective abortion: "Female infanticide, notorious in China's past as a primitive method of sex selection, is now thought to be infrequent." See Gittings, "Growing Sex Imbalance Shocks China", The Guardian, May 13, 2002.)

In a similar vein, in April 2000, The New York Times reported that "many 'illegal' children are born in secret, their births never officially registered." And "as more women move around the country to work, it is increasingly hard to monitor pregnancies ... Unannnounced spot checks by the State Statistics Bureau have discovered undercounts of up to 40 percent in some villages, Chinese demographers say." (See Elisabeth Rosenthal, "China's Widely Flouted One-Child Policy Undercuts Its Census", The New York Times, April 14, 2000.)

Johansson and Nygren attracted considerable notice with a somewhat different claim: "that adoptions (which often go unreported) account for a large proportion of the missing girls. ... If adopted children are added to the live births ... the sex ratio at birth becomes much closer to normal for most years in the 1980s. ... Adding the adopted children to live births reduces the number of missing girls by about half." (Johansson and Nygren, "The Missing Girls of China," pp. 43, 46.) They add (p. 50): "That female infanticide does occur on some scale is evidenced by reports in the Chinese press, but the available statistical evidence does not help us to determine whether it takes place on a large or a small scale."

Even if millions of Chinese infant girls are unregistered rather than directly murdered, however, the pattern of discrimination is one that will severely reduce their opportunities in life. "If parents do hide the birth of a baby girl, she will go unregistered and therefore will not have any legal existence. The child may have difficulty receiving medical attention, going to school, and [accessing] other state services." (Porras, "Female Infanticide and Foeticide".)

Likewise, if a Chinese infant girl is turned over for adoption rather than being killed, she risks being placed in one of the notorious "Dying Rooms" unveiled in a British TV documentary. Chinese state orphanages have come in for heavy criticism as a result of the degrading and unsanitary conditions that usually pervade them. In one orphanage, documentary producer Brian Woods found that "every single baby ... was a girl, and as we moved on this pattern was repeated. The only boys were mentally or physically disabled. 95% of the babies we saw were able-bodied girls. We also discovered that, although they are described as orphans, very few of them actually are; the overwhelming majority do have parents, but their parents have abandoned them, simply because they were born the wrong sex." Woods estimated that "up to a million baby girls every year" were victims of this "mass desertion," deriving from "the complex collision of [China's] notorious One Child Policy and its traditional preference for sons." (See Brian Woods, "The Dying Rooms Trust".)

The phenomenon of neglect of girl children is also dramatically evident in China. According to the World Health Organization, "In many cases, mothers are more likely to bring their male children to health centers -- particularly to private physicians -- and they may be treated at an earlier stage of disease than girls." (Cited in Farah, "Cover-up of China's gender-cide".)

The Chinese government has taken some energetic steps to combat the practice of female infanticide and sex-selective abortion of female fetuses. It "has employed the Marriage Law and Women's Protection Law which both prohibit female infanticide. The Women's Protection Law also prohibits discrimination against 'women who give birth to female babies.' ... The Maternal Health Care Law of 1994 'strictly prohibits' the use of technology to identify the gender of a fetus." However, "although the government has outlawed the use of ultrasound machines, physicians continue to use them to determine the gender of fetuses, especially in rural areas." (Porras, "Female Infanticide and Foeticide".)

How many die?

Gendercide Watch is aware of no overall statistics on the numbers of girls who die annually from infanticide. Calculations are further clouded by the unreliability and ambiguity of much of the data. Nonetheless, a minimum estimate would place the casualties in the the hundreds of thousands, especially when one takes into consideration that the phenomenon is most prevalent in the world's two most populous countries. Sex-selective abortions likely account for an even higher number of "missing" girls.

Who is responsible?

As already noted, female infanticide reflects the low status accorded to women in many societies around the world. The "burden" of taking a woman into the family accounts for the high dowry rates in India which, in turn, have led to an epidemic female infanticide. Typical also is China, where

culture dictates that when a girl marries she leaves her family and becomes part of her husband's family. For this reason Chinese peasants have for many centuries wanted a son to ensure there is someone to look after them in their old age -- having a boy child is the best pension a Chinese peasant can get. Baby girls are even called "maggots in the rice" ... ("The Dying Rooms Trust")
Infanticide is a crime overwhelmingly committed by women, both in the Third and First Worlds. (This contrasts markedly with "infanticide in nonhuman primates," which "is carried out primarily by migrant males who are unrelated to the infant or its parents and is a manifestation of reproductive competition among males." [Glenn Hausfater, "Infanticide: Comparative and Evolutionary Perspectives," Current Anthropology, 25: 4 (1984), p. 501.] It also serves as a reminder that gendercide may be implemented by those of the same gender.) In India, according to John-Thor Dahlburg, "many births take place in isolated villages, with only female friends and the midwife present. If a child dies, the women can always blame natural causes." (Dahlburg, "Where killing baby girls 'is no big sin'.") In the United States, "every year hundreds of women commit neonaticide [the killing of newborns] ... Prosecutors sometimes don't prosecute; juries rarely convict; those found guilty almost never go to jail. Barbara Kirwin, a forensic psychologist, reports that in nearly 300 cases of women charged with neonaticide in the United States and Britain, no woman spent more than a night in jail." Much of "the leniency shown to neonaticidal mothers" reflects the fact that they are standardly "young, poor, unmarried and socially isolated," although it is notable that similar leniency is rarely extended to young, poor, and socially isolated male murderers. (Steven Pinker, "Why They Kill Their Newborns", The New York Times, November 2, 1997.)

A number of strategies have been proposed and implemented to try to address the problem of female infanticide, along with the related phenomena of sex-selective abortion and abandonment and neglect of girl children. Zeng et al.'s prescriptions for Chinese policymakers can easily be generalized to other countries where female infanticide is rife:

The principle of equality between men and women should be more widely promoted through the news media to change the attitude of son preference and improve the awareness of the general public on this issue; the principle should also be reflected in specific social and economic policies to protect the basic rights of women and children, especially female children. ... Government regulations prohibiting the use of prenatal sex identification techniques for nonmedical purposes should be strictly enforced, and violators should be punished accordingly. The laws that punish people who commit infanticide, abandonment, and neglect of female children, and the laws and regulations on the protection of women and children[,] should be strictly enforced. The campaigns to protect women and children from being kidnapped or sold into servitude should be effectively strengthened. Family planning programs should focus on effective public education, good counseling and service delivery, and the fully voluntary participation of the community and individuals to increase contraceptive prevalence, reduce unplanned pregnancies, and minimize the need for an induced abortion. (Zeng, et al., p. 298.)

http://www.gendercide.org/case_infanticide.html

Partial Birth Abortion: Mercy or Infanticide?

2009-06-01T15:31:00.000-07:00

Partial Birth Abortion: Mercy or Infanticide?

Abstract

Partial birth abortion is a controversial method of abortion late in a woman’s pregnancy in which the baby is aborted by a craniotomy. Two organizations are commonly affiliated with abortion: Pro-choice supports abortion saying that what is in a woman’s body is her “property”, while Pro-life believes it is murder of innocent babies. Partial birth abortion is murder of innocent children and an abomination to basic human rights and values.

Partial Birth Abortion: Mercy or Infanticide?
Thesis Statement: Partial birth abortion is murder of innocent babies and an abomination to basic human rights and values.
I. The differing sides on Intact D&X are distinctly
opposite
A. Pro-choice supports abortions
1. Done 650 times a year and only when the
mother’s life is endangered or the child is
deformed
2. Says the public is mistaken in its knowledge
of Intact Dilation and Extraction
B. Pro-life doesn’t support abortions of any kind
1. Backed by medical experts it is claimed that
80% of partial birth abortions are purely
elective
2. Believes the baby is a living human being and
deserves the rights of a human
II. There are benefits and harmful consequences to P.B.A.
A. Many abortionists claim that the benefits far out
way the consequences
1. It is safer, quicker, and easier
2. Intact D&X is less traumatic to the mother
B. There are also many harmful effects
1. Risk of uterine and breast cancer is increased
2. Rates of depression also increase
III. The issue of partial birth abortion has come into our
courtrooms
A. Congress made its first attempt to ban P.B.A in 1996
1.Brenda Shafer R.N. testified to what she saw in
abortion clinic
2. Congress passed the ban, but President Clinton
vetoed the bill
B. The second attempt was made in 1997
1. Passed Congress again
2. President Clinton vetoed the bill

Imagine being in excruciating pain from a gaping hole in the back of your neck. Then you hear a slight “whirr” before your brains are sucked out through a tiny tube. Sadly this happens to many babies each day because they are unwanted, inconvenient, or imperfect. The abortionist first delivers the baby breech style except for the head, scissors are then jammed into the head at the base of the skull, and the brains sucked out, the skull then collapses. This procedure is commonly known as partial birth abortion or Intact Dilation and Extraction (Intact D&X) (“Partial Birth Abortion”, 1996). Adolph Hitler often used pregnant women for experiments, and procedures similar to this were used to torture the soon-to-be mothers. Partial birth abortion is murder of innocent children and an abomination to basic human rights and values.

Opposing Views
The opposing sides on the partial birth abortion issue are distinctly opposite. Pro-choice, which supports abortion, says that partial birth abortion is rarely done, and only then when the mother’s life is endangered or the child is deformed. Abortion supporters also say that the baby is only a fetus, and cannot feel any pain when the abortion happens. According to Sykes (2000), people are misled into thinking that partial birth abortion happens thousands of times a year, bu
they only happen about 650 times a year. She also argues that the name “partial birth abortion”, which was given to the method in 1995, alone is misleading in that it implies that a full-term baby is being killed while it is in the process of being born. The name “late term” is also said to be confusing because it implies a third trimester abortion (Sykes, 2000). According to Sykes (2000), Intact D&X has been around for a while and says, “The procedure is not new- a 19th century medical textbook I own describes a method of abortion that involves a craniotomy, and so does a 1930 edition of Williams Obstetrics…”
Pro-life supporters argue that partial birth abortion is done up to 4,000 times a year, and is usually used in situations that aren’t life threatening. Captured in a direct quote from Dr. Martin Haskell, an abortionist, it is seen that the procedure is usually not necessary, “20% are for genetic purposes, and 80% are purely elective.” Medical experts have said that it is never necessary to kill an infant in order to the save the mother’s life once the baby is almost fully delivered (“Partial Birth Abortion”, 1996). Pro-lifers believe that the fetus is not just tissue, but a living breathing human being that can feel pain. By 20 weeks, the earliest an abortionist will do an Intact D&X, the infant has a regular schedule of sleeping, turning, sucking, and kicking, and all of his/her organs are completely formed (“Information Page on Abortion”). According to “Partial Birth Abortion” (1996), during an Intact D&X, a mother is given anesthesia so she won’t feel any pain. Medical experts have testified that infants of that age can experience pain. This drug has very little to no effect on the infant, which means that the infant, before it is killed, is in excruciating pain.

Benefits and Harmful Effects
There are benefits and harmful effects to an Intact Dilation and Extraction. The benefits of partial birth abortion according to Dr. Martin Haskell are that it is safer, quicker, and easier than other abortions, and there is a lessened risk of infection (Sykes, 2000). It is also less traumatic to the mother than say, Intact Dilation and Evacuation, where the baby is torn apart limb-by-limb. The harmful consequences are also definitely something to consider. According to “Information Page on Abortion”, the risk of uterine and breast cancer is greatly increased, as is the rate of depression among mothers.

Banning Intact D&X
In the past decade, the controversial issue of partial birth abortion has come to light and into our courtrooms. One of the reasons it is hard to make it ethically right is when an infant’s head sometimes slips out during an Intact D&X, the infant has full legal rights as a U.S. citizen. Yet the abortionist will still perform the abortion. The abortion is now dancing the fine line between abortion and infanticide (Sprang and Neerhof, 1998). The contentious event of Intact Dilation and Extraction finally reached Congress in 1996. The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act was then presented before the House of Representatives and the Senate, Brenda Shafer, R.N. testified:
…The doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks he might fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now
the baby was completely limp. I was totally
unprepared for what I saw…(Shafer, 1996)
This testimony, and numerous others helped Congress pass the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act in 1996. When this bill reached President Clinton for signing, he vetoed the ban on April 10, 1996. Clinton claims this was justified because it affects only hundreds and was necessary to save the mother. Again, on October 8, 1997, the ban was passed. President Clinton chose to veto the bill once more. The House then voted to override the veto, but the Senate
failed (“Partial Birth Abortion”, 1996).
Partial birth abortion’s biggest supporters and their biggest opponents are both adamant in their beliefs. Pro-life bases its beliefs on the Bible and what God has to say about abortion, whereas pro-choice bases its beliefs on what man has to say. Jeremiah 1:5a says, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you…” (New International Version). This shows that God loves the unborn child, and just like His children, will protect them. A clear statement against abortion is in Exodus 20:13, “You shall not murder.” (New International Version) I believe this applies to the child still in the womb. The difference of a couple weeks, and even just a few days separates the abortionist from a murderer, and the procedure from Infanticide. We need to take strong action against not only partial birth abortion, but also abortions of any kind by writing our representatives and senators.

References

Information Page on Abortion. Retrieved October 17, 2000 from the World Wide Web:
http://web.tusco.net/newone/abortion2.htm

Partial Birth Abortion (1996). Retrieved October 17, 2000
from the World Wide Web:
http://www.jeremiahproject.com/prophecy/partbirthabort.html

Shafer, B. P. (1996, March 21). Hearing on the Partial
Birth Abortion Ban Act (HR 1833). Retrieved October
23, 2000 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.priestsforlife.org/testimony.html

Sprang and Neerhof (1998, August 26). Rationale for
Banning Abortions Late in Pregnancy. American
Medical Association 280 744-747. Retrieved
October 19, 2000 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.partialbirthabortion.org/welcome/what_is.html

Sykes, M. (2000). ‘Late Term’ Confusion, ‘Partial Birth’
Lies. Retrieved October 23, 2000 from the World Wide
Web:http://prochoice.about.com/newissues/prochoice/library/bllatetermlies.htm

This essay is only for research purposes. If used, be sure to cite it properly!

http://www.essaydepot.com/essayme/589/index.php

Tiller Killed: Dr. George Tiller, Operation Rescue, Late Term Abortion Procedure doctor murdered

2009-06-01T11:26:00.000-07:00

Tiller Killed: Dr. George Tiller, Operation Rescue, Late Term Abortion Procedure doctor murdered
By News Editor • on May 31, 2009

George Tiller (August 8, 1941 – May 31, 2009) was a physician in Wichita, Kansas in the United States. He was the medical director of an abortion clinic in Wichita, Women’s Health Care Services, which specializes in the provision of late-term procedures. Dr. Tiller was shot and murdered while serving as an usher at his Lutheran church on May 31, 2009.

The Women’s Health Care Services clinic is a family planning clinic in Kansas. In particular, Troy Newman and Operation Rescue have made it their goal to see the clinic closed. The clinic has been one of a limited number nationwide that provide late-term procedures.

The clinic itself is unusual in that it offers funerary services to its patients. Some of these services include photographs, footprinting and handprinting, baptism, cremation, arrangement for burial in or out of state, and arrangement for amniocentesis and/or autopsy. Tiller was the target of anti-abortion violence. On August 19, 1993, he was shot in both arms outside of the Wichita clinic by Shelley Shannon, who received an 11-year prison sentence for the crime. On May 31, 2009, Tiller was shot to death as he served as an usher during church services.

The anti-abortion group Operation Rescue condemned the murder:

“We are shocked at this morning’s disturbing news that Mr. Tiller was gunned down. Operation Rescue has worked for years through peaceful, legal means, and through the proper channels to see him brought to justice. We denounce vigilantism and the cowardly act that took place this morning. We pray for Mr. Tiller’s family that they will find comfort and healing that can only be found in Jesus Christ.”

Background
Tiller studied at the University of Kansas School of Medicine from 1963 to 1967. Shortly thereafter, he held a medical internship with United States Navy, and served as flight surgeon in Oakland, California in 1969 and 1970.

Controversy

Christin Gilbert
Christin Gilbert, a 19-year-old woman with Down Syndrome from Keller, Texas, died in January 2005 after a multi-day abortion procedure performed at Tiller’s facility, though reports conflict as to whether the abortion was performed by Tiller himself or by LeRoy Carhart. Gilbert had been 28 weeks pregnant. The autopsy stated that Gilbert died of sepsis following the abortion.[9] Tiller was cleared of any wrongdoing by the Kansas Board of Healing Arts. After a petition from Operation Rescue, a grand jury was convened to probe the death,[10][11] which resulted in no indictments against Tiller.

The O’Reilly Factor controversy
On Friday, November 3, 2006, Bill O’Reilly featured an exclusive segment on his show, The O’Reilly Factor, saying that he has an “inside source” with official clinic documentation indicating that George Tiller performs late-term abortions to alleviate “temporary depression” in the pregnant woman.[12] According to reporting data provided to the Kansas Board of Healing Arts for the year 1998, all of the post-viable “partial-birth” (dilation and extraction) abortion procedures performed in Kansas during that year were performed because “the attending physician believe[d] that continuing the pregnancy [would] constitute a substantial and irreversible impairment of the patient’s mental function.”[citation needed] Tiller responded to O’Reilly’s statements by demanding an investigation into the “inside source” through which the information was leaked, suggesting that Phill Kline, then the Kansas Attorney General, was responsible. Kline denied the charge.

Trial and acquittal
Tiller went on trial in March 2009, charged with nineteen misdemeanors for allegedly consulting a second physician in late-term abortion cases who was not truly “independent” as required by Kansas state law.[13][14]

The case became a cause célèbre for both supporters and opponents of abortion rights. Columnist Jack Cashill compared the trial to the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals,[15] while NYU Professor Jacob Appel described Tiller as “a genuine hero who ranks alongside Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King Jr. in the pantheon of defenders of human liberty.”[16]

On March 27, 2009, Tiller was found not guilty of all 19 misdemeanor charges stemming from some abortions he performed at his Wichita clinic in 2003.[17]

Death
George Tiller was shot dead around 10:00 am Sunday, May 31, 2009 while serving as an usher during worship services at Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita.[7] Local television station KAKE reported that a suspect fled the scene in a light or powder blue Ford Taurus.[18][19]

The suspect fled the scene in his vehicle and authorities are still investigating. The suspect was described as a white male in his 50’s or 60’s, 6′1,” 220 lbs, wearing a white shirt and dark pants. The car is licensed to Merriam, Kansas. The car was later pulled over near Gardner, Kansas and a person was arrested at the time. [18][20]

A candlelight vigil to honor Tiller has been announced for the night of May 31, 2009, in Old Town Square in Wichita.[21]

Reaction to murder
The Kansas chapter of the National Organization for Women issued a statement that read in part, “The Kansas National Organization for Women is deeply saddened at the cowardly act of violence committed against Dr. George Tiller, a champion for women’s reproductive freedom—an act that ultimately took his life. Dr. Tiller, although previously surviving many acts of terrorism and violence directed at him and his clinic, did not allow it to stop him from standing up for the rights of all women. Kansas NOW grieves not only the loss of Dr. Tiller, but also the loss that all women needing access to safe abortion have suffered due to this act of violence.”[22]

Anti-abortion activist Randall Terry, a founder of Operation Rescue, which is now under new leadership and known as Operation Save America, responded to Tiller’s death by issuing a statement in which he wrote: “George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God. I am more concerned that the Obama Administration will use Tiller’s killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions. Abortion is still murder. And we still must call abortion by its proper name, murder.”[23]

The president of Operation Rescue, formerly known as Operation Rescue West in Wichita, Troy Newman, commented that “Operation Rescue has worked tirelessly on peaceful, non-violent measures to bring him to justice through the legal system, the legislative system […] Mr. Tiller was an abortionist. But this wasn’t personal. We are pro life, and this act was antithetical to what we believe. Our prayers go out to his family and the thousands of people this will impact”[24] The group also stated “We denounce vigilantism and the cowardly act that took place this morning”.[20]

“Dr. Tiller was a fearless, passionate defender of women’s reproductive health and rights,” said Nancy Northup, President of the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights, which had worked on a legal matters with Dr. Tiller. “It’s time that this nation stop demonizing these doctors, and start honoring them.” Former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline, who had prosecuted Tiller, issued a statement saying, “I am stunned by this lawless and violent act which must be condemned and should be met with the full force of law. We join in lifting prayer that God’s grace and presence rest with Dr. Tiller’s family and friends.” Bioethicist Jacob Appel, a longtime Tiller supporter, wrote, “George Tiller will now become for American women what Medgar Evers became for African-Americans. That is no consolations for his friends and family, but it is the lesson of hope to be drawn from this horrific crime.” Kansas Governor Mark Parkinson also condemned the murder.

http://elitestv.com/pub/2009/05/tiller-killed-dr-george-tiller-operation-rescue-late-term-abortion-procedure-doctor-murdered

Obama reverses Bush abortion-funds policy

2009-01-24T06:00:00.000-08:00

US President Barack Obama Set to Lift Abortion Restrictions

23 January 09-RV) U.S. President Barack Obama said that he will lift restrictions today on U.S. government funding for groups that provide abortion services or counselling abroad, reversing a policy first established in 1984, and reinstated by George W. Bush. President Obama vowed during his campaign to repeal restrictions on abortion while insisting that it should be less common. Yesterday marked the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the US Supreme court decision that enshrined abortion as a right. The Chair of the Foreign Affairs committee at United States Conference on Catholic Bishops, is Bishop Thomas Wenski of Orlando, Florida. He says the Bishops will continue to urge legislators to resist making abortion more available….

http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/EN1/Articolo.asp?c=260930

Obama reverses Bush abortion-funds policy

By LIZ SIDOTI and MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writers Liz Sidoti And Matthew Lee, Associated Press Writers – Fri Jan 23, 6:29 pm E

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama on Friday struck down the Bush administration's ban on giving federal money to international groups that perform abortions or provide abortion information — an inflammatory policy that has bounced in and out of law for the past quarter-century. Obama's executive order, the latest in an aggressive first week reversing contentious Bush policies, was warmly welcomed by liberal groups and denounced by abortion rights foes.

The ban has been a political football between Democratic and Republican administrations since GOP President Ronald Reagan first adopted it 1984. Democrat Bill Clinton ended the ban in 1993, but Republican George W. Bush re-instituted it in 2001 as one of his first acts in office.

A White House spokesman, Bill Burton, said Obama signed the executive order, without coverage by the media, late on Friday afternoon. The abortion measure is a highly emotional one for many people, and the quiet signing was in contrast to the televised coverage of Obama's Wednesday announcement on ethics rules and Thursday signing of orders on closing the Guantanamo Bay prison camp and banning torture in the questioning of terror suspects.

His action came one day after the 36th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion.

The Bush policy had banned U.S. taxpayer money, usually in the form of Agency for International Development funds, from going to international family planning groups that either offer abortions or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion as a family planning method.

Critics have long held that the rule unfairly discriminates against the world's poor by denying U.S. aid to groups that may be involved in abortion but also work on other aspects of reproductive health care and HIV/AIDS, leading to the closure of free and low-cost rural clinics.

Supporters of the ban say that the United States still provides millions of dollars in family planning assistance around the world and that the rule prevents anti-abortion taxpayers from backing something they believe is morally wrong.

The ban has been known as the "Mexico City policy" for the city a U.S. delegation first announced it at a U.N. International Conference on Population.

Both Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who will oversee foreign aid, had promised to do away with the rule during the presidential campaign. Clinton visited the U.S. Agency for International Development earlier Friday but made no mention of the step, which had not yet been announced.

In a move related to the lifting of the abortion rule, Obama is also expected to restore funding to the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA), probably in the next federal budget. Both he and Clinton had pledged to reverse a Bush administration determination that assistance to the organization violated U.S. law known as the Kemp-Kasten amendment.

The Bush administration had barred U.S. money from the fund, to contending that its work in China supported a Chinese family planning policy of coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization. UNFPA has vehemently denied that it does.

Congress had appropriated $40 million to the UNFPA in the past budget year but the administration had withheld the money as it had done every year since 2002.

Organizations and lawmakers that had pressed Obama to rescind the Mexico City policy were jubilant.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the move "will help save lives and empower the poorest women and families to improve their quality of life and their future."

"Today's announcement is a very powerful signal to our neighbors around the world that the United States is once again back in the business of good public policy and ideology no longer blunts our ability to save lives around the globe," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Population Action International, an advocacy group, said that the policy had "severely impacted" women's health and that the step "will help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, abortions and women dying from high-risk pregnancies because they don't have access to family planning."

Anti-abortion groups and lawmakers condemned Obama's decision.

"I have long supported the Mexico City Policy and believe this administration's decision to be counter to our nation's interests," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

"Coming just one day after the 36th anniversary of the tragic Roe v. Wade decision, this presidential directive forces taxpayers to subsidize abortions overseas — something no American should be required by government to do," said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., called it "morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans to promote abortion around the world."

"President Obama not long ago told the American people that he would support policies to reduce abortions, but today he is effectively guaranteeing more abortions by funding groups that promote abortion as a method of population control," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee.

___

AP White House Correspondent Jennifer Loven contributed to this report.

ocia

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_abortion_ban

THE HAND OF GOD-THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF Dr B.N.NATHANSON

2008-02-29T14:17:00.000-08:00

The Hand Of God -
A Journey from Death to Life
by the Abortion Doctor
Who Changed His Mind
The Autobiography of Dr. Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D.
Published by Regnery Publishing, Inc.
Dr. Bernard Nathanson was co-founder in 1969 of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws -- NARAL -- later renamed the National Abortion Rights Action League. He was also the former director of New York's City's Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health, then the largest abortion clinic in the world. In the late 1970's he turned against abortion to become a prominent pro-life advocate, authoring Abortion America and producing the powerfully revealing video, "The Silent Scream." Dr. Nathanson is currently Clinical Associate Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at New York Medical College and a visiting scholar at Vanderbilt University.
As director of the world's largest abortion clinic and the nation's most prominent abortionist, Dr. Bernard Nathanson presided over 60,000 abortions.
As co-founder of the National Abortion Rights Action League he helped make abortion legal.
Then, in a conversion that made headlines and astonished both sides of the abortion debate, he renounced his profession to become a pro-life advocate.
But Dr. Nathanson's journey was not over. In this deeply personal memoir, he reveals what led a lifelong atheist and abortion crusader first to the pro-life cause, and finally to Christianity.
Quotes about Dr. Nathanson's Book
"A passionate account of the author's transition from pioneer of abortion rights to champion of the pro-life cause...This concrete and powerful contribution will be required reading for all involved in the abortion debate."-Kirkus Reviews
"A wrenchinginly honest book about taking the hard way to the truth. Bernard Nathanson provides a chilling tour of the moral squalor of the 'culture of death,' and a compelling testimony to the possibility of beginning anew." -Richard John Neuhaus, Editor-in-Chief, First Things
"In The Hand of God, Dr. Nathanson gives outstanding personal witness to the 'Gospel of Life.' Amen to the Gospel; and Amen to this witness. I am personally privileged to have observed his journey over the course of the past twelve years and have been thrilled by every step along the way." -John Cardinal O'Connor, Archbishop of New York
"Any journey with Dr. Bernard Nathanson is bound to be medically informed and politically astute, but The Hand of God is much more - morally alert and spiritually sober." -Msgr. William B. Smith, S.T.D., Professor of Moral Theology, St. Joseph's Seminary (New York)
"When Bernard Nathanson exposes the abortion culture we listen, because Bernard Nathanson has been there. He was not only there, he led it. Now begins the long road back, led by The Hand of God."-Joseph M. Scheilder, Director, Pro-Life Action League
"Reading The Hand of God reminded me of St. Augustine's Confessions. Anyone who wants to know what's going on in the abortion world today should read this book. A brutally honest assessment from a remarkable doctor!"-Father Paul Marx, Human Life International
"Bernard Nathanson is the most compelling and eloquent spokesmen for the pro-life cause in America today. His new book is a deeply moving and heartfelt account of his own journey from the 'culture of death' to the 'culture of life.' It is essential reading for anyone dedicated to the sanctity of life."-Ralph Reed, Executive Director, The Christian Coalition
Dr. Nathanson tells his inspiring story with unsparing honesty:
Ÿ What is it like to abort your own child?
Ÿ Inside the abortion movement: Nathanson details the deceptions, dirty tricks, and other tactics that helped make abortion legal and socially acceptable.
Ÿ What made Nathanson change his mind on abortion? A compelling story of awakening conscience aided by a technological marvel.
Ÿ The pro-life Christians whose example finally brought Nathanson to "entertain seriously the notion of God."
Ÿ The humanity of the unborn: a ringing defense grounded in sound science, sound ethics, and common sense.
The Hand of God is more than one of the most dramatic autobiographies of our time. It's also a definitive explanation of the pro-life position, not only on abortion, but on related issues such as fetal tissue research and doctor-assisted suicide. "I know the abortion issue as perhaps no one else does," writes Nathanson. Even those as committed to legal abortion as he once was will find his arguments challenging and his story unforgettable.
Order the book and a FREE catalog:
To order Dr. Nathanson's autobiography titled, THE HAND OF GOD - A JOURNEY FROM DEATH TO LIFE BY THE ABORTION DOCTOR WHO CHANGED HIS MIND, call Heritage House toll-free at 1-800-858-3040.
When you call, ask the staff at Heritage House to send you their FREE, 96-page catalog offering over 1,500 pro-life/chastity products, including books, videos, brochures, bumper stickers, T-shirts, Precious Feet pins and more. Be sure to mention Pro-Life America and ask for a FREE copy of our 32-page LoveMatters.com newspaper. Call 1-800-858-3040

http://www.prolife.com/NATHAN.html

ELECTION 2008-BARACK OBAMA

2008-02-26T16:57:00.000-08:00

Barack Obama
Senator from Illinois

Party: Democrat

Religion: United Church of Christ

Website: www.barackobama.com

Position on Sex Education: Senator Obama supports "replacing funding for abstinence-only programs at home and abroad with scientifically based HIV prevention programs that would include age-appropriate sex education." (1)

He is a co-sponsor of the REAL Act and the Prevention First Act, and introduced the Communities of Color Teen Pregnancy Prevention Act of 2007, which would provide grants for projects to prevent teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases in racial, ethnic minority, or immigrant communities. (2)

Position on Abortion: Senator Obama supports abortion rights. In the Illinois State Senate, he voted against a bill to ban late-term abortions. Obama said that he did not support the ban because it did not contain a clause to protect the life of the woman. During the April 2007 Democratic debate, Obama said that he trusts women to make their own decisions about whether or not to have an abortion "in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy." (3)

In a January 24, 2008, interview with Christianity Today, Obama had this to say about abortion: "I don't know anybody who is pro-abortion. I think it's very important to start with that premise. ... Our goal should be to make abortion less common, that we should discourage unwanted pregnancies and encourage adoption wherever possible. ... I think the state can legitimately say that we are prohibiting late-term abortions as long as there's an exception for the mother's health." (4)

1. AP/Sioux City Journal reports. The survey was conducted by Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa, AIDS Project of Central Iowa and several other groups in the state. It included three questions and was sent to Democratic and Republican presidential candidates (AP/Sioux City Journal, 11/29/07).
(2) Thomas.loc.gov
(3) Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, Religion and Politics '08: The Candidates on Abortion
(4) Christianity Today

http://www.rcrc.org/issues/election08_obama.cfm

ELECTION 2008-HILLARY CLINTON

2008-02-26T16:54:00.000-08:00

Hillary Clinton
Senator from New York

Party: Democrat

Website: www.hillaryclinton.com

Religion: United Methodist

Position on Sex Education: Senator Clinton supports "replacing funding for abstinence-only programs at home and abroad with scientifically based HIV prevention programs that would include age-appropriate sex education." (1)
In 1996 as First Lady she helped launch the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy in the mid-1990s, which has a goal of reducing teen pregnancy by one-third by 2015 through comprehensive education and awareness. Ten years later, as a New York senator, she co-sponsored the Prevention First Act, which would allocate $100 million for family planning services in an effort to curb teen pregnancy. Clinton has praised religious groups for promoting abstinence.

Position on Abortion: Senator Clinton states that she is a strong supporter of the constitutional right to choose as defined by Roe v Wade, and believes the federal courts must continue to uphold this decision. She has said she will use this standard in considering future Supreme Court nominations. (2)

Clinton says abortion rights are protected by the Constitution but that there is "an opportunity for people of good faith to find common ground in this debate." She says the government should actively try to minimize the number of abortions through better sex education and improved access to birth control. She opposed the Supreme Court's March 2007 decision to uphold a ban on late-term abortions, calling the decision an "erosion of our constitutional rights." (3)

On the 35th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Clinton issued this statement: " I am reaffirming my commitment to safe, legal, and rare abortion, and unveiling an agenda for decreasing the number of unintended pregnancies in the U.S. through honest and complete sex education and expanded access to contraception and family planning." (4)

She has stated that abortion "should be a constitutionally protected decision made not by the Government, not by the majority … but between a woman, her doctor, and her faith in God." (5)

(1) AP/Sioux City Journal reports. The survey was conducted by Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa, AIDS Project of Central Iowa and several other groups in the state. It included three questions and was sent to Democratic and Republican presidential candidates (AP/Sioux City Journal, 11/29/07).
(2) CapWiz candidate profiles
(3) Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, Religion and Politics '08: The Candidates on Abortion
(4) Hillaryclinton.com
(5) 152 Congressional Record S35-07, January 25, 2007.

ELECTION 2008-MIKE HUCKABEE

2008-02-26T16:52:00.000-08:00

Mike Huckabee
Former Governor of Arkansas

Party: Republican

Religion: Baptist

Website:www.mikehuckabee.com

Position on Sex Education: Governor Huckabee favors abstinence-only education and opposes abstinence-plus education. (1) He does not believe in teaching "about sex or contraception in public schools," as he says "that is the responsibility of parents." (2)

Position on Abortion: Governor Huckabee said he is “unquestionably solid” in opposing abortion rights.(3) He has said that Roe v. Wade should be overturned but that its reversal would not eliminate abortion. "Some states would have very liberal abortion laws, other states would have very strict abortion laws," he said. Huckabee says that some in the "pro-life community" put "undue focus on the gestation period." (4) He supports passage of a constitutional amendment to declare that fetuses and embryos have rights equal to that of a person and applauds the Supreme Court decision in upholding the Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2003.” (5)

(1) Women's E-News
(2) CBN News interview
(3) USA Today
(4) Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, Religion and Politics '08 - Abortion Profile
(5) MikeHuckabee.com

http://www.rcrc.org/issues/election08_huckabee.cfm

ELECTION 2008-JOHN McCAIN

2008-02-26T16:35:00.000-08:00

John McCain
Senator from Arizona

Party: Republican

Religion: Baptist

Website: www.johnmccain.com

Position on Sex Education: McCain has declared his support for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs on a regular basis and, in February 2007, he spoke to 1,500 students in South Carolina about abstaining from pre-marital sex. "Senator McCain has a long legislative record of supporting abstinence-based initiatives in his record in the U.S. Senate," said Trey Walker, McCain's South Carolina campaign director. "He thinks that abstinence is healthier and should be promoted in our society for young people." (1)

Position on Abortion: Senator McCain was a cosponsor of the Federal Abortion Ban (2). He believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned to allow individual states the ability to make their own laws. He supports banning abortion except in cases of rape, incest or threat to the life of the woman. He has an anti-abortion voting record, and has promised, if elected, to appoint justices who "strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States and do not legislate from the bench."(3) McCain has stated that, “At its core, abortion is a human tragedy. To effect meaningful change, we must engage the debate at a human level.” (4)

(1) SFGate.com
(2) THOMAS.gov
(3) Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, Religion and Politics '08: The Candidates on Abortion
(4) JohnMcCain.com

http://www.rcrc.org/issues/election08_mccain.cfm

WHY IS LIFE SACRED ?

2008-02-26T16:32:00.000-08:00

Why is Life Sacred?

--Fr. Frank Pavone

As our bishops have often reminded us, the Church embraces a "consistent ethic of life." This does not mean that all life issues have equal urgency. It does mean that all life issues are linked. Simply to list the "life issues" is a challenging task, because everything which impacts the dignity of the human person can be considered a "life issue." The particular moral analyses of each problem, and the strategies for social reform in each related arena, are myriad.

At times, however, we need to step back and examine the common thread that connects the "life issues." What is the foundation? What is the answer to the fundamental question, "Why should human life be defended in the first place?"

A "Place" to Meet God

The encyclical Evangelium Vitae states that human life is "the 'place' where God manifests himself, where we meet him and enter into communion with him"(#38). This statement provides a starting point for profound meditation on the reason why life is sacred.

When we think Biblically about God "manifesting" Himself, we think of creation, of mighty deeds, and of the death and Resurrection of Christ. Deeper reflections on creation and on the cross help us to see in what sense human life becomes a meeting place with God.

Created in His Image

"Since the creation of the world, invisible realities, God's eternal power and divinity, have become visible, recognized through the things he has made" (Rom. 1:20). At the height of creation, God manifested His "image" in the creation of man and woman. "God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them" (Gen. 1:27).

The creation of human life has, essentially and from the beginning, a communitarian dimension. Much has been written about what the "image of God" means. It is far more than simply the fact that human beings can think or that we have a spiritual soul. The "image of God" in the creation of human life includes our whole being, spiritual and physical, and the fact that we find ourselves by a gift of ourselves. "Male and female he created them." This is the "divine image" because within God, there is a giving, a pouring out of self from one person to another. That is reflected in the union of marriage, and in the many other manifestations of human love.

The truth here is so obvious that it is easy to miss. We have the capacity to give ourselves freely to each other and to God. This makes us unique in creation. This makes us a manifestation of God, who is love, and who gives Himself freely to His creation.

In his address to the Consistory of Cardinals (April 1991) which dealt with the sanctity of life, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger noted, "Man is created in the image and likeness of God (Gn 1:26); the second account of creation expresses the same idea, saying that man, taken from the dust of the earth, carries in himself the divine breath of life. Man is characterized by an immediacy with God that is proper to his being; man is capax Dei and because he lives under the personal protection of God he is 'sacred'…"

Evangelium Vitae develops this theme further in the following passage:

"Life is always a good. This is an instinctive perception and a fact of experience, and man is called to grasp the profound reason why this is so.

"Why is life a good? This question is found everywhere in the Bible, and from the very first pages it receives a powerful and amazing answer. The life which God gives man is quite different from the life of all other living creatures, inasmuch as man, although formed from the dust of the earth (cf. Gen 2:7, 3:19; Job 34:15; Ps 103:14; 104:29), is a manifestation of God in the world, a sign of his presence, a trace of his glory (cf. Gen 1:26-27; Ps 8:6). This is what Saint Irenaeus of Lyons wanted to emphasize in his celebrated definition: 'Man, living man, is the glory of God.' Man has been given a sublime dignity, based on the intimate bond which unites him to his Creator: in man there shines forth a reflection of God himself….

"In the biblical narrative, the difference between man and other creatures is shown above all by the fact that only the creation of man is presented as the result of a special decision on the part of God, a deliberation to establish a particular and specific bond with the Creator: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness' (Gen 1:26). The life which God offers to man is a gift by which God shares something of himself with his creature" (#34)

Life is Love, Manifested in the Cross

The sense in which human life is a "place to meet God" is further understood when we ponder how the unique relationship of the human person with God enables the person to give him/herself away, and thereby find the fullness of life.

In explaining what was manifested on the cross, Paul writes, "It is precisely in this that God proves [shows, manifests] his love for us: that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." John puts it this way: "God's love was revealed in our midst in this way: he sent his only Son to the world" (1 Jn. 4:9).

John then develops the insight further: this love is our life. By loving, we become ourselves. Because this love is the very essence of God, then sharing in His life -- and hence the sanctity of our life -- consists of this capacity to love Him and one another.

John's first letter states it this way:

"That we have passed from death to life we know because we love the brothers. The man who does not love is among the living dead. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that eternal life abides in no murderer's heart. The way we came to understand love was that he laid down his life for us; we too must lay down our lives for our brothers. I ask you, how can God's love survive in a man who has enough of this world's goods yet closes his heart to his brother when he sees him in need?" (1 Jn. 3:14-17)

Notice how the passage related the existence of God's love (eternal life) in us with the response we give, in love, to the other person. It is on this truth that Mother Teresa based her frequent assertion that the meaning of life is "to give and receive love." In Evangelium Vitae, the Holy Father takes this to its ultimate conclusion: By the love He showed us on the cross, "Jesus proclaims that life finds its center, its meaning and its fulfillment when it is given up" (#51).

Where two or three gather

These reflections give new meaning to the familiar passage, "Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in their midst." Why two or three? Isn't God present even when one is alone, or when nobody is there? Certainly, He is.

Yet our Lord's words here constitute another foundation for Evangelium Vitae's assertion that human life is "the 'place' where God manifests himself, where we meet him and enter into communion with him"(#38). After all, it is only when the other(s), the second or third persons, are present, that we can give ourselves away to them. When we are "gathered together," we can "lay down our lives for our brothers." When the other person is face to face with us, we see God in his or her suffering, and can respond to it; we see God in his or her beauty and can rejoice in it; we see God in his or her self-giving and can give ourselves in return.

Conclusion

Christians proclaim a Gospel of Life. This "life" is sacred because it takes its origin in God, belongs to God, and returns to God. At every stage, this life has the unique capacity to relate to God, and to receive His own eternal life. The defense of earthly life, then, and the acknowledgement of its value, is -- in the full light of the Gospel -- of one piece with the proclamation of eternal salvation. Simply put, the sanctity of life is best understood the more one sees the three words, "God," "love," and "life" as synonyms. They are multi-faceted synonyms, to be sure, and bear multi-faceted distinctions. But in the end, and to find one's way through the challenges of this brief life, one must come to terms with the fact that to touch human life is to touch God, and therefore the only way to touch human life is with love.

Priests for Life
PO Box 141172
Staten Island, NY 10314
Tel. 888-PFL-3448, (718) 980-4400
Fax 718-980-6515
Email mail@priestsforlife.org

NATIONAL WOMEN'S COALITION FOR LIFE STATEMENT OF COMMITMENT

2008-02-26T16:27:00.000-08:00

The National Women's Coalition for Life was founded in April, 1992 as an educational, non-sectarian coalition of existing national women's organizations.

In his Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, the Holy Father called for a new feminism, which acknowledges the sanctity of life. Priests for Life salutes the NWCL and all those who work for this new, authentic feminism, which is a key element to the new Culture of Life.

National Women's Coalition for Life Statement of Commitment

Adopted: April 3,1992

Today 4, 400 American children will die from abortion. They will never be held, giggle, or play house. They will never go to school, read a book, learn a nursery rhyme. They will never hold jobs, never vote, never have families, and never have dreams. Some of these children will lose their lives because their mothers are scared, and have lost hope of overcoming their isolation, poverty or youth. Other children will die because they are sick, handicapped, or "not quite right". Today, some American children will even lose their lives because they are little girls and their parents hoped that they would be little boys. These children will not be given names, and their deaths will not be marked by anything more than the grief their mothers and families will one day feel.

But these children are not forgotten. The tragedy of ending these lives today and everyday cannot be overlooked, justified, or ignored. Today, the National Women's Coalition for Life speaks on behalf of the children of America and their mothers. We are a coalition of over 1.5 million women from all over the country, from all age groups, political ideologies, and experiences. We are single and married women. We are women with and without children. We are birthmothers and mothers of adopted children. We are full time parents, working women, and heads of households. We are women who have had abortions, and even women who have been raped, or who were conceived in rape. Yet we are all committed to societal change which supports the critical role of motherhood and reflects the dignity of the life of every child.

We are tired of the rhetoric which denies the humanity of children yet-to-be born, and asks us to forget who they are, and what they might become. We know what motherhood feels like. Through modem technology, we have seen our children before birth and heard their hearts beating. We have felt them alive within us. We will not be told that they are not there.

We have seen that ending lives through abortion does not solve anything. We have lived through 19 years of abortion on demand. Over that time, we have watched more women and children slip into poverty, and witnessed a rise in child abuse and infant mortality. We see that resources used for abortion sap precious resources from and disguise real issues. We know that many women seek abortion in desperation: Unable to eliminate the real crises in their lives, they do what society suggests will work; they eliminate their children. And their poverty, their pain, their despair continue.

And we refuse to believe that children's lives must be lost so that women can be free. We well remember that many times in human history, even in our lifetime, human beings--whether black, Jew, or female, the handicapped or the elderly--have been discriminated against and dehumanized. Today, we are witnessing the ultimate dehumanization of the most defenseless class of people--unborn children. We must learn from these grave injustices. We will not stand idly by while our government and our society urge us to treat unborn children as property. We know that women are better than this. We know that real women's rights mean a societal commitment to the unique roles women are living out, including motherhood. We will not give up our right to motherhood, nor will we trivialize its responsibilities.

We will not tolerate being told that abortion is a simple and safe procedure. We know the pain women and families face after an abortion. We know the physical scars that render many women sterile after this procedure. We know that hundreds of women have died, and will continue to die from legal abortion. We have seen the ugliness of the abortion industry from the inside. We have been there, and we grieve for those women who also have been victimized by it. We seek to console aborted women, and to bring an end to the deceit and greed which define the abortion business.

The National Women's Coalition for Life will not remain silent while society looks away from the children and women abortion destroys. Furthermore, we will not tolerate misrepresentation by a vocal minority of women who claim to speak for us on a national level. American women deserve more.

Within the National Women's Coalition is a place for all women who realize that when society's answer for families in distress and women in crisis is to encourage them to dispose of their children, something is drastically wrong. We welcome women who recognize that each of us is imperfect, and that a person's worth is not conferred on them by others, but is an inherent part of being human. We welcome women who understand the responsibilities that are a part of womanhood, and motherhood. We have a place for all women who seek real women's rights, who work to eliminate discrimination, mistreatment, and who understand that abortion only blinds us to these real issues. And we welcome women who have become abortion's other victims.

Today, we redouble our efforts in the many services we offer to heal the wounds of abortion, and reach out in compassion to women and families in pain. We will continue to provide emotional, financial, medical, and practical support to women and families who are facing parenthood with limited resources. And we will communicate to the people of America, including our elected officials and community leaders, what we know is the truth: The answer to crisis pregnancy is to eliminate the crisis, not the child. Abortion kills.

SIGNED:

American Victims of Abortion, Washington, DC

Capitol Hill Women for Life, Washington, DC

Feminists For Life, Washington, DC

Fortress International, South Bend, IN

International Black Women's Network, Landover, MD

Life After Assault League, Inc., Appleton, WI

National Association of Pro-Life Nurses, Elysian, MN

National Council of Catholic Women, Washington, DC

Professional Women's Network, Chicago, IL

Victims Of Choice, Naperville, IL

Women Affirming Life, Brighton, MA

Women Exploited By Abortion, Venus, TX

Women for Faith and Family, St. Louis, MO

Women For Women, Tabernacle, NJ

For more information contact NWCL at 708-848-5351

Educational Materials on Abortion

Priests for Life
PO Box 141172
Staten Island, NY 10314
Tel. 888-PFL-3448, (718) 980-4400
Fax 718-980-6515
Email mail@priestsforlife.org

THE FOUNDERS OF WOMEN'S MOVEMENT :ALL OPPOSED ABORTION

2008-02-26T16:24:00.000-08:00

The Founders of Women's Movement
All Opposed Abortion

Authentic Feminism is Pro-Life

Susan B. Anthony

She called abortion "child-murder." ( The Revolution 4 (1):4 July 8, 1869) "We want prevention, not merely punishment. We must reach the root of the evil...It is practiced by those whose innermost souls revolt from the dreadful dead." ( The Revolution 4 (1):4 July 8, 1869) "All the articles on this subject that I have read have been from men. They denounce women as alone guilty, and never include man in any plans for the remedy." ( The Revolution 4(5):4 February 5, 1868)

Elizabeth Cady Stanton

She classed it with the killing of newborns as "infanticide. " (The Revolution 1 (5): 1 February 5, 1868) "When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit."

(Letter to Julia Ward Howe, October 16, 1871, recorded in Howe's diary at Harvard University Library):

"There must be a remedy even for such a crying evil as this. But where shall it be found, at least where begin, if not in the complete enfranchisement and elevation of women?" ( The Revolution 1 (10): 146-7 March 12, 1868)

Stanton and Anthony's newspaper, The Revolution, and most other feminist publications of the last century, refused to join in the common practice of printing advertisements for thinly-disguised patent medicine abortifacients.

Matilda Gage

"[This] subject lies deeper down in woman's wrongs than any other...I hesitate not to assert that most of [the responsibility for] this crime lies at the door of the male sex " ( The Revolution 1 (14):215-6 April 6, 1868)

Mattie Brinkerhoff

"When a man steals to satisfy hunger, we may safely conclude that there is something wrong in society-so when a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is an evidence that either by education or circumstances she has been greatly wronged." ( The Revolution 3(9): 138-9 September 2, 1869)

Victoria Woodhull

The first woman to attempt to run for President was a strong opponent of abortion. Woodhull's and Claffin's Weekly proclaimed, "The rights of children as individuals begin while yet they remain in the foetus." (2(6):4 December 24, 1870)"Every woman knows that if she were free, she would never bear an unwished-for-child, not think of murdering one before its birth. " (Wheeling, West Virginia Evening Standard, November 17, 1875)

Sarah Norton

"Child murderers practice their profession without let or hinderance, and open infant butcheries unquestioned...Is there no remedy for all this ante-natal child murder?...Perhaps there will come a time when...an unmarried mother will not be despised because of her motherhood...and when the right of the unborn to be born will not be denied or interfered with." ( Woodhull's and Claffin's Weekly, November 19, 1870)

Emma Goldman

"The custom of procuring abortions has reached such appalling proportions in America as to be beyond belief...So great is the misery of the working classes that seventeen abortions are committed in every one hundred pregnancies." ( Mother Earth, 1911)

Alice Paul

The author of the original Equal Rights Amendment (1923) opposed the later trend linking it with abortion. A colleague recalls her expressing the opinion that "abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women."

Mary Wollstonecraft

As early as 1792, Mary Wollenstonecraft wrote "A Vindication of the Rights of Women," which Susan B. Anthony admired enough to serialize in the Revolution . After decrying in scathing 18th century terms, the sexual exploitation of women, she says, "Women becoming, consequently, weaker...than they ought to be...have not sufficient strength to discharge the first duty of a mother; and sacrificing to lasciviousness the parental affection...either destroy the embryo in the womb, or cast it off when born. Nature in every thing demands respect, and those who violate her laws seldom violate them with impunity. "

Note that these feminists did not oppose abortion because it was unsafe. Their argument was that abortion takes a human life, and ultimately hinders justice for women.

Permission granted to copy and distribute, FFL 1993

Educational Materials on Abortion

Priests for Life
PO Box 141172
Staten Island, NY 10314
Tel. 888-PFL-3448, (718) 980-4400
Fax 718-980-6515
Email mail@priestsforlife.org

AN INTERVIEW WITH NORMA McCORVEY :THE ROE OF ROE vs. WADE

2008-02-26T16:18:00.000-08:00

An Interview with Norma McCorvey,
the "Roe" of Roe vs. Wade

Since her conversion to Christianity and to the pro-life cause, Norma McCorvey, the plaintiff in the Roe vs. Wade decision, has been a friend of Priests for Life and of Fr. Frank Pavone. This summer (1997) she will appear on the third edition of Fr. Frank's Defending Life television series on the Eternal Word Television Network. Her new book, Won by Love, telling the marvelous story of her conversion from the abortion industry, will soon be available.

Following is a transcript of an interview held with Norma shortly after her conversion to the Way of Life. An audiotape of this interview is available from Priests for Life.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FATHER PAVONE:

This is Father Frank Pavone and I am here with Norma McCorvey. We're going to talk a little bit about her experiences and her convictions. Norma, thank you very much for being with us.

NORMA:

And thank you for having me, Father.

FATHER PAVONE:

Norma, we’ve talked on a good number of occasions, and have shared the joy of what has happened to you, but for the sake of those who are listening to this tape, you are the Jane Roe of Roe vs. Wade.

NORMA:

Yes, Father, I was the Jane Roe of Roe vs. Wade, but Jane Roe has been laid to rest.

FATHER PAVONE:

Tell us a little bit about how that happened.

NORMA:

Well, for quite some time Jane Roe/Norma McCorvey had been looking for a spiritual path that she could believe in and feel solid in. And, Operation Rescue moved next to the abortion mill that I worked for, on April 1, a year ago, this past April. And Reverend Benham, started sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ with me.

FATHER PAVONE:

And, so in other words his office was next to your abortion facility where you were working. And how did that contact begin? Did they approach you, or how did that happen?

NORMA:

You know, I think it was kind of a mutual thing. I had made kind of a deal with them: I asked them if they did not bring out the place card of Malachi, {a poster of an aborted child}, that I would let them have two minutes with each one of my patients.

FATHER PAVONE:

Malachi is one of those..

NORMA:

It’s the 21week old fetus found in Dallas about four years ago, I believe. So, we honored each other's wishes, and they didn’t put out the place cards and I let them have two minutes with each one of my patients.

FATHER PAVONE:

Going back to the early 70’s when the Roe vs. Wade case was going up through the courts, when you initially got involved in that whole process, did you ever think or did it ever occur to you that it would become such a landmark case?

NORMA:

Absolutely not Father. I was very politically naïve at the time. I thought that I wanted to have an abortion with the baby that I was carrying, but I had no idea that it would lead up to such a controversial issue.

FATHER PAVONE:

As I understand from your own autobiography, you did not go looking for these attorneys to try to make abortion legal.

NORMA:

No, sir, quite the contrary. The adoption attorney that was handling the adoption case for my baby told me of these attorneys. They were Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffey. They were trying to overcome the Texas statute on abortion.

FATHER PAVONE:

And, so they approached you.

NORMA:

Yes, sir. Henry McCloskey, Jr. arranged the first initial meeting. And we met and we discussed, for the first time in my life, reproductive rights.

FATHER PAVONE:

For the first time in your life it was a discussion.

NORMA:

Yes, sir.

FATHER PAVONE:

Norma, at that point, and later as your case progressed and after it was decided, what was your image of pro-life people and the pro-life movement?

NORMA:

Well, Father I really didn't know of... I didn't know that there was two sides to the abortion issue. I didn't attend any of the court proceedings. I didn't. In fact that's why I used the name Jane Roe because I didn't want my own personal name to be involved in it, because I had always been involved with stuff and it always turned out pretty bad, and I always felt really bad about that. So I wasn't taking a chance with this.

FATHER PAVONE:

Could you tell us what your position is right now about abortion and the morality of abortion?

NORMA:

Well, the morality of abortion is, it's totally wrong. Since August 8, 1995, I have been pro-life clear across the board.

FATHER PAVONE:

Now, when you say clear across the board, what do you mean?

NORMA:

Well, I mean I have said in an interview with Ted Koppel back in 1995 that I was still pro-choice, I was still not pro-choice but in favor of a woman's abortion in the first trimester. But then I looked at a fetal development chart at the Operation Rescue Office in Dallas. I had a lot of emotions stirring up inside of me and that's when I decided that it was wrong in any stage of pregnancy.

FATHER PAVONE: At any stage of pregnancy and also for any reason?

NORMA:

Absolutely, Father.

FATHER PAVONE:

Okay, so you would not think, for example, that there could be some circumstances in which it would be all right for a woman to have an abortion?

NORMA:

No, sir.

FATHER PAVONE:

How did your position on this change?

NORMA:

Well, I had already been attacking, if you could use that word, in a gentle way, the abortionist that I worked for. He's a very greedy man, a selfish man. And we would have patients that would come in and say, Well, I found out, I had all these tests and I found out that my baby is going to have a cleft palate. I'm going like, that's not a reason. That's just an excuse. And the doctor would do the abortion, he would do and charge women money and not even do an abortion. He would lie to them and tell them that they were pregnant. So, seeing him and watching him every Thursday through Saturday do the abortions, making the appointments, for not good reasons. I mean, of course, I don't think there is a good reason for an abortion, but Dr. Jasper made me really realize that it was just a racket. You know, he was just doing it for the money. He didn't care about the women, he didn't care if they got their two week checkups. You know, he didn't care if they had their medications. You know, I mean he never told them you know, like when you have to get this, and this, and this. And it's essential that you take it. He didn't care.

FATHER PAVONE:

Now that you've become pro-life and you no longer work for him or for the abortion industry, tell us what you do do.

NORMA:

(Laughter) I'm the computer operator for Operation Rescue National. (Laughter)

FATHER PAVONE:

That's quite an irony, isn't it?

NORMA:

Yes, sir, it is.

FATHER PAVONE:

And, how about your relationship with the Lord? Has the Lord forgiven you for the past?

NORMA:

Oh yes, He's been very, He's showed me, He has showed me great mercy, great forgiveness and when Rev. Flip {Benham} baptized me last summer in that pool in North Garland, all my sins, regardless of what they were or when I did them were forgiven, and I was washed by the Blood of the Lamb.

FATHER PAVONE:

Tell us what reaction you've had from the pro-choice community to your conversion.

NORMA:

Oh, they say that I never had any credibility with them. One particular organization, TARAL, said that they used to send me on lecture tours. And I'll go up, I don't even know where your office is. I mean you know that they're based in Austin, TX. So they just made it, they've just done the same thing that they did for me for all the years that I was out. They just tried to discredit me. And it's like I used to tell them often. You know, this is not the right thing to do, you know, there's too many wonderful people out there who can't have children, who would want to have these children. And I gave two of my babies away. There's no excuse for it. But they went to loving parents and that's what counts.

FATHER PAVONE:

Your children?

NORMA:

Yes. My children.

FATHER PAVONE:

Some people say, many people say, in fact, that if this conversion to a pro-life commitment happened to you, it can happen to anybody. Is there hope for those who seem to be so hardened in their pro-choice views?

NORMA:

Absolutely, Father. There's a feminist writer, by the name of Naomi Wolfe who is reconsidering her position on abortion. There's another woman, I can't bring up her name right this minute, who's also reconsidering her position on abortion. So, I mean I think it's just a sign of the times that women are actually seeing for the first time what a depressing and what a holocaust this is to the unborn.

FATHER PAVONE:

How do we approach those who do have a pro-abortion position to try to get them to convert?

NORMA:

I think with love and understanding. And telling them about Jesus and letting them realize for themselves that the holocaust against the unborn is the greatest sin that they could ever do or even ever participate in.

FATHER PAVONE:

I'd like to ask you a couple of final questions about what you think people across America should do to help stop abortion, and I'd like if you could address that in a general way and then say specifically to young people, and then specifically to the clergy, and then to those who consider themselves pro-choice. First, in general, what can we do to stop abortion?

NORMA:

I think that every man, woman, and child who believe in God and believe in Jesus. And it doesn't make any difference what religion you are, or how young you are or how old you are, I think if they get up and go to these abortion mills, and stand there-- and they don't have to do anything, they can just stand there and pray, I think that would make a lot of difference. We have to be seen in numbers.

To young people, I would say, please listen to your parents. Do not have extra-marital relationships, before you're married. It is a wrong thing to do. God does not like it. It's in the Ten Commandments and we do live by His Book. And that's the best way to start out a marriage is to have both of you to be wholesome.

FATHER PAVONE:

Now, you are the woman whose name is used to promote this doctrine of choice. What if young people are told by their friends this is my choice you can't tell me what to do. What do you have to say to that?

NORMA:

What I have to say to those young people is that we live in a society today where these children can be wanted children. And even if you don't want to keep this child, after you've had it, there's plenty of young couples out there, there's plenty of young couples everywhere that want children. And, it's not your body, it's not your choice, because you got that from God. He gave that to you and He gave that to you from you Mama and your Daddy.

FATHER PAVONE:

What would you say to the clergy?

NORMA:

Get out and fight 'em, boys! (Laughter)

FATHER PAVONE:

Praise the Lord! And, finally to those who consider themselves pro-choice, do you have a message to them?

NORMA:

I will pray for each and everyone of them. I hope that they don't have to see the things that I've seen or experience the cries, the tears, the depression that I've had to listen to, and that hurts me very much when I think about it. Reconsider you position on the holocaust, because it could hurt someone in your life.

FATHER PAVONE:

Now, could we say a final prayer together.

NORMA:

Yes, Father.

FATHER PAVONE:

Why don't you say some words to the Lord and then I'll conclude also.

NORMA:

Father God, we just ask You to open Your wide, wide arms and look down upon us Lord and lead us, and let us know what we should do to stop this, this terrible, terrible holocaust.

FATHER PAVONE:

And Lord God, we thank You for the grace You pour out on all people and at this moment we thank You in a special way for what You have done for Norma: rescuing her from all sorts of deception, and from the manipulation of others, and rescuing her from error and falsehood, rescuing her from the lie of abortion and bringing her to You, Oh Lord, into Faith, into Baptism, and into the pro-life movement. And on behalf of each and every person in that movement, on behalf of everyone who hears these words, I now bestow upon you, Norma, the blessing of the Lord Jesus and the prayers and good wishes of all the people who hear you and who know about you. May that blessing come upon you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

NORMA:

Amen

FATHER PAVONE:

Thanks so much for talking with us.

NORMA:

Thank you.

Priests for Life
PO Box 141172
Staten Island, NY 10314
Tel. 888-PFL-3448, (718) 980-4400
Fax 718-980-6515
Email mail@priestsforlife.org

ABORTED BABIES AND BAPTISM

2008-02-26T15:57:00.000-08:00

Aborted Babies and Baptism

Fr. Peter West
Priest Associate, Priests for Life

What happens to the souls of babies who die before baptism? This remains a mystery. We are free to believe that they are in heaven with God, but this has not been revealed and the Church does not have a definitive answer to this question. We simply say that we entrust these children to the mercy of God.

There has been an attempt by theologians throughout the centuries to reconcile two essential teachings of the Church - the necessity of Baptism for salvation and God’s infinite mercy and his desire that all human beings be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth (cf.1 Timothy 2:4). The Church teaches us that God commands us to be baptized and to baptize, but his actions in bestowing sanctifying grace are not limited to the sacraments. God in his mercy offers his salvation to every human being sometimes in ways known only to Him.

Since the twelfth century, the opinion of the majority of theologians has been that unbaptized infants are immune from all pain of sense. This was taught by St. Thomas Aquinas, Scotus, St. Bonaventure, Peter Lombard, and others. Pope Innocent III decreed: "The punishment of original sin is the deprivation of the vision of God; of actual sin, the eternal pains of hell." (III Decr., xlii, 3). Pre-born babies are incapable of committing an actual sin.

St. Thomas taught that these infants are not saddened by the loss of the beatific vision, either because they have no knowledge of it, and are not aware of their loss; or because, knowing it their will is entirely conformed to God’s will and they are conscious that they have missed an undue privilege through no fault of their own. (De Malo, Q.v, a.3) In addition to this freedom from regret at the loss of heaven, these infants may also enjoy some positive happiness. St, Thomas says: "Although unbaptized infants are separated from God as far as glory is concerned, yet they are not separated from Him entirely. Rather are they joined to Him by a participation of natural goods; and so they may even rejoice in Him by natural consideration and love," (In II Sent., dist. XXXIII, Q. ii, a. 5). Again (a.2) he says: "They will rejoice in this, that they will share largely in the divine goodness and in natural perfections."

In the 18th century a heretical sect called Jansenists taught that all infants dying without baptism are condemned to the fires of hell. In 1794, Pope Pius VI condemned this teaching. He said, in effect, that one may believe in a limbo, a "middle state" of happiness that is not in heaven with God, and still be a Catholic (Errors of the Synod of Pistoia, No. 26).

That remains the only significant mention of limbo in any official Catholic document.

The 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allows us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism." (#1261)

In 1995 Pope John Paul II issued his encyclical "Evangelium Vitae" or the "Gospel of Life". What he says in addressing women who have had abortions is relevant to the question of what happens to the souls of aborted babies:

"I would now like to say a special word to women who have had an abortion. The Church is aware of the many factors which may have influenced your decision, and she does not doubt that in many cases it was a painful and even shattering decision. The wound in your heart may not yet have healed. Certainly what happened was and remains terribly wrong. But do not give in to discouragement and do not lose hope. Try rather to understand what happened and face it honestly. If you have not already done so, give yourselves over with humility and trust to repentance. The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. To the same Father and to his mercy you can with sure hope entrust your child. With the friendly and expert help and advice of other people, and as a result of your own painful experience, you can be among the most eloquent defenders of everyone’s right to life. Through your commitment to life, whether by accepting the birth of other children or by welcoming and caring for those most in need of someone to be close to them, you will become promoters of a new way of looking at human life." (E.V. #99)

If you know someone who is struggling with a past abortion, please refer to our Priests For Life website for resources. Click here.

Encourage the person to go on a Rachel’s Vineyard Retreat (a ministry of Priests for Life) which is designed to help men and women who have participated in abortion to find healing and peace. See the following link for more information: www.rachelsvineyard.org/.

If you know someone who is struggling with the loss of a child through a miscarriage, I recommend Elizabeth Ministry. This ministry is an international movement designed to support women and their families during the joys, trials and sorrows of the childbearing years. Elizabeth Ministry’s mission is to cherish children, encourage families and build community. They offer peer support, mentoring, spiritual nourishment, educational and inspirational resources.

Priests for Life
PO Box 141172
Staten Island, NY 10314
Tel. 888-PFL-3448, (718) 980-4400
Fax 718-980-6515
Email mail@priestsforlife.org

FR.FRANK PAVONE : PRESENTING THE ABORTION ISSUE TO CHILDREN

2008-02-26T15:56:00.000-08:00

Presenting the Abortion Issue to Children

By Fr. Frank A. Pavone
At the start of the homily, I asked for a volunteer from among the youngest, smallest members of the congregation. Sharon, who was about six, came forward. I had her stand next to me facing the people and asked her, "Sharon, are there people out there who are bigger than you?" "Yes!" she exclaimed. "Are there people out there who are older than you?" "Yes!" she exclaimed. "Are there people out there who are stronger than you?" "Yes!" she exclaimed. "Are there people out there who are more important than you?" "No!" she declared, with even more conviction in her voice. All the other children understood the same thing.

And thus they understood the key problem in the abortion tragedy. Abortion builds on the lie that the smallest and weakest among us have less value and can even be discarded.

Teaching children about abortion is not as difficult as many think. Children are particularly receptive to the message of equality of all people, and to the truth that might does not make right. They have a keen sense of justice and fairness. They know what it means to need protection from dangers they can neither withstand nor understand. They know what a baby is, and they know it is wrong to kill a baby.

Furthermore, they have not been around long enough to practice the mental gymnastics and exercises in denial that are necessary for developing and maintaining a pro-choice position.

It is not necessary to teach children the details of reproduction before they learn that abortion is a bad thing. The basis for teaching about abortion is not the reproductive system, but the dignity and worth of every human person, whether that person is big or small, young or old, healthy or sick, wanted or unwanted, convenient or inconvenient.

The basis for teaching young people about abortion is the same basis on which we teach that the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" applies to any other category of people.

Some may be afraid to use the word "abortion" with children, reasoning that as someone once told me, "they don't understand all the aspects of it." Let's face it: nobody does. We do not aim to teach them "all the aspects." The key point with children is that when they hear the word "abortion," they know it is something bad, something that kills, something to be avoided. Education is not just concepts. We influence children not only in how they think about abortion, but in how they feel about it. They should be trained to reject it, and to see it as a part of the list of injustices and evils in the world rather than part of the list of rights, freedoms, and choices. The Pontifical Council for the Family has written, "Before adolescence, the immoral nature of abortion, surgical or chemical, can be gradually explained in terms of Catholic morality and reverence for human life" (1995: The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality, n.137).

Some express a concern that children will be traumatized if we tell them that abortion kills babies. I once sat in on a staff meeting at which a proposal was made to set up a sign on parish property that said, "Abortion Kills Children." The staff voted down the proposal on the basis that it would give nightmares to the school children who would see it. A few days later I was in that same school, and in the corridor of the first and second grade students I saw posters on the wall, made by the students themselves. The posters had skeletons coming up from the grave, people falling off an abyss, and various other nightmare scenes, with the message: "DRUGS KILL." "SAYING YES TO DRUGS IS LIKE SAYING YES TO MR. DEATH."

Where is our consistency? Is it only the politically incorrect messages that will give our children nightmares?

The pro-life message will not harm our children. What will harm them, however, is the "pro-choice" mentality, which will train them to think that human life is a disposable item, and which, if unchallenged, may lead them to an abortion mill someday.

If parents sometimes object to my pro-life preaching because their children are present, I gently point out to them that I share their concern for their children’s welfare. I then tell them that it is better that they hear about abortion from me, in the presence of their parents who can discuss their questions and calm their fears, than if they hear about abortion from pro-choice people who will tell them the false and dangerous lie that abortion is "no big deal." Worse yet, of course, is if the first time they hear anything substantial about abortion is from the "counselor" who is trying to sell them one.

Parents are the primary educators of their children. This requires that priests and other educators cooperate closely with them. It does not mean, however, that either the parents or other educators have the right to keep their children from the truth. In one instance when I spoke to seventh graders about how abortion harms women, one set of parents objected because I had not received their permission to bring up the topic in class. I assured them that I had no intention of bypassing their parental authority and that, in fact, I welcomed their input. I pointed out that people differ in their judgment of which matters require special parental approval and which do not. I then invited them to be at least equally upset over the fact that their daughter can actually obtain an abortion and be harmed by it without their knowledge or consent, as they were upset that their daughter had heard about abortion and its harmful effects without their knowledge or consent. Public health records in New York State show 231 abortions on thirteen-year-old girls in 1990.

I know of another case in which parental permission was obtained for all the students in the class, except one, to see a photo of an aborted baby. After school the student whose parents had denied permission insisted that her friend let her see the picture. On returning home she passionately challenged her mom, "Why did you not want me to see what is really happening to these babies! Why was I not allowed to see the truth?"

It is particularly appropriate that children share our concern about abortion. After all, they are closer in age to those who are being killed. Furthermore, they were considered "non-persons" before the law during the first nine months of their existence! If I were born after the Roe vs. Wade decision, I would take that as a personal insult! What loss today's children have sustained from abortion! Those aborted would have been their classmates, their friends, their husbands and wives! Psychological research is being done on the impact of this tragedy on those whose lives might have been taken, had they not been "wanted." What does this do to their sense of self-worth, especially in other settings when certain people do not "want" them?

I once spoke at a cemetery service at a grave containing the aborted bodies of several hundred babies. At the end of the service, each person present placed a rose on the grave and departed. Most people missed the scene at the very end. A very young girl, just able to walk, took a rose to the grave by herself and placed it there. She was, indeed, closest to her brothers and sisters in that grave. The youngest had compassion on her peers, who might have seen the sun that day as she did.

I have often seen the truth in the words of the Second Vatican Council, "Children too have an apostolate of their own. In their own measure they are true living witnesses of Christ among their companions" (Decree on the Apostolate of Lay People, #12). They will respond actively to the pro-life message, as did the two who wrote me and said, "Hi, I'd like to begin this letter by thanking you for last week's homily. I was deeply moved and so was my younger brother. Although we are both young, I'm 17 and he's 12, we've been taught how precious life is. But we did not fully understand what goes on in abortion till your homily…We both want to get on the mailing lists of pro-life organizations."

Children particularly like to wear the Precious Feet pin, showing the exact size and shape of a baby's feet at 10 weeks after conception. It was a child's idea to put those feet on top of pink and blue ribbons. A major pro-life organization then made the combination into a pin!

I once met a 7-year old named Nick among a group of young people peacefully demonstrating outside an abortion mill. "This must be your first time taking part in something like this," I said to him. "O no, Father," he exclaimed. "I've protested abortion in New York, Chicago, Atlanta, and other places..."

A group of summer campers I once served, ages 8 to 10, sent a joint letter to the local paper to speak up for preborn children.

These and many other projects can be organized in parishes and schools, or as part of Confirmation service projects. Preaching and teaching will lead even the young to action. Silence will only allow the killing to continue.

I will allow a fourth grade girl to finish this article with her letter to us.

"Dear Christians,

I was so excited about what my life in this world would be. I thought about all the things I would like to do like playing with toys, riding a bike, going to the zoo, and having a dog. I wanted to see movies, go to school, make friends and go to the park and the circus. I wanted to celebrate Christmas and receive Jesus in Holy Communion. I looked forward to listening to music, dancing, swimming in a pool, playing soccer, and having dolls.

I am very sad that I never got to do any of these things. My mother did not let me be born. I just don't understand one thing. Why didn't any of you help me? I wish you had. No one heard my crying voice.

From,

An unborn baby"

"Let the children come to me," the Lord declares. Let them come to His Church; let them come to us, that we may love them and teach them the dignity and greatness of all human life!

Priests for Life
PO Box 141172
Staten Island, NY 10314
Tel. 888-PFL-3448, (718) 980-4400
Fax 718-980-6515
Email mail@priestsforlife.org

FR.FRANK PAVONE :A STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE " RELIGIOUS COALITION FOR REPRODUCTIVE CHOICE"

2008-02-26T15:51:00.000-08:00

Choice in Christ

A Statement in Response to the
"Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice"

Fr. Frank Pavone

As ministers of the Gospel of Life, Priests for Life are concerned about misrepresentations of that Gospel by those who profess Christian faith and at the same time promote a "reproductive choice" of the destruction of human life by abortion. This "pro-choice" stance is defended by invoking freedom of religious belief and conscience, individual liberty, and the defense of the health and wholeness of the mother carrying the child.

What is the Choice?

We certainly support "reproductive freedom" in the sense that a man and woman must be free from coercion in making, before God, the personal judgment about the number and spacing of children they will bear.

But there is a big difference between choosing to have a child and choosing to kill a child. To determine whether one can have another child, before that child exists is quite legitimate. To eliminate them once they already exist is not legitimate.

Freedom of Religion and Conscience

Some appeal to "freedom of religion and conscience" to decide whether the baby in the womb is in fact a human being with the right to life. We point out that the humanity of the child is as definitive scientifically as the humanity of the parents. The point at which a unique life begins is clear from science.

To leave such a basic right as life, furthermore, to be determined by another's religion or conscience puts us all in danger. What do you say to a person who, "in conscience" no longer "believes" that you are human? Whatever you say is worthless to him, because he can say, "Why should I listen to a non-human?" If we do not allow the right to one's possessions to be subject to another person's religion, neither should one's right to life be so subject.

Individual Liberty

God has given us personal liberty as a tremendous gift which cannot be despised. The Christian message, proclaimed in Scripture, not only reveals the existence of such liberty, but shows that its fullness is found precisely in Christ. Redeemed and transformed by Him, we find ourselves sharing a life and liberty, which is no longer merely our own, but Christ's. (See Rom.12:2,Gal.2:20). Far from being separate sources of purely private liberty, we become one Body (Eph 4:15-16, 1Cor12:12). Our union with Christ does not squelch or destroy our personal liberty, but enhances and strengthens it. (Jn.8:31-32;14:12). By this very dynamic, we freely choose the love of Christ and one another, and this involves precisely the rejection of what is contrary to love and to the Gospel (Col.3:5-11). It involves the rejection of acts which destroy others. Abortion is one such act. Christian love ultimately means, "I sacrifice myself for the good of the other person." Abortion means, "I sacrifice the other person for the good of myself" (See 1Jn.3:11-12,16).

If a doctrine of liberty includes the destruction of the child in the womb, even when the child's humanity is acknowledged, why should it not also include the newborn, or you, or me. Where is the principle that would prevent the liberty that destroys some of us from destroying all of us?

The Woman's Well-being

Some defend the choice of abortion by appealing to the preservation of the mother's health or "wholeness."

We assert that one is never whole when one destroys another.

The promise of wholeness through abortion is false and illusory. Two decades of legalized abortion in America provide abundant evidence of wounded bodies and souls, and a wounded society.

Religion that is not grounded in reality is a disservice to humanity. Religions which present abortion as a legitimate choice, but ignore the fact that abortion harms women, will rightfully deserve the criticism made by some of our secular counterparts that such religion enslaves people and hinders authentic human progress.

Even more crucially, Churches that fail to discern the harm inflicted on women by abortion will be ill-suited to provide them the compassion, healing, and forgiveness they desperately need. More and more of our sisters and brothers are feeling and will feel the need for such healing. To whom will they turn? They will find little comfort from those who have opened the door to abortion or told them it is wrong only if they believe it is wrong. Unfortunately, the damage inflicted by abortion does not likewise yield to one's beliefs about whether it is real.

An international body of former abortion providers has formed under the title of the Centurions, who cry out, "Surely, these were innocent lives!" They are reaching the truth about abortion more quickly than some Christian communities. When our society has come to the dead end to which abortion leads, may the Church be ready to bring healing and lead the world once again to affirm and choose the Gospel of Life!

Educational Materials on Abortion

Priests for Life
PO Box 141172
Staten Island, NY 10314
Tel. 888-PFL-3448, (718) 980-4400
Fax 718-980-6515
Email mail@priestsforlife.org

Subscribe to Fr. Frank's bi-weekly prolife column (free): subscribe@priestsforlife

THE MISSION OF THE RELIGIOUS COALITION FOR REPRODUCTIVE CHOICE

2008-02-26T15:04:00.000-08:00

Our Mission
A Message from Reverend Carlton W. Veazey, President and CEO

The Mission of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice brings the moral power of religious communities to ensure reproductive choice through education and advocacy. The Coalition seeks to give clear voice to the reproductive issues of people of color, those living in poverty, and other underserved populations.

RCRC was founded in 1973 to safeguard the newly won constitutional right to abortion. The Coalition founders were clergy and lay leaders from mainstream religions, many of whom had provided women with referrals to safe abortion services before the Supreme Court legalized abortion in Roe v. Wade. The founders believed that there would be at most a ten-year struggle to secure the right to choose. In fact the struggle is far from over. It has changed and intensified, and the stakes are growing.

Today, the Religious Coalition comprises national organizations from major faiths and traditions, religiously affiliated and independent religious organizations, affiliates throughout the country, the national Clergy for Choice Network, Spiritual Youth for Reproductive Freedom chapters, The Black Church Initiative, and individuals who support reproductive choice and religious freedom..

While our member organizations are religiously and theologically diverse, they are unified in the commitment to preserve reproductive choice as a basic part of religious liberty.

Our rational, healing perspective looks beyond the bitter abortion debate to seek solutions to pressing problems such as unintended pregnancy, the spread of HIV/AIDS, inadequate health care and health insurance, and the severe reduction in reproductive health care services. We support access to sex education, family planning and contraception, affordable child care and health care, and adoption services as well as safe, legal, abortion services, regardless of income. We work for public policies that ensure the medical, economic, and educational resources necessary for healthy families and communities that are equipped to nurture children in peace and love.

http://www.rcrc.org/about/index.cfm

BLASPHEMY : ABORTION AS A MORAL CHOICE

2008-02-26T14:46:00.000-08:00

BLASPHEMY: ABORTION AS A MORAL CHOICE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abortion as a Moral Choice
By Rev. Anne Fowler
Created Dec 6 2007 - 9:06am
In April of 1973 my husband left me, pleading that he had fallen in love with our upstairs tenant and wanted to spend his life with her. I was four months pregnant. Roe v. Wade had been decided three months earlier.

My obstetrician sent me to see a social worker to help me sort out my feelings and make my plans. She began every one of her questions or suggestions with, "if you want an abortion...", until I finally shouted at her, "I DON'T want an abortion. " "Well, " she observed, "That solves that problem."

I had wanted this baby fiercely for some time, and my husband's defection did nothing to diminish my desire. But that conversation with the social worker, and the knowledge that an abortion would have been legally available had I felt unable to proceed with the pregnancy, added depth and resonance to my desire. This was a most wanted child. I had the choice, and I chose to have a baby.

My daughter told me recently, in a discussion about her father- who has never figured into her life except as an absence, a question mark- "Mom, when I was a kid and used to ask about my father, you always said, ‘You were a very wanted baby.'" So that knowledge has been central to her sense of her self.

At another point, a few years later, I did have an abortion. I was a single mother, working and pursuing a path to ordination in the Episcopal Church. The potential father was not someone I would have married; he would have been no better a candidate for fatherhood than my daughter's absent father. The timing was wrong, the man was wrong, and I easily, though not happily, made the decision to terminate the pregnancy.

I have not the slightest regret about either of these decisions, nor the slightest guilt. I felt sorrow and loss at the time of my abortion, but less so than when I'd miscarried some years earlier. Both of my choices, I believe, were right for me and my circumstances: morally correct in their context, practical, and fruitful in their outcomes.

That is, both choices were choices for life: in the first instance, I chose for the life of the unborn child; in the second, I chose for my own vocational life, my economic stability, and my mental and emotional health and wholeness.

Shortly after my ordination to the priesthood, I was asked to speak at the National Abortion Federation's annual meeting, on a Clergy Panel, with the theme of "Abortion as a Moral Choice." I wondered skeptically who would attend such a panel, but to my surprise, the room was packed with people - abortion providers and other clinic workers. Our audience was so eager and grateful to hear their work affirmed, to hear religious authorities assuring them that God was on their side! I understood that I had a responsibility, indeed, a call, as a pro-choice religious professional, to speak out and to advocate publicly for women's reproductive rights 1 and health, and I have tried to be faithful to that call.

To talk theologically about women's right to choose is to talk about justice, equality, health and wholeness, and respect for the full humanity and autonomy of every woman. Typically, as moral theologians, we discuss the value of potential life (the fetus) as against the value of lived life - the mature and relational life of a woman deciding her capacity to continue or terminate a pregnancy. And we believe that, in general, the value of that actual life outweighs the value of the potential.

I like to talk, as well, in terms of gift and of calling. I believe that all life is a gift - not only potential life, but life developing and ripening with its many challenges, complications, joys and sorrows. When we face difficult reproductive choices we balance many gifts, many goods, and to fail to recognize the gifts of our accomplished lives is to fail to recognize God's ongoing blessing. I believe as well that God calls us all to particular vocations, and our decisions about whether and when to bear children are part of that larger pattern of our lives' sacred meanings.

Visit RH Reality Check throughout December to read about the ways in which individuals, both clergy and lay people, connect their religion or spirituality to their commitment to reproductive rights. To learn more about the connections between religion and reproductive justice, visit the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice 2.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source URL:
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org//blog/2007/12/06/abortion-as-a-moral-choice
Links:
1 http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/glossary%23Reproductive+Rights
2 http://www.rcrc.org

Rev. Anne Fowler

Organization/Company
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

About Me
Reverend Anne Carroll Fowler is an Episcopal priest and Rector of St. John's Church in Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts and is currently co-convener of the Pro-Choice Religious Leadership Council of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. She is also a member of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice Speakers Bureau. She is a former member of the Boards of Preterm and Planned Parenthood and of the Ethics Committee at Faulkner Hospital, a former chair of the Women-in-Crisis Committee and the Sexuality Study Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts. She is a participant in the Public Conversations Project, the ongoing dialogue among "pro-life" and pro-choice leaders in Boston. She is also President of the Board of the Massachusetts Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry.

Protestant
by Dr. Paul D. Simmons

The biblical portrait of personhood begins not with an explanation of conception but with a portrayal of the creation of Adam and Eve. The biblical portrait of a person, therefore, is that of a complex, many-sided creature with godlike abilities and the moral responsibility to make choices. The woman unquestionably fits the biblical portrayal of person.

The abortion question focuses on the personhood of the woman, who in turn considers the potential personhood of the fetus in terms of the multiple dimensions of her own history and future. Because the pregnancy is hers, the decision to continue the pregnancy is uniquely hers. She is aware that God wills health and happiness for her, for those she may bring into the world, and for the human race. Thus, she is engaged in reflection on her own well-being, the genetic health of the fetus, and the survival of the human race.

The absence of prohibitions against abortion in the Bible does not mean either that abortion was widely practiced or that there was a cavalier attitude about pregnancy termination. Then as now elective abortion posed substantive issues with which a woman or couple must come to terms. Respect for germinating life, one’s own beliefs, and one’s life plan all enter into the decision. Certainly reasons beyond mere convenience are needed to make the morally serious decision to terminate a germinal existence. Abortion is never to be taken lightly, but it is not a forbidden option.

Roman Catholic and Protestant doctrines differ in, among other things, the degree to which they are legalistic. The Catholic Church would have us obey the rules formulated by the Vatican, but Protestants believe that we are free by grace and justified by faith. The phrase “the sacredness of life” means one thing to Catholic bishops—that the life of the fetus is all-important—but to most people of other Christian denominations it means that there is a presumptive right to life that is not absolute but is conditioned by the claims of others. For us the right to life and the sacredness of life mean that there should be no absolute or unbreakable rules that take precedence over the lives of existing human persons.

The pro-life position is really a pro-fetus position, and the pro-choice position is really pro-woman. Those who take the pro-fetus position define the woman in relation to the fetus. They assert the rights of the fetus over the right of the woman to be a moral agent or decision maker with respect to her life, health, and family security.
Learn More

Personhood, the Bible, and the Abortion Debate, by Paul Simmons, Ph.D., Th.M. (PDF)

Is the Fetus a Person? The Bible's View, by Roy Bowen Ward (PDF)

Respecting the Moral Agency of Women, by Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, Ph.D. (PDF)

Abortion: A Christian Ethical Perspective, by Dr. John Swomley