"Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion." John Adams

Featured Posts

Creative Minority Reader

Katie Couric a Modern Margaret Sanger

In these times of high unemployment and dangerous deficits one issue has become so awful and dangerous to America that CBS news anchor Katie Couric has called for millions and millions of dollars to be spent on solving it. What is it? Preventing poor women from having babies, of course.

Newsbusters has Couric's transcript:

This month marks the 50th anniversary of the birth control pill, a tiny tablet that revolutionized women's health.

But before we break out the cake and streamers, we should remember the pill is still off limits to millions of American women.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, roughly 17.4 million low-income women need publicly-funded contraception but only 9.4 million are receiving it. As many as 8 million lack adequate care.
Couric is siding with those wonderful people at Planned Parenthood to rid the world of poor babies. You see, rich people can afford contraceptive abortifacients but poor people's babies are still slipping through. Darn poor babies! This has really got to kill Planned Parenthood as nearly the entire purpose behind their founding was to prevent poor and minorities from reproducing.

I can't help but see Couric as a modern day Cruella De Vil who just simply hates those Dalmations because there's just too many of them and she'll do whatever it takes to stop them.

You also have to wonder at how Planned Parenthood is trying to change the definition of contraception to "preventative medicine" as if pregnancy were a disease. Sheesh, everyone knows that babies aren't a disease. They're a punishment, just like our President says they are.

Update: Check out the Deacon's Bench for his personal story about Katie Couric and Margaret Sanger.

Your Ad Here


Blackrep said...

Don't forget the strokes and breast cancer! Poor people certainly don't have enough of those and are certainly entitled to each and every punishment the upper classes currently enjoy. Enough of only a chosen class being puffy, bloated, crabby, and exhausted from constant sexual availability!

Estrogen for all! Yes we can!

Anonymous said...

And she is a fine example of the empty space between the ears which prevails in our country

if it were better somewhere we would all move

lets all go to confession, Mass, Adoration and be ready for our next residence, God willing

my won't puratory just be wonderful!?!

David L Alexander said...

Wow, yet another reason why CBS is my LAST choice of the "big three" for watching evening news. This past year, the pill has "revolutionized" blood clots and related complications proving fatal (despite FDA approval for two of them). Thanks, guys.

Tim H. said...

It is important to understand that it is contraception which created the conditions in which abortion flourishes. The widespread availability of contraception has made sex a casual activity and when contraception isn't available, doesn't work or is just plain ignored, then abortion is always an alternative.

Abortion providers understand that while it is counter intuitive, increased use of contraception corresponds to an increased need for abortion.

Catholics, who use contraception in direct disobedience to the Church and to God, yet bemoan abortion, need to look into the mirror.


Tapestry said...

I am glad I don't watch network news its all tripe and trash anyways. I wonder when people who watch the news religiously die if they will find a blank space in their head.
I only ask because anyone with half a brain knows killing babies means no future for humanity.

Anonymous said...

I think you may be missing the point... My guess is that you probably favor a political conservative agenda... moral in emphasis but fiscal in policy. The 2 can't work together and thus you promote the correct teaching of the Church in that we shouldn't promote birth control but probably also support politician who would refuse aid to help those same women and children while also complaining that they are a burden on society and are causing higher taxes.

We as Catholics need to figure out what we stand for rather than condemn. If we truly are for the child then need to step up with morally conservative pro-life fiscal liberals who are willing to see that the correct social and fiscal things are done. As it is right now we seems to be appalled at Katie's remarks yet how many don't really care about the fact that we are the highest in the western world in regards to Infant Mortality rate? We don't want the children conceived and tend to pass judgment on those who promote that but when was the last time you gave money to a needy child or family or support a new social program which helped young mothers?

Just stuff to think about...

Equus nom Veritas said...

"I can't help but see Couric as a modern day Cruella De Vil who just simply hates those Dalmations because there's just too many of them and she'll do whatever it takes to stop them."

Didn't Cruella De Vil want the dalmatians for "fashion" purposes? Though, I guess that's not too far off from wanting them for cosmetic purposes, to say nothing about embryonic stem cells for "health" purposes.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous - respectfully, I think you may be missing the point. Simply because one is fiscally conservative does not mean he is not helping out the needy. Equating the two tacitly concedes a point that is often ignored and which most conservatives, appropriately, are unwilling to concede.

To be clear, on a fiscal level, the difference between a conservative and liberal is not whether or not one cares about the poor. You seem to imply the former does not care about the poor, while the latter does.

In reality, the difference is about whose responsibility you believe it is to take care of the poor. In parallel, it's a question of what the role of the federal government is and whether the role it currently plays in society is consistent with the role envisioned by this country's founders and consistent with the role enumerated in the Constitution.

Said another way: while you believe it's the Federal Government's responsibility to take care of the poor, fiscal conservatives believe it is our responsibility to do so, which explains why conservatives give more money to charity than liberals do. I don't want to rehash self-evident arguments about how inefficient and wasteful the government is, but if you investigate the yield on our tax dollars, most of the money goes towards paying for the system to exist in the first place. So, pennies of your tax dollars help the poor (best case scenario), while nearly 100% of my donations help the poor (depending on the mechanism/organization through which you are working).

As importantly, there is no virtue in being taxed. However, there is much virtue in helping the poor. In many ways, what fiscal liberals have done to this nation is rob its people of the opportunity to grow in virtue. It should be no surprise that liberals give so little -- they've paid their taxes, why should they? Let the government take care of it.

In summary, there is nothing inconsistent about a "morally and fiscally" conservative Catholic: we believe contraception and abortion are moral evils; we also believe in the Church's principle of subsidiarity and recognize it is our responsibility to take care of the poor. What does Washington know about the poor person on the corner of my street? Nothing.

No one does more for the materially and spiritually poor (or for women, for that matter) than our Mother Church. Both presently and historically. With that said, we can all do more and should do more to alleviate the spiritual and material suffering around us. Our Lord demands this of us (i.e., spiritual and corporeal works of mercy). He also demands growth in virtue, which is harder to come by within a system that takes and wastes money, seeks to control its people, and robs its constituents of the opportunity to exercise charity.

In Fide,


Patm said...

Couric has had so much botox, she is beginning to look like Laura Bush.

Laura Bush is beautiful, but I am sure Couric does not want to look like her.

Jimbo said...

Anon at 2:39.

A true conservative agenda means not just being pro-life. Conservative fiscal policies provide for:

1. Greater dignity of the person because each person has greater ability to provide for themselves and for their families. Liberal notions of relying on a "share of the pot" to be handed to you mean less dignity for the individual and therefore for all.

2. Greater compassion for ALL people than a liberal agenda which uses confiscatory fiscal policy and nationalized group-think to provide for those less fortunate.

3. Embraces the true notion of freedom as it relates to responsibility. A conservative wants you to keep more of your earnings and believes that charity should come from YOU and from YOUR choice, not from some government agency.

Liberal policy (socialism, etc.) cuts down on my ability to be charitable and is therefore less-loving than a conservative policy.

Liberalism is all fluff and no stuff. True conservatives not only care as much for others, they also have policies that are more effective at helping others, promoting dignity and allowing for love.

I am sorry - any system that limits my ability to "love" is just not right.

Anon at 12:53 - you said
, "if it were better somewhere we would all move

lets all go to confession, Mass, Adoration and be ready for our next residence, God willing"


Hal Duston said...

"… we are the highest in the western world in regards to Infant Mortality rate?"

The reason this is so is due to differing rules used for classifying the result of a delivery. In the U.S., if a delivery is “high-risk” or the baby has critical health problems, heroic efforts and life-saving measures are frequently deployed. This increases the likelihood of a life birth, but unfortunately, the underlying criticality may still result in the death of the child. This delivery will then be classified as an infant death, and increased the U.S. infant mortality rate. In many other western countries, such heroic efforts are less likely to be undertaken, or if they are and the child dies in spite of such efforts, the delivery is frequently classified as a still birth, which has no impact on that nation’s infant mortality rate.

The only way the U.S. has the same infant mortality rate as Cuba is by comparing apples to oranges.

Anonymous said...


LarryD said...

morally conservative pro-life fiscal liberals

Such creatures do not exist.

To Anon 5:36 - are you doing those things? And why do you presume that the commenters here are not?

Anonymous said...

To LarryD: I have two adopted children and when my son's girlfriend go pregnant I took both into my house. Now I have a grand-daughter and family who lives with us. This does not make me special I just try to live my beliefs. By the way I came from a family of 10, spent 20 year in the US Army and am a Republican. I tell you these things only emphasize the point that we don't need to condemn we need to show how we are stepping-up to solve the problems of the poor in such a manner that the poor do not need to make a tremendous choice. Life deserves sacrific by those whom have the means and ability.

Hal Duston said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hal Duston said...

What I do to help the poor is between me and God. Only my family needs to know.

"So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving will be in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.” -- Matthew 6:2-4

Anonymous said...


SarahL said...

Dear Mr. ALL CAPS,

What are you accomplishing--or hoping to accomplish--by demanding that we give you an account of all that we're doing to help the poor. Is it so you can compare what we're doing with what you're doing? You aren't the first commenter who has done good things for the poor out of Christian charity, but you are the first one I've read detailing all that you've done and demanding that others do the same.

Do you assume that if we're not willing to give a detailed account of all the sacrifices we make or all that we do for those less fortunate than ourselves that we're probably not doing enough?

Speaking of judging others . . . how 'bout you look to your own house. The characters of those kids you're raising is going to depend a lot on your own.

Victoria said...

It's unfortunate that Couric is so brainwashed she misses the irony of her "we've come a long way, baby" remark.

"MDB" (aka one of the anonymous commenters above) has made excellent points about liberal ideas of giving vs. conservative, as well as whose responsibility it is to take care of the poor. That role was never intended for the gov't, and liberals have no interest outside their own posturing. Thank God for His people, who sacrifice by Christ's example.

Hal Duston said...

Oh, I am afraid I am in agreement with Mr. ALL CAPS about individualized solutions rather than one-size-fits all government solutions. As for me, my solution is to feed the poor and house the widows and orphans. Yours?

Brian said...

Wasn't there a Southern politician who discouraged government programs on the grounds that they encourage poor people to "breed"?

Ah, yes, here we go.


The point that I'm trying to prove is that liberals are not alone in supposedly vilifying the poor.

Anonymous said...

I find it hard to believe that there are people who buy into the kind of thinking in this article. Just because something supports your world view doesn't male it factual or even news-worthy.

And would some of you posters please refrain from telling/hoping/insinuating what is going to happen to others when they die? Judgement is not your job, and you are making yourself an idol by assuming that you know or have an influence on another individuals judgement. You don't like pro-choice people, fine. Leave thier souls out of it and just worry about your own.

Anonymous said...

Who cares what gurgles out of it's face? - no one watches CBS News anymore anyways.

Amy Proctor said...

CBS seems to have had a concerted effort to praise Margaret Sanger and the pill on Mother's Day. Here's another video from CBS's Sunday morning show:


Elizabeth Anne said...

I agree, but if you've seen other news channels, web sites, magazines, etc. you've see that the 50th anniversary of the "the pill" is being celebrated there, too. Time mag. had a cover story about the pill, which got me really fired up around the dinner table because the article sppeared to address the "Catholic issues" related to contraception by basically explaining how the pill used to be controversial, but isn't really anymore. Ugh.
To everyone engaging in this tiff about seemingly mismatched political and religious view: fiscally conservative government does not mean lack of social charity in my book. Rather, my family gives what we can to the charities that support the appropriate kinds of social charity (so our money goes to Catholic Charities not Planned Parenthood). Of course when we brag about our good works, that's our only reward, but having a candid, polite dicussion of ways we help does give those who might not understand the view that government doesn't have to do it all some solice: we're not against helping people in need; we're against having the government control our money because they often help causes with which we cannot morally support.

Elizabeth Anne said...

Oh! Sorry about the messiness of my post...I'm trying to multi-task here. What I meant to say at the end there was this:
we're not against helping those in need; we're against having the government control our money because they often help causes *which* we cannot morally support.

Also, a little addition: has anyone read Pope Benedict's encyclial "Charity in Truth"? A rather solid read, but worth it. : )

Post a Comment