Right to Life For Plants, Not People

This is one of those stories that just show clearly how upside down the world is, that any tether to reality has thinned to the point of snapping.

At the request of the Swiss government, an ethics panel has weighed in on the "dignity" of plants and opined that the arbitrary killing of flora is morally wrong, according to the Weekly Standard.

This is not a joke. I know you're thinking that I'm just making up stories but this is real. The concept of "plant rights" is being seriously debated.

A few years ago the Swiss added to their national constitution a provision requiring "account to be taken of the dignity of creation when handling animals, plants and other organisms." No one knew exactly what it meant, so they asked the Swiss Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology to figure it out. The resulting report, "The Dignity of Living Beings with Regard to Plants," is enough to short circuit the brain.

A "clear majority" of the panel adopted what it called a "biocentric" moral view, meaning that "living organisms should be considered morally for their own sake because they are alive." Thus, the panel determined that we cannot claim "absolute ownership" over plants and, moreover, that "individual plants have an inherent worth." This means that "we may not use them just as we please, even if the plant community is not in danger, or if our actions do not endanger the species, or if we are not acting arbitrarily."

The committee offered this illustration: A farmer mows his field (apparently an acceptable action, perhaps because the hay is intended to feed the farmer's herd--the report doesn't say). But then, while walking home, he casually "decapitates" some wildflowers with his scythe. The panel decries this act as immoral, though its members can't agree why. The report states, opaquely:

At this point it remains unclear whether this action is condemned because it expresses a particular moral stance of the farmer toward other organisms or because something bad is being done to the flowers themselves.

Mind you that about 15% of all pregnancies in Switzerland are terminated by abortion. The law states that for a woman in Switzerland to procure an abortion (even late term) they must state that they are in distress -which includes threat of severe physical or psychological damage to the mother.

Now back to the farmer who decapitated the flowers. Shouldn't we take into account the emotional distress those flowers were causing him?

In a sane world, we wouldn't be having these conversations. We are, however, not residing in one. My hope, however, resides in the future, that some anonymous man in the 24th century will read old news articles and laugh uproriously as to how insane everyone was way back when.

Signs of Progress

The best evidence yet that the drumbeat against public support of pro-abortion Catholic pols at Catholic institutions is having an effect appears in the Boston Globe of all places.

The Globe tells us how the personally opposed prevaricators are just not getting the choice commencement invites from Catholic Institutions to which they had shamefully become accustomed.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is one of the nation's most powerful Catholics, but this year the only commencement address she gave was at one of the eight campuses of Miami Dade College.

Senator John F. Kerry is headlining three commencements this year - the Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts, UMass Lowell, and Wheelock College - but it's been nine years since he's done one at a Catholic institution, Boston College Law School.

As for the scion of the nation's most famous Catholic family, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, his major commencement address this year is at Wesleyan University, founded by Methodists.

After repeatedly getting criticized by conservative Catholics, and after years of pressure from the Vatican and some American bishops, Catholic colleges and universities are now shying away from politicians - especially those who, like Kennedy, Kerry, and Pelosi, support abortion rights - as commencement speakers and honorary degree recipients.

Instead, the schools are scrutinizing the public records of potential honorees for evidence of open dissent from key church teachings, especially on abortion, and they are choosing noncontroversial church insiders or nonpolitical figures for their most prominent honors. "I think there's a concerted effort to use the moment of naming people who reinforce the Catholic identity of our institutions, and I'm pleased by that," Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley of Boston said in an interview.

Poor dears. Echoing Cardinal O'Malley, good!

It is a disgrace that pro-abort pols have not only received a pass when it comes to publicly opposing the teachings of the church, but is beyond scandalous when they are held up as the ideal by being invited to speak at commencement. The Cardinal Newman Society has been instrumental in bringing to light the scandal.

The Cardinal Newman Society, a conservative organization that each year scrutinizes the hundreds of men and women who are given honorary degrees by the nation's 225 Catholic colleges and graduate institutions, has identified a dwindling number of honorees who dissent from the church on key moral teachings - 24 in 2006, 13 in 2007, and six thus far this year.

"When a Catholic college administrator deliberately chooses a person who is publicly opposing the church, it raises serious flags, and very often the schools choosing those commencement speakers have problems across the board in terms of applying their Catholic identity to what they do," said Patrick J. Reilly, the president of the Cardinal Newman Society.

Hats off to the Cardinal Newman Society. While there are still institutions that run afoul of Ex Corde Ecclesiae, progress is being made. Take this quote from the Rev. D. Paul Sullins, a professor of sociology at Catholic University.

[He] noted that while his university "has never honored any real Catholic dissenter," in past years there have been speakers whose primary claim to fame was not their Catholicism. This year, though, the university chose the head of the Knights of Columbus.

"It doesn't get more Catholic than that," he said.

No, it doesn't get more Catholic than that!

Archbishop Urges Gov. To Refrain from Communion

Archbishop Joseph Naumann wrote an op-ed today in the Leaven declaring that Governor Sebelius of Kansas is not eligible to receive Communion.

Having made every effort to inform and to persuade Governor Sebelius and after consultation with Bishop Ron Gilmore (Dodge City), Bishop Paul Coakley (Salina) and Bishop Michael Jackels (Wichita), I wrote the Governor last August requesting that she refrain from presenting herself for reception of the Eucharist until she had acknowledged the error of her past positions, made a worthy sacramental confession and taken the necessary steps for amendment of her life which would include a public repudiation of her previous efforts and actions in support of laws and policies sanctioning abortion.

Recently, it came to my attention that the Governor had received Holy Communion at one of our parishes. I have written to her again asking her to respect my previous request and not require from me any additional pastoral actions.

The Governor has spoken to me on more than one occasion about her obligation to uphold state and federal laws and court decisions. I have asked her to show a similar sense of obligation to honor divine law and the laws, teaching and legitimate authority within the Church.

I have not made lightly this request of Governor Sebelius, but only after much prayer and reflection. The spiritually lethal message, communicated by our Governor, as well as many other high profile Catholics in public life, has been in effect: “The Church’s teaching on abortion is optional!”

I reissue my request of the Faithful of the Archdiocese to pray for Governor Sebelius. I hope that my request of the Governor, not to present herself for Holy Communion, will provoke her to reconsider the serious spiritual and moral consequences of her past and present actions. At the same time, I pray this pastoral action on my part will help alert other Catholics to the moral gravity of participating in and/or cooperating with the performance of abortions.

This is pretty amazing stuff. Will update later.

McCain Speaks, Get Your Decoder Ring Out

Senator John McCain is talking to you. What? You can't hear him. Listen harder. Nothing? Oh wait, you're not wearing your decoder ring.

McCain is talking almost incessantly the last week about abortion and freedom of religion. The media's not helping because they're consumed with declaring Barack Obama the Democratic nominee. But McCain has been trying to speak to religious pro-lifers but like I said, it's in code. You'll hear two words coming out of McCain's mouth quite often: "Roberts and Alito."

He's vowing to appoint conservative judges like Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel Alito. "I will look for accomplished men and women with a proven record of excellence in the law, and a proven commitment to judicial restraint," he said.

That's as close to red meat that McCain gets.

McCain focuses on Roberts and Alito because they are the hope of conservatives for turning over Roe V. Wade. He stays away from mentioning Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas because let's face it -for one Thomas has political baggage. But also Scalia has been on the bench for twenty two years. There's bound to be a case or two that can be used to pummel McCain on if he is out there mentioning Scalia all the time.

Ironically, McCain is talking about nominating justices like Roberts and Alito who found many tenets of his own campaign finance reform law unconstitutional. But I digress...and so does he because he knows that much of the conservative base which still doesn't trust him may, in the end, vote for him because of one issue, the issue which goes unspoken -ABORTION.

That's what so much of this campaign is going to come down to. Liberal New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof knows it. He wrote today of the fear of Hillary voters not voting for Obama in the general election, "It’s true that most of Senator Clinton’s supporters presumably will flinch if they contemplate a McCain Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade.

Conservative columnist Thomas Sowell said something similar but from the opposite side. Sowell said John McCain could never convince him to vote for McCain. Only one man could do that. That man's name is Barack Obama.

Make no mistake, the future direction of the Supreme Court is very much at stake in this November’s presidential election. The two or three justices most likely to depart the Court over the next four years — Justice Stevens, Justice Ginsburg, and possibly Justice Souter — are liberal judicial activists. If a President Obama names their successors Roe will likely be preserved for at least another generation.

And McCain is saying everything he can to keep your eye on that fact. In fact, take a look at his home page at JohnMcCain.com. The site looks more like it belongs to conservative stalwart and culture warrior Sen. Sam Brownback than the John McCain we've come to know and...be wary of. The headline of the site is McCain looking off inspiringly into the distance and next to him it say "Defending Freedom and Dignity." The dignity part is his attempt at code for abortion and euthanasia.

Now here's the best part. Under it he has a quote from William Wilberforce which says, "When we think of eternity and of the future consequences of all human conduct what is there in this life that should make any man contradict the dictates of his conscience, the principles of justice, the laws of religion and God."

Pro-lifers often (and fairly) compare abortion to slavery as both denied human dignity to certain members. That's why Wilberforce is there.

Notice that McCain is talking to us now while the media is consumed with the Democratic nomination process. See, McCain knows that to win in this desperate time for Republicans which include an unpopular war and a shaky economy, he must appeal to moderates, independents and Democrats. He doesn't believe he can make a play for New Jersey, Pennsylvania or Michigan if he's talking about abortion in plainspeak. McCain wants to appeal to moderates while intimating his conservative credentials. He's saying many of the right things. Can you hear him? Do you want to?

Dems Talk Potential Life

Newsweek's Jon Meacham, who co-hosted the weirdly titled "Compassion Forum" with CNN's Campbell Brown, wasted little time before asking both candidates whether they believe life begins at conception. He should be applauded for asking the question even though the candidates danced around like long tailed cats in a room full of rocking chairs.

The candidates know that this is one question they cannot answer so they parry.

Here's Hillary's response:

"I believe that the potential for life begins at conception...But for me, it is also not only about a potential life.... And, therefore, I have concluded, after great, you know, concern and searching my own mind and heart over many years, that our task should be, in this pluralistic, diverse life of ours in this nation, that individuals must be entrusted to make this profound decision.... I think abortion should remain legal."

Ok? Where's the answer? What does "potential for life begins at conception" even mean?

You know, sometimes I wonder if candidates who support abortion just haven't really thought it all through. But an answer like this really shows that not only have they thought it through but they've thought up a clever obfuscation to get out of it. There's no denying that life begins at conception. Scientifically that's obviously true. Now it's just a matter of whether it's life you want to protect or not.

If you thought Hillary's response was poor wait until you hear Obama's response:

"This is something that I have not, I think, come to a firm resolution on. I think it's very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So, I don't presume to know the answer to that question. What I know, as I've said before, is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we're having these debates."

Now, he absolutely said nothing. Firstly, he's going to this forum in his limousine, was there no consultant, aide, campaign worker who didn't see this question coming? How could his response be worse? "This is something that I have not, I think, come to a firm resolution on. I think it's very hard to know what that means, when life begins." But I have no problem stamping out that life even though I'm not firmly resolved on what it is. It's so cavalier about the issue that it's sickening.

It is these responses which make me believe that in the end we will gain major victories in the fight against abortion. Because they don't really believe in what they're saying. When politics meets morality, morality will win...eventually.

Democrats Remove "Objectionable Language" about Pope

In what I have to think is the most ridiculous moment of the Pope's visit to America Sen. Barbara Boxer held up a Senate resolution welcoming the pontiff to America because she objected to language about how the pope values "each and every human life," according to the Politico.

Can you imagine a Senator objected to valuing "each and every human life?" Just think about that for a second.

The measure later cleared the Senate Thursday afternoon after the sponsor of the resolution, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), dropped the reference to "human life" because some Democrats saw it as a reference to abortion. According to Republican aides, Brownback, a devout Catholic, did not want a high profile fight over the resolution, which was adopted on a voice vote. In fact, Brownback blackberried his staff from the Pope's mass at Nationals Park to direct them to drop the references to human life.

"There was some politics involved here, and the objectionable language has been withdrawn," a senior Democratic Senate aide said.

Here's the objectionable language in full:

Whereas Pope Benedict XVI has spoken out for the weak and vulnerable, witnessing to the value of each and every human life;

God Bless America...because we need it now!

A New Low for Yale University

As a Yale alum, I have been repeatedly disgusted and disappointed in many of the decisions the university has made since I graduated in 1991. I routinely throw the requests for donations into the trash without even opening them. At times I had thought perhaps I was too harsh on the institution that gave me so much as a student, and maybe I should soften a bit. But the coffin is now nailed shut so tightly there is no going back.
Yale has approved a senior "art" project in which a student artificially inseminated herself from several donors, intentionally induced abortions, and is using the blood and aborted fetuses in her exhibit.
She will be using "layers of the sheeting [with] the blood from [her] self-induced miscarriages mixed with Vaseline in order to prevent the blood from drying and to extend the blood throughout the plastic sheeting," according to the Yale Daily News. "Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process."

This moral and physical travesty can only mean that Yale is irretrievably lost. Human life has become a mere commodity for a student to have 15 minutes of fame.

To contact Yale University: presidents.office@yale.edu

No Communion For The Usual Suspects

The American Life League doesn't pull punches. They are running a full page ads in The Washington Times and The Politico. The ad basically asks the the Holy Father to give the cold shoulder to any of the more infamous Catholic politicos if they are stupid enough to present themselves for communion.

I hope that they would know better, but you never know. The ad says the following:

Most Holy Father, The great majority of “Catholic politicians openly support legalized abortion — yet week after week they’re allowed to participate in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.

What are average Americans to think when we see our priests and bishops seemingly indifferent to the teaching of the Church?

We fear that, during your visit to our nation’s capital, some of the more infamous of these derelict Catholics may present themselves to you to receive the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

Our reason for this concern stems from the fact that Archbishop Donald Wuerl, in whose diocese many of these pro-abortion Catholics reside when Congress is in session, has not made it clear that he will deny the Holy Eucharist to these people. Further, he has not instructed his priests, deacons and extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist to enforce Church law, Canon 915.

We are therefore publishing the pictures of the most egregious offenders, as we truly believe that if they were to receive the Holy Eucharist from you, such an action would create scandal.

So who is on th blacklist? Arnold, a couple of Kennedys, Biden, Leahy, Dodd, and of course Nancy Pelosi. In other words, the usual suspects.

Kiss Religious Freedom Goodbye

I think pretty soon we're all going to be able to be arrested on a new charge called "Working while Being Christian." Look at these two stories about religious freedom and look how they essentially take almost mutually exclusive rulings both against Christians.

This from Lifesite:

The Wisconsin appeals court has upheld the sanctions against a Catholic pharmacist who refused to dispense contraceptive drugs on the grounds of religious conscience. On March 25, 3rd District Court Judge Michael Hoover ruled in favour of the decision of the Wisconsin Pharmacy Examining Board to reprimand Neil Noesen and place limits on his license.

Neil Noesen, a Catholic, was working as a substitute pharmacist at a K-mart department store in Menomonie, Wisconsin in the summer of 2002, when a young college student asked him to re-fill a prescription for hormonal contraceptives. Noesen refused to fill the prescription for the abortifacient drug or refer to another pharmacist who would comply with the request. When the woman took her prescription to a Wal-Mart pharmacist, Noesen refused to provide the Wal-Mart pharmacist with the prescription information.

The woman lodged a complaint and the Pharmacy Examining Board found Noesen had "engaged in practice which constitutes a danger to the health, welfare, or safety of a patient" and had "practiced in a manner which substantially departs from the standard of care ordinarily exercised by pharmacists and which harmed or could have harmed a patient."

So as much as you might not like it the court ruled that the company has standards and you have to live up to them if you want to work for that company. But then get this:

Yesterday, a new ruling from the New Mexico Human Rights Commission ruled against a Christian woman who refused to photograph a same-sex marriage ceremony. As a Christian, Elaine Huguenin is against efforts to legitimize same-sex “marriage.” The Albuquerque photographer was asked via e-mail in September 2006 to photograph a “commitment ceremony” for two women. The photographer, Elaine Huguenin declined. That was the end of the matter, she thought.

And just yesterday the New Mexico Human Rights Commission held that this violated state anti-discrimination law. Elane has been ordered to pay over $6600 in attorney’s fees and costs.

But wait a second here. This is her own company. Can't she do what she wants with her own company? No. The real basis for both of these rulings is simply anti-Christian. (Think for a moment if the local KKK meeting wanted some pretty portrait shots and a photographer refused, would a judge rule the photographer had no choice but to take the job? Of course not. So what we're really talking about is the promotion of state-approved people and groups.)

This is the danger our culture is in. First the secularists said they only wanted prayer out of schools, and out of government, out of adoptions, and now it's out of the workplace. Quite simply, if these rulings are upheld and taken to their logical end pretty soon it will simply be illegal to act as a Christian in public.

Would He or Wouldn't He?

Ross Douthat has some interesting comments (fortune telling?) on whether Chief Justice John Roberts would overturn Roe v. Wade.

Douthat's comments are as part debate on the question with Daniel Larison: Larison questions the likelihood of Roberts taking on Roe v. Wade given some prior testimony.

I don’t think that John Roberts sat before the Judiciary Committee and perjured himself when he said that he thought that Roe was the “settled law of the land” and then went on to say, “There’s nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.” To expect that Roberts is a reliable anti-Roe vote is ultimately to believe him to be a liar, in which case it is not clear why anyone would trust him one way or the other.

Douthat responds with his take on the testimony and tells of some other factors which may influence Robert's view including his faith.

I don’t believe that John Roberts is a liar either, but I don’t think his comments – delivered when he was being confirmed to the federal appeals court, not the Supreme Court – in any way preclude his voting to overturn Roe now that he's on the high court. (This is one of those rare occasions when I find myself agreeing with Media Matters.) A federal judge can’t overturn a precedent without more or less guaranteeing that he'll be reversed on appeal, so there’s no reason not to promise to faithfully apply it; a Supreme Court Justice, by contrast, can change long-settled law if he deems it necessary. And Roberts was very circumspect in his confirmation hearings about his opinion of Roe and Casey, going no further than the anodyne statement that Roe is “settled as a precedent of the court.”

The widespread confidence that Roberts will be content to chip away at Roe appears to be based, variously, on his confirmation-hearing comments, on amateur psychologizing about his moderate temperament, and on the assumption that no GOP President would risk his party's fortunes by actually appointing more than a handful of anti-Roe judges to the Supreme Court. My own confidence that he would overturn Roe - or at least revise it beyond recognition - is based on amateur psychologizing as well, in a sense, but I think I have a fair amount of evidence on my side.

At the risk of over-generalizing, I would venture that there are three crucial factors in predicting whether a male Supreme Court Justice would vote to overturn Roe: His judicial philosophy, his religious tradition and how seriously he takes it, and (perhaps most crucially) what his wife thinks about abortion. In Roberts, we have a man who is 1) a judicial conservative, of the sort that would be inclined to treat the penumbras and emanations that create the abortion license with a certain skepticism no matter what; 2) a Roman Catholic who chooses to attend one of the more conservative parishes in the Washington D.C. area; 3) the husband of a similarly-devout Roman Catholic, who serves as legal counsel for Feminists for Life (!); and 4) the father of two adopted children. (The relevance of that last point to a person's sentiments about the abortion debate should not be underestimated.) None of this makes him a certain vote against the Roe-Casey regime, but so far as prognostication goes it's hard to imagine stronger evidence - save a direct statement on the matter - in favor of counting him as such.

We can only pray that the right case makes it to the Supreme Court soon. Then we will know for sure.

ht to The Corner

Obama: Babies and STD's Are Punishments

Off the Politico.com I read how Obama was confronted by a pro-lifer in Pennsylvania recently. Obama, of course gave the usual tripe about how good people can disagree on the issue and how we are all for adoptions and all that.

But then he went one step further by saying:

"Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old," he said. "I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information."

The first thing that so astonishing to me is the equivalence between an STD and a baby. And then the comment that they'd be "Punished with a baby." Where does the support for adoption come in then?

This man might be President. I feel nothing but horror and shame.

At Villanova, Politics Trump Morality

Here's the quote that jumped out at me in this piece by the Catholic Standard and Times concerning Michelle Obama's visit to Villanova University:

Casey Dolan, a senior at Villanova and a volunteer at the rally, encouraged the protesters in their freedom of speech, but said she believed that “Villanova’s role as an academic institution should trump its role as a Catholic university.”

“I know our mission is based in the Augustinian tradition and Catholicism, but I would think, in this case, if Villanova has the opportunity to bring the community together, rally around the concept of politics and the presidential election, that should trump any pro-choice, pro gay-marriage or any other stance that Mr. and Mrs. Obama have,” she said.

What she means is that their presence should trump any issues she doesn't particularly care about. Or she knows that the school has a Catholic history but she's here now and everyone she knows agrees that we're not so into that whole Catholic thing so we'll put up a plaque or something but...it's history.

Obama spoke to nearly 2,500 students and community members at the Jake Nevin field house. There was no opportunity for questions and answers afterwards. Of course not. You wouldn't want Michelle Obama saying things she believes like she's not proud of her country or something like that.

Of course, the university disavows any responsibility by saying that although the rally was organized by a registered student association calling itself “Villanova Students for Barack Obama,” according to school officials the university was in no way sponsoring or endorsing the candidate.

The Catholic university granted permission to the group because “the student engagement in the political process and the presidential election is a very positive educational learning experience for the students,” said Kathleen Byrnes, associate vice president for student life. “Because the engagement in the political process is an important part in a young adult’s development, we allow student groups to bring presidential candidates to campus. We would welcome any presidential candidate that a student group wants to bring.”

How about the nominee of the Nazi party? No? She must mean political people that are cool.

The decidedly uncool members of Generation Life, based in Oreland, were among the first to speak out against the Obama rally on campus. Judi McLane, director of Generation Life, said the organization did not oppose students becoming politically engaged, but rather, it opposed bringing to a Catholic campus Obama, who supports abortion on demand and partial birth abortions. As a state legislator he voted against an Illinois bill that would have protected infants who survive botched late-term abortions. [On the federal level, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act was signed into law in 2002.].

“Let’s say that there was a candidate who supported slavery — would you allow him to come on your campus as a way of promoting student involvement in the political arena?” McLane asked. “We have been so brainwashed into thinking that abortion is a political issue when it is a human rights issue. You would never allow someone on campus who supported killing Jewish people or supported killing African-Americans. It is so absurd. The killing of the unborn is the most important social ‘unjust’ issue that we have today.”

Amen to that. This is just a case of the people in the school and the people who run the school want to be cool. And among academic types, Obama is cool. The uncool people are the ones who have the indecency of pointing out that Obama favors baby killing.

So here you have a senior who says that the university's academic role surpasses its role as a religious institution? Well I agree. It has. Villanova has clearly shunned its Catholicism in favor of being cool.

Abortion -Yes. Mercy- No

The Supreme Court turned down an appeal Monday from a county sheriff who objects to transporting jail inmates for elective abortions.

An Arizona sheriff wanted the justices to allow him to enforce a jail policy that bars transporting inmates for abortions without a court order. Arizona courts said the policy violated the inmates' constitutional right to an abortion.

So the prison has to take a woman to get an abortion but meanwhile in a federal prison, there's a man named Jason Yaeger who has nearly a year left to serve on a 5½-year sentence for a methamphetamine conviction. But Jason's 10 year old daughter is dying of brain cancer and is not expected to live long enough to see her father be released from prison. The girl's health is rapidly declining and her doctors say that nothing can be done to save her.

The girl's wish is to have her father by her side before she passes.

Although this request seems simple enough, the warden has denied repeated requests.

Said the father in news reports: "I am sorry for what I have done...I'm not asking to get out of my sentence — just to go from one place of imprisonment to another so I can be with my family. Jayci is sitting in a hospice fighting for her life and [her mother] thinks she is holding on for me to get there. She wants me and needs me and I want to be there with her on her last day."

Look, you're not going to find a more law and order guy than me but give me a little break here. Can't we admit that the world has turned upside down when a woman inmate is given the right by court order to go get an abortion while a non-violent offender who's going to be released to a halfway house in August is refused the right to visit his dying daughter.

Mom, Do You Wish I Died Too?

I have written about the subject of abortion from many different angles. There is the horror of the act itself, the legal aspects, the strategy aspects, and so on. I thought that I had thought about abortion from just about every angle at least to some degree. So it was with some shock when I heard the perspective of a child of parents of the baby boom generation.

Barbara Nicolosi of Church of the Masses has a movie review of Charlie Bartlett on her site. In the review she relays a story of a time when she spoke at pro-life event at UCLA put on by Feminists for Life. In her words...

Patricia Heaton was there and started off the evening by asking the crowd of mostly young women how many of them considered themselves pro-life. Fully two thirds of the packed auditorium raised their hands. When Patty asked them why they are pro-life, one raised her hand and responded in very Juno-speak, "Well, I don't want to judge my mother, because she made the choice that she felt she had to. But, my Mom aborted two of my siblings, and I've spent my whole life growing up, wondering if she was glad she kept me, and whether I was worth being the one who got to live. I just don't want those kind of thoughts for my kids." I sat in the back and watched two-thirds of the two-thirds nodding their heads in assent.

Can you imagine growing up wondering whether your mother thinks it was worth it that she let you live or does she wish that you had perished along with your siblings?

The heads nodding is assent lend additional horror to the scene. A whole generation of kids and young adults wondering "should it have been me?"

Abortion is a horrible thing. We know this. Horrible for the young life snuffed out. Horrible for the mothers who live with this choice, sometimes oblivious to their own pain. Now add to that the horror of a generation who lived wondering, "Mom, do you wish I died too?"

A Great Jesuit Steps Down

The Rev. Robert Spitzer, S.J., a pro-life chamion, plans to step down from the presidency of Gonzaga University in Spokane, ending his very succesful decade at the helm, says SeattlePI.com.

Spitzer, 55, will return to study, teaching and writing in the ethics field. He is a prominent scholar-critic of the movement to legalize assisted suicide, and a leading Catholic spokesman on the right to life.

Spitzer, who is legally blind, has overseen a turnaround on the Spokane campus since taking over Gonzaga's presidency in 1998. Enrollments at the Jesuit university have risen from 4,500 to 6,900, and a higher volume of applications has allowed Gonzaga wider leeway in who it accepts.

Spitzer has also presided over his share of campus controversies.

The priest-president refused to allow a Planned Parenthood representative to speak on campus, and vetoes hosting a performance of "The Vagina Monologues."

Now, sadly compare this with Notre Dame where a conference of Catholic bishops was recently moved off the University of Notre Dame campus after they allowed "The Vagina Monologues" to be performed.

In his tenure at Gonzaga, Spitzer has:
1) Shut down an attempt by the women's center to have Planned Parenthood speak on campus
2) Gathered student, parent, staff, administration, and partial faculty support for Ex Corde Ecclesiae in the first couple of years he was there

3) Hired Fr. Bill Watson as Vice President of Mission to bring authentic Ignatian Spiritual retreats and devout Masses to campus

4) Transformed the 70s "sit-on-the-floor" style student Admin building chapel into a magnificent work of traditional Catholic art, contemplation, and prayer, where Mass will be said appropriately.

5) Doubled student attendance at campus Masses since becoming President

6) Added a Sunday night 10 PM devout Mass which he regularly presides over, and which regularly brings in over 600 students - triple from when it started

7) Founded the Gonzaga Institute of Ethics to bring authentic Catholic ethics to community businesses and organizations.

8) Founded the Institute of Faith and Reason to answer the Pope's call to bring Catholic theology, sciences, and philosophy together. (H/T Mark Shea.)

Fr. Spitzer seems like an excellent Jesuit and I for one am sad to see him go.

Times Square Terrorist and Turnabout is Fair Play

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg vowed today to track down and prosecute the people who set off a small explosive device in front of the military recruiting office in Times Square early this morning. "We will not tolerate these kind of acts," he said adding that the apparent targeting of the famous recruiting station is "an insult to every one of our brave men and women serving around the world."

The damage thank goodness was minor and no one was injured but the Creative Minority Reporters are now urging a slew of federal laws protecting military installations that promote the right to choose the military. CMR urges that federal extortion and racketeering laws be used against protesters at military recruiting stations -just as they were against pro-lifers. CMR hopes to bankrupt the anti-war movement by using federal anti-mob laws against protest groups, claiming that such organizations were violent criminal conspiracies.

CMR is hoping a conservative senator will sponsor a bill designed to protect military recruiters and anyone who utilized their right to choose the armed forces from violent acts by anti-military extremists. The bill will make it a federal crime to attack or blockade a military installation. The bill is called the Freedom of Access to Military Entrances Act. Anti-military protesters will also not be allowed within 150 feet of any military installation or anyone in the military for that matter and even those just wearing a uniform of any kind.

CMR worries that such anti-military violence will create a climate of fear around the country preventing men and women from their right to choose the military.

Keep Hillary Alive?

I've read it in numerous places and heard from many friends in politics. "Let's keep Hillary alive." Some are even urging Republicans to vote for Hillary in the Democratic primary.

A lot of Republicans are hoping Hillary pulls off an upset in Texas and Ohio in order to let the two pro-choice Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary beat the tar out of each other and spend millions of dollars on consultants paid to figure out new ways to beat the tar out of each other.

To me, this hope seems to similar to the instinct that villains have in comic books and movies when they ensnare the hero in a trap and instead of just putting an end to him they monologue on why this plot has been the best plot ever and why the hero never stood a chance. And then they break for lunch or wherever it is that villains go when the hero is dangling on a line one foot above the shark pool wearing a meat suit.

Look, Hillary has been the number one subject of our political nightmares for years and now Republicans want to put her campaign on artificial life support?

No. Not this guy. I've read enough comic books and seen enough bad movies to know that if Hillary's in the meat suit there's only one thing we should be doing...and it ain't monologuing or setting further traps. Cut the line.

Horton Hears a What!?

You all know the Dr. Seuss story, right? The tale of an elephant named Horton who struggles to protect a microscopic community from a larger world oblivious to its existence.

This sounding familiar to anyone?

Well the upcoming movie is getting an unintended plot twist in Colorado's debate over a proposed constitutional amendment on personhood.

The children's classic "Horton Hears a Who" will hit the big screen March 14.

It strikes abortion foe Colorado for Equal Rights as an opportunity to celebrate the story's central theme that "a person's a person, no matter how small."

Kristi Burton is the clever 20 year old woman who is petitioning for a ballot measure asking voters to say personhood begins at conception. "It's so true that whatever stage of life you're in, you're a person, whatever your size," says Kristi, the group's 20-year-old founder.

The amendment seeks to guarantee constitutional protections from the moment of conception. It would lay a legal foundation for banning abortion in the state.

Burton said the group doesn't have a specific "Horton" event set at this time, but something is in the works.

Keith Mason, the group's statewide grassroots director, said supporters are unhappy with the amendment debate being couched in terms of personhood and constitutional rights for "fertilized eggs."

Listen to what he just called them - "fertilized eggs." Why shouldn't he just call us "lucky and fast sperm."

Sadly, the fertilized egg who went by the name Dr. Seuss wasn't happy with the Horton analogy. Neither is the egg's widow.

If Only Terri Schiavo Had Been a Horse

Jill Stanek wrote this piece on Barack Obama's one pronounced regret in the Senate:

During last night's Democrat presidential debate, Barack Obama for the 2nd time said his biggest legislative regret thus far was voting to try to stop Terri Schindler Schiavo's husband from starving and dehydrating her to death.

According to today's Miami Herald:

He said he wished he had spoken out when Republican lawmakers tried to stop the severely brain-damaged woman's husband from removing her feeding tube in 2005.
"It wasn't something I was comfortable with, but it was not something that I stood on the floor and stopped, and I think that was a mistake.''...

It's really too bad Terri wasn't a horse.

As both state and U.S. senator, Obama either supported or co-sponsored measures to stop horse slaughter, particularly since there is a horse factory in IL.

Terri would also have been better off a dog as far as Obama is concerned, because he has supported a legislative crack-down on dog fighting.

Or perhaps had Terri been born a little bird, Obama would have felt compelled to save her life. On his website he states:

I believe that not only does God know when the sparrow falls from its nest, but He is also watching to see who will stop and who will pass it by, and who is kind enough to lift it back.
Or if only Terri had been a convicted murderer. In IL Obama co-sponsored death penalty reform legislation, stating, "no innocent person should end up on death row."

Jill Stanek is a hero. She was a nurse at a Christian hospital that was performing live birth abortions. At the risk of her career, Jill Stanek fought the hospital administration on this barbaric practice until she lost her job. And then she fought some more until pushing the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in the Illinois legislature only to be fought by a little known representative named Barack Obama.

Stanek stuck to her ideals and finally saw the bill go to Congress and pass. She was invited to the President's bill signing. Her fight for the protection of the unborn is legendary. Like I said, Jill Stanek is a hero. And her blog is one of the ways she is contiunuing her fight.

Bishops be Damned!

In a column that appeared in Sunday's Washington Post, a columnist asks the question on the minds of (sadly) many Catholics "I Voted for Obama. Will I Go Straight to. . . ?"

He starts off heavy with the mockage right away:

Like most Maryland Democrats, I voted for Sen. Barack Obama in the recent Potomac Primary. By doing so, according to the leaders of my church, I put my soul at risk. That's right, says the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops -- tap the touch screen for a pro-abortion-rights candidate, and you're probably punching your ticket to Hell.

He's, of course, referring to the USCCB statement that among other things said, "that the political choices faced by citizens[emphasis added] not only have an impact on general peace and prosperity but also may affect the individual's salvation." I personally don't understand what's so hard to understand about your being responsible for your own actions.

But then he starts with the great equivocation:

To Catholics like me who oppose liberal abortion laws but also think that other issues -- war or peace, health care, just wages, immigration, affordable housing, torture -- actually matter, the idea that abortion trumps everything, all the time, no matter what, is both bad religion and bad civics. It's not, for God's sake, as though we're in Nazi Germany and supporting Hitler.

Why not? Is there a major difference? Now mind you this writer, a former correspondent to the National Catholic Reporter claims to be pro-life. If he believes the fetus is a human then millions of humans are being killed. But maybe he means that they're not really really human. Maybe like 3/5ths of a human.

Or is it? Amazingly, at least one influential bishop has made just that comparison publicly, and it's a good bet that many others believe it privately.

Now to change topics fast because the writer changes topics fast, you didn't think that you were going to get through this column without him bringing up the sexual abuse scandal as a way to minimize the Church's stance on life. Here it goes:

This fire-and-brimstone approach to the ballot box is the long-term bequest of a conservative pope, John Paul II, enacted by a U.S. hierarchy appointed during his 27-year tenure and now by his successor, Pope Benedict XVI. John Paul's key criterion in choosing the men who lead the United States' 194 dioceses was their vocal support for church teachings that have been rejected in whole (birth control) or in part (women's ordination and abortion) by many Catholics in the pews and the broader American culture. John Paul gave little weight to management or pastoral experience, as evidenced by the bishops' handling of the clergy sex-abuse crisis.

And then he completely turns around. Follow me if you can. He attempts to belittle abortion as the biggest issue of our time. But then he turns around and says the reason we shouldn't support Republicans is because they haven't done enough to prevent it.

But he knows how we can stop abortions. Wanna' guess how? Vote for Democrats!

Meanwhile, is it fair for a Catholic like me to suspect that the liberal economic policies of the Democratic candidate, whether Obama or Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, will result in less dire poverty and thus perhaps fewer abortions? And isn't that supposed to be the goal?

What study is that? What evidence is there to back up the claim that people abort babies for monetary concerns. I haven't seen any study that says a better economy reduces abortions whatsoever. You see, he gets rid of the need for any actual evidence for that by using the word "suspect."

The writer then urges a "a more pragmatic approach" to voting and rues that young American priests, the pool from which future bishops will be chosen, overwhelmingly embrace the agenda enunciated by John Paul II. Gasp!

So what's a pro-life, pro-family, antiwar, pro-immigrant, pro-economic-justice Catholic like me supposed to do in November? That's an easy one. True to my faith, I'll vote for the candidate who offers the best hope of ending an unjust war, who promotes human dignity through universal health care and immigration reform, and whose policies strengthen families and provide alternatives to those in desperate situations. Sounds like I'll be voting for the Democrat -- and the bishops be damned.

I "suspect" that the writer himself will be damned. What? I said I suspect. You can't blame me.

Just one more thing. Could you imagine the Washington Post allowing a column in their newspaper that ended with "Rabbi's be damned" or "Muslim clerics be damned." Didn't think so.