Archbishop Coakley Issues Statement on Judge’s Decision Overturning Oklahoma’s Definition of Marriage

My personal religious leader, Archbishop Paul Coakley issued a statement this afternoon concerning yesterday’s decision by a federal judge to overturn Oklahoma’s definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

Here, without any dissembling from me, is Archbishop Coakley’s Statement.

Coakley statement ok marriage decision

Text of the message:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Archbishop Coakley on ruling on Oklahoma marriage amendment: “Neither church nor state can alter the basic meaning of marriage”

OKLAHOMA CITY (Jan. 15, 2014) – U.S. District Judge Terence Kern yesterday ruled that an Oklahoma constitutional amendment that defines marriage as “the union of one man and one woman” violates the U.S. constitution.

The Most Reverend Paul S. Coakley, Archbishop of Oklahoma City, today said he is profoundly disappointed by the decision.

“This ruling is cause for great concern,” the archbishop said. “It thwarts the common good, which depends upon the willingness of societal leaders to uphold basic truths about our humanity. The reality of marriage as ‘the union of one man and one woman’ is just such a basic truth. The majority of Oklahomans recognize this. That Judge Kern chooses to ignore it is deeply disappointing.

“Ultimately, neither church nor state can alter the reality of marriage – but we can delude ourselves about its definition. Maintaining the illusion that genderless marriage is possible comes at a cost to all of us, though. It obscures the facts that only the union between a man and a woman brings forth children and that every child has a father and a mother and deserves to know and relate to them, even though tragic circumstances sometimes render that impossible. That we would willingly deprive children of the opportunity to grow up with mother and father is especially troubling.

“Now more than ever, I will pray for a renewed respect for the reality and the authentic goods of marriage among the leaders of our nation.”

###

New York Judge Rules that “Close Friends” Can Legally Adopt Children

Tumblr maf41fBx2i1qbr5opo1 400

Surrogate Rita Mella

Let me repeat myself:

I try to be cynical, but I just can’t keep up. 

A New York judge has ruled, by way of a “new interpretation of intimate,” that close friends may now adopt a child together.

From the National Catholic Register:

NEW YORK — A New York state judge has delivered an unprecedented ruling that says close friends who live in separate households can legally adopt children together.

“KAL and LEL are two loving adults who are both functioning as G.’s parents and have a relationship with each other built on a solid, decade-plus friendship,” stated Surrogate Rita Mella in her Dec. 27, 2013, ruling from Manhattan surrogate court.

Surrogate Mella’s ruling, “The Matter of G.,” involves two friends, living in separate households, who decided to adopt a child from Ethiopia together in 2011. According to court papers, the woman, identified as KAL, first wanted to conceive a child via artificial insemination. She then told her wish for a child to her male friend, identified as LEL, who then offered to donate his own sperm. Both KAL and LEL have been friends since 2000, and LEL’s offer meant KAL would not have to use an anonymous sperm donor. After failed attempts at in vitro fertilization, KAL and LEL decided to adopt “G.,” a 2-year-old child from Ethiopia …

 

…  “It’s madness,” Ed Mechmann, director of the family life office for the Archdiocese of New York, told the Register. “It just shows how far our society has gone once we move away from marriage as the norm, and we leave these things up to judges. It really just shows there is no limit.”

While Mella’s ruling may be unprecedented, the judge outlines the legal basis for how she came to the conclusion that close friends could adopt under New York state law. Mella noted that the state’s domestic relations law was amended in 2010 to allow “any two unmarried adult intimate partners together” the ability to adopt, alongside single persons and married couples..

But Mella said it was “difficult to identify a definitive plain meaning of [the term] ‘intimate partners,’” since the New York Legislature did not bother to define the term.

She added, “It is a relatively new phrase, and one of many imprecise terms used to describe relationships along a continuum between ‘acquaintance’ or ‘friend’ and ‘sexual partner’ or ‘spouse.’”

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/close-friends-go-ahead-and-adopt-rules-n.y.-judge?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NCRegisterDailyBlog+National+Catholic+Register#When:2014-01-15%2006:25:01#ixzz2qUYI8Sd8

How Does the Definition of Marriage Affect the Future of Our Society?

The link to this article comes Kate O’Hare, who is a contributor at Catholic Vote.

Ryan Anderson gave testimony concerning the socio-political issues surrounding how we define marriage. The owners of the video ask that it not be shared, so I’m going to link to the Catholic Vote article that contains it here.

Scroll down to the bottom of the article to view the testimony, which is a tour de force of marriage arguments. I think it is well worth watching.

 

Federal Judge OKs Gay Marriage in Oklahoma

Based on the Supreme Court decision last summer, marriage is supposed to be something that the states can define. It seems that US District Court Justice Terence Kern does not agree with this.

He overturned the definition of marriage which is found in the Oklahoma State Constitution that defined marriage as between one man and one woman. This definition of marriage was ratified by over 80% of the voters in 2004. So, what the Judge did was to overturn a direct vote of the people and at the same time overturn a Supreme Court ruling that took place just last summer.

Gay marriages will not be happening in Oklahoma immediately. Judge Kern’s ruling is stayed, pending circuit appeal.

To read a copy of the ruling, go here.

 

The War on Girls: Dying for Women’s Health

Source: Photobucket

I had an aunt who had blood clots because of the birth control pill.

We were lucky. Her bloods clots were in her legs and did not break off and move to her lungs, heart or brain. However, even this relatively “mild” side effect was painful and required a week in the hospital on blood thinners, which were also dangerous.

None of this was necessary. My aunt wasn’t using birth control pills because she had cancer and she needed them to save her life. She wasn’t using them because she had a disease of any sort.

My aunt took birth control pills because they had been aggressively marketed by the pharmaceutical companies and pushed by her doctor. She took them because the medical establishment and the culture as a whole has so little regard for true women’s health that they used her — along with the entire female half of the world population — as a guinea pig in social engineering masquerading as “women’s health.”

Birth control, as it is pushed by these people, is as much social engineering and eugenics as anything to do with women. Right up to the present day, dangerous chemical birth control, as well as equally dangerous methods such as the IUD, are pushed on women without regard to the consequences and without telling them that there are other, completely safe, methods of contraception.

The problem with the so-called barrier methods of birth control is that their monetary pay-off to organizations such as Planned Parenthood is relatively small or even nonexistent. It doesn’t require the expenditure of enormous amounts of federal dollars for people to simply go to the nearest pharmacy or Wal Mart and buy contraceptives off the shelves. Fitting someone with a diaphragm does require a doctor’s visit. But it is a one-shot deal.

Chemical birth control, however, requires repeated visits to medical personnel. Chemical birth control also costs a lot more than the greasy kid stuff you can buy off the shelves. Ironically, the pushers of chemical birth control are also the pushers of abortion on demand.

How do they justify this? They do it by talking about “birth control failure.” “Even the best birth control fails,” they tell us at the same time that they assure us that chemical birth control and all its health risks are a necessary evil. After all, they say, without the faintest blush of embarrassment, chemical birth control is the only “truly effective method” of birth control. However, they add, going in a circle, we need abortion as a “backup” throughout the span of pregnancy, right up to the day before delivery.

Let’s be clear about this. The greasy kid stuff works if you use it. You just have to use it.

The insanity of this whole paradigm slides right past most people, including parents. No one seems to consider that Planned Parenthood is in the schools, drumming up business for itself by pushing kids to be sexually active and telling them that they need to be “on the pill.” No one has stopped to consider that this has gone so far that a lot of parents’ first question when they learn that their young teenager is sleeping around is “are you ‘protected?’”

My question is, protected from what? Protected from the emotional damage of being reduced to meat to be sexually used? Protected from sexually transmitted diseases? Protected from the death-dealing short and long term sides effects of dosing their young bodies with artificial hormones?

Are they being protected from the risks of uterine perforations, blood clots, heart attacks and strokes that are a big part of the side effects of these things?

Are they being protected from getting breast cancer later in their lives? Who protects them from the chemotherapy and radiation that goes with that?

Are they being protected from being able to form genuine emotional commitments with young men?

What, exactly, are these young girls being protected from?

And why are we allowing the pushers of these drugs into our schools to sex educate our daughters to use them?

A current article in Vanity Fair raises disturbing questions about one of these dangerous birth control devices called the NuvaRing. Do you remember the NuvaRing? There were a lot of ads for it.

It was marketed as a freedom from the onerous requirement of taking a pill every day. The ads encouraged young women to just pop in a NuvaRing once each month and get their daily dose of artificial hormones the thoughtless way. The only trouble is that NuvaRing has turned out to have side effects that may require a number of not-so-convenient stays in the hospital and even funerals. Like every other form of chemical birth control, NuvaRing can be a killer.

Let me ask you this: If it was your daughter who died of a “massive, double pulmonary embolism” caused by this device, would you consider that “complication” an “acceptable risk” for “preventing unwanted pregnancy?”

When did this kind of catastrophic “complication” for a treatment that is being given to people who are not sick and who do not need it become “acceptable?” The fashionable — and stupid — answer is to juxtapose the statistics of complications of pregnancy and child birth with the complications of using chemical birth control. The unthinking and sheep-like public eats this bogus logic up with a spoon and allows their daughters to be sacrificed to the lie of it.

And it is a lie. It is a lie based on a totally fallacious assumption.

The fallacious assumption is that chemical birth control is the only way to prevent “unwanted pregnancy.” That is absolutely untrue. Chemical birth control is not the only way to prevent unwanted pregnancy. It’s just the most dangerous way.

This is a NuvaRing commercial. Notice that it does — due to legal requirements — give a list of warnings. It does not include a list of side effects, including the catastrophic side effects that have actually occurred. But anyone who is really listening and not brain-washed by our contraceptive culture, would run the other way.

YouTube Preview Image

And from Vanity Fair:

When 24-year-old Erika Langhart—talented, beautiful, bound for law school—died on Thanksgiving Day 2011, she became one of thousands of suspected victims of the birth-control device NuvaRing. Elite army athlete Megan Henry, who survived rampant blood clots in her 20s, is another. With major suits against NuvaRing’s manufacturer, Merck, headed for trial, Marie Brenner asks why, despite evidence of serious risk, a potentially lethal contraceptive remains on the market …

…  Karen was on the golf course when she saw Erika’s number on her cell phone. “We can’t wait to see you!” she said. Then, she would recall, “my world stopped. It was Sean, telling us that Erika had collapsed and that the E.M.T.’s were in the apartment.” In the ambulance Erika had two heart attacks, and she was semi-conscious by the time they reached Virginia Hospital Center. According to Karen, a doctor in the emergency room asked her over the phone: “Was your daughter using birth control?” Karen said, “Yes, NuvaRing.” He removed the device and said, “I thought so, because she’s having a pulmonary embolism.”

BOTTOM: FROM CUSTOM MEDICAL STOCK/NEWSCOM.
THE MAGIC RING In the latest NuvaRing commercial, an ebullient voice says, “It’s not another pill.”

Racing for the last flight to Washington, Rick and Karen Googled “double pulmonary embolism NuvaRing.” Dozens of results came up—“NuvaRing side effects,” “NuvaRing lawsuits.”

… Before Karen and Rick reached the hospital, Erika was placed on life support. She died on Thanksgiving Day. On the program for her daughter’s memorial service, Karen stated, “Cause of Passing: Massive, Double Pulmonary Embolism—a direct result of the NuvaRing.” She had entered, she told me, “another phase of life. How I wish I could change places with my daughter.” Then her voice broke. “I am living every parent’s nightmare.”

 

Little Sisters of the Poor and Hiring a Hit Man to Kill Your Neighbor

Supporters of the HHS Mandate often refer to an “opt-out” as a reason why the Mandate does not put the government in the position of forcing Christians to violate their religious beliefs.

One commenter in the Washington Post even went to so far as to label the Little Sisters of the Poor and their ministry as “religiously affiliated” rather than “religious,” meaning, of course, they aren’t a “legitimate” religious enterprise. This is the sort of specious argument you can expect from people who are trying to thread the needle of the HHS Mandate without admitting that they are attacking the First Amendment. The same author called the arguments in the lawsuit filed by the Little Sisters of the Poor “hooey.”

I guess you could go with the obvious deep-thinking in that statement. But it might be more informative to consider what the arguments in the lawsuit actually are. The simplest analogy I can use to try to explain those arguments would be to say that even if all you do is hire a hit man to kill your neighbor, you are still guilty of your neighbor’s murder. By the same token, even if all you do is require someone else to commit a grave sin in your stead, you have still taken part in committing that grave sin.

Requiring a Catholic to hire a hit man to kill their neighbor is forcing them to violate their religious belief that murder is a sin. By the same token, requiring the Little Sisters of the Poor to hire an insurance company to provide contraceptives and abortion coverage to their employees is requiring them to provide those things themselves.

For those who aren’t acquainted with the concept, it’s called morality.

If you want to read the exact language in the Little Sisters of the Poor’s reply brief, you’ll find it here. Go to page 8 and read for a couple of pages to get the Little Sisters of the Poor’s position.

The real issue here is not the same old meaningless arguments that we keep hearing from HHS Mandate supporters. It’s why religious people are being forced to answer them by making obvious points over and over. Is this really the best they’ve got?

This isn’t rocket science. Only people who are deliberately refusing to see the truth can deny that the Little Sister of the Poor and their ministry to frail elderly people are a good deal more than just a “religiously affiliated” organization. If there’s any “hooey” going on here, it’s the attempt to claim (for political purposes) that the religious commitment of these nuns is not for real.

By the same token, I, at least, am weary of explaining that forcing someone to hire someone else to do something for them is not an exemption from that activity. I think the people who keep repeating this nonsense are just saying it because they have taken a position and this is the best argument they can come up with to defend it.

Instead of going around in circles by repeating the same completely bogus argument or resorting to crude religious bigotry, perhaps they should own their HHS Mandate for what it is and be done with it. The HHS Mandate is a blatant attempt to restrict the historic religious freedom given to all Americans by the First Amendment by limiting it to only organized and federally recognized churches. It is aimed directly and obviously at the largest single denomination in America, which is the Catholic Church.

It is an egregious attack not only on the Catholic Church, or even only on people of faith, but on the bedrock freedoms on which this country was founded and which has made it the great nation that it is today.

The HHS Mandate is an obvious and deliberate government attempt to destroy the moral and prophetic voice of the Catholic Church by forcing it to violate its own teachings. The HHS Mandate is designed to force the Church to kiss Ceasar’s ring.

Since the Mandate was first promulgated, the administration’s running dogs in the press have put forth these identical arguments over and over ad nauseam. Any time the administration gets its nose bloodied in court, all you have to do is count 3, 2, 1 and here they come with the same old stuff they’ve been peddling since the beginning.

Does anybody believe that these people all wake up in the morning with the same set of thoughts in their minds? I admit they do come across as the Stepford Columnists, but I think it’s far more likely that they’re working from the same script and that script was generated, either directly or indirectly, by the administration.

Here is a summary of the impact of the HHS Mandate.

Check out The Anchoress for more discussion on this topic.

Little Sisters of the Poor: Doing God’s Work. Fighting Goliath.

 

The Little Sisters of the Poor, the stand up nuns who’ve taken on the Obama administration over the HHS Mandate, are a bunch of tough customers.

I mean that in the best understanding of the word “tough.” Providing frail elderly people with loving care on a 24/7 basis is work that would make the average Navy Seal turn weak in the knees.

When I say 24/7, I mean twenty-four hours, right around the clock; every single day, right around the calendar. Caring for a frail elderly person is more demanding in a lot of ways than caring for a toddler. They are both sweet, precious and strong-minded. The differences are that the toddler isn’t always trying to die on you, and they don’t have a memory of having once been a strong, independent adult.

The Little Sisters of the Poor do God’s work here on earth by providing care for people who are at the end of their earthly journey. The last phases of life are not a waste, and they are not a bother. Elderly people are beautiful, wonderful gifts to all of us. The fact that they require a bit more of us than our me-ism allows only makes them more precious.

The closest anyone will ever be to God in this life is not while sitting in adoration before the Blessed Sacrament, but when they are sitting on the bathroom floor at 3 am, holding a croupy baby while the shower runs, or when they are changing the sheets on the bed of their incontinent elderly parent. Jesus is standing right beside you when you do these things, because when you do them for the least of these, you are truly doing them for Him.

This work of caring for those who can’t care for themselves is the life’s work of the Little Sisters of the Poor. They have given their lives to caring for Christ in the disguise of our frail elderly.

It’s no surprise to me that someone like this would become such a thorn in the side of the mighty and powerful United States Department of Justice. It’s also no surprise that those who want to force these sisters to accede to the will of a galloping secularism that seeks to mow down religious expression in public places in these United States should find the Little Sisters so problematic.

How do you turn public opinion against a bunch of nuns who have given their lives to care of the frail elderly?

The usual method in cases like this, where the problem persons are just too good to attack directly, is to redirect your venom by choosing an easier target. You might, say, go at a Catholic Supreme Court justice and that mean old Catholic Church and, of course, everyone’s favorite bugaboo, the Catholic bishops.

The trick is to make the fight about something other than those sweet little nun ladies with their bedpans and rosaries. Shift the focus and make the fight about the big, bad Catholic Church and you can count on the Pavlovian Catholic haters lining up on your side of the argument.

But the fact is, the argument is precisely about the Little Sisters of the Poor, along with their bed pans and rosaries. It’s about every Christian everywhere who wants to exercise their right as free Americans to practice their faith without government interference.

As much as its proponents try to twist and turn it, the HHS Mandate is a direct attack on the Constitutional protection of the free exercise of religion of American citizens.

The HHS Mandate is a regulation, promulgated by an appointed committee and signed by the president. It has the force of law, but it is not a law. It is a star-chamber bit of special interest government bullying that seeks to make an end run around the First Amendment of the Constitution. It is a vile piece of work that directly contradicts the guarantees in the Affordable Health Care Act, which is the legal authority by which the HHS Mandate was created.

Did that last bit go in a confusing circle? There’s no surprise in that, since it is circular. Congress passed the Affordable Health Care Act, which contained guarantees of religious exemption. The act also gave regulatory powers to the Department of Health and Human Services. Then (deep breath) …

… HHS created a committee to draft these regulations, and this unelected committee of representatives of special interests wrote the HHS Mandate which goes against the specific language in the law guaranteeing religious exemptions that gives the committee its power to promulgate the regulation in the first place.

Now. Is that clear as mud? The truth is, if the whole thing seems circular, it’s because it really does go in circles. But, to add to the confusion, this circle, unlike every other circle, has a starting point.

That starting point is a president who lied.

The HHS Mandate directly contradicts the president’s own executive order guaranteeing religious exemption as part of the enforcement of the Affordable Health Care Act. The fact that the president signed the HHS Mandate and has staked his presidency on it, means that he lied when he issued that executive order, in the promises he gave Congressman Bart Stupak and to the American people.

Enter, the living saints, the Little Sisters of the Poor and their tough-as-nails insistence on their Constitutional rights as American citizens.

What to do with a bunch of nuns who take care of sick old people?

I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see attacks on the nuns themselves sooner or later. That would be the usual behavior track. But for now, the administration apologists are confining themselves to attacking the Church.

In the meantime the Little Sisters continue to do God’s work in many places, including, here, here and here.

For information about the on-going debate on this topic at US News and World Report, check out Frank Weathers.

Defending the Little Sisters of the Poor: Deacon Greg is Beautiful When He’s Angry

Have I told you that Deacon Greg Kandra is my hero?

Seems I have.

But let me repeat myself. Deacon Greg Kandra, journalist, Deacon and Catholic Patheosi extraordinaire, is my hero. I wish I could write headlines like the Deacon writes them. I wish I had a nose for news like the Deacon’s got. I wish … well you get the idea.

When Deacon Greg Kandra gets enough, you know that anybody else would be froth. The Deacon got enough when he read an over-the-top Catholic/Christian bashing opinion piece in US News and World Report.

The topic of the opinion piece? Why, it’s the Little Sisters of Charity and their “outrageous” appeal to the courts that they be allowed to follow the teachings of their Catholic faith. You know, that First Amendment stuff about the government not interfering with the free exercise of faith.

In case you don’t know about that part of the First Amendment, here is the whole thing for your consideration, emphasis mine:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Isn’t that beautiful? I mean, aren’t those words in that magnificent document beautiful?

Think for a moment about the self-proclaimed Constitution worshippers who want to shear the first clause from the second and use it as a club to beat religious people into silence. Can you imagine any of the Constitutional-rights-for-me-but-not-for-thee crowd actually writing a law like the First Amendment?

US News and World Report, by publishing a Catholic-bashing hate piece posing as an opinion piece, has jumped on the bandwagon of hating on Christians and publicly hazing them. The subject of this particular piece was those pesky nuns with their bigoted religiosity and Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. It was all about Catholics and Catholicism and how we are out of line for not letting the government tell us to stop practicing our faith.

Despite the fact that the faith in this particular frying pan was Catholic, the same treatment extends to every traditional Christian. Make no mistake about it my brothers and sisters in Christ, it was about all of us.

Deacon Greg took it on in his typically measured, fair and well-founded manner. Frank Weathers followed with a hilarious segue into Chuck Norris (an Oklahoma boy, I might remind you,) while The Anchoress gives a brilliant survey of the power politics and faux feminism involved, while Tod Worner compared the Little Sisters with St Thomas More and Joanne McPortland took a turn at bat, providing us with absolutely delicious Joanne irony. The Catholic Patheosi have got this handled.

I don’t have much to add that I haven’t already said a hundred times. We are not the aggressors here. The government is trying to force religious people, in this case, a group of nuns to violate the teachings of their faith. The fact that this commenter thinks that allowing nuns to forego violating their faith undermines the rights of all women doesn’t even begin to make it so.

When someone stoops to this kind of bigoted name-calling to defend their position, it is usually either because they are too stupid to defend their position intelligently or because the position itself is indefensible. I would guess that in the case of this commenter, the reasons she is resorting to this tactic are that her position is indefensible by reasoned argument, and also that bigotry against Christians, particularly Catholics, is so widespread in certain circles that she thinks an appeal to it will win unmerited support for her ideas.

The bottom line for those of us out here in the audience is this: If you are a Christian, you need to stand up for Jesus.

Don’t be a jerk about it. By that I mean keep your language clean, don’t name-call or attack any person. Do not try to use satan’s weapons to fight satan.

Just stand up strong for Jesus Christ and the right of Christians to be Christian without being attacked, reviled, slandered or bullied in our society. Make your case as the son or daughter of the living God.

Bigotry is bigotry, even when it’s aimed at the followers of Christ.

From US News and World Report:

Et tu, Justice Sonia Sotomayor? Really, we can’t trust you on women’s health and human rights? The lady from the Bronx just dropped the ball on American women and girls as surely as she did the sparkling ball at midnight on New Year’s Eve in Times Square. Or maybe she’s just a good Catholic girl.

The Supreme Court is now best understood as the Extreme Court. One big reason why is that six out of nine Justices are Catholic. Let’s be forthright about that. (The other three are Jewish.) Sotomayor, appointed by President Obama, is a Catholic who put her religion ahead of her jurisprudence. What a surprise, but that is no small thing.

In a stay order applying to an appeal by a Colorado nunnery, the Little Sisters of the Poor, Justice Sotomayor undermined the new Affordable Care Act’s sensible policy on contraception. She blocked the most simple of rules – lenient rules – that required the Little Sisters to affirm their religious beliefs against making contraception available to its members. They objected to filling out a one-page form. What could be easier than nuns claiming they don’t believe in contraception?

[See a collection of political cartoons on the Catholic contraception controversy.]

Sotomayor’s blow brings us to confront an uncomfortable reality. More than WASPS, Methodists, Jews, Quakers or Baptists, Catholics often try to impose their beliefs on you, me, public discourse and institutions. Especially if “you” are female. This is not true of all Catholics – just look at House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. But right now, the climate is so cold when it comes to defending our settled legal ground that Sotomayor’s stay is tantamount to selling out the sisterhood. And sisterhood is not as powerful as it used to be, ladies.

Catholics in high places of power have the most trouble, I’ve noticed, practicing the separation of church and state. The pugnacious Catholic Justice, Antonin Scalia, is the most aggressive offender on the Court, but not the only one. Of course, we can’t know for sure what Sotomayor was thinking, but it seems she has joined the ranks of the five Republican Catholic men on the John Roberts Court in showing a clear religious bias when it comes to women’s rights and liberties. We can no longer be silent about this. Thomas Jefferson, the principal champion of the separation between state and church, was thinking particularly of pernicious Rome in his writings. He deeply distrusted the narrowness of Vatican hegemony.

The seemingly innocent Little Sisters likely were likely not acting alone in their trouble-making. Their big brothers, the meddlesome American Roman Catholic Archbishops are bound to be involved. They seek and wield tremendous power and influence in the political sphere. Big city mayors know their penchant for control all too well. Their principal target for years on end has been squelching women and girls – even when they should have focused on their own men and boys.

Surprise! Chemical Birth Control Linked to Breast Cancer

We’ve are living through a breast cancer plague. The numbers of women who are living and dying with this terrible disease keep multiplying.

Ask yourself, what has changed in the past 50 years that might have something to do with this?

If the wholesale pushing of chemical birth control on women doesn’t come to mind, I would be surprised. Women have been subjected to any and every form of dangerous birth control that comes along. Their monthly periods are suppressed with depo provera; they are exposed to dangerous, even fatal infections, perforations, etc with IUDs.

But the lying liars who make money off this keep on telling us that the sum total of “women’s health” is to give the female half of humanity ever increasing dosages of these things and then use abortion as a “back up” when it fails. It’s gotten to the point that young girls are being given the morning after pill (which is an even higher dose of the same hormones) in public schools.

A recent study quantifies the intuition that there is a connection between chemical birth control and breast cancer.

From National Catholic Register:

NEW DELHI — A new study of women in India reveals that having used birth-control pills elevates the risk of developing breast cancer nearly tenfold, and having had an abortion increases their risk of breast cancer more than sixfold.

The study, published in the most recent issue of the Indian Journal of Cancer, matched 320 women with newly diagnosed breast cancer with 320 healthy women of similar age, economic and social status and medical background, and it found that “the risk of breast cancer was 9.50 times higher in women having a history of consumption of oral contraceptive pills.”

Doctors at the Department of Gastroenterology and Human Nutrition Unit at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in New Delhi conducted the study to investigate the association of various reproductive factors with breast cancer.

“We found long-term use of oral contraceptive pills (OCP) higher among those suffering from breast cancer, 11.9%, compared to healthy individuals, 1.2%,” Dr. Umesh Kapil, a lead author of the study told the Times of India. Breast cancer is caused by repeated exposure of cells to circulating ovarian hormones, he explained, and long-term use of birth-control pills, which contain estrogen and progesterone, may contribute to the elevated risk.

“The relationship between contraceptive use and occurrence of breast cancer is not known,” Dr. G. K. Rath, the head of Bhim Rao Ambedkar Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital, told the Times of India in the wake of the study. “But there is enough evidence to show the hormonal imbalance caused by them, increasing the risk. Early menarche, late marriage and childbirth and abortions are important factors.”

The risk associated with oral-contraceptive use in the study was higher than all the other known risk factors examined, except a lack of breastfeeding. Women who breastfed fewer than 12 months had a 14.9 times higher risk of getting breast cancer than women who breastfed longer than 12 months.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/study-birth-control-pill-and-abortion-spike-breast-cancer-risk?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NCRegisterDailyBlog+National+Catholic+Register#When:2014-01-8%2008:35:01#ixzz2ppObt5Rx

 

What is it with MSNBC and Sarah Palin?

Why do the folks at MSNBC keep jabbing themselves in the eye with the Sarah Palin stick?

Are they mental?

Or, are they just so utterly and completely drunk with group-think expressed as hatred that they are verging on the non-functional?

In just the past few weeks, one of their commenters, Martin Bashir, has had to resign because of public outcry over an attack on Governor Palin. This particular rant was a deeply offensive mix of pornography, misogyny and just plain revolting vileness. Here’s the link, if you have the stomach for it.

If that was the only Governor Palin attack piece, it would be enough to discredit this news network as a legitimate journalistic body. Resignation or not, they put this on the air.

But Mr Bashir’s vicious speech was only the cherry on top of what amounts to an on-going Sarah Palin hate troupe passing for a news organization.

The latest salvo (that I know about) first came to my attention by way of a post from fellow Patheosi, Bristol Palin. The attack comes from a reporter named Joy Reid. This particular anti-Palin blast moves the news organization from the vicious and pornographic to the laughable and absurd.

YouTube Preview Image

Ms Reid’s comments about the Governor appear to be primarily a side-step into a rather snotty attack on her faith. I don’t agree with many of Governor Palin’s political ideas. But I do agree with her about her faith.

Governor Palin is a Christian. I am also a Christian. If you want to know what I believe, look at the Apostle’s Creed.

While I have never seen a specific outline of the particulars of Governor Palin’s personal understanding of Christianity, I tend to think it aligns with the Apostles Creed that I believe. So, the Governor and I have our faith in common. We are also both women. More than that, we are women who have held elective office.

That gives me a lot in common with Governor Sarah Palin. I don’t, as I said, agree with all her political positions. But if you attack her as a woman, or if you attack her as a Christian, I am going to stand with her.

I think these constant attacks on her — which are totally unprofessional from a journalistic standpoint — are driven by a couple of things. First, she’s a woman who got close to the center of power in our country. Every time that happens, whether the woman in question is conservative Governor Palin or liberal Senator Clinton, the MSNBC misogyny team cranks up their attacks.

Does anyone besides me remember the 2008 presidential campaign? President Obama — President Abortion — used misogyny to get himself elected. One of his number-one spokesmen for the misogynist attacks against Senator Clinton in the nomination fight and then Governor Palin in the presidential election was MSNBC, in particular Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann. For instance, guess who made the legs crossing comment Katie Couric refers to in the video below?

YouTube Preview Image

I think that the continued attacks on Governor Palin are partly due to the overt misogyny of that news organization.

I think the second motivator in MSNBC’s obsession with Governor Palin is that she is a traditional Christian. Notice the way Ms Reid turns this attack on the governor’s family Christmas reminiscences into an attack on her faith. Notice also the last line challenging what Ms Reid seems to assume is the Governor’s belief that there is “one meaning to Christmas.”

That’s pretty ignorant. It is, after all, Christ – mas, as in Christ Mass. It is the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ. That’s the meaning and reason for Christmas.

There is no law in this country and never has been forcing anyone to believe that. I have never seen a Christian try to deny those who don’t believe it their enjoyment in the tinsel, great food and presents of Christmas.

But those who don’t believe it seem hell bent (I meant that literally) on forcing Christians to stop talking about the birth of Christ. They even go so far as to make fools of themselves attacking Christians the way Ms Reid does in this video.

This is not the only time Ms Reid has exhibited an anti-Christian bias. In the video below she discusses the “homo-erotic appearance” of Jesus’ relationship with the 12 Apostles with — get this — a professor at Georgetown University. Georgetown University claims to be a Catholic school, run by Jesuits. Notice that the reason for this drubbing is that “bigoted” Christians support traditional marriage as it has been practiced for the past 2,000 years.

YouTube Preview Image

Even a casual watch of these videos should raise the question as to what is going on at MSNBC.

More specifically, what is it with MSNBC and Governor Sarah Palin in particular and Christians in general?

Are they mental? Or are they just so full of hate that they don’t care about how shoddy and cheap they make themselves and their news organization look?

 


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X