This enlightening video is from Students for Life.
Albuquerque became the first city to put a ban on late-term abortions on the ballot Monday. The Albuquerque city council voted to place a referendum outlawing abortion after 20 weeks within the city limits on the ballot.
The ballot initiative is a result of the lobbying of the pro life group Operation Rescue. It will be voted on November 17.
(Reuters) – A bill banning abortions in Albuquerque after 20 weeks of pregnancy will be put to voters in New Mexico’s most populous city in November and could become the first municipal abortion ban in the nation.
The city council voted 5-4 late on Monday to put on the ballot the “Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Ordinance,” which contains few of the standard abortion exceptions seen in many states.
In the latest salvo in the national debate over abortion, the city council was forced to act after abortion foes gathered enough signatures on a petition to require the council to either approve the law outright or put it to voters.
Local polling has shown the measure has enough support to pass. Activists on both sides say it would be the first municipal ban on abortion, and possibly a template for similar actions in other cities around the United States.
“It is a new strategy. There is more than one way to close an abortion clinic,” said Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue, a leading U.S. anti-abortion group that helped get the measure on the November 19 ballot in Albuquerque.
“If you can’t get anything done in a state legislature … you look at what is going on in a city. They say all politics is local. This is a great example of that.” (Read more here.)
The press has jumped all over another errant remark from the Vatican, this time about married priests.
I’m not going to hold my breath until the Vatican decides to do away with the celibate priesthood. The reason is that I like breathing. However, I am game to, just for fun, look at as a proposition. Let’s consider for a moment how doing away with the requirement for celibacy for our priests would affect our Church.
So far as I know, not even the perpetually-hyping press has gone so far as to suggest that the pope is considering doing away with chastity for priests. Chastity means, in its most base interpretation, no sex outside of marriage. I am giving you the bottom drawer meaning of this word for the purposes of this discussion, but it has many layers beyond that.
Just for now, we will limit the concerns about chastity to the no-sex-outside-marriage consideration. Since no one wants priests who are not chaste, we have to assume that even if the Church decided to waive the requirement for singlehood for its priests, it would still hold that they must either be celibate or married.
If the Church suddenly started admitting married men to the seminaries in large numbers, the face of the priesthood would change along with them. Changes in the institutional Church and the way it does business would have to follow.
First, allowing married men would almost certainly increase the overall percentage of heterosexual men in the priesthood. It would do this for two reasons. One: I doubt that the priesthood would remain as attractive to homosexual men under these circumstances, for lots of reasons. Two: The priesthood would attract a number of heterosexual men who had previously given it a pass because they felt called to marriage.
Second, allowing married priests would mean that our priests would have wives and families, with all the concerns that go with them. I’ve heard talk about the finances involved in providing priests an income that would allow them to support their families. That is certainly one change that would have to happen. The Church would also have to address the lifetime sinecure of health insurance, retirement lodging and other things it provides for priests now.
Priests today sign their lives over to the Church. They even make their bishop the next of kin on their living wills. They go where they are sent and do what they are told. In exchange for this, they never have to worry about a roof over their heads, medical care, retirement or any of the other things that bother the rest of us.
They are “sons of the Church” in a literal, almost childlike, way.
But if these “sons of the Church” were married men with other people they were responsible for, the dynamic of all this would change drastically. Not only would decisions have to be made about how the Church would go about providing for their families, which if the priests followed Church teachings, would be large, but it would have to consider these families when making assignments to the priests.
It’s one thing to transfer a single man from hither to yon at a moment’s notice. It’s quite another to ask a wife to quit her job and the kids to leave their schools and move around like a flock of hummingbirds.
Another consideration is the resentment and anger of the families of these men. I’ve heard deacon’s wives complain about the fact that the Church does not recognize their existence. If the deacon was a priest, and the priest had a wife and seven kids with one on the way, how would the Church deal with the multiple angers and resentments of family members who felt that their existence was being denied?
Wives can be reasoned with (sometimes) but children are another matter. With kids, it’s ignore now and visit them in the drug rehab later.
Third, would be the major change in how Catholics themselves view their priests. Catholics dote on their priests. They shower them with gifts, respect, trust and compliments. In exchange, they expect to be catered to and coddled by their pastors in a way that no Protestant could even conceive of.
I know. I was a Protestant for a long time, and I can tell you no one expected the kind of one-to-one, personal attention that Catholics expect and receive from their priests. Catholics go running to their priests with their problems, expecting (and receiving) filial attention and comfort.
It’s an incredible relationship, and most of it is based on the simple fact that the priests are all-in for their ministry in a way that no married man could ever be. Catholics dote on their priests, and their priests dote back. All this mutual doting forms a kind of glue that holds this disparate Church together as an incredibly well-functioning social unit. We, all of us, priest and laity alike, stand before the Eucharist — which in a real way is the Church — in a relationship based on the fact that the priests have made the priesthood their life’s commitment.
All of this — all of it — would change if the Church moved away from the celibate priesthood.
I’m just touching on three areas I can see that would have to change if the Church waived the requirement for non-married celibacy for priests. In truth, the entire dynamic of the priesthood as it’s been practiced for a thousand years would change. This would require painful adjustments for the Church, the men who are priests now, for the families of future priests and for the parishioners.
Do we want to do it?
I don’t know.
It’s not my call.
But I’m not holding my breath.
European pro life people have successfully gathered the 1 million signatures needed for a petition to protect life. This is only the second time in history that any group has achieved this.
The video below gives details.
We are so blessed to the Catholic!
The Church is a gift Jesus gave us to sustain and guide us until He comes again, or until we go to Him.
The gym at my parish was home this summer to Catholic young people from all over the United States who came to help with the clean-up and restoration after the tornadoes last spring. They were Christ’s representatives in a hard time for people here.
We are all Christ’s representatives when we reach out to other people in their need. That is the deep meaning of Catholic Social Teaching: Being Jesus to other people.
Catholic social teachings have their roots in the Ten Commandments and the Beatitudes.
One would think, watching this video, that every person, everywhere, would unite with all others behind these teachings. However, Catholic Social Teachings are the reason that the Church is attacked from so many quarters, including, sadly, from the pews and even from behind the altars of its own parishes.
Everyone has someone they want to exploit, abuse or even kill for their own privilege. This impulse is evil from its core, and like all evil it responds to anything that seeks to limit it with anger and rage.
Nothing makes people more angry than telling them that their most precious little sin is, in fact, a sin. Of all the angers I have encountered as an elected official, none is so vicious, hate-filled and unreasoning as the rage of people who are being told they can’t kill or exploit other people they have deemed not human enough to matter.
I think the reason for this is that, by defining other people as not human enough to matter, and taking on themselves to power to kill and exploit them, they have already aligned themselves with the darkness.
And the darkness hates the light, even it is just a flash of the tiniest flame of another person telling them that they are wrong.
This beautiful video describes Catholic Social teaching with colors.
Watch it and pray that Kingdom come, His will be done.
I published this post last spring. I’m posting it again in response to a reader’s question. Allowing non-physicians to perform abortion is all the rage among the “reproductive health” folks. They’re introducing bills to allow this in states all around the country.
I wrote a post earlier today, Woman Sues Planned Parenthood for Forced Abortion and Medical Malpractice in which I made the following statement:
“Based on my experience with this issue, any attempts to impose regulations on abortion clinics will be met with cries of “anti-choice” and “pushing women into the back alleys again.” Even the most common-sense reforms such as requiring doctors who perform abortions to have hospital privileges at a nearby hospital, or requiring that those who perform abortions be licensed physicians, are characterized as “attacks on women’s health care” and “driving women into the back alleys.”
Abortion proponents do not want women to be given accurate information about the child they are carrying. They do not want parents of minor children to be told that their daughters are going to undergo surgery. They do not want requirements that licensed physicians perform abortions, or in the case of abortion drugs, that licensed physicians administer the drugs. They do not want the abortionists to be required to have hospital privileges. I could go on and on. Abortion proponents appear to want a caveat emptor situation so far as abortion is concerned. I do not believe that this attitude reflects concern for “health care for women” or for women’s well-being.”
One of Public Catholic’s readers asked in the comments section if I could name a state where abortions can be performed by people who are not licensed doctors.
The answer is, yes, I can.
California’s Governor Jerry Brown just recently signed a law that will allow midwives, nurses and other non-physicians to perform surgical abortions. One abortion technique that was specifically mentioned in the articles I’ve read is vacuum aspiration. According to news reports, Planned Parenthood, that self-proclaimed bastion of women’s health care, along with the California ACLU, lobbied for this legislation.
In my time as a legislator, I have had discussions with Planned Parenthood representatives who either wanted similar legislation in Oklahoma, or who were opposed to legislation that would require that doctors who run abortion clinics have hospital privileges at the hospitals in the communities where they do the abortions. I do not believe that doctors who run abortion clinics in Oklahoma are required to have hospital privileges as of now.
Also, the Reproductive Health Act which is being pushed by New York Governor Cuomo would allow abortions to be performed by “any licensed medical practitioner.” According to New York Right to Life, this would mean that medical personnel other than physicians would be allowed perform abortions. The bill is supported by Planned Parenthood, NARAL and the New York ACLU.
All these organizations claim that their motive in working to pass legislation that will allow non-doctors to perform surgery on women is to make sure that abortion is “available.” None of them mention that licensed physicians are probably more costly to employ than midwives and other non-physicians, even though one of the firms pushing for this “reform” is the largest abortion provider in America.
I published this post about 10 months ago. I’m re-running it today because of the combox discussions on birth control.
I am, as I’ve said many times on this blog, a feminist. I’m also no spring chicken. I remember back when feminists actually agitated for safer forms of contraception for women and criticized the marketing of dangerous chemical birth control to women without regard for their health and safety.
The “feminism” of today equates any form of chemical contraceptive — no matter the health dangers to women — as not only ok, but an absolutely imperative and vital part of “women’s health.” They have turned the phrase “women’s health” into a synonym for abortion and the massive application of a chemical band-aid to the sexual exploitation of women and sexualizing of young girls.
They are, in short, exactly who they used to oppose.
I’ve lost count of the Yaz commercials I saw. Here are a couple of examples. Notice the lack of warning about side effects and the age of the girls this pill is marketed to in the first one.
And another ad pushing Yaz, but this time with warnings:
And the FDA finally takes note of the young women who are dying because of this totally unnecessary medication:
The important thing to remember is that none of this is necessary. Yaz is not being used to treat cancer or any other illness. It is marketed for mild teen-age acne, pre-menstrual emotional upset and to prevent pregnancy. It is an entirely elective medication with fatal side effects, being marketed directly to young women and girls.
After Yaz had been on the market a number of years, and probably damaged the health of many young women, ABC News finally wrote a story about it.
The 2011 ABC News article reads in part:
The blockbuster birth control pill with benefits, Yaz was pitched as the choice for women desperate for relief from severe PMS and acne. But now, new independent studies have found that Yaz carries higher blood clotting risks than other leading birth control pills.
ABC News investigated whether tens of millions of women switched to a more potentially risky pill that, as it turns out, was never proven to treat common PMS.
In 2007, Carissa Ubersox, 24, was fresh out of college and starting her dream job as a pediatric nurse in Madison, Wis. On Christmas day, while working the holiday shift, her boyfriend surprised her at the hospital with a marriage proposal.
Wanting to look and feel her best for her wedding day, Carissa said she switched to Yaz after watching one of its commercials that suggested this pill could help with bloating and acne.
“Yaz is the only birth control proven to treat the physical and emotional premenstrual symptoms that are severe enough to impact your life,” claimed the ad.
It “sounds like a miracle drug,” Carissa said she remembers thinking.
But just three months later, in February 2008, Carissa’s legs started to ache. She didn’t pay much attention to it, assuming, she said, that it was just soreness from being on her feet for a 12-hour shift.Birth Control Medication UnderInvestigation Watch Video
By the next evening, she was gasping for air. Blood clots in her legs had traveled through her veins to her lungs, causing a massive double pulmonary embolism.
Her fiance called 911, but on the way to the hospital Carissa’s heart stopped. Doctors revived her, but she slipped into a coma for almost two weeks.
Carissa’s only memory of that time is something she refers to as an extraordinary dreamlike experience. She said she remembers a big ornate gate and seeing a recently deceased cousin.
That cousin, Carissa said, told her, “You can stay here with me or you can go back.”
But, she recounted, he told her if she goes back she’ll end up blind.
“I just remember waking up in the hospital and I was like, ‘Oh, I guess I chose to stay,’” Carissa told ABC News.
Like her cousin in her dreamlike experience foretold, she actually did wake up blind, and remains blind to this day.
(Read more here.)
There seems to be a dedicated group of abortion advocates who don’t care about human life, except, perhaps, their own.
I am not saying that everyone who thinks abortion should be legal falls into this category. But I have no other way to characterize people who would oppose the requirement that babies who survive an abortion be given medical care.
What am I supposed to say about these people?
One of Public Catholic’s readers went all apoplectic over Obama’s Lowest Moment in the 2008 Campaign. He denounced Infant Born Alive Acts as “garbage” and “thinly-veiled” attempts “to encroach on Roe v Wade.” Then, I guess to add what he thought was the cherry on top this little statement, sputtered at me to get out of the Democratic Party.
Not only is he confused about the Democratic Party — (It’s not an invitation-only private club run just for him.) — but his grip on what the Infant Born Alive Acts are about is tenuous, as well.
The video below is a sweet reminder of what Infant Born Alive Acts are addressing: The human lives of real human beings.