Posts Tagged ‘Courts’

Know More, so there can one day be No More

February 17, 2009

Fr. Frank Pavone sends out newsletters that also have text available online, at least for awhile. The past columns seem to be available only in podcast format, so I’ll paste the full text of the current one here in case its print format is eventually not available at the link:

Extreme Compromise

by Fr. Frank Pavone
National Director, Priests for Life

Newly-elected abortion advocates often try to paint their support for Roe vs. Wade [*1] and its companion case Doe vs. Bolton [*2] as mainstream. Some even think that the decisions constitute a “compromise” position on the divisive issue of abortion. After all, they say, our current national policy on abortion allows a woman to have a child if she wants, and to abort the child if she wants.

But Roe and Doe are about as far away from a “compromise” as you can find. The decisions allow for abortion throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy, and do not recognize any right of the unborn child to be spared death by abortion. With a nation divided about abortion, one might think that under a “compromise” solution one could find some reason to protect at least some unborn children. But in Roe and Doe, one searches in vain for any situation in which an unborn child is protected. As the University of Detroit Law Review pointed out, “The Supreme Court’s decisions…allowed abortion on demand throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy” (Paul B. Linton, Enforcement of State Abortion Statutes after Roe: A State-by-State Analysis, Vol. 67, Issue 2, Winter 1990).

In this framework, every unborn baby is disposable. Every. That’s hardly a “compromise” position.

“Leave it up to the woman to decide” sounds to many like a fair compromise. But this position completely destroys equality before the law, because it constitutes a complete removal of protection from the child. The lives of unborn children who are wanted and carried to term do not have any more protection from the law than the lives of unborn children who are unwanted and carried to the abortionist. The lives of the wanted are protected only by their “wantedness,” which, of course, can be subject to change at any time. As far as the law is concerned, they are all non-persons, regardless of circumstance. That’s hardly a “compromise.”

A “compromise” usually, and by definition, allows some accommodation to both sides in the dispute. But current abortion policy allows no accommodation to the claims that innocent human life makes upon us.

The more you know about the Roe and Doe decisions, the clearer this becomes. In fact, the Gallup polling company, in an extensive analysis of the opinions of Americans on abortion, admits that the level of support in surveys for Roe vs. Wade is lower if more information about the decision itself is offered in the question, and higher if less information is offered.

These are important points to bring up in communicating with pro-abortion elected officials.

In Judgment at Nuremberg, one of those responsible for the Holocaust says that he “never thought it would go that far,” and was told that it “went that far” as soon as a single innocent life was taken. There is no room for “compromising” about human life. Permitting one life to be destroyed is already extreme. Unless we’re all protected, we’re all in danger.

* links in the online version of the article:

[1] =

[2] =

The comments by Fr. Pavone regarding the polling results when people are properly informed about the Roe and Doe decisions reminds me of a site that has a “quiz” to identify what people really know about those court cases. Please go to the quiz site and see for yourself how well informed you already are, and what you need to learn better. Then encourage others to learn more, too, since the more people who KNOW more, the better the likelihood that more people will say NO more abortion!

You might also want to add the link to your own Web sites, to encourage more people to participate.


Might our country go this way, too?

January 28, 2009

Article about the forced indoctrination program in all schools in Spain, including private schools:

Spanish Supreme Court Deadlocked Over Allowing Families to Opt Out of Homosexual Indoctrination Program

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

MADRID, January 27, 2009 ( – The Spanish Supreme Court has been deadlocked for two days over whether or not to permit parents to remove their children from a government civics program that indoctrinates students with homosexual ideology.

The program, entitled “Education for Citizenship,” instructs teachers to “revise the student’s attitude towards homosexuality” and to teach children to reject “existing discrimination for reason of sex, origin, social differences, affective-sexual, or whatever other type” and to carry out a “critical evaluation of the social and sexual division of labor and racist, xenophobic, sexist, and homophobic social prejudices.”

The Catholic Church and numerous individuals have protested the program, which is mandatory throughout Spain, including the nation’s private schools, although the latter have the option of ignoring individual directives in the program.

The case before the Spanish Supreme Court is an appeal of a decision of the highest court of the Spanish Province of Andalucía, which ruled that people may sue to prevent their children from being indoctrinated in the program, but later ruled against a particular group of families seeking exemption.

In addition to the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case, sixty-five organizations and groups in Spain have signed a manifesto denouncing Education for Citizenship as an attack on their civil rights.

“In every age the right of families to educate their children has had the same enemy: ideological indoctrination,” the manifesto states, and goes on to say that Education for Citizenship “is morally, intellectually, and politically inadmissible because it means obligatory indoctrination for Spanish children and adolescents with a particular ideology that is gravely damaging for people and society.”

The LifeSiteNews site has additional information about this that you may want to read.

Another life issue to track

January 7, 2009

Assisted suicide is another issue that the pro-life community needs to pay attention to. If we don’t, it will become more and more widespread and we won’t be able to stop it. Here is a link to an article about Bishop George L. Thomas of Helena, Montana and his intention to fight a court ruling that makes assisted suicide legal in that state.

Whose embryonic children are they?

December 17, 2008

This post was drafted more than two months ago. Now seems the time to publish it, in light of the new document released by the Vatican.

This link is for an article titled “Irish Court Refuses Woman’s Plea for Her Own Frozen Embryos” by Kathleen Gilbert. Even though it is not a U. S. story, it describes some of the problems involved with in vitro fertilization (IVF).

Read at

Here’s a similar story, with reversed roles: “Oregon Court Orders Frozen Embryos Destroyed, Considered ‘Property Rights’ Issue” by Kathleen Gilbert. This one is in the U.S.

Read at

Texans fight Planned Parenthood – and win!

December 9, 2008

The article at the following link describes multiple successes for the pro-life movement in different locations of Texas.

“Texas Takes Friendship to a New Level” by the Media Research Center

It’s an inspiring piece that also provides links to help other communities fight Planned Parenthood’s quest for dollars.

Here is an excerpt from “Section 3” of STOPP’s plan (found at this link:

When citizens begin to realize how much of their taxes wind up in Planned Parenthood’s bank account, they begin to ask questions:

  1. Is my local government contributing to Planned Parenthood?
  2. How can I find out how much Planned Parenthood is getting?
  3. What can I do about it?

As you consider fighting government funding of Planned Parenthood, you should understand that this fight is a bit different from others with which you may have been involved. This is not specifically a fight against abortion. This is not specifically a pro-life fight. This is not specifically a fight against all sex education programs.

This is a fight against government funding of a specific organization. It is you telling your elected officials you do not want any of your money going to Planned Parenthood. We will discuss this further in item #9 below. But here we want to emphasize the battle to defund Planned Parenthood. This does not mean that you can’t criticize Planned Parenthood for its abortion business or for its sex education or for its anti-life activity. It means, however, that the focus should always be on Planned Parenthood and its activities. The fight should always be based on the message that government officials have no right to give your money to Planned Parenthood. If you keep the issue clear, you will get support from all sides.

The Catholci Exchange article also describes successes in caring for mothers in crisis pregnancy situations, court rulings regarding murders of mothers carrying unborn children, and Bishop Alvaro Corrada’s (Bishop of the Diocese of Tyler) courageous stand regarding Catholic hospitals.

Pray for more than we can imagine!

October 24, 2008

This is from yesterday’s Mass readings:

Ephesians 3:21

Now to him who is able to accomplish
far more than all we ask or imagine,
by the power at work within us,
to him be glory in the Church and in Christ Jesus
to all generations, forever and ever. Amen.

It reinforces what we already know: that God can work a miracle in this election. Let us pray earnestly for the election of a president who will defend life and marriage.  Let’s beg God for a president who will nominate judges (for the Supreme Court but also many other courts) who will properly evaluate cases and a president who will not sign the “Freedom of Choice Act” or other legislation that threatens innocent human life.