Saturday, April 17, 2010

Persistent Pro-Life Teen

The White House staffers who open President Barrack Obama’s mail are likely well aware of Tommy Behan’s pro-life stance.

Behan, a member of St. Maximilian Kolbe Parish and a sophomore at Lakota East High School, has written the president every day since Obama’s inauguration asking him to change his position on abortion. The 16-year-old has handwritten and mailed more than 430 letters.

“His stance is the most radical pro-choice one for a president who has ever held office,” said Behan. “In the first letter I made a vow to never stop writing until he changed it or he’s out of office.”
Read the rest here

H/T to Ten Reasons

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Landmark Law Passes in Nebraska

Nebraska Legislature Approves Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act

National Right to Life Media Release

WASHINGTON -- By a vote of 44-5, the Nebraska Legislature this morning gave final passage to the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act introduced by Speaker Mike Flood. Governor Dave Heineman is expected to sign the bill in a ceremony this afternoon. The law will take effect on October 15, 2010.

"By 20 weeks after fertilization, unborn children have pain receptors throughout their body, and nerves link these to the brain," said National Right to Life Director of State Legislation Mary Spaulding Balch, J.D. "These unborn children recoil from painful stimulation, which also dramatically increases their release of stress hormones. Doctors performing fetal surgery at and after 20 weeks now routinely use fetal anesthesia."

For documentation, see www.doctorsonfetalpain.com/scientific-studies.

Spaulding Balch rebutted the claim by some that unborn children cannot feel pain until later in pregnancy when nerves reach the cerebral cortex. “Since 2007, medical research, triggered by the identification of consciousness in children lacking a cortex from birth, has indicated that nerve connection to the cortex is not essential to experience pain. In fact, informed specialists have concluded that the subcortical plate, to which nerves from the pain receptors are linking at 20 weeks, fulfills that function.”

A first of its kind in the United States, the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act prohibits abortion after 20 weeks gestation except when the mother "has a condition which so complicates her medical condition as to necessitate the abortion of her pregnancy to avert death or to avert serious risk of substantial or irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function or...it is necessary to preserve the life of an unborn child." Read more

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Gendercide: China's shameful massacre of unborn girls means there will soon be 30m more men than women

In the cruel old China, baby girls were often left to die in the gutters. In the cruel modern China, they are aborted by the tens of millions, using all the latest technology.

There is an ugly new word for this mass slaughter: gendercide.

Thanks to a state policy which has limited many families to one child since 1979, combined with an ancient and ruthless prejudice in favour of sons, the world's new superpower is beginning the century of its supremacy with an alarming surplus of males.
Read the rest of the article here

Panel Discussion on Death with Dignity

A Panel Discussion with The Very Reverend Marc Alexander and Attorney Eli Stutsman, a Board Member of Death With Dignity National Center


Wednesday April 14, 2010
William S. Richardson School of Law at the University of Hawaii Manoa Campus
2515 Dole Street, Classroom 2, Honolulu
12:00 noon - 1:30 pm


Parking available in parking structure $4.00
For more information contact: UHELP 956-6544 or uhelp@hawaii.edu

The Very Reverend Marc Alexander, Vicar General and Diocesan Theologian of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Honolulu and Attorney Eli Stutsman, a Board Member of Death With Dignity National Center and lead author of Oregon's Death With Dignity Act will discuss their opposing views on physician aid in dying as an end of life option.

Both speakers seek end of life options that provide death with dignity but differ in how to attain this goal. They will discuss the question:

Should an adult who is mentally competent, is a resident of Hawai`i, and has been determined by the attending physician and consulting physician to be dying from a terminal disease, and who has voluntarily expressed his or her wish to hasten death, be permitted to make a written request for medication for the purpose of ending his or her life in a humane and dignified manner in accordance with (proposed) Hawai`i law?

In the past, such discussions have been well attended by euthanasia advocates but not those who believe in the sanctity of life. We encourage pro-lifers to attend this debate.

Monday, April 12, 2010

Fr. Pavone on Justice Stevens, and on EWTN

Message from Father Pavone via email:
April 12, 2010
Dear Friends,
Please help me circulate my comments below on the impending confirmation battle to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.
Also, please tune in this week, when I will preach every day on the televised Mass on EWTN. The Mass airs live at 8am ET and repeats at 12 noon, 7pm and 12 midnight. (all times Eastern)  If you do not receive EWTN via television or radio, you can hear my homilies online at www.priestsforlife.org/audio/varioushomilies.htm. They will be posted in the afternoon each day.
I will also be on EWTN's Life on the Rock with Fr. Mark Mary and Doug Barry on Thursday, April 15 at 8pm ET.  You can be part of the live show by emailing your questions to rock@ewtn.com. The show will repeat on Friday, April 16 at 1am and 1pm and Sunday, April 18 at 11pm. (all times Eastern)
Finally, are you following me on Twitter? This is the best way to keep right up to the minute on what I am doing and saying in my national and international pro-life efforts. It’s also a way to give your input to me. Go to www.Twitter.com/frfrankpavone to sign up today!
Sincerely,

Fr. Frank Pavone
Supreme Court Vacancy
Fr. Frank Pavone
National Director, Priests for Life

US Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has announced his retirement. The opening of a Supreme Court seat will again open the ongoing debate in our nation over abortion. Like it or not, a nominee’s stand on this issue will take center stage in the confirmation process.
If you take a tour of the US Capitol in Washington, DC, you eventually reach a relatively small room in the basement. It is the old Supreme Court. Prior to getting its own building across the street, the Supreme Court used to be housed under the building in which our federal lawmakers represent us. They pass laws; judges don't. Judges simply judge whether an existing law has been violated in a particular case, by particular parties.
Or at least that's what they're supposed to do. We live in an age of judicial activism, or as some have called it, judicial tyranny. Judges are striking down laws and writing new ones left and right, without precedent and without reason. The most damaging instance of this in our nation’s history was the Roe vs. Wade decision, unleashing the holocaust of abortion.
So, in short, the judge’s position on the issues shouldn’t matter. Judges aren’t politicians. There shouldn’t be a tug of war between factions trying to get people confirmed because they take “their position” on particular issues, or because they are “moderate” in their views. Commenting on the concept of “moderate judges,” Justice Antonin Scalia once said, “What in the world is a moderate interpretation of a constitutional text? Halfway between what it says and what we’d like it to say?”
All this is fair enough. People on both sides of major issues say they are not in favor of “litmus tests.”
But if a judge had written an opinion in a law review about why women should not have the right to vote, wouldn’t that single issue be enough to most people to disqualify him from being confirmed? Or what if a nominee were known to belong to the Ku Klux Klan? Wouldn’t that single fact be enough to disqualify him from consideration?
The fact is that we use litmus tests all the time. There are certain lines that most people agree should not be crossed.
Supreme Court Justices are not supposed to shape public policy, and their nomination and confirmation should be based on their qualifications, not their views on specific issues.
But there are certain issues so central to the very nature and purpose of government that one’s position on those issues is tantamount to a qualification for the job. The very purpose of government is the protection of human rights, starting with life. No court can legitimize an act of violence, or take away human rights. Anyone who fails to affirm that does not belong in any public office, much less the US Supreme Court.
The United States Senate will have the responsibility to vote for or against the President’s nominee. Let’s start now letting our Senators know where we stand. And please help us rally support on Facebook as well at this link: http://ow.ly/1xixP.
This column can be found online at http://www.priestsforlife.org/articles/document.aspx?id=3134
Comments on this column? Go to AskFrFrank.com
Fr. Frank's columns are podcast. See PriestsForLife.org/Podcast
Priests For Life
PO Box 141172
Staten Island, NY 10314
Phone: 888-PFL-3448
718-980-4400
Fax: 718-980-6515
Email: mail@priestsforlife.org
www.PriestsForLife.org