RainyAutumnTwilight

Fiery, eccentric, inspired...

  • 2nd February
    2012
  • 02

Attacks on Susan G. Komen Reveals Planned Parenthood’s Real Face [Updated w/ Video]

How revealing this fight over Susan G. Komen’s defunding of Planned Parenthood is!

Wesley J. Smith asks exactly the right question:“Abortion Matters More Than Fighting Breast Cancer to Liberals?”

So it would seem. Various Democrats like Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) are boycotting Susan G. Komen over this decision. Howard Dean isencouraging corporate sponsors to punish Komen. Welcome to the real face of the pro-abortion movement: bullying liars. They immediately and viciously throw Komen under the bus simply for ceasing to give them money (and their seal of approval).

One of the main lies being pushed by pro-aborts is the claim that women will go without care now. Nonsense. Planned Parenthood never provided the services that Komen contracted through them in the first place. The founder of Komen, Nancy G. Brinker explains in a moving video released today (please click on the link and LIKE the video!) that no woman will experience a gap in Komen’s services. A friend with inside knowledge wrote to me:

…[Planned Parenthood does] not provide essential life-saving screening mammography. They instead refer women to hospitals for those services. But there’s no way of knowing how many women actually follow through and receive a mammogram, which makes measuring impact very difficult.

A better granting model would be to invest in grants with the actual service provider whenever possible, which is exactly what Komen has done with its new strategy…

In other words, Planned Parenthood wasn’t giving women mammograms in the first place, as LiveAction exposed some time ago. Komen simply chose to cut out the middleman (Planned Parenthood) and instead directly support hospitals that actually provide life-saving services.

All of which reminds us of another lie: that Planned Parenthood is about protecting and promoting women’s health. Sue Thayer, who worked for Planned Parenthood for 20 years, exposes that lie in the Washington Times today.

Jill Stanek has more of the inside story on what led Komen to make it’s decision. But as I wrote yesterday, we need to stay focused on two main things: thanking Komen and exposing Planned Parenthood.

Also, important to note: Komen has also promised to stop funding embryonic stem cell research centers, a promise I believe.

Let’s keep up the positive pressure on Komen and push back against the pro-abort lies. If Planned Parenthood thought last year was their worst they are in for bigger surprises this year!

UPDATE — Proabort activists hacked the Komen website yesterday, according to pop culture web siteMediate, inserting the phrase ”Help us run over poor women on our way to the bank.” What a stupid stunt. Women who are fighting for the end of breast cancer should be outraged.

(video added on second post)

  • 10th September
    2011
  • 10

Med Schools screening out Pro-Life candidates?

by Tom Crowe

 

Medical schools use open-ended questions to weed out pro-life candidates, writes Dr. Daniel Kuebler, professor of biology here at Franciscan University of Steubenville.

Dr. Kuebler is a key professor in our pre-med program which, over the past ten years, has had an average of three graduates accepted into medical schools upon graduation, out of about 5 or 6 who are known to have applied. That number has grown to about five out of eight in the past few years as our bio and pre-med programs have grown. That growth continues as the University has committed itself to growing the hard sciences further and having a greater culture-of-life impact.

In his article he talks about open-ended questions tossed into interviews that seem innocuous enough, and may well be innocuous at some schools. “Suppose a girl and her boyfriend walk into your office seeking an abortion or a referral for an abortion: what do you say to them?” At some schools this could simply be a serious question probing into the candidate’s preparation for handling some of the most sensitive areas of medicine. At other schools, this could be the question to rule all questions. Dr. Kuebler’s contention, and that of a not-insignificant body of anecdotal evidence, is that a fair number of schools use that question to identify the pro-life students and then find another, legitimate reason to opt for another candidate over the pro-life candidate.

Naturally, not all pro-life candidates for med school are the best candidate among the many applications submitted, and in those cases where another candidate is more qualified for the finite number of slots, the more qualified candidate ought to be admitted. But that’s just it: whether a person is opposed to or supports abortion rights ought not weigh into the decision at all.

(Obviously, from the Catholic perspective, anyone who supports abortion ought not be considered a viable candidate for med school, just as we wouldn’t consider someone who advocates for live vivisections or forced medical experiments on the handicapped a viable candidate, but given our present culture we have to take what we can get and work to redeem the time.)

I asked Brian Burke, a friend of mine and a relatively recent graduate of our pre-med program who is presently in med school, about his interview experience. He said that of the three schools that brought him in for an interview the first two posed abortion-related questions and University of Toledo did not. He was only accepted by Toledo, despite being a “strong candidate” on the merits.

The Toledo interviewers did still ask “in depth” about Franciscan and why he chose Franciscan. At the end of the interview the only thing evident from that line of questioning was that he considers himself a faithful Catholic. These days Burke is vice president of the student portion of the Catholic Medical Association andcontributes to their blog.

Of the overall admissions and interview process he says,

The challenge is that medical school is SO competitive that it is impossible to know for certain (unless someone says something overtly) if you are being discriminated against in the application process. I was a fairly strong candidate, but I had a difficult time getting into medical school. I know that at Toledo, one of the big things that helped me was actually having a Franciscan grad who was on the admissions committee. Did I have a difficult time because of my time at Franciscan and my Catholic outreaches? Or is it because I am a white, male? I am not sure I will ever really know, but I suspect that being a faithful, Catholic, and actively pro–life did not help my cause any.

Dr. Kuebler related a story about another student applying at a different school who actually got into an argument with one of the interviewers when it became apparent that the abortion-related questioning was a fishing expedition. The student likely could have handled the situation a little more diplomatically, but the fishing expedition on the part of the professional was uncalled for, unnecessary, and, frankly, in conflict with federal law.

Federal law prohibits schools that receive federal funding from discriminating on the usual host of demographics as well as conscience and religious issues like being pro-life. They do not prohibit asking abortion related questions, however, which creates, as Dr. Kuebler characterizes it, “a loophole big enough to drive a truck through.”

A new effort within the pre-med program here at Franciscan, according to Dr. Kuebler, will include interview preparation. Students ought to anticipate such questions and know how to handle them intelligently, non-confrontationally, and uncompromisingly. Recent graduates who successfully gained admission to med school, including Burke, will be tapped for talks and advice.

Ultimately, as Dr. Kuebler notes, the way forward includes stronger conscience protections for practicing doctors as well as for med school students and applicants—especially in the incredibly sensitive OB/GYN field, which Dr. Kuebler characterized as a mine field for pro-life applicants. But also, like the Franciscan alumnus on the admissions committee mentioned above, those with authority and respect in the field of medicine need to make their voices heard to ensure that candidates are admitted based on the merits and not on biases or political agendas.

And our pro-life doctors need support and prayers, especially as the rules-writing process by unelected bureaucrats established by Obamacare continues apace.

  • 4th September
    2011
  • 04
  • 21st August
    2011
  • 21
  • 11th August
    2011
  • 11
  • 10th August
    2011
  • 10
  • 25th July
    2011
  • 25

I am Pro-Life and Feminist

 

It is buried in my profile somewhere that I am part of the pro-life movement. I’m not trying to step on any toes here. I’m saying that I dislike people who think differently than me (most of my sisters are pro-choice) although I do disagree with them. I am just saying that this is a deep conviction of mine.

The Catholic Church says in its Catechism “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having  rights of a person—among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life. ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you’ (Jeremiah 1:5). ‘My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth’ (Psalm 139:15).

                “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law. ‘You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish’ (Didache). ‘God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.’ (GS). “

Even before I was Catholic, when the statements of the Church wouldn’t have been meaningful to me, I was pro-life. I am fully convinced that from the moment of conception a unique, living, human person exists. Textbooks on embryology and prenatal development, whether old or modern, say as much.

Even pro-choicers and feminists like Naomi Wolf admit as much: “Clinging to a rhetoric about abortion in which there is no life and no death, we entangle our beliefs in a series of self-delusions, fibs and evasions. And we risk becoming precisely what our critics charge us with being: callous, selfish and casually destructive men and women who share a cheapened view of human life…we need to contextualize the fight to defend abortion rights within a moral framework that admits that the death of a fetus is a real death.” (Naomi Wolf, “Our Bodies, Our Souls,” The New Republic, October 16, 1995, 26.)

Or David Boonin, who, in his book, A Defense of Abortion, writes: “In the top drawer of my desk, I keep [a picture of my son]. This picture was taken on September 7, 1993, 24 weeks before he was born. The sonogram image is murky, but it reveals clear enough a small head tilted back slightly, and an arm raised up and bent, with the hand pointing back toward the face and the thumb extended out toward the mouth. There is no doubt in my mind that this picture, too, shows [my son] at a very early stage in his physical development. And there is no question that the position I defend in this book entails that it would have been morally permissible to end his life at this point.” (David Boonin, A Defense of Abortion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), xiv.)

If a person were to, for instance, visit the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry with its display of prenatal babies (real ones miscarried from injuries and donated), the personhood and development of them is apparent.

I think that most of the reasons for labeling the unborn as “non-persons” are shallow ones, usually given to their location or level of development.

For me, once I find that these are tiny people, I don’t think it is right to kill them. I am not for death at all. I don’t believe in abortion. I don’t believe in the death penalty or war. I am entirely for pacifism and life.

I know that there are some pro-life organizations that everybody loves. Stand True is one of them, but to be honest I don’t like that organization much. I support them in terms of being Christian and being pro-life, but I think that they tend to come off rather antagonistic. It is because of their sense of urgency and passion that they are that way and I admire that, but that isn’t the approach that I was to use.

I  love Feminists for Life because of their pro-woman angle. I know that there are some feminists who believe that you can’t be pro-life and pro-woman, but I don’t buy that. I know that I fully believe in the strength, intelligence, and value in women. I believe that they deserve equal rights. I believe that we shouldn’t be forced to choose between supporting women and supporting children. I don’t think that woman should be forced to choose between sacrificing their education and career plans and sacrificing their children. I don’t think that women should be subject to violence or exploitation.

                Feminists for Life of America is an organization that realizes that abortion is a symptom of a society that has failed women. They work in eliminating the lack of practical resources and support for women, which is often the cause of why women seek out abortions. They support values of nondiscrimination, nonviolence, and justice, as well as the tradition of early feminists such as Susan B. Anthony who were also opposed to abortion.

                There is an organization called I Am Whole Life, where visitors pledge “I promise, In accordance with the Whole Life Ethic, to always promote and protect human dignity from the child in the womb, to the child in Darfur, from the embryo, to the elderly, no matter the cost to myself.”

                They expound on what the Whole Life ethic is by saying, “issues that appear to be separate such as human sex trafficking, political violence, famine, abortion, female genital mutilation, euthanasia, pornography, embryo destruction and many others are actually related threats to the dignity of the human person. The Whole Life ethic recognizes that a threat anywhere to human dignity constitutes a threat to human dignity everywhere. The Whole Life ethic is dedicated to promoting and defending human dignity in all its stages. In the United States, the biggest threat is abortion, other places it may be genital mutilation, famine, forced sterilization, or lack of civil rights.”

                I am a big fan of two beautiful women, Gianna Jessen and Melissa Ohden, who survived saline abortions. I was also interested in the Abby Johnsonstory when it came out. For those that don’t know, she was a Planned Parenthood employee who eventually left the company and became a pro-life advocate (and Catholic). Sometimes I pick up abortion-related news from Jill Stanek’s site (I heard about her back when she was supporting the Born Alive Protection Act with Gianna Jessen) and sometimes from Live Action (mostly because they were seemingly the only people besides me who were annoyed by Gwenyth Paltrow’s character on Glee). At the same time, I am almost fairly wary about the latter two. I don’t like the comments pages on Jill Stanek’s site much. There are a fair number of people who can be awfully judgmental and self-righteous about their pro-life views. On that particular site, there is a good mix of Protestant and Catholic Christians and sometimes arguments come to arguing about birth control. It’s disheartening. It would be my wish that people who claim the title “Pro-life” and/or “Christian” would be among the most loving, compassionate, accepting, friendly, peaceable people out there. Are we not standing up for how life is sacred and human beings have inherent good? 

                I am very happy with where I stand on this issue. I think it paints a bigger picture of all the different things I stand for and how they all link together. I feel like my faith, political viewpoints, and causes are all connected, and I like the integrity of that. 

  • 30th June
    2011
  • 30
  • 27th June
    2011
  • 27

I got a beautiful prayer bracelet from a local Catholic bookstore, which got it from a company called Conception is Life.

The Conception is Life Prayer Bracelet©

"An idea conceived in Adoration, this double sided brown bracelet has 12 images of a baby’s development in the womb from conception to twenty weeks, giving the babies a voice of their own. The ages on the bracelet are: Conception, blastocyst, seven weeks, seven weeks, eight weeks, foot at twelve weeks, hand at twelve weeks, fourteen week, sixteen weeks, sixteen weeks, twenty weeks and twenty weeks. 

The back of The Conception is Life Bracelet also has the “Prayer for the Unborn” composed by the Most Reverend Fulton Sheen making the bracelet the perfect prayer and evangelization tool to combat the horror of abortion while empowering the person wearing it to better evangelize their own family, friends and co-workers in a non- confrontational manner. “

  • 23rd June
    2011
  • 23
  • 18th June
    2011
  • 18