Being Pro-Life

"What does being pro-life mean to you?" the reporter asked me after the annual Respect Life Mass at the cathedral in Denver on Saturday. (Update: read the article here).

How do you answer a question like that? I knew she was looking for a few quick quotes to enliven her article, but the soundbites didn't come rolling off my tongue very quickly.

I stammered a bit then told her that for me, being pro-life meant I was living my vocation as a mother to ten children. I saw her eyes widen and she started writing furiously on her notepad. "Ten children..." (that would make good copy!)

An Atheist Conversion Story--LOL!

The Loser Letters by Mary Eberstadt

My rating: 5 of 5 stars


With biting satire and dark humor, Mary Eberstadt puts a new twist on the C.S. Lewis classic, The Screwtape Letters. In this particular tale, A.F. (A Former) Christian writes a series of letters to the top brass in the Atheist world, e.g. Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, et al.

The "Loser" in the story is the same Person as the Enemy in Screwtape, i.e. God. Once the reader gets one's head around the fact that this story is topsy-turvy, and it's actually a compliment to be called a "loser," a "crackpot," a "Dull," "unspeakably treacherous," "dangerous," or "mortal enemy," then one begins to fully appreciate the wickedly brilliant sense of humor of Mrs. Eberstadt. And she is not afraid to name names. Besides addressing her letters to her BFFs (Best Friends Forever) in the atheist world and calling them by name: "Messrs. Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, Onfray, Stenger and Others" she also names some of the greatest enemies of atheism: John Paul II, G.K. Chesterton, Fulton Sheen, Elizabeth Anscombe, Mother Teresa, Kit Carson, Dorothy Sayers, Alec Guinness, Gerard Manley Hopkins, Mortimer Adler, Evelyn Waugh, Malcom Muggeridge, Graham Greene, Hilaire Belloc, T.S. Eliot, Robert P. George, Michael Novak, George Weigel, Bernard Nathanson, Antony Flew, Richard John Neuhaus, Germain Grisez, C.S. Lewis, Dinesh D'Souza, David Berlinski and the sonagram machine, to name just a few.

To give you just a taste of her rare wit, here's a sentence...yes, just one sentence, for you to ponder:

You see, if everything You guys and the rest of the Brights said is true; if we Humans really are just some tiny animate fungus on a somewhat larger rock of some kind, however statistically improbable, just orbiting one of those billions and billions of stars that Forebear Carl Sagan liked to talk about; if there really is nothing behind us and nothing ahead, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing at all; if You guys and the other Atheists are right, and all Loser's poets, builders, painters, prophets, believers, and apologists stretching back over three millennia are wrong; if no one else really is watching us, or caring about any of us at all; well then, in this whole random cosmic rave of matter and antimatter, space and time, that just dwarfs every last thing any one of us will ever be or think or do--if that's really what we're talking about here, then one little elective medical procedure, one teeny-tiny exercise of a woman's right to choose by one very insignificant human female like A.F. Christian, shouldn't matter much to anyone, anywhere, ever at all.

Brilliant, isn't it?

And on the wide-range of atheist opinions on the morality of abortion, she gives this adroit observation:

At first, I have to admit, I didn't quite get why everybody should be so North-Korean-election-lopsided about this. After all, we Atheists are supposed to be Freethinkers. We do disagree about some important things, like--well, like nothing I can think of offhand, but I'm sure there's something we don't all think alike about, somewhere. This issue isn't one of them, though.

It is a pleasure to read a book that promotes deep-thinking, yet is easy to read. The ending is satisfying, yet leaves you hungry for more. Thankfully, the author has given us a list of "enemies" from whose work we can choose.

View all my reviews >>

That Sordid Stupak Affair

picture from Facebook "Stand with Stupak" fanpage by Peter John Resweber

Pro-lifers across the country are disheartened today after last night's eleventh hour cave-in by Michigan Democratic Representative Bart Stupak. Many of us had looked to him as a courageous pro-life Democrat who would stand up to the liberal pro-abortion politics of President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and the vast majority of the Democratic party. At 3 pm local time in Washington DC yesterday, it looked like Bart Stupak was going to be the hero of the moment, but by 4 pm, pro-life lobbyists saw all their hard work melt away as one by one, Stupak and his coalition succumbed to the charms of Pelosi and the Prez. (Not to mention political favors and kickbacks, of which I'm sure we'll be hearing more about in the coming weeks).

I couldn't stand to watch the coverage, but at the same time I couldn't keep from sneaking a peek at Twitter, to see what others were saying about the vote. My heart sank when I read that the health care bill had passed by a landslide tiny margin. Not a single Republican voted for this sweeping bill that gives the government control over one-sixth of the US economy. And thirty-four Democrats voted against it. Not a single Republican!

This bill, as The Wall Street Journal calls it, is the Democrat's baby. They made it. They own it. They'll pay for it come November.

If you want to read a great synopsis of the political shenanigans that took place to get this bill rammed through Congress, read Inside the Pelosi Sausage Factory by Kimberley A. Strassel in today's Wall Street Journal.

Here's an excerpt:

Never before has the average American been treated to such a live-action view of the sordid politics necessary to push a deeply flawed bill to completion. It was dirty deals, open threats, broken promises and disregard for democracy that pulled ObamaCare to this point, and yesterday the same machinations pushed it across the finish line.

So much for transparancy, bipartisanship and all the other empty promises of Obama. It will be interesting to see if he holds his end of the bargain with his Executive Order. Not that it matters, according to Planned Parenthood and pro-abortion Colorado representative Diana DeGette.

I guess I should stop pretending there's such a thing as a pro-life Democrat. That's now gone the way of childhood fantasies just like the tooth fairy. I don't believe the Democrats have room in their inclusive, tolerant party for those who believe the unborn are entitled to human rights.

At least I can take solace in the fact that we pro-lifers are having more babies, we're homeschooling our kids and teaching them about the history of the United States and our Constitution; something I don't believe kids in the Democratic-controlled public education monopoly are getting.

They may be Goliath, but we're David. And we all know who won that battle.

Free the Notre Dame 88!

On May 17, 2009, the Catholic University of Notre Dame welcomed President Barack Obama as its commencement speaker and granted him an honorary doctorate. Pro-lifers across the country, both Catholic and non-Catholic, were stunned that a Catholic university that is named for the mother of Our Lord, would honor the most pro-abortion president in the history of the United States by giving him the podium at an important event such as graduation and by granting him a degree. Fr. Jenkins, the president of Notre Dame, was bombarded in the weeks prior to President Obama's visit, with requests to reconsider the invitation. Many observers think Fr. Jenkins was surprised by the outcry and was caught off-guard. Not wanting to give the impression of caving in to the so-called "right-wing" Fr. Jenkins not only refused to reconsider the invitation, he also refused to even meet with pro-life ND students.

As a result, many pro-lifers felt compelled to go to Notre Dame on May 17th to witness their displeasure with Notre Dame and to peacefully protest the president's pro-abortion policies. They were following in the footsteps of other non-violent protestors such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Ghandi. Fr. Jenkins had the protestors arrested and charged with criminal trespass, which could cost them each a year in prison and a $5,000 fine, not to mention the cost for many of them to travel to South Bend for all court appearances at every hearing.

The following is an online petition sponsored by the Thomas More Society, Human Life International and LifeSiteNews.com in response to Fr. Jenkins' refusal to ask that all charges be dropped against the pro-life protestors. The 88 protestors include Norma McCorvey, best known as "Jane Roe" in the landmark 1978 Supreme Court case, Roe v. Wade, an elderly priest, and two mothers from Denver. A list with biographies of some of those arrested can be found here.

Fr. Jenkins,

Right now 88 pro-life activists (known as the ND88) are facing charges for “trespassing” onto the University of Notre Dame in May of 2009.

It is a source of the gravest scandal that this situation persists with the active cooperation of Notre Dame.

The ND88 were arrested for peacefully protesting the university’s decision to honor the most pro-abortion U.S. president in history at this year’s commencement. In many cases, their “protest” took the form of walking on your campus, praying the rosary, and holding pro-life signs. For this “crime” they were specifically targeted by Notre Dame’s security police, handcuffed, and dragged away and put in jail like common criminals.

Now these 88 peaceful pro-life heroes, many of whom are elderly, are facing up to a year in prison and a $5,000 fine, in addition to the many hardships and uncertainties involved in the trial process.

And yet, there is an easy and completely painless solution to this unconscionable situation. You, Fr. Jenkins, on behalf of Notre Dame, could publicly request that the charges against the ND88 be dropped.

Not only is such a request likely be heeded by the prosecutorial authorities, but it would go a long way to restoring Notre Dame's tarnished image in the eyes of the pro-life and Catholic world.

Indeed, it is extremely shocking and disturbing that, despite repeated requests to do so, Notre Dame has not yet intervened in this way.

Our Lady’s University has no business cooperating in the prosecutions of pro-life individuals whose only crime is having prayed on the campus of a Catholic university, and standing up for those who cannot stand up for themselves.

Therefore we respectfully implore the University of Notre Dame to immediately and publicly request that the charges against the ND88 be dropped.

Sincerely,

To read the online petition and to add your name to the list, please click here.

For the latest news about the case, go to the Thomas More Society website, who is defending the ND88.

On the sidebar you'll see a clickable link to another online petition. This one is from the TFP Student Action, which is "a project of the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property. Founded in 1973, the American TFP was formed to resist, in the realm of ideas, the liberal, socialist and communist trends of the times and proudly affirm the positive values of tradition, family and private property."

2010 March for Life!

I'm so excited about the March for Life in DC this year and I'm not even attending it.

Last year I watched it live streaming online and I may do that again this year. Two of my college kids will be attending: Giorgio from Franciscan University and Lizzy from DeSales. I'm excited for them and for all the other college students who will be attending this year.

If you can't attend the March in DC but would like to visually show your support, you now can! Go to Virtual March for Life, pick your own avatar and sign up to attend.

As my 14 year-old, Joan, observed last night, lots of people ignore the fact of abortion and what it does to women and their babies. It's not polite to talk about it. It's not something I enjoy talking about, particularly at the dinner table. Frankly, it makes me very uncomfortable. The March for Life is a chance to actually do something positive and to show your commitment to life. The attitude of attendees is very upbeat and joyful. The press may call them "protestors" and try to show the angry ones with the ugly signs, but the vast majority of them radiate a sense of hope and peace.

May we be a sign of hope and peace to all those who are hurting due to abortion.

We need a conscience clause!

At Mass this morning, our priest read a letter from the US bishops, commenting on the proposed health care bill, which was voted on late last night by the US House of Representatives.

One of the bishops' objections, our pastor pointed out, had been addressed by last night's vote. The Stupak Amendment rejected federal funding for abortions. However, there are still many objectionable elements in the current health care bill. One of these is the lack of a conscience clause for Catholics and other health care workers who object to participating in actions which are opposed to their personal beliefs and the teachings of the Catholic Church.

President Barack Obama promised America, in his commencement speech to Notre Dame, that his administration would promote a rigorous conscience clause for health care workers. There is nothing in the current bill which would allow health care workers to recuse themselves from medical procedures which violate their consciences. The consensus of the current political climate seems to be: no objection allowed.

The US bishops have declared that access to health care is now a human "right." What happened to it being a "work of mercy"? It is now a basic human right. The popular culture has long declared contraception to be "health care." Does this mean that Catholic taxpayers will be required to fund contraceptive drugs and devices, many which act as abortifacients? How have we slouched this far to Gomorrah that we now view contraception as a "basic human right?"

The US bishops have also declared that all "immigrants" are entitled to comprehensive health care. By using the term "immigrants," do the bishops really mean "illegal immigrants"? I can only assume they do, since many American citizens are immigrants, but no one would question their right to anything granted to citizens by birth.

Rather than guilt-trip American Catholic taxpayers into funding health care for illegals, why don't the bishops start a Catholic welfare organization which would fund health care for all persons, regardless of immigration status? It is the work of the Church to help the poor, but it is not necessarily the work of the state to do that.

Furthermore, why promote benefits for illegal immigrants who have already violated US law? Why not instead promote easing of the restrictions for US citizenship, so that more people would have access to the benefits of legal citizenship?

A brief review of "A Raisin in the Sun"

My two high schoolers and I went to see a performance of A Raisin in the Sun at the Denver Center for the Performing Arts this past Thursday. There were also about 500 rather rowdy Denver Public School kids there, who insisted on hooting and hollering every time the house lights went down. Fortunately, they were better behaved when the lights went up and the actors were on stage.

I had never seen the play or the movie before, so I was going into it cold. But let me tell you, I'm so happy I went. It's not my normal choice of theatre; I prefer a musical or a comedy or Shakespeare...but this was a serious drama of racial tensions in the 1950's in Chicago's southside, but I found that it spoke to me on several other levels.

This is truly a timeless story. There is a scene where Walter Lee Younger, who is drunk, is going on and on about his "dreams" and how no one understands him, while his mother is trying to get him to listen to his wife who is trying to tell him that she is unexpectedly pregnant. Money is tight and this family is already stressed, and all his wife needs to hear from her husband is that he loves her and he will help her deal with this pregnancy. She gets no reassurance from him because he is so caught up in his own self seeking. She has already given the abortionist a down payment, perhaps knowing how her husband would respond.

The grandmother (Walter's mother) tells him to "be a man" like his father was and not let his "child be destroyed." She told him that they are a people who loves their children and not a people who destroy their children.

I couldn't help but think about the current state of the black family in America, where their abortion rate is 5 times greater than whites. Additionally, 80% of African American children are born to fatherless homes. If you want to make sure a child grows up in poverty and is at greater risk for violent crime and other social ills, then take the father out of the home.

I won't tell you how this story ends, but it is well worth watching. The classic movie version stars Sidney Poitier as Walter Lee Younger.

Caution: Reading this blog may put you at odds with the Feds

Today is Tax Day. A day rued by many hardworking patriotic Americans. Peaceful protests have been planned in major cities throughout the US and those on the left are steamed. Code Pink and others are planning some tea party "crashes," and left-leaners have blamed Fox News for organizing these gatherings of "right-wing radicals."

Unfortunately, the Obama administration has linked the terms "patriotic" with those who feel it is their duty as "patriotic citizens" to pay more taxes. The Obama administration is already using our patriotic tax dollars to fund more abortions overseas, in addition to forcing doctors and nurses in our own country to participate in these procedures against their consciences. As Planned Parenthood says, the United States is going in a "new direction," and Planned Parenthood is poised to play a "unique role" in shaping the administrations "health agenda."

If that wasn't enough to give us indigestion, someone in the Department of Homeland Security (probably one of those "right-wing nut-jobs" leaked an official document earlier this week, which warns police and security personnel to keep a vigilant watch on "...those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, [and]...individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration." Michelle Malkin has a great synopsis on her blog.

It's enough to make you want to dress up like an Indian and dump a load of something into Boston Harbor!

I'll be there in spirit (and truth), if not in person, as I have mommy driving duties to fulfill that prevent me from actually driving my 15 passenger van downtown, to pay $10 to park, then herd my darling children to the steps of the capitol for the second time this month. (We already made our appearance with roughly 2,000 other homeschoolers at the capitol on April 3rd, for Homeschool Day at the Capitol...

If you want to find us in the crowd below, I'm in the bright green shirt, with a knapsack, leaning to my left to talk to my daughter in the bright red shirt, right of the statue, near the front of the crowd. Thanks to J. Will for taking this great pic and posting it on the web!)

Okay, so maybe you can't see me, but I really was there!

Urgent! Email Dept of Health and Human Services Today

The public is allowed 30 days to comment on the Obama administration's proposal to rescind the regulation which forbades the coercion of health care workers to violate their consciences when providing "health care" such as birth control, abortion, euthanasia, sterilizations and gender re-assignment to patients.

Please inform yourself about this anti-freedom, anti-life, ANTI-CHOICE proposal and make your comments known.

As Susan Wills, the assistant director for education and outreach, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, writes in her article, Conscience Rights: From Choice to Coercion:

Despite all their talk of "choice," the abortion industry and its supporters are determined to eliminate the choice of medical professionals and entities to not become accomplices in killing unborn boys and girls. Despite all their talk about "privacy," the abortion industry and its supporters are determined to trample on healthcare professionals' innermost zone of privacy, that "secret core and sanctuary" known as conscience. It is no longer enough, in their eyes, that women and girls can obtain potentially abortifacient drugs in virtually every pharmacy in the U.S. or that women and girls can have abortions on request in every city where there's a profit to be had. They will not rest until every pharmacy, hospital, healthcare provider, and taxpayer collaborates in the culture of death.

Amen.
The 30 days for public comment is coming to a close this Thursday, HOLY THURSDAY, April 9, 2009. Just go to the Regulations.gov website to electronically submit your comments. (Click on the little yellow balloon next to the "Add Comments" tag).
Here's what I submitted electronically:

I would like to strongly voice my concerns that the provisions to allow for a conscience clause NOT be removed or amended in any way. Health care workers MUST have the freedom of conscience to be allowed to recuse themselves from any procedure OR REFERRAL which in any way conflicts with their personal, moral or religious beliefs. Birth control, sterilization, abortion, euthanasia and gender re-assignment are all examples of the types of so-called health care that should not be coerced upon medical workers. No health care worker of any type should be forced to violate their conscience. Please DO NOT remove this clause.

What's so Great about God?

Monday night I went to a debate at the University of Colorado in Boulder. It was sponsored by the Aquinas Institute for Catholic Thought, which is part of the Catholic campus ministry. The debate was titled, “What’s so Great About God?” and it was a debate between renowned atheist, Christopher Hitchens, author of God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything; and Dinesh D'Souza, author of What's So Great About Christianity.

The moderator was Dan Caplis, a local attorney, radio personality and conservative Catholic.

Overall, I found the debate fascinating, and I thoroughly enjoyed hearing Hitchens speak, though I thought he dodged answering several questions, either by design, or because he really didn’t understand the question. Hitchens' reputation exceeds the reality of himself, I'm sorry to say. He has evidently made quite a career out of being an atheist, though he derided the term, saying, "I don't believe in the tooth fairy either, but I don't use a special word for it." The real-life Hitchens would pose for the audience, say a pithy line or two, wait for applause, then get a smug look on his face which seemed to indicate, "Everyone agrees with me because I'm brilliant." I had the distinct impression he must spend many hours standing in front of the mirror practicing his one-liners, trying to imitate Richard Burton.

Hitchens' opening arguments against the existence of God, and specifically, God incarnate by the name of Jesus the Nazarene, consisted of these propositions:

1. Biblical characters such as Jesus and Moses and others are merely myths and are not historical figures and they have absolutely no bearing on the way we act today.

As "proof," he cited an obscure WWI-era best seller by Guy Thorne, called When it was Dark, which tells the story of what happened when the world was told that Jesus's resurrection was a hoax. Lawlessness was the rule of the day and there were suddenly mass murders and marauding bands of men raping women. When it was revealed that the resurrection hoax was itself a hoax, the world returned to normalcy. Hitchens reasoned that it was highly improbable we would turn into barbarians overnight, should the world find out the resurrection never happened. Therefore, the resurrection story must be a hoax.

2. Vicarious expiation of sins is in itself an "immoral" act which no self-respecting God would condone. Not only is the taking on of another's sin immoral, but allowing humanity to simply hand over their sins to another was shockingly immoral. Hitchens argued that it disavowed all personal responsibility and was therefore obviously invented by men who wanted to shirk the responsibility for their own actions. For these reasons, Hitchens believes Jesus's crucifixion and especially, his taking on the sins of the world, must be a hoax.

3. Most historians agree that mankind has walked the earth for at least 100,000 years. If God's intervention in human history has only been for the past 2,000 years, then he must be a very sloppy, lazy and ignorant God indeed.

D’Souza answered these propositions thus:

1. He asked Hitchens if he believed that Aristotle and Socrates were historic figures. Hitchens said, "yes," he believed Aristotle existed, but wasn't sure if Socrates was a mythical creation or historic. He therefore admitted, despite overwhelming historical evidence, that he did not accept as historical evidence ancient documents that have been accepted by historians as authentic since the dawn of history. D'Souza pointed out that there are many sources outside scripture that point to the existence of many Biblical figures.

2. To explain the second point, D'Souza pointed out that all people see there are basically two standards for living. One is the way in which we live, or the way in which the world is. The second standard is the way we ought to live, or the way we ought to be. D'Souza called these two ways of living the earthly way and the spiritual way. The spiritual way is the way we ought to live. All religions try to bridge this gap through the way they practice their religion. With Islam, there are rules regarding times to pray, dietary rules and ways to dress. Judaism also has strict dietary rules. Although Christianity also has rules of behavior, the main difference between Christianity and Islam and Judaism is that the gap between God and man is bridged by God, rather than by man. No other religion has a God condescending to bridge the gap between God and man to unite the two. Christians believe there is no way that mankind could ever bridge the gap, therefore we rely on God to do this. This is the crux of the Christian faith.

3. As to the intervention of God on humanity, D'Souza suggested that perhaps the 98,000 years of humanity doing absolutely nothing had something to do with humanity not yet receiving the breath of life, or the immortal soul infused from God, but that once that soul was breathed into mankind, that's when things started happening.

D'Souza then went on to make some compelling arguments for why reason alone requires the existence of God. He proposed that modern science is rooted in Christianity and that modern science is based on three faith-based propositions:

1. We live in a rational universe.

2. We live in a lawful universe, that is, our universe follows the physical laws of nature.

3. The rationality of the world around us is mirrored in the rationality of the human mind.

These three propositions flow naturally from Christian (and religious) thought. Likewise, these propositions developed in western, Christian cultures. To a Christian, these propositions are not a challenge to believe, because we believe in a rational, omnipotent, omniscient God, who created us in His own image, thus, we mirror the rationality of Him who created us.

The atheist must take these propositions on faith alone, as there is no logical explanation why random chance of colliding molecules should result in so reasonable a universe. In fact, although D'Souza didn't mention it, the second law of thermodynamics states that a closed system will increase in entropy, or disorder, over time, which argues against randomly occuring order. Therefore, it is quite a leap of faith for the atheist to say that order in the universe is there simply by chance.

D'Souza also pointed out that the God who made us, programmed us to be moral beings. The problem of morality for the atheist is a great hurdle to overcome. Where did this idea of morality come from?

To Hitchens, it evolved naturally as mankind evolved. He said it comes from the idea of the strong conquering the weak, and the natural instincts of survival. Hitchens makes the claim in his book that religion “poisons everything,” and described that it was religion (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) that first proposed enslaving other humans because of some greater humanity possessed by the enslavers than that which was possessed by the enslaved. He believes this is poison, but the sheer act of conquering and enslaving another human was “natural” and therefore, not poison.

Many of Hitchens’ examples of “poison” of religion were the worst of religion, compared with the best of secular humanity. He compared the radical Islamic suicide bomber with the rational, compassionate atheist he presents himself to be, and he challenged the audience that if they believed it would be better to be born atheist like him, than to a radical Islamic terrorist family, then they must cast off all religion as being false, since there are some “bad apples” in the bunch.
D'Souza countered this argument, noting that he could ask the same question, comparing an atheist of the likes of the murderous Stalin and a Christian like himself.

D’Souza had the difficult task of arguing for all religions, as he made the case for God, whereas, Hitchens would simply point out any falsehoods in any religious person or institution throughout history as proof that God must not be real. And this he did frequently and with a great deal of self-satisfaction.

There were several other interesting points the two debated, such as the evolutionary idea that Christians were more prone to survive than non-Christians. Hitchens said it was due to "wishful thinking," but D'Souza pointed out that the survival of one who is willing to die for faith runs counter to the idea of "survival of the fittest."

One surprising note of the evening was the revelation that Christopher Hitchens is actually pro-life! He reasons that an unborn child possesses "individuality" from the mother, and is neither an appendage of the mother nor a "blob of tissue," nor even "potential life," as some pro-abortion types would tell us. He stated that the unborn child should be recognized as human life and given equal rights.

Hitchens noted that it was because of an article he had written for Nation magazine that he and D'Souza first met. D'Souza read his article and called him and the two of them met for lunch. They have since debated the issue of God on numerous occasions, but on the issue of life they evidently agree.

D'Souza commended Hitchens for his "courageous statement, especially in a place such as [the University of Colorado at Boulder]."

Keep an eye on the Thomas Center website. They plan to release a full video of the debate.

President Obama and the African American Community

I grew up mostly in Colorado, by open-minded parents who taught their children that people shouldn't be judged by the color of their skin. I went on to serve in the military for a total of 9 years, where there still existed some racial prejudice, but among those who were professional (which I would consider most of those in uniform), it didn't matter if you were black or white, Asian or Hispanic, male or female. What mattered most was if you had integrity, honesty, and trustworthiness and if you carried out your duties properly. In short, people were respected and judged according to their character.

It never occurred to me that there was such deep-seated racial bias, particularly against African Americans, and that because of this tragic flaw in our society, the idea of a black president would resonate so deeply in the African American community. I suspect most of us white, middle-class, ordinary, traditional-values type Christians were equally stunned at the unity of the African American population when it came time to vote. The percentage varies, depending on the location, but in mostly black DC, 95% of registered voters chose Obama over McCain.

I found this curious, because pro-lifers have tried (evidently quite unsuccessfully) to make a comparison between slavery (which was favored by the mostly Democratic South) and abortion. It was a Republican President who finally gave slaves their freedom, calling on all mankind to reject the abomination of enslaving another human being. In my mind, the Republicans have a history of helping the African American community while the Democrats opposed it. But maybe I'm reaching too far back into history...

I sincerely hope President Obama is able to unite the country and part of me is very proud that Americans were able to once again show to the world that we are the land of opportunity. I just hope and pray that he takes heed of the fact that the African American community is still suffering from racial inequality in the abortion facilities across the country. According to the website of the National Black Catholic Congress, the leading cause of death of African Americans since 1973 is abortion. Over 13 million African Americans have been put to death by the abortion industry in the past 35 years. That's one-third of the present black population in America.

I guess I thought African American Christians knew this and cared about this. I thought we were doing a pretty good job of getting the information out there. But we're not doing a good enough job. Most abortion clinics are located in predominately lower-income, minority neighborhoods and they target that population. Don't be fooled, abortion providers are making money on this industry. They're not in it for the good of mankind--unless they see some good in annihilating minorities.

My family and I were very fortunate to see and hear Dr. Alveda Scott King, niece of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., speak at a pro-life rally here in Denver last month. She spoke eloquently about the strength of her family and their love for her, but also about the desperation and shame she felt that caused her to abort two of her unborn children. She experienced a change of heart and now travels across the country trying to spread the word to African Americans and the rest of us, that the just society that her uncle envisioned, will not come to pass as long as we condone the racial genocide which is happening under our very noses. As she spoke that October evening in the park which bears her uncle's name, the new Planned Parenthood abortion facility, loomed behind her. Several thousand people, black and white, Asian and Hispanic, young and old applauded her words. We then followed her and several other pro-life leaders in a peaceful and prayerful walk around the Planned Parenthood building. There were enough of us there that evening to completely encircle the entire city block and fill the streets around it. We shared a common hope that one day abortion would no longer be tolerated or needed in our society.

But don't just take my word for it. Please read Archbishop Martin D. Holley's Reflection on the African American Family and the Culture of Life.

And let's pray that President Obama open his eyes to the horrors that are the abortion industry.

Some Inconvenient Truths...published at last!

The online edition of the Denver Rocky Mountain News published my little ditty which I submitted to them for the Speakout section.

It didn't make the print edition. Nor did Catholic Exchange answer my query. The National Catholic Register thanked me but said it was too close to the election. (They have a long lead time).

So, dear readers, please pass the link along to your friends, neighbors and others who might be tempted to vote Democrat. ;-)

By the way...they changed my title...too close to home?

Some Inconvenient Truths

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The Declaration of Independence; July 4, 1776.

Of all the issues that divide Republican and Democrat candidates, none is more crucial this election year than the issue of protection of human life, from conception to natural death.

Sadly, the party that has traditionally stood for human rights, for the poor, the oppressed and the marginalized, is the party that has made abortion a sacramental rite on the altar of lies.

Yes, lies.

Lie #1:
We don’t know when life begins.

There are some inconvenient truths that Democrats have been scrambling to deny ever since the advent of Roe v. Wade in 1973, which took away some states’ rights to outlaw abortions. The court found a privacy clause in the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, which they used to support their majority opinion. The opinion dismissed the concern that the unborn might also be entitled to some of these rights to privacy, stating that since we are unable to know when life begins, we must not worry ourselves about it. Yet, wouldn’t the more prudent stand be one of preserving life, even the very possibility of life?

Thanks to advancements of modern science and medical technology, there is now, no doubt about when life begins. Whether or not an unborn child has human rights, is another question, which can only be decided by the legislature and the courts.

Lie #2
Abortion is a women’s health issue.

Waiting in the wings, for a Democrat-controlled legislature and presidency, is the “Freedom of Choice Act,” which would overturn any and all state regulations on abortion, such as: parental notification laws, regulation on unsafe abortion clinics, abortions provided by non-physicians, and taxpayer funded abortions for any and all reasons, including sex selection and as a form of birth control. It would also overturn the federal ban on partial birth abortions, which the Supreme Court upheld in 2007.

The high priest of this religious zealotry is Senator Barack Obama, who, on his own website states: “…it's never been more important to protect a woman's right to choose. Last year, the Supreme Court decided by a vote of 5-4 to uphold the Federal Abortion Ban, and in doing so undermined an important principle of Roe v. Wade: that we must always protect women's health. With one more vacancy on the Supreme Court, we could be looking at a majority hostile to a women's fundamental right to choose for the first time since Roe v. Wade. The next president may be asked to nominate that Supreme Court justice. That is what is at stake in this election.”

Interestingly, “women’s health,” is a vague term which is batted around as if abortion is somehow a form of preventive medicine, like vaccinations or flossing. Common sense tells us abortion is less about women’s health and more about doing away with inconvenient children.

Lie #3:
The declaration of human rights is above our paygrade.

Since the Democratic leadership seems to be spending a great deal of time discussing the abortion issue, let’s examine some of the things they’ve been saying:

Sen. Barack Obama, at the Saddleback Forum, was asked by Pastor Rick Warren: “When does a baby get human rights?” Note, he didn’t ask him, “When do you think life begins?” as has been quoted throughout the media. He asked him, “When does a baby get human rights?” This is a perfectly reasonable question to ask someone running for public office. The protection of human rights should be paramount to the duties of public office. The government is in the business of deciding what rights will be granted to which people.

Instead of answering, “Under Roe v. Wade, a baby gets human rights if that baby is chosen to get rights by its mother; otherwise, it's when the baby is born into an environment where a live birth is desired;” Sen. Obama said, "You know…I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my paygrade."

Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, was asked by Tom Brokaw to comment on Sen. Obama’s answer to the above question, but Brokaw misquoted Pastor Warren’s question, saying, “what would you say to Sen. Obama about the question of when life begins?” Her misguided answer drew immediate rebuke from Catholic bishops throughout the United States. There is no question that she misrepresented thousands of years of Catholic teaching on the sanctity of life. Yet she was not held accountable by the media for her wrong answer.

Senator Joe Biden’s comments on abortion are even more puzzling. Jumping into the fray after Obama and Pelosi, Biden was asked on Meet the Press, “When does life begin?” His response was that he knows when it begins for him. “Look, I know when it begins for me; it’s a personally [sic] and private issue. For me, as a Roman Catholic, I’m prepared to accept the teachings of my Church.”

Author aside: Joe…Can I call you Joe? I have some more questions for you, Joe: Since when is the question of when life begins a “personally and private issue”? Can the beginning of life be anything other than a scientific fact? Are you saying there are multiple realities? What’s alive for you may not be alive for another? And, if you’re really prepared to accept the teachings of your Church, which says it is a grave sin to assist one in procuring an abortion, including voting for laws enabling abortion, then how can you say you’re “pro-choice”? And if, as you say, “…life begins at conception…” how can a just and free country allow the killing of that life, based on the inconvenience of the child?

While we may disagree on the appropriateness of doing away with inconvenient children, there must be no doubt that abortion is the taking of a human life. Science can and does answer with specificity when life begins. It is our elected officials who must decide when human rights begin.

I took my kids with me to Planned Parenthood

Today I went to the Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood clinic to participate in the 40 Days of Life. I brought along Lizzy and Bernadette and we prayed the rosary while we walked along the west (entrance) side of the building. Such a simple act, yet it never fails to affect me. The horror of it all seems masked by the new, neatly landscaped, multi-million dollar building that covers an entire city block and is surrounded on all sides by an 8-foot high barbed-wire topped fence.

The people that we saw going in and out this afternoon looked to be mostly the workers. They don't look at you. What amazes me is the strength I feel when I pray there. Evil has no hold over the voice of Truth. The evil one knows his days are numbered. The power of the cross will prevail.

Here's an interesting story about what's going on with the 40 Days of Life in other parts of the country. Eduardo Verastegui, the handsome star of the movie Bella joined the prayer vigil in Los Angeles and some of the nurses came out just to meet him!

Saint Bruno, pray for us!