WE’RE GETTING TO JON STEWART

According to the Tampa Bay Times, while performing in Florida on Saturday night, Jon Stewart “offered some serious messages, railing against cable TV news channels’ ‘outrage machine’ after noting the Catholic League boycotted him for a joke placing a manger between a woman’s legs.” Stewart then said, “I’m not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance.” The newspaper said this remark was made “in a rare moment of seriousness."

Catholic League president Bill Donohue picked up on what Stewart said:
 
Nice to know the Catholic League is on Jon Stewart’s mind. Unfortunately for him, we’re going to hang around for weeks, contacting his sponsors and religious leaders from all the major religions. We’re sending them the “vagina manger” picture he is so proud of, asking everyone to pressure Comedy Central into getting Stewart to apologize.
 
We really don’t need to boycott anyone as the picture is so indefensible—putting a nativity scene ornament in between the legs of a naked woman—that no one save the maliciously sick would even try to defend it.
 
The good news is that Stewart lashed out at us in a serious moment—the e-mails that are pouring into Comedy Central are obviously getting to him. We’ll see who is branded as “ignorant” when our campaign is done.
 
Contact Comedy Central Communications head Steve Albani: steve.albani@cc.com

Contact our director of communications about Donohue’s remarks:
Jeff Field
Phone: 212-371-3191
E-mail: cl@catholicleague.org

 

Truth Be Told

ProLifeCorner.com- At a press conference, the White House  suggested that the HHS Madness was recommended by "the  nation’s  leading  medical experts." Yes folks, you read that   right-the nation’s       leading medical experts. This obviously is in our best interest!

The actual make up of the handpicked panel that made the birth control recommendations was reported by Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review Online at http://nrle.co/wlEvK4 It is worth noting that all, not some or not the majority, but all these leading medical experts are pro-aborts. How convenient! According to Kathryn Jean Lopez, the list was compiled by Human Life International as follows;

       Claire Brindis is a member of the Board of Directors of the NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation, as well as a member   of  NARAL’s   Pro-Choice   California   "1969 Society," which has been called by NARAL "a group of our most steadfast and generous donors."

       Angela Diaz-former board member of "Physicians for Reproductive Choice & Health," an advocacy group that "works to improve access to comprehensive reproductive health care, including contraception and abortion." Until just a few weeks ago she served as the senior VP of the International Women’s Health Coalition and was on the board of directors from 2007-2010. Her biography on the IWHC’s website (which was recently removed) stated that she "has a deep and long commitment to IWHC’s mission and to the organization." The IWHC is a pro-choice advocacy group that declares that "access to safe abortion   is   a   human   right"   and   that   abortion   and contraception are "universal and inalienable" rights.

       Francisco   Garcia has  donated  between  $11,750  and $13,000 to candidates that support abortion since 2004. These pro-choice candidates include Raul Grijava and Barack Obama.

Kimberly Gregory, public records indicate she has donated $35,200 to the California Victory 2010 of the Democratic Nat’l Committee in support of Barbara Boxer.

       Paula A. Johnson- Chairwoman of Planned Parenthood

League of Massachusetts and affiliated with the pro-abortion National Organization of Women (NOW). She is the winner of NARAL’s 2011 "Champion for Choice" award. Public records indicate that since 2003 she has given between $9,550 and $11,000 each to the political campaigns of Pro-Choice candidates including Martha Coakley, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. She also has made contributions to Emily’s List, an organization dedicated to "electing pro-choice Democratic women."

       Roberta Ness has donated at least $2,500 to pro-abortion candidate John Kerry and to the DMC.

Magda G. Peck is associated with a host of organizations that advocate for abortion and free access to contraception and was on the board of directors of Planned Parenthood of Nebraska and Council Bluffs and served as both vice chair and chair of the board.» E. Albert Reece donated $1000 to the campaign of pro-abortion politician Barbara Mikulski, sponsor of the amendment that paved the way for recommendation 5.5.

Linda Rosenstock, committee chairwoman since 2004 donated over $40,000 to pro-choice political candidates including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, and the Democratic National Committee.

Alina Salganicoff is the VP and Director of Women’s Health Policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, a major proponent of abortion and contraception. She donated $950 to the Barack Obama and Judy Feder campaigns.

Carol Weisman has made $4,500 in political donations to pro-abortion candidates including Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Kerry and Judy Feder since 2000.

As the Public Discourse website put it, the vast majority of the committee members demonstrate a more than casual commitment to the goals of the abortion lobby. In fact, according to information available from the public record, these committee members have donated a total of $116,500 to pro-choice organizations and candidates. Public records show that not one of the fifteen committee members has financially supported a pro-life political candidate. This committee was purportedly assembled for the purpose of providing outside, objective and expert advice to the HHS policymakers. Whatever one thinks of the relevant issues, one would be hard-pressed to argue that this committee is politically nonpartisan.

The committee held three "open information-gathering sessions" to receive expert testimony regarding the preventive services that should be mandated and funded. However, nearly all of the invited speakers were known advocates of contraception and abortion on demand.

Michael O’Dea notes: At both meetings, the invited speakers represented organizations which advocate coverage of contraception without cost sharing of expenses. Those organizations include the Guttmacher Institute, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses, Planned Parenthood, The Kaiser Family Foundation and the Society for Family Planning.

PBS News Hour, Ray Suarez confronted Secretary Sebelius with the obvious: Someone must pay for the contraceptives provided, and who, if not those who purchased the insurance that had to include these "preventive services?" The secretary then took absurdity to a new level by claiming that none of this would cost anyone anything, as there was empirical evidence showing that readily available contraception lowered the overall costs to the health-care system by reducing the rate of pregnancy.

Comment: Sebelius claims to be Catholic at the center of this storm. Known to have hosted Planned Parenthood and late term abortionist George Tiller at the Governor’s Mansion in Kansas. Please pray for her conversion of heart!

 

HELPING WOMEN BY KILLING THEIR KIDS

Bill Donohue replies to an editorial in today’s New York Times on human trafficking: When an agency of the bishops’ conference was awarded a five-year grant in 2006 to fight human trafficking, the proposal explicitly said that no funds would be spent on “activities that would be contrary to our moral convictions and religious beliefs.” At the end of last year, when the bishops sought to renew their grant, their proposal was awarded a score of 89 by an independent review board at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 

 But it was subsequently denied by political appointees, despite the fact that two other organizations with scores of 69 and 74 were given a grant.
 
None of this is mentioned in the Times editorial. Instead, it sides with a judge who ruled last month on a case filed three years ago that the old contract was unconstitutional because it allowed the bishops “to impose religiously based restrictions on the expenditure of taxpayer funds.”
 
One of the persons who established the HHS program, Steven Wagner, said a few months ago that none of the organizations that initially sought funding wanted to provide for abortion. Indeed, he said the program was founded with the understanding that it was “totally inappropriate” to see abortion as a remedy to women in need.
 
At work here is the Times’ insatiable appetite for abortion rights, and its growing hostility to religious liberty. Nowhere in the Constitution is abortion mentioned—this “right” was invented out of whole cloth; religious liberty, on the other hand, is enshrined in the First Amendment. One wonders whether the Times respects constitutional law anymore.
 
When the Times says the bishops’ contract was not renewed because they were “unwilling to meet the needs of trafficking victims,” it grossly insults the bishops and denigrates women. Helping to kill the child of an exploited woman is not meeting her needs—it is exploiting her even further. 

Contact our director of communications about Donohue’s remarks:
Jeff Field
Phone: 212-371-3191
E-mail: cl@catholicleague.org

 

Obama on Obamacare vs. Obama on Partial Birth Abortion Ban

by Jill Stanek | LifeNews.com | Responding to a question on Obamacare during an April 2 press conference, President Obama admonished the U.S. Supreme Court not to take the “unprecedented and extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress”…

Legal experts and politicos are tearing Obama’s statement up as obtuse, particularly since Obama prides himself as having been a “constitutional law professor” (although that title is disputed), and also false, since 219-212 is no “strong majority,” particularly since the former were all Democrats.

But I’d like to hearken back to the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, a federal law that actually does qualify as having been passed by a “strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

Vote tally on Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010

House: 219 aye (all D) , 212 no (178 R, 34 D)

Senate: 56 aye (all D) , 43 no (40 R, 3 D)

Vote tally on Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003

House: 281 aye (218 R, 63 D), 142 (4 R, 137 D, 1 I)

Senate: 64 aye (47 R, 17 D), 34 no (3 R, 30 D, 1 I)

Before the Supreme Court had even heard the case, Obama deemed the PBA Ban “clearly unconstitutional” in a 2004 fundraising appeal signed by surrogate Michelle, “that must be overturned.”

When the Supremes upheld the ban, by as narrow a vote as is anticipated in the Obamacare decision, Obama protested. When speaking at a Planned Parenthood fundraiser in 2007 he said:

For the first time in Gonzales vs. Carhart, the Supreme Court held – upheld a federal ban on abortions with criminal penalties for doctors. For the first time, the Court’s endorsed an abortion restriction without an exception for women’s health. The decision presumed that the health of women is best protected by the Court – not by doctors and not by the woman herself. That presumption is wrong.

In that case Obama was condemning the Supreme Court for upholding a federal law, which was actually a healthcare law of sorts, since it sought to protect half-born children from being stabbed to death.

In a statement on the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade in 2008, Obama again condemned the Court for upholding this broadly passed federal law (which was also broadly supported by the American public, which Obamacare is not):

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.

And about Roe v. Wade, Obama didn’t mind the titanic upheaval of legal precedent when the Supreme Court overturned abortion laws in all 50 states in its 1973 decision. At the time abortion was illegal in 30 states and legal only in certain cases in 20.

Don’t forget Obama also anticipated Illinois’ Born Alive Infants Protection Act would be declared unconstitutional (pgs 84-90) because…

I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.

Barack Obama is so tangled up internally he can no longer keep himself straight externally.

LifeNews.com Note: Jill Stanek fought to stop “live birth abortions” after witnessing one as an RN at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois. That led to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act legislation, signed by President Bush, that would ensure that proper medical care be given to unborn children who survive botched abortion attempts.

Girls Deserve Better Than Statutory Rape, Secret Abortions

by Serrin Foster | LifeNews.com |  Would you let some man take your daughter to surgery without telling you? How about taking her across state lines? Unbelievably, there is no legal protection against taking a child across state lines for an abortion even if you live in a state that requires parental notification or approval for an abortion upon a child.

Who takes under-aged, pregnant girls across state lines for abortion? ~most often, it’s noncustodial, older men who are sexual predators seeking to conceal the crime of statutory rape or other noncustodial adults involved in sex trafficking of minors.
April is Sexual Assault Awareness month.
 
Feminists for Life has long championed protections against sexual assault. We are the only pro-life member of a task force which helped pass the Violence Against Women Act and we are the only feminists who testified before the US House Judiciary in support of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (Laci and Connor’s Law).
 
Feminists for Life opposes all forms of violence against women and children – including abortion and rape. Every rape is non-consensual. Every rape is forced. Every rape is wrong. There are no exceptions. There are no exceptions for sexual assaults committed by family members or friends. There are no exceptions for sexual assault by strangers, sex traffickers or johns, for statutory rape of minors or group sexual assaults, for sexual assaults of boys or for rape by coercion or facilitated by alcohol or drugs (such as Rohypnol). Whether domestic or international, every rape is wrong. and justice for all.
 
Feminists for Life demands an end to violence and discrimination in every circumstance. We encourage efforts that prevent violence against women through resources, support and education. We favor prosecution of those who commit acts of violence against women and children.
Feminists for Life urges consistency in our laws, focus on prevention, and provision of support for those who have experienced various forms of violence. Rapists should be prosecuted no matter if the victim becomes pregnant or not, no matter if she has an abortion, miscarriage or live birth. And it goes both ways. If the rapist is a woman preying on minor boys, the adult is responsible.
 
Our consistent belief in feminist principles is why we support passage of the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA), H.R. 2299.
The U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution recently voted to support CIANA. If passed, CIANA would provide up to a one year imprisonment for anyone who performs an abortion on an out of state minor not accompanied by a parent. Rep Ileana Ros-Lehtinen has 158 co-sponsors and bipartisan support; Senator Marco Rubio has introduced a companion bill in the Senate.
 
Opponents of the bill argue that in some circumstances pregnant girls turn to adults not their parents for help in crisis pregnancy. If these adults, such as grandmothers or adult sisters cannot assist the teen in procuring an abortion across state lines, opponents argue, then minors will seek unsafe alternatives to terminate pregnancy.
 
Experts reject this argument. Dr. Bruce Lucero – who has performed over 45,000 abortions – cautioned that men who get minors pregnant, not the minors’ parents, are the issue. Dr. Lucero wrote in the New York Times,
“. . . a parent’s input is the best guarantee that a teen-ager will make a decision that is correct for her—be it abortion, adoption or keeping the baby. And it helps guarantee that if a teenager chooses an abortion, she will receive appropriate medical care.”
Teenagers seeking abortions out of state, Dr. Lucero added, often delay until the procedure is more expensive and riskier. Without parental involvement, pregnant minors are less likely to return to clinics for follow-up care or tell their parents they are suffering complications following an abortion.
 
Polls consistently show that 70% of Americans strongly favor parents being notified when a minor seeks an abortion, and that a majority of Americans also favor laws that would prevent the transportation of minors over state lines to circumvent parental notification.
 
The lives of young girls are irrevocably changed by predators who rape them then transport them for a secret abortion. Girls—as wells as Women Deserve better® than Abortion. Parents have a right to know and a responsibility to protect their daughters.
LifeNews Note:  Serrin Foster is the president of Feminists for Life of America.
 
 

OBAMA ENLISTS ACLU TO WAR ON CATHOLICS

On April 3, Catholic News Service published a story on an internal memo from the bishops on ObamaCare. Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on it today: The more the bishops study this issue, the more resolved they are in opposing ObamaCare. At the heart of the bishops’ objections is the contrived and unjust way the Obama administration defines a religious organization; it grants an exemption only to what it deems is a religious entity.

 
In point of fact, it is the ACLU that is really dictating to Catholics what passes as a religious institution.

In 2000, the California Contraceptive Equity Law was passed. In it there is a provision defining what qualifies as a religious employer, and it was written by the ACLU. Besides noting that the institution must be a non-profit, the exact qualifying language is as follows:

 “The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the entity”
“The entity primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the entity”
“The entity serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the entity”

The Health and Human Services edict forcing Catholic institutions to provide for abortion-inducing drugs in their insurance coverage also allows an exemption for groups it deems religious. Besides noting the non-profit status, the exact qualifying language is as follows:
“Has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose”
“Primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets”
“Primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets”
Having written a Ph.D. dissertation and two books on the ACLU, I can say unequivocally that the ACLU has long been an enemy of religious liberty. Indeed, when it was founded in 1920 by Roger Baldwin (whom I interviewed in 1978), it listed all the provisions of the First Amendment among its first ten goals. Not among them was religious liberty. And these are the same folks that Obama turns to in his war on Catholics.
 
Contact our director of communications about Donohue’s remarks:
Jeff Field
Phone: 212-371-3191
E-mail: 
cl@catholicleague.org
 
 

SNAP’S DEFENDERS SHOW TRUE COLORS

March 21, 2012 Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on those who continue to defend the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP): Last week we released a report on SNAP that showed beyond a reasonable doubt what an utter fraud the organization is

 
(click here to read it).    It was not an essay; it was not an op-ed; it was not conjecture; it was not our opinion. It was the voice of David Clohessy, the director of SNAP. When coupled with our report last summer on the proceedings of its national convention (it offered irrefutable proof of its hate-filled agenda) it cannot be maintained by any serious observer what SNAP is all about.
 
The credibility of those who continue to defend this wholly discredited organization is on the line. That would include the editorial board of the New York Times and the Newark Star-Ledger (the latter offered a particularly vicious statement), as well as pundits such as Andrew Sullivan. That the near-moribund National Organization for Women and the Feminist Majority should weigh in is not surprising: though SNAP has nothing to do with women’s rights, it has everything to do with attacking the Catholic Church, and that is music to the ear of radical feminists. But it is Frank Bruni, an op-ed columnist for the New York Times, who needs to be answered more than anyone; he loves SNAP.
 
Bruni notes that “some Catholic leaders have contended” that what drives wide media coverage of the issue of priestly sexual abuse is “an anti-Catholic and anti-religious bias.” Wrong, he says, it’s because of the “magnitude of the violation of trust.” No, sir, it isn’t. If it were, then the Times would be covering the incredible explosion of child sexual abuse by rabbis (in Brooklyn alone, 85 arrests have taken place in the last two years, yet the Times has never reported on any of this). Moreover, the media treat with a yawn the alarming rate of child sexual abuse in the public schools. So what else, if not anti-Catholicism, would be driving the disproportionate coverage? I’m still waiting for the evidence that I am wrong.

Contact our director of communications about Donohue’s remarks:
Jeff Field
Phone: 212-371-3191
E-mail: cl@catholicleague.org

Slippery Slope of Abortion Now Leading to OK'ing Infanticide

by Ken Connor | LifeNews.com | The specter of the “slippery slope” is widely considered to be a logical cop-out – an intellectually lazy response employed by the rigid and fearful among us (usually conservatives and the religious, of course). Like all enduring metaphors, however, the concept embodied by the slippery slope is quite often proved true. “Give ‘em an inch, they’ll take a mile” is a compelling slogan for good reason. Once an initial barrier is broken, it is difficult to turn back.

 
Nowhere is the danger of the slippery slope more evident than in the area of abortion. If an unborn child’s right to life can be denied based on criteria like age, size, location, cognitive capacity or simply the wishes of the mother, then what’s to stop similar criteria from nullifying the life rights of the elderly, the disabled, or even the very young?
The fruits of this disturbing trend are already playing out in countries like the U.K. and Canada, where panels of bureaucrats hold the power of life and death over the terminally ill and the aged. Advisors to our very own President Obama have advocated for a “comparative effectiveness” principle in medicine, in which the most resources are directed to those deemed to be the “best investment” from the perspective of potential benefit to society. Under the comparative effectiveness protocols, the very old, the very young, and the disabled aren’t deemed good investments.
It is hardly surprising, then, that some in the field of bioethics – in the abhorrent tradition of Peter Singer – have begun to embrace infanticide as a perfectly reasonable solution to the hardship and inconvenience sometimes imposed by the birth of a child. From a recent post on Touchstone Magazine’s “Mere Comments” blog:
“As a current example of nothing new under the sun, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva recently wrote an article published on February 23, 2012, in the Journal of Medical Ethics, a peer-reviewed journal for health care professionals and researchers in medical ethics.
[T]he authors say that parents should have the right to kill their newborn infants because infants are not people. . . . The authors prefer the term ‘after-birth abortion’ as opposed to ‘infanticide’ because the term after-birth abortion emphasizes ‘that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable to that of a fetus . . . rather than to that of a child.’
So, what do our erstwhile ethicists suggest are acceptable circumstances under which the newborn may be killed? This might include a situation where the well-being of the family is at risk, even if the newborn had the potential for an ‘acceptable’ life. . . . Thus, a newborn whose family (or society) can be socially, economically or psychologically burdened or damaged by the newborn should have the ability to seek out a legal after-birth abortion.”
There are no words to describe the level of depravity, the chilling inhumanity, of such logic. One has to wonder if these so-called bioethical “experts” are themselves parents, and if so, how they justify their abhorrent philosophy to their children. “Be grateful you weren’t a social, economic, or psychological burden to your mother and me, Junior, or it might have been an after-birth abortion for you.”
That this proposition is even embraced as a legitimate contribution to the field of bioethics is indicative of what happens when a society defines itself by it’s unwillingness to recognize and adhere to fixed, universal limits. Reject traditional morality, cast off the bounds of religion, place the individual at the center of the moral universe and you have the perfect recipe for a culture in which virtually everything is permissible.
“Progressives” believe that mankind is on a steady and inevitable march towards utopia. Only by eliminating our dependence on the “God of the gaps” and learning to place faith in ourselves can we achieve true actualization as a species. This philosophy has yielded a society in which proponents of infanticide are no longer castigated as disordered sociopaths but accepted as legitimate participants in the public conversation.
Progress my eye! Heaven help us.
LifeNews.com Note: Ken Connor is the chairman of the Center for a Just Society and co-author of “Sinful Silence: When Christians Neglect Their Civic Duty.” A pro-life attorney, he was intimately involved in the fight to save Terri Schiavo and is the former president of the Family Research Council.