On November 3, we noted that the “War on Christmas” had begun. One piece of evidence that was offered was the decision to have a “Holiday Tree,” instead of a “Christmas Tree,” in Frankfort, Kentucky. But after getting pounded by outraged Christians, Gov. Steve Beshear has reversed himself: both he, and the state government, have now chosen to call the Christmas Tree the “Christmas Tree.”

Christians have every right to be insulted when agents of government refuse to acknowledge their holiday, and it matters not a whit if the stated purpose is inclusion. Indeed, the politics of inclusion is a malignant cultural cancer that needs to be wiped out, along with its parent ideology, multiculturalism.

Congratulations to Gov. Beshear can be extended by contacting his director of communications, Jill Midkiff: Jill.Midkiff@mail.state.ky.us

The amendment in question, proposed by Democratic Rep. Brad Ellsworth this week, purports to remove “federal funding for abortion” in H.R. 3962 by hiring contractors to issue checks for abortion - essentially putting one more procedural step between abortion and those who pay for them through the government plan.

The USCCB memo told congressional staff Thursday that U.S. bishops did not consider the amendment sufficient - that it does not, in fact, address any of the pro-life concerns in the health bill.

“On examination, it is not a meaningful compromise. It addresses none of the substantial criticisms offered by the Catholic bishops’ conference and other pro-life advocates for health care reform,” wrote Richard Doerflinger, secretariat of Pro-Life Activities at the USCCB, in the memo.

In a column discussing the U.S. bishops’ attitude towards the health bill, Denver auxiliary bishop James Conley noted that the U.S. bishops’ have diligently worked to establish true pro-life language to the bill; but, “as of November 5, all those efforts have failed.” “‘Common ground’ thinking in Washington apparently has more reality as public relations than as public policy,” wrote Conley.

The response by the USCCB may have a significant impact on pro-life lawmakers’ resolve to block the abortion-expanding bill: Bloomberg reports that, according to Ellsworth, several pro-life representatives were waiting to hear the bishops’ assessment before making up their mind about the language.

According to Rules Committee chairwoman Rep. Louise Slaughter, the “rule” or parameters for voting on the House bill will allow a vote on the Ellsworth amendment - but will not allow a vote on the Stupak/Pitts amendment, which would secure long-standing federal policy against abortion funding. A vote on the rule is expected Friday evening.

“[The Ellsworth amendment] serves no purpose except to assist Speaker Pelosi in peeling votes away from an amendment that would flatly prohibit the public plan from paying for elective abortions,” said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee.

Johnson called the Ellsworth Amendment “a political fig leaf made out of cellophane.”

“It directs the federal Secretary of Health to hire a contractor to deliver to abortion providers the payments for elective abortions, payments that are explicitly authorized by the bill [on page 110],” he said. “This is a money-laundering scheme — a federally funded ‘bag man’ will deliver government funds to abortionists. This is federal funding of elective abortion.”

Pro-life Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) called Ellsworth’s proposal equivalent to the government “taking out a contract on the unborn.”

Shortly before Ellsworth introduced his amendment, Smith had warned thousands of pro-lifers tuned into a Stop the Abortion Mandate webcast Monday to be on guard against phony compromises designed to strip support away from the critical Stupak/Pitts amendment.

(Click here for contact information for elected officials)

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Pro-Life Lawmakers Condemn ‘Sham’ Health Bill Abortion Compromise

11,000 on Abortion Mandate Webcast Warned against Phony Compromises in Healthcare Bill

“[Our goal is] to be ready as educators and parents to help young people obtain sex satisfaction before marriage.” -Dr. Lena Levine, colleague of Margaret Sanger and medical secretary of the International Planned Parenthood Federation in the 1930s

“We are not going to be an organization promoting celibacy or chastity.” -Faye Wattleton, President of Planned Parenthood from 1978-1992

This summer, one of America’s largest community organization networks was “busted” thanks to the efforts of two college kids with nothing more than a video camera and a desire to expose the truth. The shocking footage of ACORN workers advising Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe on everything from tax evasion to sex trafficking to prostitution sparked a firestorm of controversy and cast doubt upon the credibility of an organization that receives millions in federal funds—funds purportedly used to assist low-income individuals in improving their lives.

Few are aware, however, that before this intrepid pair set their sights on ACORN, O’Keefe conducted a similar campaign against Planned Parenthood. In a series of recorded telephone calls to Planned Parenthood offices across the country, O’Keefe posed as a prospective donor who wanted his contributions restricted to funding the abortion of African-American babies. In each instance he was assured that his wishes would be honored; not once was he turned away or taken to task for his despicable views.

Some interpret this as damning evidence that Planned Parenthood still actively embraces the vision of its founder, Margaret Sanger, who openly advocated for the sterilization of “undesirables” like minorities, immigrants, and the handicapped; and who viewed birth control primarily as a means “to create a race of thoroughbreds.” While the organization would deny that its goal today is to “control” the growth of minorities, it is worth noting that minorities are disproportionately impacted by abortion, of which Planned Parenthood is the leading provider.

From a politically-correct and multicultural perspective, however, Sanger’s current relevance lies not in her eugenicist ideology, but in her legacy of advancing the feminist cause well before the word “feminism” made its way into our lexicon. She was among the first to champion the notion that a woman’s body was her own and that a woman had a right to choose life or death for her unborn child. Almost a century after Sanger opened America’s first birth control clinic in Brooklyn, NY, Planned Parenthood continues to champion this cause by waging a systematic campaign to liberate young people from the constraints of family and traditional sexual morality.

In spite of evidence indicating that responsible parenting plays a formative role in influencing children’s sexual choices, Planned Parenthood has worked to supplant parents as the definitive authority on kids and sex. Its unabashed advocacy of pre-marital sexual experimentation, promiscuity, and abortion reveals a radical anti-family agenda that has no respect or regard for the role of parents in guiding kids’ sexual choices, no use for the sexual mores that go along with the institution of marriage, and little concern for the emotional or physical health of children.

Unfortunately, few are aware of the extent to which the United States Congress has aided and abetted Planned Parenthood’s crimes against the American family.

Last year, Planned Parenthood received approximately $350 million from the government in the form of grants and contracts. This money subsidized, among other things, an estimated 300,000 abortions. That amounts to 822 abortions every day, or 34 abortions per hour. When Planned Parenthood isn’t busy ridding the world of unwanted children, it’s spending millions to influence public policy and ensure our children are hearing its “sex without consequence thanks to birth control and abortion” message early and often, on the taxpayer’s dime, in public school classrooms across America.

Planned Parenthood goes out of its way to downplay its role as an abortion provider, emphasizing on its website that abortion services only account for three percent of its annual business. What the organization fails to acknowledge, however, is the role it plays in perpetuating the kind of irresponsible and short-sighted attitudes that lead to unwanted pregnancies—and thus, abortions—in the first place.

According to its mission statement, “Planned Parenthood believes in the fundamental right of each individual, throughout the world, to manage his or her fertility…. We believe that reproductive self-determination must be voluntary and preserve the individual’s right to privacy. We further believe that such self-determination will contribute to an enhancement of the quality of life and strong family relationships.” In plain English, that means “Kids, don’t let your parents saddle you with any hang-ups about sex outside of marriage. Use birth control to prevent pregnancy, and if that fails, you can fall back on abortion. Don’t let an unwanted child interfere with your plans for life.”

It’s notable that Planned Parenthood’s mission statement says nothing about the fundamental responsibility of each individual to exercise self-control in the sexual arena. Planned Parenthood’s goal is sex without restraint or consequence. Its view was summed up by President Obama—an ardent supporter of Planned Parenthood—when, during his campaign, he said the mistake of an unwanted pregnancy is a “punishment” that should not have to be tolerated.

But, you can’t eliminate a pregnancy without eliminating the unborn child. Therefore, the abortion that Mr. Obama advocates and that Planned Parenthood provides actually results in the “punishment” of an innocent party. Where’s the justice in that?

Until we repudiate the false notion that we can have sex without consequence and abortion without injury, organizations like Planned Parenthood will continue their government-assisted campaign to sexualize our children. A step in the right direction would be for Congress to defund Planned Parenthood and stop interfering with parents’ rightful role in educating their children about sex.

“The Catholic Church is a leaven in the dough,” began Msgr. Sedrak.  His social activism in a minority context is considerable.  This social and pastoral development gives the Church (which is at least eight million strong) a respected public persona in a population of more than 80 million inhabitants.

In the Diocese of Minya, where there are 50 000 Coptics of the Catholic rite, the Church supports “marginalized categories of people such as the handicapped, the deaf, the mute and the sick.”  The bishop explained that prisoners are also helped along with their families. “Over time, there were even children who were becoming criminals! So, little by little and with care, the work done with them diminished significantly the number of those who would otherwise choose the same road as their parents had.  There has been great progress,” he said proudly.

In the area of education, there are more than 185 catholic schools in Egypt, five of which are in the Diocese of Minya, and they hope to build another.  Education plays a crucial role, according to the bishop, as it lays a foundation for a better society and encourages a more open dialogue between Christians and Muslims. Many Muslims have developed a willingness to dialogue after seeing firsthand the good conduct of individual Christians.

This dialogue is sometimes complicated by the daily discrimination encountered by Christians at all levels. “Personally, as a Christian leader, I have problems building a church, without a doubt.  According to the rule, nothing is clear.”  But, Bishop Sedrak added, even Muslims find that laws are often “weakened” by “corruption” and “a disorder that invades everywhere.”  He estimated that from the political point of view “even Muslims are suffering.”

On the subject of interreligious dialogue, the bishop remarked, “In Egypt, one must distinguish between Islam and Muslims.” He continued, saying, “With Islam, I cannot go very far, because we will be discussing dogmas – convictions which will never change.  However, with Muslims, people who live with me every day, I can dialogue.”

This is especially true with Muslims who have attended Catholic schools, as well as those who have used the social services put in place by the Church which are open to everyone. “One must distinguish between simple, everyday people who are seeking their daily bread [and Islam].  If you are of service to them, you are considered to be a good person… and then they will like you!

The Synod: Having the courage to speak the truth

Bishop Sedrak also participated in the Synod on Africa which was held at the Vatican from the 4^th to the 25^th of October.  Commenting on the Synod, the bishop said, “This assembly of bishops, experts, those interested in the Church in Africa – this is already a fruit.  Sharing our experiences, our misfortunes and difficulties; getting along is already a fruit.”

The bishop also commented on the Synod discussions concerning the “prophetic role of the Church.” He said, “Prophetic role: as in, having the courage to speak the truth when it is needed.  Saying yes when needed, and saying no when needed.  Not always evading problems, that is a prophetic role in my opinion.”

Another remarkable happening for Msgr. Sedrak is the fact that he can ‘count himself’ among Africans. “Before, as an Egyptian, I did not consider myself to be an African, but now, I have something new.”  Along with this ‘new sense of belonging’ to the Church of Africa, the bishop of Minya was touched by the Holy Father’s conduct with regard to the Synod.  He “leaves his work to be present with us…and he was really there!”  A situation, he reckons, that “changes a Churches’ mentality; meaning: there are not great and small; there is but one Church.

Not leaving, despite it all

Bishop Msgr. Sedrak also expressed concern about the exodus of young people from Egypt, especially by Christians. He explained that it is easy to leave the country and he believes that at times this exodus is supported by the national government and even the international community.

The bishop summarized his views, saying “I believe that to be Christian in a country that is majority Muslim is a vocation.”  He also said that standing your ground requires prayer, courage, wisdom and strength… and a helping hand from outside.  “Egypt, we must help, because it is a very important country at all levels: for Africa, for the Middle-East and even for the world”!

Last year, Aid to the Church in Need provided more than $500,000 in aid to support Church projects in Egypt.

ID)) : ?>
ID); ?>

Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Shannon and the National Security Council’s Senior Director for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Dan Restrepo, visited the Honduran capital, Tegucigalpa, on Wednesday to compel the country’s recalcitrant democrats to make a deal with the man the latter had lawfully removed from the presidency on June 28th. It remains to be seen whether, pursuant to this deal, ex-President Manuel Zelaya will now be - as he claims - restored to power.  What is already unmistakable, though, is that it is better to be a foe of America than its friend.

The Obama administration has been on the wrong side in this affair from the moment the Honduran supreme court and congress acted as required by their nation’s constitution in the face of Zelaya’s effort to engineer an illegal second term.  Instead of standing with those who lawfully protected democracy, President Obama and his minions immediately joined the region’s authoritarians - including notably Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Cuba’s Castro brothers - in declaring Zelaya a victim of a “coup.”

When the interim Honduran president, Roberto Micheletti, a member of Zelaya’s own party, and his countrymen refused to reinstall the latter, Team Obama unleashed their full “soft power” arsenal upon America’s impoverished ally.  Drawing upon an opinion authored by notorious transnationalist Harold Koh, the State Department’s Legal Advisor, which found that the Hondurans’ action was indeed a “coup” and must be reversed, the U.S. administration and/or its allies on Capitol Hill: cut off most aid to Honduras; issued travel warnings to discourage tourism; blocked visas for officials of the interim government; tried to preclude fact-finding missions to Tegucigalpa by Republican legislators; and promoted the heavy-handed, pro-Zelaya “diplomacy” of the Organization of American States’ leftist Chilean secretary general, José Miguel Insulza.

As the Honduran democrats refused to bend to such coercion, Obama’s team dropped the big one:  The United States would join the hemisphere’s large and growing block of authoritarian nations in refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the election scheduled for the end of this month.

The effect of this power-play would be to deny the people of Honduras the one peaceful means they would have to end the nightmare Zelaya unleashed.  Representatives of all of the parties, including Zelaya’s, were anxious to have the elections go forward as planned and, on the basis of free and fair balloting, democratically select a new president.  During their visit last week, however, the American officials - joined by the widely reviled U.S. Ambassador to Tegucigalpa Hugo Llorens - evidently made the Hondurans, as mafia godfather Vito Corleone would say, “an offer they can’t refuse.”

According to the resulting deal, it will be up to the Honduran high court and legislature to decide whether Manuel Zelaya will be restored to power for the remaining three months of what was once his term in office. As both acted in the first place to depose him, that would not seem likely.

But with the likes of Harold Koh, Tom Shannon and Dan Restrepo calling the shots, the would-be dictator may be right when, according to the Associated Press he claimed on Friday that the “U.S.-brokered pact will restore him to power in about a week.”  In addition to authoring the opinion that justified Obama’s hard line on the Honduran democrats, Koh is fixated on having international norms (for example, opposing “coups”) trump national sovereignty (for example, the Honduran constitution).

Worse yet, as Nicolle Ferrand points out in the Center for Security Policy’s Americas Report, Shannon was no help to Latin American friends of freedom during his tenure in the Bush administration.  That profile would certainly square with a report in Honduras’ El Pais newsapaper on Sunday that Shannon is now lobbying legislators there to allow Zelaya’s restoration.

Then, there is Dan Restrepo, yet-another problematic product of John Podesta’s left-wing Center for American Progress (CAP) - an organization whose staffing of and influence over the Obama administration is extremely worrisome.  Ferrand speculates that Restrepo’s attachment to Zelaya’s restoration may have something to do with his sympathy for the radical drug-legalization agenda of George Soros, a key CAP benefactor.  After all, among Zelaya’s other misdeeds, the ousted president stands accused of being deeply involved in the narco-trafficking that Chavez and the Colombian FARC have increasingly used Honduran territory to conduct.

At the very least, it is predictable that Venezuela and other Chavista regimes will be doing all they can to intervene in Honduras’ pending decisions about Comrade Zelaya’s fate.  They surely will calculate that, with the Americans forcing open the door to their man’s return to power, the more trouble they threaten or foment in Honduras, the more likely it is that he will be allowed to walk through it.

There has been a “coup” alright in Honduras.  America’s friends there have been undercut and demeaned.  This country’s many enemies in the region have been encouraged to redouble their attempt to hijack yet another of its few remaining democracies.  And the United States is diminished by demonstrating that it is willing to use its influence and leverage to hurt the former and help the latter.  Whether Manuel Zelaya actually regains the presidency or not, last week’s “deal” represents a coup for the Obama Doctrine.

On his blog Boehner states that this premium “will be paid into a U.S. Treasury account - and these federal funds will be used to pay for the abortion services.”

He continues: “Section 213 [of the bill] describes the process in which the Health Benefits Commissioner is to assess the monthly premiums that will be used to pay for elective abortions under the government-run plan.  The Commissioner must charge at a minimum 1$ per enrollee per month.”

His statement immediately gathered attention among those favoring the health care bill, who denied that Boehner’s post accurately portrayed the situation.

According to Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee, however, “Boehner’s post is perfectly accurate.”

Johnson told David Brody of CBN News that “we call it the ‘abortion surcharge.’  It is just one more thing illustrating what we’ve been saying: The bill explicitly authorizes the big new federal government health insurance plan, the public option, to pay for all elective abortions.”

Nevertheless, Johnson continued by saying that “even if the Democratic leadership struck out the ‘abortion surcharge,’ the same fundamental problem would remain:  The ‘public option’ is a federal agency program, and when it pays for elective abortions, that is federal funding of abortion on demand — no matter what convoluted cloaking devices the pro-abortion politicians invent to try to conceal what they are doing.”

According to Boehner, such funding of abortion makes “Speaker Pelosi’s 2,032-page health care monstrosity” an affront “to the American people.”

In addition to speaking about the abortion premium, Boehner also states that the Health and Human Services Secretary “is given the authority to determine when abortion is allowed under the government-run plan.”

The current Health and Human Services Secretary is Kathleen Sebelius, a pro-abortion “Catholic” who vetoed several pro-life bills during her time as Governor of Kansas.  She is infamous for having invited the recently murdered late-term abortionist George Tiller and his staff to a party at the governor’s mansion in 2007.  Tiller had given significant quantities of money to Sebelius’ campaign.

Boehner continues to write that, additionally, the “Speaker’s plan also requires that at least one insurance plan offered in the Exchange covers abortions.”

Boehner has previously made no secret of his opposition to the abortion-funding Democratic health-care bill.  As he wrote on National Review Online in July, “If a health-care bill doesn’t lower costs for middle-class families, but does require them to subsidize abortion-on-demand with their hard-earned tax dollars, one has to ask a fundamental question: For whom was this bill actually written?”

He continued: “Was it written for the millions of Americans who were promised a health-care bill that lowers costs? Or is it really for the radical special-interest and lobbying groups that invested millions to elect a cooperative president and Congress?”

“We’re very close. Clearly, things happen. Delay tactics can be employed,” Hoyer told reporters on a conference call.  Hoyer said that the ultimate vote on the bill could take place as late as Monday or Tuesday, in time to dodge further delay from Wednesday’s Veterans Day holiday.

Antonia Ferrier, spokeswoman for House Republican Leader John Boehner, responded drily to Hoyer’s statements. “Nice try Rep. Hoyer, but you can’t blame Republicans when the fact is you just don’t have the votes,” she said.

In addition to spending concerns over the bill - with an estimated cost of $1.2 trillion - the radical expansion of federal funding of abortion in the Obama administration’s top domestic priority has emerged as its biggest hurdle.

On Thursday, a clarion call from pro-life Republican lawmakers drew thousands of citizens to Capitol Hill to protest the bill’s abortion funding as well as its health coverage for illegal immigrants.  Rep. Boehner’s office estimated the crowd at around 10,000.

Family Research Council Tony Perkins denounced the bill at the rally as “a bailout for the abortion industry.”

About a dozen protesters criticizing the bill’s abortion expansion were arrested at House Speaker Pelosi’s office during Friday’s rally.  Members of the group were variously charged with unlawful conduct, disorderly conduct, and unlawful entry.

When we got word recently that the movie “2012” depicts the Vatican being blown up, along with the famous statue from Rio, Christ the Redeemer, we were unmoved. Why? Because this occurs during the end of the world in a massive destruction. This kind of sensationalism, we reasoned, is standard fare for director Roland Emmerich: he is the guru of the “blow ‘em up” genre of movies. But now we’ve learned that while Catholics get theirs, Muslims are spared. Out of fear, of course.

Emmerich is more than a coward—he is a liar who has it out for Catholics. Last year, he was quoted saying, “I would like to erase all nations and religions.” Not true. He is quite content to live with Islam, even though he readily admits it is a religion of terror. When asked why he did not show the destruction of Kaaba, the religious structure in the Grand Mosque in Mecca, he said, “I wanted to do that, I have to admit. You can actually let Christian symbols fall apart, but if you would do this with [an] Arab symbol, you would have…a fatwa.”

So why was the Sistine Chapel designated for destruction? “We have to show how this gets destroyed….I am against organized religion.” Emmerich lies again. He is not against Islam.

After bragging that the movie shows the Sistine Chapel falling on people’s heads, Emmerich explains the moral of the story: “Never pray in front of a big church. Pray by yourself.” He lies again: Muslims who want to pray in front of a mosque are safe. That’s because, as Emmerich sees it, they’re known to kill those who offend their religion.

Every time I say Hollywood hates Christianity, especially Catholicism, my critics cringe. But they never offer evidence that I’m wrong.

Contact Sony Pictures Entertainment chief Amy Pascal:
amy.pascal@spe.sony.com

This new evidence, explains the report, contains "borderline cases where we felt we did not have quite enough evidence to call for their defunding," but which "warrant further investigation by the CCHD and the USCCB and bolster our case that the CCHD grants process is in need of major reform."

BVM’s first report on the CCHD, released in August, revealed that four CCHD-funded groups were actively supporting abortion and/or contraception and numerous others were advocating for health-care reform without prejudice to abortion funding.  The CCHD responded by defunding two of the former groups, but defended their grants to the others and did not address the issue about how the groups were given funding in the first place.

Then last week a number of Catholic organizations, including BVM, Human Life International, and American Life League, formed a coalition - Reform CCHD Now - calling for a massive reform of CCHD and exhorting Catholics to boycott the upcoming collection on November 21-22.

The first part of BVM’s second report exposes two groups as examples of CCHD grantees that are offering or supporting ‘family planning’ services, a euphemism that typically includes contraception.

The first is Preble Street, a Maine group which offers homeless shelters and soup kitchens, but that makes "family planning" services available at one of their day shelters.

The second is the San Francisco Organizing Project (SFOP), which has strongly supported health centers that offer emergency contraception and ‘family planning’ services.  One offers these services to youth aged 12 to 21 without need for parental consent.  Notably, SFOP successfully campaigned to secure a $200,000 grant for two such health centers.

The second part of the report reveals that seven CCHD grantees, as well as several Catholic Charities branches, are part of a California coalition of campaign partners called Mobilize the Immigrant Vote (MIV).  MIV brings together community organizations and equips them "to register, educate, and mobilize their constituents for electoral participation."

As BVM founder Rob Gasper told LifeSiteNews.com, however, MIV is not simply focused on encouraging people to vote, but to vote according to MIV’s agenda, which includes support for abortion and same-sex ‘marriage.’

MIV’s policy platform advocates for ‘reproductive health’ services, a vague and oft-used euphemism that typically includes contraception and abortion.  This stance is further clarified by their 2008 voters guide, which urged voting against parental notifications for minors seeking abortion (Proposition 4).  The voters guide also came out against Proposition 8, which prevented same-sex ‘marriage.’  Notably, Planned Parenthood is listed as a campaign partner alongside CCHD’s grantees.

"They don’t just want to register people to vote," said Gasper.  "They basically want to … indoctrinate them on these social issues.  That’s their major goal."

Indeed, as one MIV leader explained, they focus on educating people to vote according to their member groups’ interests.  "We don’t think it’s responsible or very good organizing to just get people out to vote," said Nancy Berlin, MIV Executive Committee Chair.  "We want to make sure that the work that we do is linked to the broader missions of our community organizations and fosters the work that they are already doing."

Of course, "the grantees might be able to say ‘Well, we just used their materials.  We didn’t know what they were all about.’," said Gasper. However, according to BVM’s report, "this in actuality cannot be the case," since MIV insists that they developed their platform and voters guide in conjunction with their campaign partners, presumably including the CCHD grantees.

"[These groups'] association with MIV raises questions which must be answered immediately," the BVM report reads.  "Did they distribute the MIV produced voter material? Why would they participate in a voter mobilization drive led by a group acting directly against Church teaching? Will they publicly state their adherence to the pro-life teachings of the Catholic Church?"

"We again ask the USCCB to reform the CCHD grants process," the report continues, "so Catholics can be assured that not a single penny of their donations are used to fund groups which support or are sympathetic to grave evils condemned by Church teaching."

While BVM’s reports on the CCHD have focused strictly on grantees’ promotion of policies contrary to Church teaching, primarily in regard to life issues, the CCHD has been accused for decades of supporting radical left-wing organizations.

The CCHD is meant to be the USCCB’s domestic anti-poverty campaign, and through their advertising they present themselves as fighting poverty in America.  As critics have noted, however, many Catholics are not aware that the organization specifically does not fund groups that work directly with the poor, such as crisis pregnancy centers.  In fact, despite the advertising, the CCHD’s mandate is rather to work with "community-controlled, self-help organizations."

The Reform CCHD Now coalition is calling on American Catholics to download and print out special coupons that can be put in the collection basket on November 21-22 in lieu of money.  The coupons indicate that the money which would have been given to CCHD is being given instead to a group that conforms to Church teaching on social justice and life and family issues.

The study appeared in the most recent issue of the British Journal of Psychiatry and examined data from a sampling of 500 women who were interviewed six times between the ages of 15 and 30, each time being asked whether they had been pregnant and, if so, what the outcome of that pregnancy had been.

The study revealed that unwanted pregnancy leading to abortion is likely to be a risk factor for mental-health problems that include depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, alcohol dependence, and illicit drug dependence, while unwanted pregnancy that ends in the birth of the baby does not carry the same risk factor.

Dr. Fergusson observed, "those having an abortion and reporting negative reactions had rates of mental health disorders that were approximately 1.4 to 1.8 times higher than those not having an abortion."

Of those women who had undergone an abortion, more than 85 percent reported a least one negative emotional reaction, including sorrow, sadness, guilt, regret, grief and disappointment.

A similar number reported at least one positive reaction, including relief, happiness and satisfaction. The findings suggest that many women experienced a mixture of both positive and negative emotions about having an abortion.

Earlier reports from the same study, released in 2006, found that more than 40 percent of those who had an abortion suffered major depression within four years prior to the study, nearly double the rate of those who had never been pregnant. The 2006 report also found that the risk of developing an anxiety disorder also doubled in women who had abortions.

The report concluded: "Collectively, this evidence raises important questions about the practice of justifying termination of pregnancy on the grounds that this procedure will reduce risks of mental health problems in women having unwanted pregnancy.

"Currently there is no evidence to support the assumptions underlying this practice, and the findings of the present study suggest that abortion may, in fact, increase mental health risks among those women who find seeking and obtaining an abortion a distressing experience."

The report further stated that the study showed no evidence to "support strong pro-choice positions that claim unwanted pregnancy terminated by abortion is without mental health risks."

Brendan Malone, from Family Life International New Zealand, said the report was just one of several new studies which highlighted the fact that women are not receiving all of the facts when they seek out an abortion.

Citing a Canadian study published in September in the International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, which showed women who had an abortion in the first or second trimester had a 36 percent increased risk of later having a premature baby, and women who had undergone more than one abortion had a 93 percent risk of later having a premature baby, Malone said, "Counselling provided to women seeking out abortions is so woefully inadequate that it is practically non-existent."

"In the vast majority of cases, abortion ‘counseling’ in New Zealand (and elsewhere) merely consists of ticking a series of boxes, and women are very rarely, if ever, informed of the scientifically established risks that they will be exposing themselves to, and the support that is available to them to pursue alternatives to abortion."

Malone said one of the consistent themes his group’s post-abortion counselling team hears is that women were never informed of all the risks and alternatives available to them before opting for an abortion.

"Tragically, these same women also state that they probably would have chosen not to abort their babies had they received proper counseling about the risk factors, and the other options that were open to them."

Malone said pro-abortion lobbyists "like to throw the word ‘choice’ around."

"But how can we honestly claim that women choosing abortion are making a free and informed decision when they haven’t been properly advised about the risks of having an abortion, and the alternatives available to them."

The full text of Professor David Fergusson’s research paper "Reactions to abortion and subsequent mental health" is available here .