U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) has argued that Obama’s Department of Justice (DOJ) is not doing enough to defend DOMA, and therefore asked a federal court Tuesday for permission to intervene. Smith is being represented by the Alliance Defense Fund.

The motion argues that the act, which defines marriage under federal law as the legal union of a man and a woman, essentially has been left undefended because “the DOJ’s current DOMA defense, which happens to fit the current Administration’s policy preferences, is really no defense at all.”

The motion for the case Gill v. Office of Personnel Management notes that the DOJ’s defense of DOMA failed even to cite precedent on the matter set by the 1972 Supreme Court decision Baker v Nelson, and explicitly disavowed arguments that Congress had used to support DOMA in the past. “Under the new Administration, which strongly supports DOMA’s repeal, the DOJ traded these winning rationales for anemic arguments never recognized by any court in a challenge to DOMA or a similar state marriage definition,” states the ADF’s motion.

In addition, the Obama administration has been slow to file appeals to defend the law. The deadline for the Department of Justice to respond is Oct. 12, and Health and Human Services, a defendant in one of the cases, has until Oct. 18.

“The DOJ’s faint-hearted advocacy is especially alarming here because people have the right to rely on the government to make a good defense of laws passed by their congressional representatives,” wrote the lawyers. “The DOJ’s practical abdication of its own proven legal arguments, plus its ambivalence on whether it will even appeal, warrants intervention to ensure that widely supported Congressional legislation like DOMA receives a fair and vigorous defense.”

The group Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders filed the lawsuit against the U.S. Office of Personnel Management on behalf of clients in Massachusetts who were denied federal government benefits reserved for couples recognized as married under federal law. Same-sex “marriage” is legally recognized in Massachusetts.

Massachusetts also filed its own lawsuit to dismantle the federal DOMA, Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The ADF is also filing a motion to intervene on behalf of Smith in that case as well.

Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, noted that the DOJ’s weak defense “has Elena Kagan’s fingerprints all over” it. Kagan, who was confirmed to succeed Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens in August, had oversight over the questionable defense as U.S. Solicitor General.

But that is not why I chose to write about her. I chose to write about her because of two appalling statements she made about abortion and child murder—under the guise that her actions would be compassionate. In reference to abortion, Ironside said, “If a baby’s going to be born severely disabled or totally unwanted, surely an abortion is the act of a loving mother.” In yet another statement, she said, “If I were the mother of a suffering child—I mean a deeply suffering child—I would be the first to want to put a pillow over its face. If it was a child I really loved, who was in agony, I think any good mother would.”

While the horror of this should make you gasp, the woman speaking those words was not only serious, but dedicated to the premise that she would be acting with the greatest level of love for the child if she took that child’s life. She is equating love for a child with imposing her will for death if that child were not completely healthy or wanted. To her, death is the greater good.

The host, Susanna Reid, who was listening as Ironside made the comment about murdering a sick and helpless child, appeared visibly shocked by Ironside’s comments—as well she should be. What we heard from the mouth of this woman, who is described as an “agony aunt”—a British colloquialism for advice columnist—is quite typical for those who deny that God exists, believing that man alone can and should make decisions about who should live and who should die.

Ironside’s forthrightness in the matter is really quite remarkable because most of those who might silently agree with her would not publicly use the verbal shockwave she uttered to bring home the point that there are people who cannot tolerate human suffering—whether it is their own or someone else’s.

Indeed, such folks will go to any extreme possible to eliminate it. This can mean suicide or imposed death/abortion if the suffering individual gets in the way of “normal” life or imposes a burden on those responsible for his care. Cold, hard-hearted and cruel are words that come to mind, but not among those who would consider themselves Ironside sympathizers. Such people would prefer to define Ironside’s attitude as compassionate.

This brings to mind a very insightful and timely Flannery O’Connor quote: “In the absence of faith, we govern by tenderness. And tenderness leads to the gas chamber.” Commentator John Mallon suggests that if O’Connor were alive today she would have chosen the word “compassion” rather than the word “tenderness.” I agree, but either way, we get the point.

As believing Christians we know that God is the author of life. But among those who reject faith in God as something akin to a fable—excusing folks from life by acts of abortion, pillow smothering, lethal injection or plug pulling, to name but a few of the choices they extol—there is little regard for the so-called inconvenient life. And that is where Ms. Ironside is coming from.

In an apostolic letter, Pope John Paul II reminded us “… The name ‘Good Samaritan’ fits every individual who is sensitive to the sufferings of others, who ‘is moved’ by the misfortune of another. If Christ, who knows the interior of man, emphasizes this compassion, this means that it is important for our whole attitude to others’ suffering. Therefore one must cultivate this sensitivity of heart, which bears witness to compassion towards a suffering person. Sometimes this compassion remains the only or principal expression of our love for and solidarity with the sufferer.”

Note that the Holy Father equated compassion with “sensitivity of heart,” not coldness of heart.

Without Christ in our lives during times of suffering, compassion turns deadly and mercy becomes a one way ticket to death. Preborn children become problematic; the ailing and the dying become burdensome and Ironside makes sense—because without Christ there is no love. There is only hate, only intolerance, only evil, and only imposed death.

That’s the lesson taught by Ms. Ironside. Let us not overlook it.

Rasmussen reports Thursday that Angle has now broken the 50 percent threshold of likely voters, and enjoys a four point lead over Reid (46 percent).

Just two percent of voters would prefer another candidate, and two percent say they are undecided. In Nevada, voters have the option to vote “none of the above,” which conservative activists fear may work to Reid’s advantage rather than Angle’s.

The U.S. Senate Majority Leader, once considered pro-life, was the legislative godfather of the unpopular “Affordable Care Act,” which pro-life advocates roundly attacked for having back-door abortion funding provisions. If Angle takes down Reid on November 2, it would be a major blow to Senate Democrats, who would likely nominate pro-abortion U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) as their next caucus leader.

Reid has waged a fiercely negative ad campaign, intended to make his pro-life and Tea Party-endorsed opponent look kooky and out-of-touch with Nevada voters.

But the tide seems now to be turning in Angle’s favor, as voter dissatisfaction with Reid scores higher than voter problems with Angle.

According to a Fox News/Pulse Opinion Research-Rasmussen poll of 1000 likely voters, 56 percent said the Senate Majority Leader had “been in office too long,” while 53 percent said Angle’s views were “too extreme.” Reid also had higher unfavorable ratings (55 percent) than Angle (53 percent).

According to that poll, Angle is ahead of Reid by three points, 49 percent to 46 percent, and leads in several key voting demographics: women, independents, and voters over 40.

The GOP state senator has consolidated 85 percent of her GOP base, and has the support of a majority of women and independents (both 51 percent).

Reid has the support of his Democrat base (87 percent) and leads Angle among younger voters aged 18-39. But he only slightly beats Angle among men, 49 percent to 48 percent, and trails when it comes to getting the support of women voters (43 percent) and independents (42 percent).

Angle also leads Reid by three points among older voters ages 40-64 (49 percent), and is ahead 10 points among voters ages 65 and up (52 percent.)

The poll results fall within the three-point margin of error.

A CNN/Time poll also has Angle leading Reid, but just by two points (42 percent to 40 percent.)

The group expressed frustration after Archbishop John C. Nienstedt withheld the sacrament from them because they wore rainbow buttons and sashes signaling their support for same-sex “marriage” and homosexuality. The archbishop, who was celebrating his first student Mass at St. John’s on September 26, instead gave a blessing to members of the group, which included students from St. John’s University and the College of St. Benedict, as well as three nuns and a priest. Rainbow Sash Movement leader Brian McNeil said the group acted independently of his organization.

Elizabeth Gleich, a St. Benedict sophomore and board member of People Representing the Sexual Minority (PRiSM), said that her group had intended to “make a statement” against the archbishop’s support for traditional marriage. She criticized Nienstedt for “mak[ing] these extreme statements” by denying the group communion. Gleich, who was wearing a sash, was given communion in another line at the same liturgy.

Another PRiSM member, Ana Seivert, complained in a Minnesota Public Radio (MPR) report that the archbishop’s action was “political.” “We weren’t the ones who made it political,” she said. “Once the archbishop denied communion, he made it political.”

Archdiocese spokesman Dennis McGrath said the church has told the Rainbow Sash Movement “for years” that members “cannot receive communion if you wear the rainbow sash, because it’s a political statement, a sign of protest,” according to the Star Tribune. “Going to the communion rail is the most sacred part of our faith, the Eucharist. We don’t allow anybody to make political statements or any kind of protest.”

“It’s a symbol of the GLBT movement en masse, and it was intended as a protest,” McGrath told MPR. “It was pretty obvious.”

Rev. Rene McGraw, a philosophy professor at St. John’s, said that he celebrated a small Mass later that evening and gave all the members of the group communion. “My understanding of church law is that one is not to deny communion to anyone unless he or she is a public sinner, and that has traditionally been interpreted very narrowly,” said McGraw, according to the AP. “My instinct was these are people who were in need, I’m supportive of them, therefore I’m happy to say mass for them.”

However, the Vatican has confirmed that Rainbow Sashers cannot receive communion while publicly standing in opposition to Church teaching on sexuality, as stated by Cardinal Francis Arinze, the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, in 2005.

Cardinal Francis George, head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, wrote in 2004 that: “The policy of the U.S. Bishops’ conference, a policy I did not invent, was to refuse Communion to anyone who used its reception as an occasion to protest against the Church’s teaching.”

St. Paul-Minneapolis Archbishop Emeritus Harry Flynn, prior to his retirement, had been singled out for praise from the Rainbow Sash Movement for welcoming members to communion in his diocese. Nienstedt succeeded Flynn upon the latter’s retirement on May 2, 2008.

Rainbow Sash wearers have successfully approached the rail in other areas, most notably the dioceses of Rochester, New York, Los Angeles, California, and Detroit, Michigan.  The organization usually gears up every year on the Catholic holy day of Pentecost to launch a coordinated effort to receive communion while wearing the sashes, and have even been known to snatch the host and distribute it to members when ministers were reluctant.

Patrick Reilly of the Cardinal Newman Society, a Catholic college watchdog group, criticized the schools for failing to stand in solidarity with the archbishop.

“As long as the University sponsors a club that blatantly opposes Catholic teaching with events like ‘Freedom to Marry Day,’ I can only foresee more embarrassing and scandalous situations like this arising,” Reilly told LifeSiteNews.com Wednesday.

“This is an opportunity for University leaders to explain Catholic teaching, clarify the institution’s Catholic identity, and act in communion with the Archbishop.  To remain silent would seem to condone the students’ actions.

Minnesota’s bishops revealed last month that they would be mailing hundreds of thousands of DVDs to Catholics in the state explaining the Church’s position against gay “marriage,” and urging them to support candidates who favor protecting traditional marriage.

The surrogate, a mother of two, initially disagreed with the parents and decided to give birth to the child; however, she eventually decided to abort, according to the Post.  The parties had signed an agreement saying that the parents would not be responsible for their child should the woman carry the pregnancy to term against the parents’ wishes.

Dr. Ken Seethram, who oversaw the case, discussed the situation, which took place within the last year, in a presentation last week at a conference of the Canadian Society of Fertility and Andrology.  Seethram, who works at Pacific Centre for Reproductive Medicine, argued that the situation suggests there is no need for the government to oversee contracts between parents and surrogates.

Sally Rhoads, a former surrogate who runs a website supporting those involved in “third party reproduction,” told the Post that parents should be “protected” in the event of a disagreement over whether to have the unborn baby killed by abortion or not.  “The baby that’s being carried is their baby. It’s usually their genetic offspring,” she said. “Why should the intended parents be forced to raise a child they didn’t want? It’s not fair.”

However, Juliet Guichon, a bioethicist with the University of Calgary, said that children cannot be treated the same as any other product that might be created on an assembly line. “Should the rules of commerce apply to the creation of children? No, because children get hurt,” Guichon told the Post. “It’s kind of like stopping the production line: ‘Oh, oh, there’s a flaw.’ It makes sense in a production scenario, but in reproduction it’s a lot more problematic.”

According to Dr. John Shea, a leading Canadian bioethicist and expert on reproductive technologies, the situation highlights the dangers of Canada’s liberal laws concerning the beginning of life.  “When you break the moral law, you end up with a thousand different problems, foreseen or unforeseen,” he said.

“There’s so many basic things wrong here,” Shea told LifeSiteNews.com.  He insisted that the conceived child has “the ultimate right from God Himself to be allowed to be born.”  “Any of the shenanigans that go on between the would-be parents and this woman [the surrogate] is an irrelevancy,” he said.  “The moral law is the moral law.”

Dr. Shea also sharply criticized the practice of surrogacy, and artificial reproduction as a whole. He pointed out that in order for one embryo to successfully implant, doctors artificially conceive many more, which are discarded or frozen.  In Canada, they actually implant a few in the hope that one will survive. He also pointed out that the semen is taken from the man by way of masturbation.

He said that artificial reproduction has also been shown to be dangerous for the child, with, for example, a much-increased instance of prematurity and thus the corresponding health risks.

“The child should be conceived by sexual intercourse in marriage,” he maintained.  “It’s entitled to be conceived in that fashion.”

The new maternal health report endorses a UN strategy that recommends “safe” abortion services and family planning alongside antenatal care and skilled attendants at birth.  That strategy was based on previous UN reports that said 536,000 women died yearly from pregnancy-related causes, 78,000 from illegal abortion. The new report slashes the total to 358,000 and did not offer any data regarding abortion.

“This is specious,” Duke University’s Dr. Monique Chireau said. “There were no data collected on deaths from abortion. We can’t even get good data on maternal deaths.”

The report says that only 63 of 173 countries studied had complete records on a cause of death. Twenty-four had no records at all.

Critics say the UN issued the report because of a recent independent study that showed previous UN data suspect and its research methods flawed. That independent study found that better education, economics, and healthcare, along with lower fertility rates, led to better maternal health. It did not mention abortion or family planning.

At a conference in June, International Planned Parenthood’s Sharon Camp asked one of the authors of the independent study if abortion and family planning contributed to lower maternal deaths. The author, Dr. Christopher Murray, replied that it would be hard to find evidence to support that belief.

While the most recent UN report found the same lower number of maternal deaths as the independent study, its research methods remain murky. While the UN report includes a comparison of study methods, Chireau said it leaves readers more confused about the UN’s approach. “They talk about process. What process? Where are the additional data sets?”

A former UN reproductive health official said promoting abortion services stems from a belief by most UN staff that legalizing abortion makes it safer and does not increase its incidence. Dr. Guiseppe Benagiano, formerly of the World Health Organization, acknowledged that abortion rates have increased after legalization in a number of countries.

Complete data is available for countries where abortion is illegal and maternal deaths low, such as Chile, Ireland, Malta, and Poland. Pro-life analysts say the research links tighter abortion laws with better maternal health. The new UN report, meanwhile, shows maternal deaths are higher than previously estimated in India, where abortion is legal and widespread.

Sixty-five percent of all maternal deaths occur in 11 countries, including India, according to the report. Three states with the highest rates of maternal death rates are torn by war or suffer from failed governments.

While it does not offer an evidentiary link, the new UN report says that higher contraceptive prevalence “may have contributed to improved outcomes.” Chireau called that misleading because a decrease in HIVAIDS-related deaths is a big factor behind lower maternal deaths in sub-Saharan Africa.

The UN report puts HIVAIDS-related maternal deaths at 21,000, one-third the number found by the independent researchers. It acknowledges that the figure was “difficult to estimate directly from available study data.”

A new Sunshine State News Poll now has Scott, a Republican, as “favored to win” on November’s election day against Sink, the Democrat nominee. While that poll shows Scott leading with 44 percent of the vote to Sink’s 42 percent, and 14 percent undecided, which is all within the poll’s 3 percent margin of error, Sunshine State News reports the pro-life GOPer has solidified a lead in key voting groups.

Jim Lee, president of Voter Survey Service, which conducted the poll, told the Sunshine State News that Scott possesses a decisive edge over Sink, with a three-point advantage among those most likely to vote, and a four point advantage among those who voted in the ‘08 and ‘06 general elections.

However Lee said Sink would take the lead if she can capture all those one-time voters that turned out for President Obama in 2008.

“These (presidential-cycle voters) are the key to Sink if she can gin up turnout. No small task,” Lee told the news agency.

However the prevailing political winds in Florida are not favorable to President Obama, as 56 percent of Floridians disapprove of his job performance, according to a Quinnipiac poll released Friday. Independents in the state have run away from Obama, and more independents (46 percent) have lined up in support Scott over Sink (40 percent). That Quinnipiac poll, conducted September 23-28, shows Scott leading Sink 49 to 43 percent.

A Rasmussen Reports poll of 750 likely voters, conducted on September 30, adds to the evidence of the election trending toward the pro-life Scott. In that poll, Scott wins 46 percent of likely voters, with Sink winning only 41 percent.

Sink’s campaign is supported by the pro-abortion Emily’s List, a political action committee (PAC) dedicated to putting pro-abortion women into public office.

Emily’s List has denounced Scott as “extremely anti-choice,” citing his opposition to Roe v. Wade, and his support for a bill vetoed in June by Gov. Charlie Crist that would have required an ultrasound to be performed on abortion-bound women.

The ultrasound bill was seen as a key step forward for the pro-life movement in Florida. Had it become law, abortionists would have been obligated to perform an ultrasound to show women the child they sought to abort, and describe to them the parts of the baby as revealed on the ultrasound image.

Scott also opposes embryonic stem-cell research.

Florida Right to Life (FRTL) PAC has also endorsed Scott in the governor’s race, and he is the nominee of Florida’s Tea Party, which has an official ballot line in the state.

Matt Ozolnieks, chairman of FRTL PAC, told LifeSiteNews.com in a telephone interview that he was “not surprised” that polling trends show Scott leading the race.

“There is a wave of pro-life enthusiasm in the state of Florida this cycle, as we’ve never seen before,” Ozolnieks explained. “I’ll put our candidates against Planned Parenthood’s any day of the week.”

Ozolnieks also praised Scott’s selection of pro-life state Rep. Jennifer Carroll (R-Fleming Island) to run as his lieutenant governor as “an amazing choice.”

“She’s a solid pro-life woman that leads a really good example for our young folks out there that are looking at public service, and perhaps say ‘do I need to be quiet on this issue.’ No, you don’t. Here is an accomplished woman that will be our next lieutenant governor,” continued Ozolnieks. He added that if Scott wins, Carroll would be in a good position to run later for Senate or governor, ensuring more strong pro-life leadership for Florida.

A former chairman of Solantic and leader of Conservatives for Patients Rights, Scott was one of the individuals honored as “Business Person of the Year” at the 2009 Paul Weyrich Awards dinner in Georgetown’s Four Seasons Hotel, Washington, D.C.

LSN had a chance to interview Scott at that event, where he emphasized that social and economic conservatives do have a commonality of interests; he said that the fight over health-care reform and its specter of health-care rationing was an instance of the two viewpoints aligning in a common fight.

“I’m a conservative, and every conservative I know cares about people,” said Scott. “So they know that doing the right thing on health-care is going to be better for you as an individual, your family, and your kids” (see story).

The students were arrested around 9:00 a.m. as they were preparing to set up signs in the university’s Tory Quad, a central outdoor location, for the Genocide Awareness Project, which compares abortion to past atrocities through graphic imagery.

“This will set the standard for how far pro-lifers are willing to go for their right to freedom of speech, and their right to talk about abortion,” said Ruth Lobo, a fourth-year student and president of Carleton Lifeline, after she and the others were released this morning.

The university had forbidden the GAP display in the location, and told them to do it in Porter Hall – a large, out of the way, room in the university’s student life building.  They persisted even after the students’ lawyer told the university that they were infringing freedom of speech.

After fruitless negotiations with the university, the students warned them that they would protest this morning by putting up their display in the quad.  The students planned a national protest, inviting students from campuses across the country.  The four Carleton students – Lobo, James Shaw, Nicholas MacLeod, and Craig Stewart – were joined by Zuza Kurzawa from Queen’s, who was also arrested.  Two students from the University of Calgary and Brandon University also came.

“As we all know, the purpose of doing this outdoor event is because no one wants to talk about abortion,” said Lobo.  “We want to challenge mainstream views.  I don’t think they would object if we wanted to do a Holocaust display outside.”

Jason MacDonald, Carleton’s director of communications, told LifeSiteNews that student groups are not normally permitted use of the quad for displays.  “In addition, the content of the Genocide Awareness Project has been found to be disturbing and offensive to some by the courts and human rights tribunals in other jurisdictions (BC for instance),” he wrote in an e-mail.

Canadian GAP leaders said they were not aware of any such cases, however. MacDonald did not provide examples by press time.

Lobo noted, further, that the quad is listed as bookable space, and that it has been used by student groups in the past.  MacDonald did not respond by press time when asked about the university’s criteria to determine whether students can use the quad.

Lobo said that when they were told this morning by campus security – who awaited their arrival along with the Ottawa police – to move to Porter Hall, security said they would escort them by a private route so that no one would see the signs.  “So they really were very adamant that no one see this thing, and very adamant that no one wants to see this,” she said.

The students were taken handcuffed to campus security services, where the Ottawa police charged each with 2 counts of trespassing – failure to leave property when asked, and trying to go ahead with a prohibited event.  They were each fined $130.

The students are now waiting to speak with their lawyer before deciding how to respond.  However, they are planning another display Tuesday evening before a debate at the University of Ottawa featuring Stephanie Gray of the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform.

“It needs to remain clear that, while this seems like fair appeasement to many people, when you really look at why the university asked us to move, it’s clear censorship based on the topic of our material,” said Lobo.  “I think it’s the equivalent of telling Martin Luther King he can protest, as long as he does it in his church, and invites white people to come see it.  His message was considered to be disturbing and offensive to lots of people.”

“If we can’t freely express ideas on campus, we have nothing,” she added.

At a town hall meeting in Albuquerque, Obama told the audience, “I think my public service is part of that effort to express my Christian faith,” but then went on to explain, “Now, with respect to the abortion issue, I actually think—I mean, there are laws both federal, state and constitutional that are in place. And I think that this is an area where I think Bill Clinton had the right formulation a couple of decades ago, which is abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.”

If you find this to be a rather hypocritical position for a “Christian” to take, hold on to your hat because it gets a whole lot worse. Reuters, one of the news services covering that particular meeting in Albuquerque, used a stock photo to accompany its report. The photo, which depicted the president with Catholic priest, Father Vien Nguyen, who leads the Mary Queen of Vietnam Church in New Orleans, was taken during a reception at the White House earlier this year in celebration of Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month. Father Nguyen was also honored for his help within the community after Hurricane Katrina. Father Nguyen is not from New Mexico, but that apparently mattered little to the press at Reuters who found it convenient to use the opportunity to showcase a Catholic priest with Obama. Perhaps it’s no accident that Father Nguyen was honored by Obama since he is described by Politics Daily as a man who “has shown extreme grit and skill as a community organizer.”

In yet another attempt to highlight himself with Catholics, Obama traveled to Iowa this past week and met with a Catholic family living in Des Moines so that he could talk about “issues” facing middle-class Americans. During his visit he was joined by Father Michael Amadeo of Holy Trinity Catholic Church and the Catholic bishop of the Diocese of Des Moines, Most Reverend Richard E. Pates. The photo of Obama with Bishop Pates presents the sort of chummy, friend-to-friend image that Obama wants to portray to the world, though his actual reasons for using Catholics as public props are perhaps anything but honorable.

After all, this is a president who deceived the Catholic bishops on the subject of nationalized health care, employed every tactic in the book to garner support from the Catholic Health Association for his draconian proposal and, to this very day, has never suggested that his anti-life policies and personal convictions on abortion are an affront to every Christian—including Catholics.

So why do bishops, priests and lay people fawn all over the president and do whatever they can to be part of his image-building program? One might guess it is because he is, after all, the president of the United States and one must be respectful of the office, if not the man. Yet, I maintain that there are more productive and vital things these priests and bishops should be doing with their time.

In light of a recent Pew Forum poll revealing the shocking statistic that “Forty-five percent of Catholics did not know that their Church teaches that the consecrated bread and wine in Holy Communion are not merely symbols, but actually become the body and blood of Christ,” perhaps teaching Catholic doctrine should take a front row seat and become the only preoccupation that Catholic priests, including bishops, have time to focus on these days.

Troubling though this ongoing use of Catholics to legitimize his agenda seems to be, it is not nearly as scandalous as Obama’s bold-faced suggestion that one can be Christian and pro-abortion! The two just do not mix.

Yet we cannot forget that the Bidens, Pelosis and Schwarzeneggers of the world have already paved the way for Obama’s reprehensible duplicity. Those in the Catholic political spotlight have not only caused confusion but, by their actions, have implied that mainstream Catholics should be tolerant when they publicly take stands that are contrary to the beliefs of the Church.

After all, Catholic bishops have not united in their reprimand of those scalawags, so what can one expect them to do about Christianity’s Obama?

The two incidents upended the intended message of a summit on UN development policies, reflecting a growing disconnect between rhetoric and development results.

Rock star Bono, front man of the Irish group U2, was caught violating his own call for greater transparency and accountability in an op-ed piece for the New York Times. His opinions inspired the New York Post to examine the finances of Bono’s own ONE Foundation, including an emerging scandal widely reported by the media.

It seems ONE had $15 million in public donations during 2008, but distributed less than $200,000 to private charities combating poverty, according to IRS records.  The charity spent more than $8 million on salaries. The remainder went to advocacy, including pricey gift boxes hand-delivered to newsrooms to influence coverage of the UN summit.

The critique of UN policies, meanwhile, came from a surprising source: Margaret Chan, head of the World Health Organization.  Scuttling her prepared remarks at an event sponsored by all of the major UN agencies, Chan warned that the international donor community hasn’t learned from past lessons in dealing with developing countries.

“We have to stop being arrogant and dictating what to do,” she said.

Donor countries too often impose their own agenda, leading to a lack of ownership on the part of recipient countries.  “If a country doesn’t own the plan, they have no motivation to deliver,” Chan said.

She also acknowledged that donor countries don’t have a firm understanding of what they invest in, with no good measures of progress or failure.

Chan said that the UN agencies are not funding agencies, responding to repeated calls for “fresh money” from ministers of developing countries. Such requests should go to the World Bank, she said.

The issue of new money for development was a dominant theme of the UN Summit.  UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon announced that agencies needed $169 billion to save the lives of more than 15 million women and children by improving access to health care.  A highly publicized event announced $40 billion in pledges from public and private sectors for the initiative, though critics said the total recycled at least half of the money from old commitments.

Despite the rhetoric of significant new investments in improving overall health care in developing countries, the commitments make clear an overwhelming emphasis on spending for political advocacy and family planning programs.  This reflects the section of the UN summit outcome document on maternal health, in which all but one of the 6 paragraphs focus on increasing access to family planning and sexual and reproductive health.

The Advance Family Planning initiative is as a typical example of the emerging dominance of rhetoric over projects in the development field. The twelve million dollars dedicated to this initiative don’t go to actual services or goods, but instead to advocacy to change national laws and policies to better reflect the donors’ ideological population agenda.