(NEW YORK – C-FAM)  Last week, lawmakers in the Dominican Republic gave their final approval to a pro-life constitutional change despite fierce criticism and pressure from UN agencies and abortion advocates to defeat the measure.  The Dominican Republic’s National Assembly easily ratified a revision of Article 30 in a vote of 128 in favor with 32 opposed. The article now states that “the right to life is inviolable from conception until death.”

While the measure was widely supported by Dominican parliamentarians, it met with staunch opposition from international abortion proponents and even UN agencies, which are officially neutral on abortion. Last April, when the right-to-life provision was first debated, two UN officials interjected themselves into the debate. Nils Kastberg, UNICEF’s regional director for Latin America and the Caribbean, called on Dominican legislators to consider liberalizing abortion so women would not be forced into “unsafe procedures.” Kastberg also suggested that lawmakers would be “hypocrites” unconcerned with the nation’s higher-than-average teen birth rate.

United Nations Program for Human Development coordinator Miguel Ceara Hatton criticized the article stating the constitutional revision encourages the incidence of clandestine abortions and maternal deaths and disregards a woman’s right to life.  Hatton also took aim at the Catholic Church stating that it had “influenced in everything” and that, “for following a dogma [the Church] has become a source and a motor for social exclusion in the Dominican Republic. The dogma is placed ahead of the needs of the population, health, housing and better living conditions. ”

Contrary to the positions these UN officials took, the United Nations website maintains that “the legal status of abortion is the sovereign right of each nation” and that the organization “does not provide support for abortion or abortion related activities anywhere in the world.” 

Non-governmental organizations have also condemned the constitutional change. Amnesty International (AI) has been at the center of an ongoing campaign against the Dominican right-to-life provision. In a report released earlier this year, AI claimed that the Dominican Republic’s constitutional and legal reforms “could lead to violations of women’s human rights” and that laws penalizing abortion would lead to increased maternal mortality.  Before the final vote last week, AI called on the Congress of the Dominican Republic to reject the right to life from “conception until death” part of Article 30.  

The constitutional reform in the Dominican Republic echoes similar changes enacted at the state level in Mexico, where 12 states have recently adopted constitutional amendments declaring that life begins at conception. These follow the criminalization of abortion under all circumstances by Nicaragua in 2006, and El Salvador in 1998.

As they had in the Nicaragua case, abortion advocates rallied against the abortion ban in Mexico by arguing that prohibiting abortions would lead to a greater increase in maternal mortality since women would arguably have to turn to “unsafe abortions.” Critics, however, have pointed out that there is no substantiated evidence for this claim and preliminary evidence from Nicaraguan government statistics even shows a decline in maternal deaths since restricting abortion in 2006.

When formally adopted, the Dominican Republic will join other Latin American nations whose constitutions explicitly protect unborn life, including Chile, Paraguay, and Guatemala.

I wrote these small contemplations a few weeks before my mother was scheduled to give birth to the sixth child of our family, little Sean Patrick. My parents and I had known for about four or five months that Sean had a rare condition called Limb-Body-Wall-Complex. What this meant was that all his organs had formed outside his body, his spine was twisted into a ninety degree angle, and his heart was pumping blood the completely opposite direction. This disease is one-hundred-percent fatal and the longest a baby has ever lived with this disease was about fifteen minutes. The doctors encouraged my mother to abort little Sean. Of course, my family chose life.

It is said that Momma’s baby, our baby, will die. Little Miracle, for that is what I am already calling him, is broken. He is sweet and dear, and already a life-filled miracle, but science says he will not live. Science requires a strong, healthy mass of cells, muscles, nerves, and bones to survive in this world. Little Miracle is not whole. How crazy that a substance as unimaginably beautiful as the soul must be contained in something so material and tangible as the body.

Why must Little Miracle not live with us? Why does the world require that he bring a healthy body with him? Little Miracle is a blessing which everyone says will be taken away. But Little Miracle is beautiful, and though some would say that his death will be a loss to my family, it is not so.

Little Miracle is a gift, but he does not belong here. I do not belong here. None of us belong here. If the Divine desires only to grace us with Little Miracle’s presence for a few fleeting moments, so be it. If He chooses to allow him to stay with us for a longer time, if He chooses to remold his poor, broken body, so be it. That is for our Father to decide. And if He does choose to remold Little Miracle’s body into that of a wholesome, happy baby all will call our baby “a miracle.” But I know better. Our baby, myself, my family, and all others are miracles. Whether Little Miracle lives or dies, from the moment of conception he always has been, and always will be, a miracle. He is precious. He is a gift. And he is beautiful.

On January 26, my little brother was born and quickly surrounded by the five of us kids and my father. Sean fought for my family, fought for life, a glorious hour and nine minutes. And then, as silently as he had entered, he left.

Though he brought much pain and sadness to my family, Sean was also a great blessing. When I wrote this small tribute to Sean I still did not know if he would live or die. However, four months after his birth and death my thoughts on the subject have not changed. Sean is truly a miracle. I am extremely happy he came to us, and touched my family for those few fleeting moments. My mother today says that she would not change what happened on January 26 for anything. Though I am not yet at that point, and though I still do wish that I could hold and look at my tiny little brother, I am glad he is in a better place and I cannot wait to see him again. As my five year old sister says, “Sean is lucky, because he never had to get in trouble.”

On April 27, 2009 Baltimore Sun columnist Susan Reimer wrote an article, “In families’ tragic deaths, a hint of paternalism,” addressing the cause of two horrific whole family murder/suicides perpetrated by fathers. These two were only the latest in a string of similar events across the country. Ms. Reimer got right to the point in her comments:

It wasn’t the economy. It wasn’t stress. It wasn’t mental illness. It hit me the minute I heard the news — it was ownership.

She made a good case for her position. What surprised me was that Ms. Reimer, an ardent abortion rights advocate, has never made the obvious logical connection between abortion and ownership and the malignant maternalism it exemplifies. When it comes to abortion, the mother asserts ownership and the power of life and death. She owns. She chooses. Ownership is one of the core arguments made by abortion rights advocates. They couch it as “self ownership” (“my body”), despite the fact that it really is about ownership of another life.

Abortion is all about ownership of another. Isn’t it about maternal ownership and the power to kill another? And not just any other, but the most intimate other. But, abortion, unlike paternal homicide, leaves no gruesome crime scene for the police and the community to deal with. The bodies are smaller and disposed of by accomplices with medical degrees, often men, paid by other men complicit in the killing of their children. Sometimes it is the grandmothers and grandfathers who facilitate the killing of their grandchildren.

For every horror story we hear about fathers killing their wives, their children and themselves during this harsh economic time, we know there are hundreds more unseen killings going on in the abortion mills of America.

So we need to ask ourselves. Do you think you own somebody? Who thinks they own you? Your father or mother, husband or wife? The State? Who owns you? These are life and death questions, temporal and eternal. The wrong answers lead to death, physical and spiritual. A lot of Americans are failing the test. The bodies, large and small, visible and invisible are piling up.

Who owns you?

It took a lot of guts for President Obama to publicly reverse campaign promises at his 100 days press conference and tell the pro-abortion crowd that “I think that those who are pro-choice make a mistake when they…suggest that this is simply an issue about women’s freedom and that there’s no other considerations…The Freedom of Choice Act is not [my] highest legislative priority. I believe that women should have the right to choose. But I think that the most important thing we can do to tamp down some of the anger surrounding this issue is to focus on those areas that we can agree on. And that’s where I’m going to focus.”

It takes a big man to make such a statement about moving away from FOCA. Additionally, those who mailed in their red envelopes also deserve praise for getting him to pause and consider that the issues of abortion (and micro-abortion — directly attacking human embryos) are not just a matter for scientists (materialists), a matter where the ends justify the means. The issue is a matter of the values that define us: an issue where the culture’s values matter as much as cold techniques that use freedom as an excuse for anything.

Seemingly oblivious to it, President Obama — within the very same press conference — created the foundation from which perhaps he can reverse some of his earlier bad social decisions and reverse the hypocrisy within which he still walks. Discussing waterboarding of terrorists, President Obama said: “Waterboarding violates our ideals and our values. I do believe that it is torture. I don’t think that’s just my opinion; that’s the opinion of many who’ve examined the topic. And that’s why I put an end to these practices. I am absolutely convinced it was the right thing to do… because we could have gotten this information in other ways, in ways that were consistent with our values, in ways that were consistent with who we are…. You start taking shortcuts, over time, that corrodes what’s best in a people. It corrodes the character of a country.” The same argument against abortion could be made by replacing the word ‘waterboarding’ with ‘abortion’ and replacing ‘torture’ with ‘murder’. Watch…

“[Abortion along with human embryonic stem cell research] violates our ideals and our values. I do believe that it is [murder]. I don’t think that’s just my opinion; that’s the opinion of many who’ve examined the topic. And that’s why I put an end to these practices. I am absolutely convinced it was the right thing to do…because we could have gotten this information [or healing] in other ways, in ways that were consistent with our values, in ways that were consistent with who we are…. You start taking shortcuts, over time, that corrodes what’s best in a people. It corrodes the character of a country.” Yes America, there is reason for hope…. There’s no reason a U.S. President can’t say these words about abortion if he can say them about torture.

Be as suspicious as you may over President Obama’s motives for backtracking on FOCA. Was he just trying to keep poorly informed Catholics within the Democratic party with false hope? [Disclosure: I’m a registered Independent.] Has the leadership read the tea leaves and realized the party is about to be punished with mass defections? Being an optimist, I send President Obama my thanks. I prefer to believe the future is not written in stone, that humans are partners with God in determining the future. The future is determined by today’s actions, above all prayer and fasting. A second wave of red envelopes would also help to remind President Obama of the values of our country; that people are greatly upset that abortion continues to “corrode the character of our country”. The second round could remind him: “In case you mistook my silence last time.”

People of hate see nothing wrong with direct attacks upon innocent human life or direct attacks upon the importance of traditional marriage. “Many who’ve examined the topic” for thousands of years are in agreement… abortion is the taking of innocent human life and produces a culture of death that corrodes everything. Additionally, the reason so many pseudo-feminists (“pro-choicers”) think only of abortion, in Obama’s own words, “simply [as] an issue about women’s freedom and that there’s no other considerations” is because the Marxists taught them to think that way. They know human relationships only in terms of power struggles (hate). Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx’s collaborator, believed the Marxist/atheistic revolution could only work and take hold with the abolition of the family. He taught that the revolution had to start with the abolition of the family (cf. Schooyans) because marriage was just another form of the assertion of power. Thus, women were “forced” into pregnancy and so needed greater freedom from marriage. The U.N. continues these false ideals under the guise of feminism (cf. Schooyans) as the rest of the world suffers homosexualist attacks on true diversity (male and female) from their State supreme courts.

The problem with most Marxists (really just materialists who deny God and authentic human values) is that they can’t believe in love. Everything is about power politics. They believe only in what their eyes can see and have little value for past wisdom. Everything is about change and revolution. They treat others as only means to an end or have been used by others so much they just won’t believe in love anymore. They’re a lot like secularists. Neither can live fully human lives because neither lives in love. They are simply diminished persons — living like animals, slaves to passions. To be human is to live in love, suffering for others, living for others. Humans are made to be God’s image and likeness and God is love. We can’t say we are fully human, fully in God’s image, if we withhold love from the unborn humans who await our love. Instead we become like animals when we choose to kill the innocent or when we seduce them into bestial behavior. As Marxists and Secularists fail to realize their own humanity, they fail to realize it in others, hence abortion thrives.

It is nice to see Obama indicate that he may be moving away from ideals that were ultimately inspired by Marxists. Let’s increase our prayers for him. And let’s keep those red envelopes going.

[Yesterday was] the day we [ran] our full-page ad in the Washington Times weekly edition. It is a full-color ad in which we pay tribute to the 16 Catholic bishops who have chosen to protect Christ from sacrilege by enforcing Church law, specifically Canon 915.

In the ad, we ask Archbishop Donald Wuerl of the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. when he will join with these bishops. We have to presume from past statements and actions that the archbishop does not plan to do so any time soon; yet the question is a valid one. As Catholic columnist Barbara Kralis wrote in January 2007, 

Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington recently told journalist Allyson Smith that he would not discipline nor deny Holy Communion to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, nor to other Catholic politicians who promote and legislate procured abortion.

Without belaboring the point, it is sufficient to say that many opportunities have presented themselves to the archbishop to not only enforce Canon 915, but to instruct his priests, ordained deacons and extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion to do likewise. Such an action has not occurred.

The purpose of this column is to explain why we persist in this campaign and why our actions should not be perceived as disrespectful or otherwise antagonistic toward Catholic bishops. Quite the contrary is the case, as my comments will show.

Perhaps you have not read this particular canon before, so I will quote it for you:

Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, [emphasis added] are not to be admitted to holy communion.

We pursue this project of asking Catholic bishops, priests, ordained deacons and extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion to enforce this Church law specifically because numerous pro-abortion Catholic public figures, politicians, media types and so forth are scandalizing the faithful. They do so by being permitted to receive the body of Christ despite exhibiting obstinate persistence in the manifest grave sin of publicly supporting abortion.

As one Catholic wrote recently on Father John Zuhlsdorf’s blog, 

Senator Lisa Murkowski was listed as a guest of honor in the program for the Red Mass in Anchorage last Sunday, attended by Archbishop Roger L. Schwietz, OMI. Lisa voted for the infamous “Harkin Amendment,” proclaiming the “sense of the senate” that Roe v. Wade is a wonderful decision and should be the law of the land. Thank God, she wasn’t able to attend and profane the Eucharist. Nonetheless, the impression left with the congregation was that if you publicly endorse abortion, you too can still be a guest of honor at a Red Mass, of all occasions.

The sentiments expressed in this comment expose the problem of not protecting Christ from sacrilege. The notion is created that pro-abortion Catholics in public life really aren’t in direct conflict with Church teaching. And yet, the fact is that they are not only in conflict, but their souls are in grave jeopardy. Regardless of what your opinion may be on Catholic teaching, the fact is that for any Catholic who claims to be a practicing Catholic, the act of abortion is an intrinsically evil act that is always and in every case wrong. No Catholic should support the murder of the innocent and yet they do so with abandon, and few ordained priests and deacons remind them of the gravity of their public position by denying the body of Christ to them. This too is a scandal.

American Life League does not focus attention on Canon 915 because we disrespect Catholic bishops; on the contrary, we do this because we believe sincerely that the purpose of Canon 915 is two-fold. Enforcement of this Church law protects the body of Christ and helps to teach the errant public figure that his actions are an offense to God and he must repent in order to return to full communion with the Church. 

For these two reasons alone, we cannot understand why all 260-plus Catholic bishops have not united in a position of solidarity to protect Christ from sacrilege. And by sacrilege I do not mean to suggest that we at American Life League are sitting in judgment of others’ intentions. Quite the contrary. If one examines the public record of any of these Catholic supporters of abortion, it is crystal clear that they endorse this crime against humanity while knowing full well that it conflicts with Church teaching, not to mention the commandment of God: “Thou shalt not kill.”

Deacon John Giglio states in his Deacon for Life blog,

Were there to be no support in the whole history of ethical and moral thought, were there no acknowledged confirmation from medical science, were the history of legal opinion to the contrary, we would still have to conclude on the basis of God’s Holy Word that the unborn child is a person in the sight of God. He is protected by the sanctity of life graciously given to each individual by the Creator, Who alone places His image upon man and grants them any right to life which they have.

It is an undeniable fact that there is a human being in the womb during pregnancy; if it were otherwise, why would anyone promote, support, fund or acquire an abortion?

The presence of that baby in the womb, Fallopian tube or test tube is as real as is the presence of Christ in Holy Eucharist. It therefore makes perfect sense that just as the Catholic Church teaches that there is never a reason to abort a child, so too there should never be a reason to permit sacrilege against the truly present body of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. And yet it continues, day in and day out.

But we are not disheartened. We know that defending the truth does not resound well with many, but the accusations that we are divisive or judgmental cannot deter us. In fact, we welcome it all as we continue to defend the preborn and the real presence of Christ.

As Archbishop Raymond Burke wrote last year,

The United States of America is a thoroughly secularized society which canonizes radical individualism and relativism, even before the natural moral law. The application, therefore, is more necessary than ever, lest the faithful, led astray by the strong cultural trends of relativism, be deceived concerning the supreme good of the Holy Eucharist and the gravity of supporting publicly the commission of intrinsically evil acts. Catholics in public office bear an especially heavy burden of responsibility to uphold the moral law in the exercise of their office which is exercised for the common good, especially the good of the innocent and defenseless. When they fail, they lead others, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, to be deceived regarding the evils of procured abortion and other attacks on innocent and defenseless human life, on the integrity of human procreation, and on the family.

As Pope John Paul II reminded us, referring to the teaching of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, the Holy Eucharist contains the entire good of our salvation [91]. There is no responsibility of the Church’s shepherds which is greater than that of teaching the truth about the Holy Eucharist, celebrating worthily the Holy Eucharist, and directing the flock in the worship and care of the Most Blessed Sacrament. Can. 915 of the Code of Canon Law and can. 712 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches articulate an essential element of the shepherds’ responsibility, namely, the perennial discipline of the Church by which the minister of Holy Communion is to deny the Sacrament to those who obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin.

Students for Life of America (SFLA) has released a video exposing two Planned Parenthood clinics in Winston-Salem and Charlotte, North Carolina covering up statutory rape of young girls. To view the video, go here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkakpcWSyWY
 
In June of 2008, two college women volunteering for Students for Life of America entered two clinics in North Carolina posing as underage girls, 15 and 14, who just had unprotected sex with their mother’s live-in boyfriend who was in his 30s. Each girl told the clinic workers that he suggested she come get the morning the Morning After Pill. According to N.C. Gen. Statue 7B-301 and 7B-101, this information was enough to trigger North Carolina statutory rape reporting laws, obligating any person who learned of this story to report the crime to authorities.
 
In both visits, Planned Parenthood staffers acknowledged that what was happening to the girls was statutory rape and in one case even repeatedly admitted that they were required to report the incident.
 
However, after the visits, Students for Life of America filed North Carolina Public Records Requests to find out if the Planned Parenthood locations had reported the crimes. SFLA has obtained and posted documents, which show that the crimes were not reported to authorities in either Charlotte or Winston-Salem. To view the reports from police department authorities, go here: http://www.studentsforlife.org/index.php/plannedparenthoodinvestigation/
 
In addition to covering up the statutory rape of these young girls by failing to report, both Planned Parenthoods were willing to help them get on birth control without their parents’ knowledge, which would prolong the abuse while covering evidence. One staffer in Charlotte even said to the girl, “You can do it now,” and set an appointment for the minor to obtain birth control the following week.
 
Further, both clinics told the girls that anyone over the age of 18 could simply go to a drug store and buy the Morning After Pill for them, giving the girls’ rapists a tool to further cover their crime of rape.
  
SFLA’s Executive Director, Kristan Hawkins commented on the videos today saying, “These videos are simply shocking. That Planned Parenthood staffers acknowledged the girls were being raped and then did not report the crime is horrific. They allowed these girls to go home to their rapists and even confirmed that their rapists could get the Morning After Pill for them to cover their crimes.”Tom McClusky, Vice President of Government Affairs for the Family Research Council, responded to the investigation, “As long as Planned Parenthood puts their fealty to abortion on demand above protecting young girls from statutory rapists then investigations such as the ones done by SFL will be needed.”

To view the video, go here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkakpcWSyWY

AssistantAdministrator for Global Health Dr. Kent Hill, has banned cooperation with UK-based Marie Stopes International (MSI), one of the worlds largest purveyors of abortions, on the grounds that it is complicit in “coercive abortion and involuntary sterilizations” in China. MSI denies that it supports China’s coercive policies, but its aggressive promotion of abortion, and its longstanding collaboration with China’s coercive program leave little doubt that it is not only aware of the massive human rights abuses that have resulted in that country, but is actively collaborating with it.

The USAID instruction, which PRI applauds, will force cutbacks in MSI’s population control programs in a number of African countries, including Ghana, Malawi, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Uganda, Zimbabwe, and Kenya. MSI’s claims that woman in these countries “will be left with few options other than abortion” is particularly risible, coming as it does from the very agency that is responsible for many of the abortions that are performed in Africa in the first place. PRI investigators, for example, have demonstrated that MSI, through its network of clinics, is one of the biggest abortion actors in Kenya. For MSI to claim, as it does, that Dr. Hill’s order will result in “unsafe abortions” with the “likely result” of women’s “death or disability” is not only a gross exaggeration, but should be taken as self-criticism. It is not the Bush Administration’s fault if African women and girls die in MSI’s clinics. It is the fault of the organization itself.

U.S. law prohibits US foreign aid from flowing to any organisation that “supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization”. This law, called the Kemp-Kasten Amendment, dates back to President Ronald Reagan, who first invoked the law to deny funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) because of its complicity with China’s one-child policies. PRI President Steven Mosher worked closely with the Reagan Administration both on the passage of the law in the mid-eighties, and its later application to organizations like the UN Population Fund and Marie Stopes International.

The Bush Administration reviewed UNFPA’s activities upon taking office in 2001, and initially determined that the UN Population Fund was not in violation of Kemp-Kasten, providing $21.5 million to UNFPA. The Bush Administration reversed course, however, following PRI’s groundbreaking investigation of UNFPA’s activities in China later that year. Presented with unimpeachable evidence regarding the UNFPA’s involvement in forced abortions and forced sterilizations in one of its “model family planning counties,” in July 2002 President Bush invoked Kemp-Kasten and cancelled the $34 million appropriated by Congress for UNFPA in fiscal year 2002. Each year thereafter this prohibition has been extended, because of UNFPA’s continued flagrant involvement in the most coercive population control program the world has ever known.

The Bush Administration is to be congratulated for its consistent enforcement of a policy that is supported by the vast majority of the American people–a policy in which PRI is proud to have played a part — and which benefits women and girls by defunding predatory agencies which seek to rob them of their fertility. Marie Stopes International needs to decide what its purpose is: performing abortions, often in violation of national laws, or providing legitimate health care to women