Monday, December 29, 2008

Dignitas Personae: A Call to Everyone to Courageously Defend Human Life




Two weeks before commemorating Christ's birth, the Vatican released an instruction, focused on human life at its origins.

"Dignitas Personae" proclaims human dignity, from the first moment of fertilization until natural death. To anyone who has looked upon a newborn, or seen that child months earlier through an ultrasound, human grandeur is undeniable. When one contemplates the eternal life to which each is called, the undeniable is unspeakably magnificent!

No matter how a human came to be, she is owed uncompromising respect. Dignitas Personae says that she has the right to originate in the loving embrace of a mom & dad, who are wife & husband: "the ethical value of biomedical science is gauged in reference to both the unconditional respect owed to every human being at every moment of his or her existence, & the defense of the specific character of the personal act which transmits life" (# 10).

Our times have seen a vast increase in infertility & interest in reproductive technology. When employed by a husband & wife, Dignitas Personae says assistance to AID the "marital act" toward procreation can be moral (eg., "hormonal treatments..., surgery for endometriosis, unblocking of fallopian tubes or their surgical repair,....prevention of sterility" (# 13)). Even when used by a husband & wife, Dignitas Personae says methods REPLACING the marital act (eg., IVF) are immoral (IVF is also incredibly expensive with a low "success" rate - NaPro Technology is a fabulous alternative.).

Exacerbating IVF's immorality is discarding/freezing "extra", unwanted embryos. Dignitas Personae forbids using these new humans as research material or implanting one in the womb of a woman other than her mom. It also says that "cryopreservation of oocytes for the purpose of being used in artificial procreation is...morally unacceptable" (# 20).

Section 23 of Dignitas Personae appears to require change at Catholic hospitals, regarding treatment of women identified as victims of sexual assault. After trying to rule out pregnancy (&/or ovulation), so-called "emergency contraception" (aka, "morning after pills") HAS been allowed (Note: Some say it's IMPOSSIBLE to ensure "emergency contraception" is NOT abortifacient.). "Such methods are interceptive if they interfere with the embryo before implantation & contragestative if they cause the elimination of the embryo once implanted....the use of means of interception & contragestation fall within the sin of abortion and are gravely immoral." NO guidelines are offered for supposed "moral" use of a potential interceptive or contragestative.

Dignitas Personae says that human cloning & mixing human with animal genetic material (Yup, some "scientists" do this!) are immoral. With regard to gene therapy, "Procedures used on somatic cells for strictly therapeutic purposes are in principle morally licit....in its current state, germ line cell therapy in all its forms is morally illicit" (# 26). Also rejected is "genetic engineering for purposes other than medical treatment" (# 27).

Despite research "science" presented by celebrities, obtaining stem cells from embryos is NEITHER the only way NOR the most promising: "Methods which do not cause serious harm to the subject from whom the stem cells are taken are to be considered licit. This is generally the case when tissues are taken from: a) an adult organism; b) the blood of the umbilical cord at the time of birth; c) fetuses who have died of natural causes. The obtaining of stem cells from a living human embryo, on the other hand, invariably causes the death of the embryo and is consequently gravely illicit" (# 32).

When cell lines are illicitly obtained, researchers must refuse to use them. However, "danger to the health of children could permit parents to use a vaccine which was developed using cell lines of illicit origin, while keeping in mind that everyone has the duty to make known their disagreement & to ask that their healthcare system make other types of vaccines available" (# 35).

Dignitas Personae calls everyone to courageously defend human life.

Saturday, December 13, 2008

selected excerpts from "Dignitas Personae" (released by the Vatican on 12/12/08)

Introduction
"1. The dignity of a person must be recognized in every human being from conception to natural death....
"2. In undertaking this study, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has benefited from the analysis of the Pontifical Academy for Life and has consulted numerous experts with regard to the scientific aspects of these questions, in order to address them with the principles of Christian anthropology....
"3. In presenting principles and moral evaluations regarding biomedical research on human life, the Catholic Church draws upon the light both of reason and of faith and seeks to set forth an integral vision of man and his vocation, capable of incorporating everything that is good in human activity, as well as in various cultural and religious traditions which not infrequently demonstrate a great reverence for life.
"The Magisterium also seeks to offer a word of support and encouragement for the perspective on culture which considers science an invaluable service to the integral good of the life and dignity of every human being....
[Dignitas Personae] "has three parts: the first recalls some anthropological, theological and ethical elements of fundamental importance; the second addresses new problems regarding procreation; the third examines new procedures involving the manipulation of embryos and the human genetic patrimony."

First Part: Anthropological, Theological and Ethical Aspects of Human Life and Procreation
"4. In recent decades, medical science has made significant strides in understanding human life in its initial stages....It is appropriate to recall the fundamental ethical criterion expressed in the Instruction Donum vitae in order to evaluate all moral questions which relate to procedures involving the human embryo: 'Thus the fruit of human generation, from the first moment of its existence, that is to say, from the moment the zygote has formed, demands the unconditional respect that is morally due to the human being in his bodily and spiritual totality. The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life'....
"The human embryo has, therefore, from the very beginning, the dignity proper to a person.
"6. Respect for that dignity is owed to every human being because each one carries in an indelible way his own dignity and value. The origin of human life has its authentic context in marriage and in the family, where it is generated through an act which expresses the reciprocal love between a man and a woman. Procreation which is truly responsible vis-à-vis the child to be born 'must be the fruit of marriage'....
"7. It is the Church’s conviction that what is human is not only received and respected by faith, but is also purified, elevated and perfected....Christ did not disdain human bodiliness, but instead fully disclosed its meaning and value....
"8. By taking the interrelationship of these two dimensions, the human and the divine, as the starting point, one understands better why it is that man has unassailable value: he possesses an eternal vocation and is called to share in the trinitarian love of the living God....
"9. These two dimensions of life, the natural and the supernatural, allow us to understand better the sense in which the acts that permit a new human being to come into existence, in which a man and a woman give themselves to each other, are a reflection of trinitarian love....
"10. The Church, by expressing an ethical judgment on some developments of recent medical research concerning man and his beginnings, does not intervene in the area proper to medical science itself, but rather calls everyone to ethical and social responsibility for their actions. She reminds them that the ethical value of biomedical science is gauged in reference to both the unconditional respect owed to every human being at every moment of his or her existence, and the defense of the specific character of the personal act which transmits life. The intervention of the Magisterium falls within its mission of contributing to the formation of conscience, by authentically teaching the truth which is Christ and at the same time by declaring and confirming authoritatively the principles of the moral order which spring from human nature...."

Second Part: New Problems Concerning Procreation
"11....certain questions regarding procreation which have emerged and have become more clear in the years since the publication of Donum vitae"
Techniques for assisting fertility
"12...new medical techniques must respect three fundamental goods:
a) the right to life and to physical integrity of every human being from conception to natural death;
b) the unity of marriage, which means reciprocal respect for the right within marriage to become a father or mother only together with the other spouse;
c) the specifically human values of sexuality which require 'that the procreation of a human person be brought about as the fruit of the conjugal act specific to the love between spouses'.[quote from Donum Vitae].
Techniques which assist procreation 'are not to be rejected on the grounds that they are artificial. As such, they bear witness to the possibilities of the art of medicine. But they must be given a moral evaluation in reference to the dignity of the human person, who is called to realize his vocation from God to the gift of love and the gift of life'.[quote from Donum Vitae]
"....all techniques of heterologous artificial fertilization, as well as those techniques of homologous artificial fertilization which substitute for the conjugal act, are to be excluded....techniques which act as an aid to the conjugal act and its fertility are permitted....
"13. Certainly, techniques aimed at removing obstacles to natural fertilization, as for example, hormonal treatments for infertility, surgery for endometriosis, unblocking of fallopian tubes or their surgical repair, are licit....
"adoption should be encouraged, promoted and facilitated....research and investment directed at the prevention of sterility deserve encouragement."
In vitro fertilization and the deliberate destruction of embryos
"14....all techniques of in vitro fertilization proceed as if the human embryo were simply a mass of cells to be used, selected and discarded....
"16....it is ethically unacceptable to dissociate procreation from the integrally personal context of the conjugal act....
"The desire for a child cannot justify the 'production' of offspring, just as the desire not to have a child cannot justify the abandonment or destruction of a child once he or she has been conceived"
Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI)
"17....Just as in general with in vitro fertilization, of which it is a variety, ICSI is intrinsically illicit: it causes a complete separation between procreation and the conjugal act"
Freezing embryos
"18....Cryopreservation is incompatible with the respect owed to human embryos; it presupposes their production in vitro; it exposes them to the serious risk of death or physical harm, since a high percentage does not survive the process of freezing and thawing; it deprives them at least temporarily of maternal reception and gestation; it places them in a situation in which they are susceptible to further offense and manipulation.
"The majority of embryos that are not used remain 'orphans'. Their parents do not ask for them and at times all trace of the parents is lost....
"19....
"Proposals to use these embryos for research or for the treatment of disease are obviously unacceptable because they treat the embryos as mere 'biological material' and result in their destruction. The proposal to thaw such embryos without reactivating them and use them for research, as if they were normal cadavers, is also unacceptable.
"The proposal that these embryos could be put at the disposal of infertile couples as a treatment for infertility is not ethically acceptable for the same reasons which make artificial heterologous procreation illicit as well as any form of surrogate motherhood; this practice would also lead to other problems of a medical, psychological and legal nature.
"It has also been proposed, solely in order to allow human beings to be born who are otherwise condemned to destruction, that there could be a form of 'prenatal adoption'. This proposal, praiseworthy with regard to the intention of respecting and defending human life, presents however various problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above [Note by blogger: This is believed to be the first statement on so-called "Snowflake" adoptions of embryos.].
"....the thousands of abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved"
The freezing of oocytes
"20....
"cryopreservation of oocytes for the purpose of being used in artificial procreation is to be considered morally unacceptable."
The reduction of embryos
"21....embryo reduction is an intentional selective abortion. It is in fact the deliberate and direct elimination of one or more innocent human beings in the initial phase of their existence and as such it always constitutes a grave moral disorder....
"It is never permitted to do something which is intrinsically illicit, not even in view of a good result: the end does not justify the means."
Preimplantation diagnosis
22....Such diagnosis is done in order to ensure that only embryos free from defects or having the desired sex or other particular qualities are transferred.
"....Preimplantation diagnosis – connected as it is with artificial fertilization, which is itself always intrinsically illicit – is directed toward the qualitative selection and consequent destruction of embryos, which constitutes an act of abortion....
"....If at other times in history, while the concept and requirements of human dignity were accepted in general, discrimination was practiced on the basis of race, religion or social condition, today there is a no less serious and unjust form of discrimination which leads to the non-recognition of the ethical and legal status of human beings suffering from serious diseases or disabilities. It is forgotten that sick and disabled people are not some separate category of humanity; in fact, sickness and disability are part of the human condition and affect every individual, even when there is no direct experience of it. Such discrimination is immoral and must therefore be considered legally unacceptable, just as there is a duty to eliminate cultural, economic and social barriers which undermine the full recognition and protection of disabled or ill people."
New forms of interception and contragestation
"23. Alongside methods of preventing pregnancy which are, properly speaking, contraceptive..., there are other technical means which act after fertilization, when the embryo is already constituted, either before or after implantation in the uterine wall. Such methods are interceptive if they interfere with the embryo before implantation and contragestative if they cause the elimination of the embryo once implanted....
"....the use of means of interception and contragestation fall within the sin of abortion and are gravely immoral. [Question by blogger: As no guidelines are proposed for the "moral" use of interception, does this not countermand the guidelines for "emergency contraception", set forth by the Pennsylvania Catholic Bishops' "Guidelines for Catholic Hospitals Treating Victims of Sexual Assault" (1998) and directive 36 of the USCCB's "Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, Fourth Edition" (2001)?]. Furthermore, when there is certainty that an abortion has resulted [This phrase appears to indicate that there are no "moral" uses of interception.], there are serious penalties in canon law."
Third Part: New Treatments which Involve the Manipulation of the Embryo or the Human Genetic Patrimony
"24....research on embryonic stem cells and its possible future uses have prompted great interest, even though up to now such research has not produced effective results, as distinct from research on adult stem cells"
Gene therapy
"25....
"In theory, it is possible to use gene therapy on two levels: somatic cell gene therapy and germ line cell therapy. Somatic cell gene therapy seeks to eliminate or reduce genetic defects on the level of somatic cells, that is, cells other than the reproductive cells, but which make up the tissue and organs of the body. It involves procedures aimed at certain individual cells with effects that are limited to a single person. Germ line cell therapy aims instead at correcting genetic defects present in germ line cells with the purpose of transmitting the therapeutic effects to the offspring of the individual. Such methods of gene therapy, whether somatic or germ line cell therapy, can be undertaken on a fetus before his or her birth as gene therapy in the uterus or after birth on a child or adult.
"26....Procedures used on somatic cells for strictly therapeutic purposes are in principle morally licit....
"Because the risks connected to any genetic manipulation are considerable and as yet not fully controllable, in the present state of research, it is not morally permissible to act in a way that may cause possible harm to the resulting progeny. In the hypothesis of gene therapy on the embryo, it needs to be added that this only takes place in the context of in vitro fertilization and thus runs up against all the ethical objections to such procedures. For these reasons, therefore, it must be stated that, in its current state, germ line cell therapy in all its forms is morally illicit [This appears to be new.].
"27. The question of using genetic engineering for purposes other than medical treatment also calls for consideration....the prospect of such an intervention would end sooner or later by harming the common good, by favouring the will of some over the freedom of others. Finally it must also be noted that in the attempt to create a new type of human being one can recognize an ideological element in which man tries to take the place of his Creator....
"the Church also recalls the need to return to an attitude of care for people and of education in accepting human life in its concrete historical finite nature."
Human cloning
"28....
"Human cloning is intrinsically illicit in that, by taking the ethical negativity of techniques of artificial fertilization to their extreme, it seeks to give rise to a new human being without a connection to the act of reciprocal self-giving between the spouses and, more radically, without any link to sexuality. This leads to manipulation and abuses gravely injurious to human dignity.
"29....The fact that someone would arrogate to himself the right to determine arbitrarily the genetic characteristics of another person represents a grave offense to the dignity of that person as well as to the fundamental equality of all people....
"30. From the ethical point of view, so-called therapeutic cloning is even more serious. To create embryos with the intention of destroying them, even with the intention of helping the sick, is completely incompatible with human dignity, because it makes the existence of a human being at the embryonic stage nothing more than a means to be used and destroyed. It is gravely immoral to sacrifice a human life for therapeutic ends.
"The ethical objections raised in many quarters to therapeutic cloning and to the use of human embryos formed in vitro have led some researchers to propose new techniques which are presented as capable of producing stem cells of an embryonic type without implying the destruction of true human embryos. These proposals have been met with questions of both a scientific and an ethical nature regarding above all the ontological status of the 'product' obtained in this way. Until these doubts have been clarified, the statement of the Encyclical Evangelium vitae needs to be kept in mind: 'what is at stake is so important that, from the standpoint of moral obligation, the mere probability that a human person is involved would suffice to justify an absolutely clear prohibition of any intervention aimed at killing a human embryo'.
The therapeutic use of stem cells
"31. Stem cells are undifferentiated cells with two basic characteristics:
a) the prolonged capability of multiplying themselves while maintaining the undifferentiated state;
b) the capability of producing transitory progenitor cells from which fully differentiated cells descend, for example, nerve cells, muscle cells and blood cells.
Once it was experimentally verified that when stem cells are transplanted into damaged tissue they tend to promote cell growth and the regeneration of the tissue, new prospects opened for regenerative medicine, which have been the subject of great interest among researchers throughout the world.
"Among the sources for human stem cells which have been identified thus far are:
the embryo in the first stages of its existence,
the fetus,
blood from the umbilical cord and
various tissues from adult humans (bone marrow, umbilical cord, brain, mesenchyme from various organs, etc.) and
amniotic fluid.
At the outset, studies focused on embryonic stem cells, because it was believed that only these had significant capabilities of multiplication and differentiation. Numerous studies, however, show that adult stem cells also have a certain versatility. Even if these cells do not seem to have the same capacity for renewal or the same plasticity as stem cells taken from embryos, advanced scientific studies and experimentation indicate that these cells give more positive results than embryonic stem cells. Therapeutic protocols in force today provide for the use of adult stem cells and many lines of research have been launched, opening new and promising possibilities.
"32....
"Methods which do not cause serious harm to the subject from whom the stem cells are taken are to be considered licit. This is generally the case when tissues are taken from:
a) an adult organism;
b) the blood of the umbilical cord at the time of birth;
c) fetuses who have died of natural causes.
The obtaining of stem cells from a living human embryo, on the other hand, invariably causes the death of the embryo and is consequently gravely illicit....
"The use of embryonic stem cells or differentiated cells derived from them – even when these are provided by other researchers through the destruction of embryos or when such cells are commercially available – presents serious problems from the standpoint of cooperation in evil and scandal.[52]
"There are no moral objections to the clinical use of stem cells that have been obtained licitly; however, the common criteria of medical ethics need to be respected....
"Research initiatives involving the use of adult stem cells, since they do not present ethical problems, should be encouraged and supported."
Attempts at hybridization
"33. Recently animal oocytes have been used for reprogramming the nuclei of human somatic cells – this is generally called hybrid cloning – in order to extract embryonic stem cells from the resulting embryos without having to use human oocytes.
"From the ethical standpoint, such procedures represent an offense against the dignity of human beings on account of the admixture of human and animal genetic elements capable of disrupting the specific identity of man. The possible use of the stem cells, taken from these embryos, may also involve additional health risks, as yet unknown, due to the presence of animal genetic material in their cytoplasm. To consciously expose a human being to such risks is morally and ethically unacceptable."
The use of human 'biological material' of illicit origin
"34....It needs to be remembered above all that the category of abortion 'is to be applied also to the recent forms of intervention on human embryos which, although carried out for purposes legitimate in themselves, inevitably involve the killing of those embryos. This is the case with experimentation on embryos, which is becoming increasingly widespread in the field of biomedical research and is legally permitted in some countries… [T]he use of human embryos or fetuses as an object of experimentation constitutes a crime against their dignity as human beings who have a right to the same respect owed to a child once born, just as to every person'.[quote from Evangilium Vitae] These forms of experimentation always constitute a grave moral disorder.
35....
"there is a duty to refuse to use such 'biological material' even when there is no close connection between the researcher and the actions of those who performed the artificial fertilization or the abortion, or when there was no prior agreement with the centers in which the artificial fertilization took place....
"Grave reasons may be morally proportionate to justify the use of such 'biological material'. Thus, for example, danger to the health of children could permit parents to use a vaccine which was developed using cell lines of illicit origin, while keeping in mind that everyone has the duty to make known their disagreement and to ask that their healthcare system make other types of vaccines available. Moreover, in organizations where cell lines of illicit origin are being utilized, the responsibility of those who make the decision to use them is not the same as that of those who have no voice in such a decision.
"In the context of the urgent need to mobilize consciences in favour of life, people in the field of healthcare need to be reminded that “their responsibility today is greatly increased. Its deepest inspiration and strongest support lie in the intrinsic and undeniable ethical dimension of the health-care profession, something already recognized by the ancient and still relevant Hippocratic Oath, which requires every doctor to commit himself to absolute respect for human life and its sacredness”.[Quote from Evangilium Vitae]
Conclusion
"36. There are those who say that the moral teaching of the Church contains too many prohibitions. In reality, however, her teaching is based on the recognition and promotion of all the gifts which the Creator has bestowed on man: such as life, knowledge, freedom and love. Particular appreciation is due not only to man’s intellectual activities, but also to those which are practical, like work and technological activities. By these, in fact, he participates in the creative power of God and is called to transform creation by ordering its many resources toward the dignity and wellbeing of all human beings and of the human person in his entirety. In this way, man acts as the steward of the value and intrinsic beauty of creation.
"Human history shows, however, how man has abused and can continue to abuse the power and capabilities which God has entrusted to him, giving rise to various forms of unjust discrimination and oppression of the weakest and most defenseless....
"At the same time, human history has also shown real progress in the understanding and recognition of the value and dignity of every person as the foundation of the rights and ethical imperatives by which human society has been, and continues to be structured. Precisely in the name of promoting human dignity, therefore, practices and forms of behaviour harmful to that dignity have been prohibited....
"37. If initially human and social progress was characterized primarily by industrial development and the production of consumer goods, today it is distinguished by developments in information technologies, research in genetics, medicine and biotechnologies for human benefit, which are areas of great importance for the future of humanity, but in which there are also evident and unacceptable abuses. 'Just as a century ago it was the working classes which were oppressed in their fundamental rights, and the Church courageously came to their defense by proclaiming the sacrosanct rights of the worker as person, so now, when another category of persons is being oppressed in the fundamental right to life, the Church feels in duty bound to speak out with the same courage on behalf of those who have no voice. Hers is always the evangelical cry in defense of the world’s poor, those who are threatened and despised and whose human rights are violated'.[quote from John Paul II's letter to bishops on “The Gospel of Life”]
"In virtue of the Church’s doctrinal and pastoral mission, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has felt obliged to reiterate both the dignity and the fundamental and inalienable rights of every human being, including those in the initial stages of their existence, and to state explicitly the need for protection and respect which this dignity requires of everyone.
"The fulfillment of this duty implies courageous opposition to all those practices which result in grave and unjust discrimination against unborn human beings, who have the dignity of a person, created like others in the image of God....
"The Christian faithful will commit themselves to the energetic promotion of a new culture of life by receiving the contents of this Instruction with the religious assent of their spirit, knowing that God always gives the grace necessary to observe his commandments and that, in every human being, above all in the least among us, one meets Christ himself (cf. Mt 25:40). In addition, all persons of good will, in particular physicians and researchers open to dialogue and desirous of knowing what is true, will understand and agree with these principles and judgments, which seek to safeguard the vulnerable condition of human beings in the first stages of life and to promote a more human civilization. "

Sunday, November 16, 2008

re: "Conservatives Need Time To Rebuild" (Bulletin, 11/7/08) & "Shoring Up Conservatism" (Times of Trenton, 11/14/08)

(printed in the Times of Trenton as "A Better Choice for Help with Infertility" (12/22/08))

As per Gregory J. Sullivan, "Conservatives need to rebuild, and any worthwhile rebuilding must begin with a return to an emphasis on the cornerstone of American liberty: namely, the federal principle." At the deepest level of each of us - whether we call ourselves conservatives or progressives - there is an ingrained awe at the magnificence of the human creature. While some anesthetize themselves to this awareness, it remains the cornerstone to which we must call each other back. Absolute respect for each human being is what constitutes the true "line in the sand", over which we must not tred.

Though obscured by many, awareness that each human being is a magnificent work of art has been sensed throughout time and across cultures. Who is not moved to learn of the triumph of human will over adversity? Who but the most anesthetized is not moved by a young child's laughter or tears? As explained by the Judeo-Christian tradition, each of use was made in the very image and likeness of God!
Mr. Sullivan describes some of what has occurred in our time, through our failure to recognize each human life as a magnificent work of art: "The veritable explosion in reproductive technologies - for example, in vitro fertilization - has taken place with no debate about whether their use is a good or bad idea....advances in prenatal testing are increasing rapidly....babies determined to have a genetic deformity are often killed in abortions....The eugenic alternative, toward which we are relentlessly moving at present, is a world of custom-designed offspring valued not for their intrinsic worth but for their genetic superiority."

There are numerous moral objections to IVF, not least of which are its involvement of selective abortions of what seem to be weaker embryos and that "spare" embryos are set aside and frozen. Just in terms of helping infertile married couples to conceive, the Creighton Model FertilityCare System <http://www.fertilitycarefriends.org/> (aka NaPro Technology) boasts far greater success, without resorting to any immoral methodologies. It completely respects the magnificent works of art which is each wife, each husband, and each offspring.

‘Win-win’ for Planned Parenthood a Lose-Lose for Taxpayers (B.C. Courier Times, 12/12/08)


According to Jo Ciavaglia, Pennsylvania's new SelectPlan for Women "covers all forms of contraception and other reproductive care." The Department of Public Welfare maintains that this Medicaid waiver program does NOT finance abortions. Yet anyone with a basic understanding of biology has to acknowledge that certain "contraceptives" can work in abortifacient manners. For example, the "pill" can prevent implantation of a new embryo in her mom's uterus. Only a "Brave New World" use of language refers to this as "contraception", when it is obviously an early abortion.

Since Planned Parenthood doubles as the nation's largest abortion provider, its credibility is immediately suspect when it tries to sell the tired notion that still greater availability of contraceptives will reduce the number of abortions. Anyone breathing over the past four decades has seen that the astronomical increase in contraceptive availability has gone hand in hand with an astronomical increase in the demand for abortion. A sex-as-recreation attitude has become entrenched, which demands abortion as a backup for contraceptive failures.

The manufacture and distribution of contraceptives constitutes a multi-billion dollar, international industry. When Ms. Ciavaglia cites the Allen Guttmacher Institute to claim that "Cost is a major reason some women say they cannot use birth control consistently or at all," she fails to identify Allen Guttmacher as Planned Parenthood's research wing. For the year ending June 30, 2007, Planned Parenthood reported that 38% of its $356.9 million in health center income came from contraceptives. Planned Parenthood is not a disinterested bystander.

We are told that the marketing representative for Bucks County Planned Parenthood calls Select Plan a "win-win for the state." In Bucks County, all five "community partners" for SelectPlan sign-ups are Planned Parenthood facilities. Now, let's see how that works:
  • Planned Parenthood promotes an alleged need,
  • Planned Parenthood markets a product,
  • Planned Parenthood signs women up for government funding of the product, &
  • Planned Parenthood sells the product.

  • This cushy arrangement is a "win-win" only for Planned Parenthood! Forcing taxpayers to be complicit in promoting abortifacients is abolutely unjust. I strenuosly object to Planned Parenthood receiving any more of my tax money - not one more dime.

    There are pro life crisis pregnancy centers for helping our fellow citizens, the first of which has just opened in Philadelphia. As reported by Erin Maguire in the Philadelphia Bulletin, "Former Philadelphia Eagle, Rev. Herb H. Lusk II opened The HOPE Center....[which will] provide referrals to organizations that can help women and men with medical, economic and social needs and offer post-abortion support. Future plans include in-house medical services with ultra sound....'We're living in a culture of death....[The HOPE Center] gives people options. We have the positive alternative.'

    Methods of Natural Family Planning can be easily learned and utilized. As they involve no foreign objects or chemicals, these methods are absolutely safe for wife, husband, and pre-born child. No one can even try to make that claim for contraceptives! In my opinion, the Creighton Model FertilityCare System <http://www.fertilitycarefriends.org/> constitutes the best of the Natural Family Planning methods.

    Thursday, November 6, 2008

    "When Answers are Nuanced, You’re Getting Snowed" (B.C. Courier Times, 11/6/08)

    (Click to enlarge.)

    Sunday, November 2, 2008

    A Look at the Vatican's Compendium of Social Doctrine

    "Truth? What is Truth?" takes a look at authentic Catholic Social Teaching (CST). While there have been attempts to use CST to downplay sanctity of life concerns, the Vatican's "Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church" offers absolutely no support for such!

    As per Pope John Paul II, "The inviolability of the person, which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, finds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights -- for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture -- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition of all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination" (The Vocation and the Mission of the Lay Faithful in the Church & in the World, 1988).

    Tuesday, September 30, 2008

    Jeff Trently's July 30th Article Revisited

    Sunday, September 21, 2008

    Organ & Tissue Donation

    While generally very positive about transplants, the Vatican’s 1995 Charter for Health Care Workers offered some vital considerations: "In homoplastic transplants, organs may be taken either from a living donor or from a corpse.

    • 86. In the first case the removal is legitimate provided it is a question of organs of which the explant would not constitute a serious and irreparable impairment for the donor....
    • 87. In the second case we are no longer concerned with a living person but a corpse.... There must be certainty, however, that it is a corpse, to ensure that the removal of organs does not cause or even hasten death. The removal of organs from a corpse is legitimate when the certain death of the donor has been ascertained....In order that a person be considered a corpse, it is enough that cerebral death of the donor be ascertained....
    • 88. Ethically, not all organs can be donated. The brain and the gonads may not be transplanted because they ensure the personal and procreative identity respectively. These are organs which embody the characteristic uniqueness of the person, which medicine is bound to protect."


    Subsequent to the Charter, Professor William May (Catholic Bioethics and the Gift of Human Life, Huntington, Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor, 6/29/00)was among those who questioned the validity of the so-called "brain death" criteria -or at least how it was being applied. In his 8/29/00 address to the International Congress on Transplants, Pope John Paul II quickly responded: "the criterion adopted in more recent times for ascertaining the fact of death, namely the complete and irreversible cessation of all brain activity, if rigorously applied, does not seem to conflict....Only where such certainty exists, & where informed consent has already been given by the donor or the donor's legitimate representatives, is it morally right to initiate the technical procedures...for the removal of organs for transplant."


    A growing number seems to be questioning whether the Holy Father's criteria are truly applied - or even if it is possible to apply them. Among those physicians and others are Fr. David Albert Jones of the Linacre Centre for Healthcare Ethics and Bishops Fabian Bruskewitz and Robert F. Vasa. They commented on the Pope's address in a 2000 Statement Opposing Brain Death Criteria ("'Brain Death' - Enemy of Life and Truth“; <www.lifestudies.org/jp/noshihantai.htm>), maintaining that

    • “None of the shifting sets of 'so-called neurological criterion' for determining death fulfills the Pope's requirement that they be 'rigorously applied' to ascertain 'the complete & irreversible cessation of all brain activity'....
    • "For vital organs to be suitable... they must be living organs removed from living human beings....persons condemned to death as 'brain dead' are not 'certainly dead' but, to the contrary, are certainly alive....
    • "adherence to the restrictions stipulated by the Pope & the prohibitions imposed by God Himself in the Natural Moral Law precludes the transplantation of unpaired vital organs, an act which causes the death of the 'donor' & violates the fifth commandment of the divine Decalogue, 'Thou shalt not kill' (Deut. 5:17)."


    As reported on 9/5/08 by John Weston, "The Pontifical Academy for Life (PAV), the World Federation of Catholic Medical Associations (FIAMC), and the Italian National Transplant Centre (CNT) are sponsoring a conference on organ donation for November 6-8 in Rome....several official members of the Pontifical Academy for Life (PAV), appointments to which are made by the Pope, have written the head of the Academy, Archbishop Salvatore Fisichella, demanding that the organ donation-promoting conference be cancelled....The controversy hit the front page of the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano this week with an editorial by Professor Lucetta Scaraffia, vice-president of the Italian Association for Science and Life and a member of the Italian National Committee on Bio-Ethics. The editorial noted that a declaration of 'brain death' cannot be considered the end of life in light of new scientific research....Such a determination would prohibit single vitalorgan donation, such as heart transplants, for Catholics or Catholic institutions, since Catholic teaching requires such organ donors to be truly dead....as Professor Scaraffia points out in L'Osservatore Romano, in the Vatican itself 'the certification of brain death is not used'....Beyond the members of the Pontifical Academies, various members of the Catholic hierarchy openly oppose the notion that 'brain death' constitutes true death. Lincoln Nebraska Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz, Kansas City- St. Joseph Bishop Robert Finn, and Baker Oregon Bishop Robert Vasa have all publicly opposed the 'brain death' definition....many Catholic will be watching the November Vatican conference on organ donation - should it not be cancelled. Of particular importance will be the speech the Pope is set to give to conference participants on the final day of the proceedings" <www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/08090513.html>


    Tuesday, September 16, 2008

    Saturday, September 6, 2008

    'Trenton Times' Scandal Rehashed (Philadelphia Bulletin, 9/5/08)

    (Click image to enlarge)



    Tuesday, September 2, 2008

    Catholics Must Choose Candidates Who Oppose Abortion (B.C. Courier Times, 9/9/08)




    (The original was submitted under the title, "Turning the Spit)
    I’m not sure if it’s an exclusively Irish useage, but “spit” can mean a rod holding meat over an open fire. My Dublin born dad liked to quote George Bernard Shaw: “Put an Irishman on the spit and you can always get another Irishman to turn him.” Ireland has a history of less than fraternal relations among some of its people. As among many peoples, selfish expedience has often triumphed over Ireland’s common good.

    Support for the sanctity of human life was “on the fire” during the Democratic Convention. More than happy to turn this spit were Irish-American Catholics Robert Casey, Jr. and Patrick Murphy. Senator Casey and Congressman Murphy were an embarrassment with their fawning support for the militantly pro-abortion Barrack Obama.

    Dissenting Catholic clergy have cultivated confusion among Catholics on moral issues, similar to what’s displayed by Casey and Murphy. In our next door diocese of Trenton, Father Ronald Cioffi directs the Office of Social Concerns. According to a July 30th piece in the Times of Trenton, Father Cioffi maintains that Catholics may “vote for a person who is pro-choice if you feel you have a moral reason to support the candidate for his stand on other issues.” The Times piece goes on to say that “a Catholic may vote for an abortion rights supporter, such as Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, if that candidate's views on other moral issues outweigh his abortion stand in the voter's conscience.” In response, Bishop John M. Smith quickly condemned the Times piece. If he truly made the reported remarks, Father Cioffi will hopefully be censored for giving scandal.

    Last November the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops released “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.” They remind us that “We are a nation founded on ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,’ but the right to life itself is not fully protected, especially for unborn children, the most vulnerable members of the American family....In our nation, ‘abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others’ (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 5)....direct threats to the sanctity and dignity of human life, such as human cloning and destructive research on human embryos, are also intrinsically evil.”

    Aware that some Catholics mistakenly think a candidate’s support for abortion can be cancelled out by positions on other matters, the bishops confront this error, head-on. They reject the “moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity.” They forcefully tell us that “The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed.”

    Simply put, a Catholic (and any person of good will, for that matter) MUST ALWAYS oppose abortion. Hey, that ain’t convenient if I’ve got national ambitions and want money from deep-pocketed groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood! Such inconvenience has spawned some bizarre comments from politicians, who profess to be Catholic. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi describes herself as an “ardent practicing Catholic.” In an August 24th interview, she claimed the Catholic position on the beginning of life is up for grabs. Every NON-Catholic I know realizes that Pelosi’s “theology” is out of line with Catholic teaching.

    Pennsylvania native and Delaware Senator Joe Biden has long defied the teachings of his Church, in regard to the sanctity of human life. Political strategists maintain that Pennsylvania is absolutely crucial for the outcome of this election. They further tell us that the Catholic vote will be absolutely crucial in deciding who comes away with the Keystone electoral votes. If it’s true that Obama chose the hair-plugged Scranton expatriate to appeal to Catholics, we should be profoundly insulted!

    While John McCain is certainly not the perfect candidate, his choice of vice president sends a clear message about his readiness to defend the sanctity of human life. Come November, this Irish American Catholic Democrat will enter the voting booth and cast his ballot for John McCain and Sarah Palin. There is no other choice.



    (A response...)


    (my reply...)

    (Another response...)

    (my reply...)

    Rev. Ronald Cioffi & the Trenton Diocese

    Saturday, August 30, 2008

    Bootlicking: Instructional Guides from Patrick Murphy & Robert Casey, Jr.

    .
    Shame on both of you!
    .
    In his autobiographical Taking the Hill , Congressman Patrick Murphy proudly proclaims his Irish-Catholic background. He speaks of attending Mass, going to Confession, and participating in Catholic culture, dropping names of local Catholic churches, clergy, religious, and schools. Pathetically, he tries to reconcile his faith with his lockstep support of the rabidly pro-abortion, pro-embryonic stem cell research stances of the Democratic party!


    Patrick Murphy may be the real life Forest Gump. In regard to his socio-economic climb up the ladder, he has repeatedly been in the right place at the right time. One leaves a conversation with Murphy with the impression that "West Point professor" must be some sort of typo on his vitae. Clearly, Murphy is in over his head with the Culture of Death proponents in the Democratic leadership - and they know it!




    .
    Casey throws in a few words about being pro-life & against abortion. Then he shames himself by kissing up to Obama for merely letting him speak at the convention, when his dad was forbidden from speaking at earlier conventions. This is the United States, Bobby! How dare you take it upon yourself to flatter a rabidly pro-abortion politician for merely letting you say that you are pro-life. Incredibly, Casey closes his embarassing presentation by recalling his dad's rhetorical question about what one did, when one had power. Pathetic.


    Monday, August 4, 2008

    re: "U.S. bishops: Vote your conscience" (Times of Trenton, 7/30/08)


    As reported by Jeff Trently, Father Ronald Cioffi ALLEGEDLY indicated that the U.S. Catholic Bishops have given a green light to "vote for a person who is pro-choice if you feel you have a moral reason to support the candidate for his stand on other issues." According to Mr. Trently, "the bishops clearly state a Catholic may vote for an abortion rights supporter, such as Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, if that candidate's views on other moral issues outweigh his abortion stand in the voter's conscience." The bishops "clearly state" no such thing!

    Mr. Trently lacks an understanding of Catholic conscience formation. To this reader, it also appears that he did not bother to read the document, "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship" <www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf>, about which he editorializes. His resultant comments are outrageously misleading - especially since Senator Obama is out of touch with a wide range of Catholic social concerns!

    "For the more than 800,000 Catholics in the Trenton Diocese, including close to 32,000 in Mercer County, the new guidelines are a call to weigh their consciences, as well as the common good, Cioffi said." That's certainly true and needs to be coupled with forceful reminders of Catholics' grave obligation to form their consciences, according to the teaching of the Church (Catholics should also be reminded that our understanding of the "common good" varies radically from how that term is used colloquially. Absolute, uncompromising respect for the sanctity of human life is at the core of our understanding.).

    Mr. Trently tells us that Father "Cioffi presented an outline of the U.S. Catholic Bishops' document 'Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship' at a meeting of about 30 staff members at the diocese's Pastoral Center." The actual document only comes to 30 pages of text. I believe that all adult Catholics - especially the clergy and those in the full time employ of the Church - have a serious duty to read the actual document.

    In the actual document, the bishops eloquently remind us that "We are a nation founded on 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,' but the right to life itself is not fully protected, especially for unborn children, the most vulnerable members of the American family....In our nation, ‘abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others’ (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 5)....direct threats to the sanctity and dignity of human life, such as human cloning and destructive research on human embryos, are also intrinsically evil….

    "Two temptations in public life can distort the Church’s defense of human life and dignity: The first is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity. The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed….Racism and other unjust discrimination, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war, the use of torture, war crimes, the failure to respond to those who are suffering from hunger or a lack of health care, or an unjust immigration policy are all serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act. These are not optional concerns which can be dismissed. Catholics are urged to seriously consider Church teaching on these issues. Although choices about how best to respond to these and other compelling threats to human life and dignity are matters for principled debate and decision, this does not make them optional concerns or permit Catholics to dismiss or ignore Church teaching on these important issues" <www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf>

    "Roe" Becomes Pro-Life



    Nothing "Mere" About It!




    Mere Chistianity is divided into 4 books: 1. Right & Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe, 2. What Christians Believe, 3. Christian Behavior, and 4. Beyond Personality: Or First Steps in the Doctrine of the Trinity.

    In Book 1, Lewis strikes an early, direct blow against relativistic thinking: "If anyone will take the time to compare the moral teaching of, say the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinesese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own" (p. 6). There are basic, universal moral standards: "men find themselves under a moral law, which they did not make, and cannot quite forget even when they try, and which they know they ought to obey" (p.23). "I am under a law; that somebody or something wants me to behave in a certain way" (p. 25). Who but God wrote this law on my heart?

    Personally, I've never met anyone who denied that Jesus was a great moral teacher. Yet, in one way or another, plenty of people try to deny His Divinity. In Book 2, Lewis tries "to prevent the really foolish thing that people often say about Him. `I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God'....A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic [sic]...or else he would be the Devil of Hell" (p. 52). Along these very same lines, Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli present the options as "Lord, Lunatic, or Liar." "Now the Christian belief is that if we somehow share the humility and suffering of Christ we shall also share in His conquest of death and find a new life after we have died and in it become perfect, and perfectly happy creatures. This means something much more than our trying to follow His teaching" (p. 60).

    In contrast to any notion that God's law is intrusive, oppressive, or stifling, Lewis starts 1943's Book 3 with the reminder that "moral rules are directions for running the human machine" (p. 69). Explaining the "cardinal virtues" (i.e., prudence, fortitude, justice, and temperance), he notes that "a man who perseveres in doing just actions gets in the end a certain quality of character. Now it is that quality rather than the particular actions which we mean when we talk of a `virtue'" (p. 80). Book 3 closes with chapters devoted to forgiveness and pride, as well as the "theological virtues" of faith, hope, and charity.

    Considering that Lewis was a member of the Church of England, which had approved limited contraceptive use in 1930, much of his commentary on sexual morality is prophetic: "Contraceptives have made sexual indulgence far less costly in marriage and far safer outside it than ever before, and public opinion is less hostile to illicit unions and even to perversion than it has been since Pagan times....Christianity is almost [sic] the only one of the great religions which thoroughly approves of the body - which believes that matter is good, that God Himself once took on a body, that some kind of body is going to be given to us even in Heaven....Christianity has glorified marriage more than any other religion: and nearly all the greatest love poetry in the world has been produced by Christians. If anyone says that sex, in itself, is bad, Christianity contradicts him at once" (pp. 97, 98). "We may, indeed, be sure that perfect chastity - like perfect charity - will not be attained by any merely human efforts. You must ask for God's help....those who are seriously attempting chastity are more conscious, and soon know a great deal more about their own sexuality than anyone else....Virtue - even attempted virtue - brings light; indulgence brings fog" (pp. 101, 102).

    I say that "much of his commentary on sexual morality is prophetic," because Lewis also offered some well-intentioned, yet poorly thought out, comments on marriage and sexuality:
    * "If people do not believe in permanent marriage, it is perhaps better that they should live together unmarried than they should make vows that they do not mean to keep" (p. 106).
    * "There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members" (p. 112).
    I am among those who believe that, had Lewis lived longer, he would have embraced the fullness of the Truth which resides in Catholicism. How much his works would have been enhanced, were they informed by our generation's Catechism of the Catholic Church or the Compendium of the Catechism!

    In book 4, Lewis acknowledges the attraction of "a vague religion - all about feeling God in nature, and so on" (p. 155). He warns that such touchy-feely, pseudo-religion cannot lead to "eternal life by simply feeling the presence of God in flowers or music....a great many of the ideas about God which are trotted out as novelties today are simply the ones which real Theologians tried centuries ago and rejected" (p. 155). "If Christianity was something we were making up, of course we could make it easier. But it is not. We cannot compete, in simplicity, with people who are inventing religions. How could we? We are dealing with Fact." "The more we get what we now call `ourselves' out of the way and let Him take us over, the more truly ourselves we become....It is when I turn to Christ, when I give myself up to His personality, that I first begin to have a real personality of my own....How monotonously alike all the great tyrants and conquerors have been: how gloriously different are the saints....submit with every fiber of your being, and you will find eternal life" (pp. 225 - 227).

    re: "Sen. Barack Obama names Catholics to his National Advisory Council"

    Margaret Sanger's 1957 Vision for the Future



    In 1957, Time Magazine seemed to gush with the excitement of a junior high student: “Some of the most hush-hush medical research has been pursued in dozens of laboratories in the effort to find a contraceptive pill” <www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,%20809446,00.html?promoid=googlep>.


    According to Planned Parenthood, the “pill” is now the most widely used of various contraceptive methods <www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_%20contr_use.html> (Note: The “pill” is known to work in an abortifacient manner.). In an age of increased awareness about the foods we consume, people seem to be relatively unconcerned about ingesting chemicals and placing foreign objects on or in their bodies to "protect" themselves against their natural fertility.


    While contraceptives are supposedly a panacea for "unwanted pregnancies," the CDC reports that one of every three pregnancies ends in an induced abortion <www.cdc.gov/nchs/releases>.


    There are now 56 times more new STD infections each year, than there were overall STD infections in 1957:


    In the past half century, the rate of forcible rape of women has tripled:


    Over the past half century, Americans have become less likely to marry. Of those fewer who do marry, they are more likely to divorce:

    Saturday, May 31, 2008

    The Pill - Still the World's Favorite "Contraceptive"

    Oral contraceptives (aka the “Pill”) are the world’s most popular temporary contraceptive, followed by condoms.[1] The Pill and condoms retain those “win” and “place” positions, in the horse race that is the U.S. contraceptive market.[2]

    The Pill is widely identified as one type of hormonal contraceptive. Despite this “contraceptive” label, the Pill can prevent implantation of the fertilized egg in a new mom’s uterus.[3] Rather than contraceptive, that’s an early abortion! Because of this abortifacient potential, the term “contraceptive” is certainly inadequate. Yet, it is not only pre-born children, for whom the Pill can be lethal.

    Planned Parenthood acknowledges health risks from oral contraceptives, which are multiplied for women with certain “conditions”:
    · 35+ years of age and a smoker
    · high blood pressure and a smoker (or uncontrolled high blood pressure)
    · certain diabetes-related conditions
    · certain blood-clotting disorders
    as well as for women with certain items in their medical histories:
    · blood clots or inflammation of veins
    · heart attack or stroke
    · heart valve problems
    · migraine headaches, featuring an aura
    · liver disease or tumors
    If not yet ruled out, they go on to advise you to stay away from the new Yasmin (Yaz) oral contraceptive, if “you have ever had kidney, liver, or adrenal gland disease.”[4]

    So, what are the “health risks”? Planned Parenthood acknowledges risks of
    · heart attack,
    · stroke,
    · blood clots,
    · high blood pressure,
    · liver tumors,
    · gallstones, and
    · jaundice.
    However, Planned Parenthood tries to comfort us, that these are only “fatal in very rare cases.”[5] While they maintain that “the pill has little, if any, effect on the risk of developing breast cancer,”[6] they also advise us to “See the insert from your pack of pills for more information about possible side effects.”[7] According to its own annual report, Planned Parenthood had $356.9 million in health center income (for the year which ended June 30, 2007), 38% of which came from contraceptives.[8]

    If oral contraceptives are potentially abortifacient and pose grave risks to women, why are they so popular? Other than for a skit on Saturday Night Live, who could have imagined, a generation ago, that prime time television would feature commercials for birth control pills which ostensibly fight acne? Follow the money, in regard to oral contraceptives and the seemingly few restrictions on marketing them into your home.[9]

    Central New Jersey has been a longtime home to the leading manufacturers of hormonal contraceptives. Two decades ago, Ortho (of New Brunswick’s Johnson and Johnson) and Wyeth (of Madison) were already grossing almost one billion dollars from oral contraceptives in the U.S.[10] By 2006, hormonal contraceptives was a $6 billion industry, worldwide.[11] Ortho-McNeil and Wyeth are now two of the world’s top three manufacturers of hormonal contraceptives.[12] Those two giants are not Jersey’s only players in hormonal contraceptives. Montvale’s Barr Pharmaceuticals is one of the others. Barr’s financial prospectus was recently upgraded significantly, largely due to its rights with a new oral contraceptive.[13]

    If not humanitarian players on the world stage, many believe that pharmaceutical giants play innocuous roles in our foreign relations. As per the U.S. Agency for International Development, “a handful of multinational companies account for the majority of hormonal contraceptive brands registered around the world….[There is] an oligopoly that benefits Western-based large contraceptive manufacturers.”[14] Why do we fail to scrutinize the impact of contraceptive marketeering, on our lack of popularity in many developing nations?

    Methods of Natural Family Planning can be readily used by married couples, in manners which pose absolutely no health risks. As they involve no foreign objects or chemicals, methods of Natural Family Planning are absolutely safe for wife, husband, and pre-born child. As reported in the journal, Human Reproduction, “The STM [Sympto Thermal Method of Natural Family Planning] is a highly effective family planning method, provided the appropriate guidelines are consistently adhered to” [15]

    The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has designated July 20th to July 26th as Natural Family Planning Awareness Week.


    [1] Ruth Levine, Ana Langer, Nancy Birdsall, Gaverick Matheny, Merrick Wright, and Angela Bayer, "Contraception." 2006. Disease Control Priorities in Developing Countries (2nd Edition),ed. , 1,075-1,090. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1596/978-0-821-36179-5/Chpt-57. <www.dcp2.org/pubs/DCP/57/Section/8508>

    [2] Guttmacher Institute, Facts on Contraceptive Use , January 2008 <www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html>

    [3] Abortifacient <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiCU46_lWeE>

    [4] Planned Parenthood, Who Can Take the Pill ?< www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/who-can-take-pill-19272.htm>

    [5] Planned Parenthood, Birth Contyrol Pill <www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/birth-control-pill-4228.htm>

    [6] Ibid

    [7] Ibid

    [8] Planned Parenthood, Annual Report 2006 – 2007 <www.plannedparenthood.org/files/AR_2007_vFinal.pdf>

    [9] Alan Klein and Carrie E. Nelson, Pharmaceutical Advertising and the Learned Intermediary Defense, The Legal Intelligencer, October 7, 2005 <www.duanemorris.com/articles/article2020.html>

    [10] Milt Freudenheim, Birth Control Industry Is Being Transformed, NY Times, February 22, 1989 <http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE1DF143DF931A15751C0A96F948260>

    [11] IMS Health, Systemic Hormonal Contraceptives: Schering goes from strength to strength <http://www.fda-news.com/-systemic-hormonal-contraceptives-schering-goes-from-strength-to-strength-pharmalicencing.php>

    [12] U.S. Agency for International Development, Improving Hormonal Contraceptive Supply, 2006 <http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADF983.pdf>

    [13] CNN, Ahead of the Bell: Barr Pharmaceuticals, May 13, 2008 <http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/apwire/3c758086cbc57db87034c2740de589a8.htm>

    [14] U.S. Agency for International Development, Improving Hormonal Contraceptive Supply, 2006 <http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADF983.pdf>

    [15] P. Frank-Herrmann, J. Heil, C. Gnoth, E. Toledo, S. Baur, C. Pyper, E. Jenetzky, T. Strowitzki and G. Freundl, The Effectiveness of a Fertility Awareness Based Method to Avoid Pregnancy in Relation to a Couple's Sexual Behaviour During the Fertile Time: a Prospective Longitudinal Study, Human Reproduction, February 20, 2007 <http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/22/5/1310>

    The Beatitudes from "Jesus of Nazareth"

     

    Use of Emergency So-Called Contraceptives in Catholic Hospitals for Those Reporting Rape

    Book & Film Reviews, pt 1

    Book & Film Reviews, pt 2


    Blog Archive

    And yup, that's me!

    And yup, that's me!
    (from page 1 of the NY Sun, 3/22/04)

    Total Pageviews

    March for Life 2010

    CatholicsComeHome.org