Press Release -- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Delaware Right to Life Condemns Murder of George Tiller
Wilmington, Delaware- May 31, 2009 – Delaware Right to Life, the state’s largest pro-life organization, condemned Sunday’s murder of late-term abortionist, George Tiller. The following statement may be attributed to Delaware Right to Life President Nicole Collins:
We at Delaware Right to Life are shocked and saddened by the murder of George Tiller. We condemn this act, as we condemn all life taken by others. Killing in the name of “life” is a grave contradiction that is rejected by our organization and the pro-life movement as a whole.
Delaware Right to Life works to bring about its desired ends through peaceful means and believe that violence should never be used as a solution to any problem. Just as we prayed for Mr. Tiller’s conversion before he died, we will continue to pray for Mr. Tiller’s family that they may find the peace of Christ in this difficult time.
Delaware Right to Life’s work revolves around protecting life and helping women in need through peaceful measures. We strive to educate Delawareans about life issues while nurturing a safe environment for the citizens of our state. Though the motive for the act against Mr. Tiller is still unknown, we do not and never will condone the murder of another human being, born or unborn, for any reason.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Press Release -- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
(Oklahoma City)—Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry on Thursday signed into law a ban on aborting children based on their gender, making Oklahoma the third state to ban gender-selective abortions.
In addition to "prohibiting the performance of an abortion solely on account of the gender of the unborn child," House Bill 1595 also requires abortionists to provide the Oklahoma State Department of Health with detailed information on each abortion performed.
Friday, May 29, 2009
“As a country we want to see an end to racial prejudice. We want a more secure peace in the world. We want sound economic justice for people. So we can’t give up on working with the administration,” Bishop Finn said.
Areas where the Church can work with an administration that protects abortion involve the “many associated elements that have to do with taking care of women in distress, offering alternatives to abortion,” he told Jack Smith, editor of his diocese's newspaper.
Bishop Finn added, “We have to work together, discuss and study how best we can provide for the needs of women and families. How can we reduce the number of abortions? These are elements for dialogue.”
“But the rightness or wrongness of abortion – this is an intrinsic evil,” the bishop stressed.
“The direct taking of an innocent life can never be negotiated. ... Dialogue is important, but the question is fairly raised, 'May we negotiate about things that are intrinsic evils?' and I think the answer is no.”
He also pointed to the importance of being acutely aware of the nature of abortion and not allowing oneself to lower his or her guard in an alleged environment of cooperation.
The reality of abortion is that “we’re fighting for our lives – literally. We are attempting to protect real unborn children by the thousands. We’re fighting for the right to exercise a rightly-formed conscientious difference with public policy. We shouldn’t underestimate the danger of dragging our feet in this effort, or taking a 'wait and see' approach. If we are not ready to make a frontal attack on the protection of conscience rights, the overturning of Roe v’ Wade, and the primacy of authentic marriage, we will lose in these areas.”
Although some Americans think that the current administration is willing to do something about protecting life and family, Finn disagreed, saying, “I think the rug is already being pulled out from under us. If we sit back and allow ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of peace and cooperation in regards to these things, then we will lose these battles and, later, wonder why.”
Later, when he was asked about the dozens of U.S. bishops’ who protested the honoring of President Obama and his speaking at Notre Dame's Commencement, the Kansas City-St. Joseph bishop examined Fr. Jenkins' statement that this showed “a tendency to demonize each other.”
Bishop Finn said that the protest over Obama being honored and speaking demonstrated that the invitation was of a “hurtful nature,” and that the bishops realize that the president has promised to make and has already made “very destructive decisions” on issues concerned with protecting life.
“This is serious business; it is about life and death,” Finn alerted.
“If in speaking out on these things, we are characterized as being angry or condemnatory – then so be it. Such actions are worthy of condemnation.
One major effect that the bishops are worried about is the potential confusion of people “concerning the Catholic teaching against abortion, and on the priority of abortion among other issues of public policy,” he explained.
When asked about President Obama’s speech, he addressed the contradiction of Father Jenkins’ hope for cooperation and President Obama's invitation of “joining hands in common effort” with the rest of his speech, where he cataloged the departing views on abortion as “irreconcilable”:
“I think the message of the day was this – that the President of Notre Dame said that they had invited the President of the United States and decided to honor him for the sake of dialogue. And then the President got up and said that the differences that we have on abortion – namely the Catholic Church’s staunch opposition to abortion and his staunch support of abortion were “irreconcilable.” And at that moment, it would seem to me that the dialogue came to a screeching halt. Father Jenkins’ expressed desire for dialogue, whether it was well-founded or justified, at that point got thrown back in his face. The President shut the door on dialogue by saying that there was not going to be any change in his position on abortion and he understood that there was not going to be any change in the Church’s position on abortion. To me, that was the lesson of the day. I am glad that Mr. Obama was so clear.”
Then he added: “The perception unfortunately was that this was a completely acceptable position of his and, because he is a bright and talented man, this trumps the destructive decisions that he’s making day after day.”
Finally, when asked if President Obama’s “call to work together in reducing unintended pregnancies” was a possible way of finding common ground, Bishop Finn said:
“I fear that the specific way that the [U.S.] President frames this in terms of 'reducing unintended pregnancies' is through the promotion of Planned Parenthood and contraceptive services. The President has supported the Prevention First Act bill that’s going forward. This is not about abstinence education. This is about promoting contraception and giving Planned Parenthood a huge blank check. If Catholics don’t see a problem with this then I don’t think they understand the threat it represents to the meaning of marriage, to fidelity, to chastity, to the very sanctity of human life and intimate love.”
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Sunday, May 24, 2009
"In the proclamation of this Gospel, we must not fear hostility or unpopularity, and we must refuse any comprise or ambiguity which might conform us to the world's way of thinking." (cf.Romans 12:2)
John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 82
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Top Obama Aide Tells Pro-Life Advocate, "Not Our Goal to Reduce Abortions"
by Wendy WrightMay 22, 2009
LifeNews.com Note: Wendy Wright is the president of Concerned Women for America.
Author's Note: Because of the Obama speech at Notre Dame and the widespread misunderstanding that this Administration has fostered, others have urged me to make public what the White House official in charge of finding “common ground” stated in our meeting.
Two days before President Obama’s commencement address at Notre Dame, I was at the White House for one of the meetings that he spoke about. About twenty of us with differing views on abortion were brought in to find “common ground.” But the most important point that came from the meeting was perhaps a slip from an Obama aide.
It revealed that what many people believe -- including high-profile pro-life leaders who support Obama -- is sorely wrong.
Ask nearly anyone, “What is Obama’s goal on abortion?” They'll answer, “Reduce the number of abortions.” A Notre Dame professor and priest insisted this in a television debate after Obama’s speech. The Vatican newspaper reported it. Rush Limbaugh led a spirited debate on his radio program the next day based on this premise.
But that’s not what his top official in charge of finding “common ground” says.
Melody Barnes, the Director of Domestic Policy Council and a former board member of Emily’s List, led the meeting. As the dialogue wound down, she asked for my input.
I noted that there are three main ways the administration can reach its goals: by what it funds, its messages from the bully pulpit, and by what it restricts. It is universally agreed that the role of parents is crucial, so government should not deny parents the ability to be involved in vital decisions. The goals need to be clear; the amount of funding spent to reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions is not a goal.
The U.S. spends nearly $2 billion each year on contraception programs -- programs which began in the 1970s -- and they've clearly failed. We need to take an honest look at why they are not working.
Melody testily interrupted to state that she had to correct me. “It is not our goal to reduce the number of abortions.”
The room was silent.
The goal, she insisted, is to “reduce the need for abortions.”
Well, this raises a lot of questions.
If you reduce the need, doesn't it follow that the number would be reduced? How do you quantify if you've reduced the “need”? Does Obama want to reduce the “need” but not the number of abortions? In that case, is he okay with “unneeded” abortions?
Note what Obama said in his speech at Notre Dame:
“So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions. …”
Abortion advocates object to the phrase “reducing abortions.” It connotes that there is something bad or immoral about abortion. Melody’s background as a board member of one of the most hard-core abortion groups in the country (Emily’s List even opposes bans on partial-birth abortion) sheds light on why she was irritated when that was stated as her boss’ goal.
The Los Angeles Times reported in 2004 that Democrats, after losing the presidential election, began rethinking their harsh, no compromise stance on abortion. Their solution?
Change their language but not their position.
The LA Times interviewed me on this strategy and reported: “Wright said it was too early to know whether Democrats would change their votes on upcoming antiabortion legislation, or would only change the way they speak of abortion. She said the comments of some party leaders led her to believe that ‘it would just be changing of wording, just trying to repackage in order to be more appealing -- really, to trick people.’”
Howard Dean, then head of the Democratic National Committee, validated my concern. He told NBC's Tim Russert: "We can change our vocabulary, but I don't think we ought to change our principles."
By all his actions so far, Obama is following this plan.
Obama needs to be honest with Americans. Is it true that it is not his goal to reduce the number of abortions?
More importantly, will he do anything that will reduce abortions? Actions are far more important than words.
Monday, May 18, 2009
by Steven Ertelt
May 15, 2009
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A new Gallup poll shows that the majority of Americans self-identify as pro-life on the issue of abortion for the first time in 15 years. The Gallup survey shows the percentage of Americans saying they are pro-life at its highest point since 1995 and those saying they are "pro-choice" at its lowest.
The Gallup survey, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves pro-life and just 42 percent saying they are "pro-choice" and supporting legal abortions.
The poll finds a plurality of women say they are pro-life -- with 49 percent saying so and just 44 percent saying they are "pro-choice." Men favor the pro-life position on a 54 to 39 percent margin. Both numbers are record highs for the pro-life position.
The 9 percent pro-life majority is a stark change from last year, when the Gallup survey showed a 6 percent majority in favor of abortion. Before the current poll Gallup had the pro-life percentage at its highest at 46 percent in both August 2001 and May 2002.
The Gallup poll also shows more Americans support making abortions illegal than at any point in the past 15 years.
About as many Americans now say abortions should be illegal in all circumstances (23%) as say it should be legal under any circumstances (22%). Another 53 percent of Americans say abortions should be legal, but only under certain circumstances.
Gallup does not define those circumstances, but other polling data shows a majority of Americans oppose the lion's share of abortions, with a majority wanting abortions illegal except in cases such as saving the life of the mother, and rape or incest -- which, combined, constitute less than 2-3 percent of all abortions.
Supplementing those other poll results, an expended Gallup question in its new survey found 50 percent of Americans want abortions illegal or illegal in most cases, while just 37 percent want abortions legal in all or most cases. The rest were unsure.
The results came in Gallup's new Values and Beliefs survey, but the pro-life majority also showed up in Gallup's daily tracking poll on a number of political issues.
There, the self-identifying question showed a 50-43 percentage point majority.
The reason for the new pro-life majority, Gallup indicates, is because Republicans are becoming more pro-life.
The percentage of Republicans (including independents who lean Republican) calling themselves pro-life rose by 10 points over the past year, from 60% to 70%, while there has been essentially no change in the views of Democrats and Democratic leaners.
Republicans now take a 70-26 percentage point pro-life view whereas Democrats support abortion 61-33 percent, with the numbers staying roughly the same over the last five to ten years.
The Gallup poll showed 71 percent of the people who say they are conservatives are pro-life, 45 percent of moderates say they are pro-life, and 19 percent of liberals say they are pro-life. The numbers are new highs over the last 15 years for the first two political groups while liberals have stayed at around the 20 percent mark for over a decade.
Gallup also showed pro-life increases among religious groups with 59 percent of Protestant Christians, a new high, saying they are pro-life. Some 52 percent of Catholics identify themselves as pro-life, tying a previous high, and 31 percent of people who identify with no religion say they are pro-life, one short of a previous high.
Gallup editor Lydia Saad suggests that President Barack Obama's pro-abortion position is the cause of the pro-life shift.
"With the first pro-choice president in eight years already making changes to the nation's policies on funding abortion overseas, expressing his support for the Freedom of Choice Act, and moving toward rescinding federal job protections for medical workers who refuse to participate in abortion procedures, Americans -- and, in particular, Republicans -- seem to be taking a step back from the pro-choice position," she writes.
"While Democrats may support that, as they generally support everything Obama is doing as president, it may be driving others in the opposite direction," she adds.
Gallup's results are based on telephone interviews with 1,015 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted May 7-10, 2009.